The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Autor: Carver T. Yu
Fecha: 19.06.2010
Category: Verdad y Pluralismo
Nota del editor: El presente Texto Previo para Ciudad del Cabo 2010 fue escrito por Carver T. Yu como una reseña del tema a debatirse en la sesión Multiplex sobre “La defensa de la verdad de Cristo en un mundo pluralista y globalizado”. Los comentarios a este texto realizados a través de la Conversación Global de Lausana serán remitidos al autor y a otras personas para ayudar a dar forma a su presentación final en el Congreso.
Quienes vivimos en Asia hemos convivido durante siglos con la realidad de la pluralidad cultural en general y de la pluralidad religiosa en particular. Sí, hemos convivido con la pluralidad, no con el pluralismo. El pluralismo nunca fue una opción. Si usted es confusionista, taoísta, budista, musulmán o hinduista, tiene una convicción inquebrantable en cuanto a que lo que usted cree y por lo cual vive es una verdad que conduce al auténtico humanismo o a la salvación eterna, y que todos los demás caminos conducirían, en el mejor de los casos, a una vida sin propósito, y en el peor, a la perversión y el sufrimiento. La verdad importa porque tiene consecuencias para la vida. Aunque respetando a los demás, uno no deja de sentir su responsabilidad de señalarles el camino correcto.
El pluralismo en boga en la actualidad es completamente diferente. Se trata de una ideología que proclama que la verdad es una construcción cultural válida únicamente para la cultura que la construye y que, por lo tanto, no tiene aplicación a otra cultura o sistema de significados. Dice que no existe una verdad que se pueda afirmar que sea para todos. Todas las verdades son relativas entre sí. El pluralista aplica el concepto no solo a las culturas sino también a las personas. Se considera a cada individuo como la base suprema de la realidad y el fundamento a partir del cual se elaboran los significados y los valores. El pluralista posmoderno cree que todas y cada una de las personas crean su propia lógica y establecen sus propias reglas al construir su propio mundo de realidad y valor. El individuo es “autónomo” en el sentido que él es su propia ley. Al construir cada persona su propio mundo, puede haber tantos mundos como individuos haya, y cada uno es apenas una red de creencias que son ciertas únicamente para la persona que las sostiene. Como cada uno de estos mundos es único para sí mismo, se hace inconmensurable para los otros. Por lo tanto, a pesar de toda la retórica acerca del diálogo, el pluralismo ha hecho que todos los diálogos sean innecesarios y fútiles.
Al mismo tiempo, como la verdad se fabrica, puede ser refabricada a voluntad. De este modo, siempre es provisoria y fluida, y no tiene influencia duradera sobre nada. Al condenar a todas las verdades como radicalmente relativas y provisoria, el pluralismo ha silenciado cualquier proclamación de verdad trascendente que sea verdad para todos los seres humanos y todas las culturas. En su propósito de condenar el dogmatismo, el pluralismo es en realidad la más dogmática de las ideologías, ya que, sin titubeos, calificará de dogmatismo y exclusivismo a cualquier concepto de verdad que sea antipluralista, rechazándolo de plano. El pluralismo como tal es la más virulenta forma de monismo: es monismo indiferente.
Sin embargo, no es necesario demasiado análisis crítico para ver que el pluralismo se contradice a sí mismo. Al proclamar el pluralismo, el pluralista afirma tácitamente que se encuentra en una posición estratégica que se eleva por sobre todas las culturas o individuos, desde la cual observa la relatividad de todo. Sin embargo, milagrosamente, la posición estratégica en la cual se sitúa es absoluta. ¿Cómo lo logra? Por pura fe animal y afirmación dogmática.
Al tiempo que trivializa la verdad y califica a las verdades religiosas de opresivas, el pluralista promueve desvergonzadamente la versión secularista de la verdad, imponiendo el punto de vista secular como cierto para todos. Al ateísmo se le permite convertirse en la nueva religión, promoviéndolo como la encarnación del racionalismo científico, la objetividad, el sentido común y la inclusividad. Ahora el ateísmo se levanta para hacer la guerra a la religión en general y a la fe cristiana en particular, con un celo “evangelístico” y una hostilidad sin precedentes. El “Bus de Campaña Ateísta” en Londres es un ejemplo. En junio de 2008, la escritora de comedias Ariane Sherine propuso hacer publicidad contra de la creencia en Dios en los buses de Londres diciendo: “Probablemente no haya Dios. Deje de preocuparse. Disfrute su vida”. Inmediatamente comenzó a llegar el dinero y en los siguientes cuatro días se recaudaron más de ₤140.000. Ahora la campaña se extendió a Canadá. En un aviso publicitario similar, se observa a dos niños que piden cada uno no ser identificado como un niño católico o ateo respectivamente; quieren crecer neutrales. De manera sutil, la campaña condena a los padres por criar a sus hijos con convicciones respecto de alguna verdad. El monismo indiferente ha intensificado su presión sobre nuestras vidas. Al mismo tiempo, también inundan el mercado libros que proclaman el ateísmo, como el de gran repercusión de Richard Dawkins: El espejismo de Dios. Ya ha sido traducido a 31 idiomas con más de un millón y medio de ejemplares vendidos. Joan Bakewell, una columnista del periódico británico The Guardian, elevó aún más el grito de batalla contra la religión en su elogio del libro de Dawkins: “Las religiones mantienen atemorizado al mundo secular. Este libro es un claro llamado a dejar andar temerosos” (The Guardian, 23 de septiembre de 2006). ¿De qué se trata esta lucha? Es acerca de recuperar el derecho a definir los valores morales por uno mismo por sobre cualquier barrera trascendente. El verdadero problema es cómo vivir nuestra vida.
Esta clase de ideología secular tiene consecuencias. Eclipsar la verdad trascendente tiene consecuencias para la vida.
Hace veintiún años, apenas unos meses antes de los acontecimientos del 4 de junio en la plaza Tienanmen de Beijing, Liu Xiao Bo escribió un artículo acerca de la tragedia del pueblo chino, en el cual dijo: “La tragedia del pueblo chino es la tragedia de un pueblo sin Dios. Cuando la luz del Otro Lado trascendente queda opacada, las tinieblas de este lado pasan fácilmente a ser consideradas como la luz infinita” (1). Una sociedad carente de la luz trascendente casi con seguridad se absolutizaría a sí misma y acabaría haciendo, aún de su oscuridad, una luz infinita por no tener acceso a otros recursos más de ella misma para su autocrítica. Una sociedad sin la iluminación de la verdad trascendente está destinada a naufragar en la oscuridad de su propia corrupción.
La verdad también tiene consecuencias en la dimensión individual. En Amsterdam 2000, el Dr. Ravi Zacharias relató una experiencia en la que defendió la objetividad de la verdad moral frente a un grupo de estudiantes de Oxford. Al finalizar su argumentación, un estudiante lo desafió diciendo: “Dr. Ravi, la moralidad es puramente emotiva. Lo ‘bueno’ y lo ‘malo’ no son más que expresiones de preferencias personales efectuadas de manera emocional”. Ravi respondió: “Veamos si es cierto su argumento poniéndolo a prueba. Coloquemos a un inocente e indefenso bebé sobre esta mesa y cortémoslo en tres pedazos con un gran cuchillo. ¿No estaríamos de acuerdo en que lo que acabo de hacer es malo?” Con gran calma, el estudiante respondió: “No. Simplemente diría que no me gusta lo que acaba de hacer”. Ravi confesó que quedó sorprendido ante la respuesta. Es una lástima que yo no estuviera allí, pues habría preguntado al estudiante: “¿Qué ocurriría si fueras tú a quien colocáramos sobre esta mesa dispuestos a cortarte en tres pedazos? ¿No dirías que lo que estoy a punto de hacer es malo y debo ser detenido inmediatamente?” Y si el estudiante respondiera: “Simplemente diría que no me gusta lo que está a punto de hacer”, le respondería: “Pues a mí sí me gusta, y mucho, y sucede que tengo el poder para hacerlo”. Conocemos muy bien las consecuencias.
Sin verdad moral, el poder se convierte en derecho y la guerra tribal se hace inevitable. Sin el decreto divino que establece que la persona humana es creada a imagen de Dios, afirmada por el Creador para tener un valor absoluto y ser absolutamente inviolable, ¿por qué motivo alguien tomaría en serio la aseveración que “todos nacemos iguales”? ¿Cuál es el asidero para esta creencia, la cual se supone que es nada menos que el fundamento de la democracia? ¿Creemos esto porque nos simpatiza emocionalmente? ¿O lo creemos quizá por un cálculo racional basado en intereses particulares o en el temor? ¿Qué ocurriría si Nietzsche estuviera en lo correcto en cuanto que hemos inventado estas afirmaciones vacías porque somos débiles; porque tenemos temor de permitir que la voluntad de poder tome el control, por el temor a enfrentar el hecho que solo los fuertes y poderosos sobrevivirán? ¿Qué argumento tenemos para refutar a Nietzsche? La afirmación resulta vacía si solo se trata de una invención humana. ¿Por qué debería creer yo que nací igual a usted si observara a las claras que he sido dotado genéticamente con mayor inteligencia y fuerza que usted? La metáfora del gen del egoísmo asumiría el control, describiendo a la persona humana como un ser autónomo, liberado de cualquier obligación respecto toda otra persona más que de sí mismo, dirigido únicamente por la lógica del interés particular y la autoinmortalización. Debido a que las personas no son “nacidas iguales”, los más inteligentes, los más fuertes y los más ricos deberían tener más votos en el proceso político.
Si los valores morales son separados de su fuente trascendente, la mayor de las virtudes no tendrá ningún valor y no será más que una función pragmática. El valor de una persona yace enteramente en la función que cumple dentro de un proceso, cuyo valor se mide por su función dentro de un proceso mayor. La realidad en nuestro contexto es que el mercado global es controlado por corporaciones globales. El valor de la persona humana yace en su “comerciabilidad” o funcionalidad en el mercado. La persona es, básicamente, una herramienta o un bien (commodity) para otros. Personas como Richard Posner estarían totalmente en lo cierto al decirnos en su libro Sexo y Razón, que no existe una diferencia fundamental entre prostitución y matrimonio. Para él, el matrimonio es prostitución a largo plazo. En el matrimonio existiría un acuerdo a largo plazo por el cual los cónyuges intercambian servicios, mientras que el caso de la prostitución es una relación de mercado inmediato donde el intercambio se produce al dar a la prostituta un pago que ella puede utilizar para adquirir servicios de otros.
Ante nuestros ojos, la trama moral de nuestra vida social se está desintegrando y podemos ver cómo la persona humana está siendo despersonalizada, convirtiéndola en un bien o una serie de funciones. El exilio de la verdad trascendente tendrá un alto costo para nosotros llevándonos al caos sociocultural y, como consecuencia, a un inmenso sufrimiento. No queda más que ponernos de pie y hacer retroceder la marea. Debemos predicar la verdad del evangelio cristiano a cualquier costo.
© The Lausanne Movement 2010
Español LGC_Translation
Acerca de las características multilingües | Sugerir edición a la traducción
Palabras clave: La verdad
Carver Yu no ha contribuido ninguna otra entrada de Resources. Para ver otros contenidos que ha contribuido Carver Yu, haga click aquí.
Opiniones: 163246
Comentarios: 162
Recomendaciones: 6
Conversación Publicar comentario
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
I agree completely that we have to preach the truth of the Christian Gospel at all costs. But first we must determine what the truth really is, and who is qualified to make this pronouncement. It is not as simple as proclaiming the truth, because most of us do not know what that truth is. Therefore, we must begin educating Christians first. At the heart of the Christian faith, what is most important? Should we teach morality? If so, who decides what is morally acceptable? If the Scriptures are the basis, which interpretation is correct? Should we teach to love one another unconditionally, with our basis in the Sermon on the Mount? Should we teach the Shema? The Ten Commandments? The Greatest Commandment? Or should we simply teach that Jesus loves us and wants to forgive us of our sins and that everlasting life is achievable only through Jesus?
21.10.2012
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ dg8074:
You bring up a very interesting point regarding truth: who decides what the truth is. Just as you stated the Bible can be interpreted in a variety of ways so simply saying the Bible is our standard of truth allows for multiple interpretations. Much care, humility, prayer, study ought to be given in discerning truth. Just as you stated, education is vital to this task.
09.12.2012
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
The statemen on p. 2 stood out to me: "Without the divine decree that the human person is made in the image of God, affirmed by the Creator to have absolute value and to be absolutely inviolable, why should anyone take the assertion that “all are born equal." The truth that people are valuable is precious and a fact we ough to stand up for.
09.12.2012
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
Dear Sir,
talking about the book sex and reason, which autor is Richard Posner, when he says that marriage is just a long term protituiton. First of all, i would like to know a lit bit more about this author background. I can immagine what amount of frustrations this person carries on.
Second point, as a believer in Christ i agree with you when you say we have to preach, and preach Christ alone. I mean, we don`t need to put a beaultiful cover on the gospel of Christ. Apostole Paul said about preaching Crhist and Christ crucified, which is not a pleasant view, when you think in it by just a human view. But that, is the power of the Cross. It is the power of our God over sin.
12.11.2012
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
The truth may be easily told, but it’s not easily received. But the truth remains the truth, whether its received or not. And it becomes our responsibility to share the truth in love in hopes that a fraction of it will fall on good ground. As advanced as the world has become, there are thousands of people who are perishing for the lack of knowledge because someone failed to tell the truth. We must have enough passion for souls to always share the truth whether its received or not.
11.06.2012
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
I like the writer’s last statement, “We have to preach the truth of the Christian gospel at all costs.” This reminds me of my ordination, where an old preacher pointed his finger at me and said, “Preach the truth. Some things are easier preached. The truth may be hard, but preach the truth.” In our world today, there are many teachings and thoughts that are easier to swallow than God’s truth. People like to hear about “many ways to God,” when the real truth is there is only one.
Without truth, anything becomes okay. If we think our world is somewhat messed up now, think about how it would be if no one was following the truth that comes from God. Great paper with some great examples for us to share and use. Thanks!
12.12.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ brucec:
Brucec you are right, there is only one way to God who is the father, and that is through Jesus the son, but I think that there are many ways to find Jesus. Make sure we don’t confuse people when we explain the truth about the way to God or salvation.
26.04.2012
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
In John 3 while Jesus is talking to Nicodemus He says that the point of Him coming was not to condemn the world but to save it. Then He says that the people of the darkness would hate the light because it would shine on their dark deeds. (I’m paraphrasing here) This is the explanation. Why do atheists hate religion in America so much when we don’t tax them as the Europeans do? Because we get in the way of their decisions that they hope desperately no one will question. It sickens and saddens me that people who won’t get off of their couches to help another human being will spend money to advertise against those who do. "Cast down the crosses so they will stop telling us to help people" they shout. "We don’t want any of your bigotry" they yell as they smear excrement on themselves and then on the church altars.
The darkness will devour us all if it weren’t for the light. The deeds done in the dark must be brought to light. The people need to be shown that the light conquers all and is not to be feared but rejoiced in. For the light brings more joy and glory than anything that can be done in the darkness!
21.11.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
The Word of God declares and ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Truth does matter in our world today and we should see the Creator as the One who has given humanity the real truth to live by. In the creation of humankind, the Creator knew of our own biases, and yet He is Soverign enough to allow us to have our own free-will to make our own decisions. Decisions have consequences and we have to be careful that we are making the right choices. I like the illustration about the baby and the student, and became concerned about the student who did not see a life that was about to be taken away but only just seen the body of an individual. Thank you for the response of what if it was the student on the table. We often make decisions without concerning others because we become so self-centered. Truth does matter, as we all shall know the truth and the truth will set us free. Follow peace with all men and women and God will have the last words.
Reggie
11.07.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
"Right before our eyes we see the moral fabric of our social life being torn to pieces."
At this present time with so many pastors in American churches being caught with their pants down it’s no wonder why the moral fabric is being torn to pieces. If we are carriers of the "truth" and yet display actions that do not set us apart, how then are we able to add merit to our claim of the "truth"?
01.04.2011
Ucrania
@ PAHayes:
The "truth" never depends on up or down anybody pants. It is just excist. If anything or anybody can change the truth than it is not the truth. Becuse all of christians not act like saints did not metter that our God not Holy. I belive that we dont need to ask what is the truth. All people need to know Who is the Truth.
02.04.2011
Canadá
@ Dmytro_B:
Dear B Dymtro:
I am afraid that I must take you to task in regard to your last statement “I believe that we don’t need to ask what is the truth. All people need to know Who is the Truth.” The statement, if it was not scribbled as one of the unthinking Christian mantras which is common nowadays, bespeaks of a denigration of doctrine. I know that doctrine has historically been and is now, has been abused for the purposes of intellectual and spiritual one-upmanship. However, I would suggest that its importance lies in giving guidance and wisdom in navigating the perilous paths of both temporal and spiritual life. True faith in Christ involves true faith in what He says and acting upon those truths.
02.04.2011
Ucrania
@ John-Hutchinson:
Greetings John!
When i wrote about the Truth in a big way i look on a story with the Pilate and Jesus. As one can ask what is the truth easy to pass by Who is the truth. With all highly positions and mind sets we better not regret to see Christ as the only Truth that God reviled.
02.04.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ PAHayes:
PHayes,
I am also a student at Gardner-Webb. Getting Masters in Divinty.
We as Christians are to tell the truth. what is truth? John 17:17says "sanctify them by the truth; the truth is your word." The truth then is God’s word the Bible.
09.04.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ Dmytro_B:
B Dmytro,
I appreciate your response. My comment was based on my concern that the world is not seeing people who are living by the truth. Therefore in order to counteract the increase of pluralism, we as followers of Christ must set ourselves apart as believers of the truth and live as such.
10.04.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ dunybec:
Dunybec,
I agree that the word is the truth. My original concern is how Christian American leaders’ actions in the last 5 years are affecting our moral image in society. How do we as future leaders recapture the many believers who fall prey to the alternatives in pluralism when they no longer believe in those preaching and teaching the truth?
10.04.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ PAHayes:
@All
We are not only called to have faith in (truly believe) God, we are also to communicate this belief and propogate the knowledge that we have. We will NOT be able to communicate truth if people look at our actions and they are counter to what we teach. This would place our teaching as truth when our actions are lies. We should not act in such a way because we are told to. We should act in such a way as to reflect what is in our heart. Our good deeds or actions are not to earn anything, but are rather reflections of gratitude and emulation.
11.04.2011
México
I really enjoyed reading this article. I agree with the comment that Scripture should be included in it. But, it addresses boldly the root of the problem with pluralism.
Jesus is the ultimate truth and we are called to tell ir to the world.
02.10.2010
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ Ana_M:
Becky US
Bravo on a good article. But we as the church should proclaim the truth; however, we are too concerned as to how it would look to the secular. I feel one mistake that we have made is being tolarent of other religions.
03.04.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ dunybec:
Dunybec and Ana,
I would love to get your input on a new post of mine concerning tolerance.
http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/11861
04.04.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
Pluralism is an approaching problem that our societies are having to address. Over past generations we have seen various Christian stances attacked, but this attacks the very conception of truth. The idea that everything is relative is to free one of any responsibility of the consequences of their actions. The Word of God states that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training (II Timothy 3:16). Pluralism is a ground attack to the validity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The truth will set us free and it is found in the Scriptures. #dmingml
18.10.2010
Guatemala
Excelente artículo. QUienes deseen conversar sobre LA MISION Y LA IGLESIA EN LA VIDA PUBLICA les invito a unirse a nuestro Grupo de Interes disponible en
http://conversation.lausanne.org/es/groups/join/1104/55048
Marco Cajas (Guatemala)
17.10.2010
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
Thank you for this paper. The interaction between Dr. Zacharias and the student was a very chilling example of the connection between people rejecting God’s moral authority and the devaluation of human life. This made me think of the inseparable connection between loving God and loving our neighbors.
Jesus called us salt and light. I see this paper as a call to repentance. To the extent that the church has neglected the weak, treated a person as a number or some other object, or failed to embrace and value the truth, the church must take some of the responsibility for "socio-cultural chaos" in its setting.
16.10.2010
Egipto
I loved the ending that said: "Right before our eyes we see the moral fabric of our social life being torn to pieces, and the human person being depersonalized into a commodity or a set of functions."
This is so true.In many places on this planet, we see this as true , but when we are on the receiving end of harm, I think we will be searching again for the old moral fabric of our society that we have shredded by our own hands.
14.10.2010
Italia
Thank you for the thoughtful article. I specially appreciated the line "In the name of condemning dogmatism, pluralism is nevertheless the most dogmatic of all ideologies."
From my own context (Brazil - evangelism of university students) it seems that the hardest challenge has not been to debate logically against pluralism, but instead to encourage Christians to be confident and bold that they do hold the thruth of Jesus Christ. I have found Leslie Newbigin readings particularly helpful in that area.
Blessings!
13.10.2010
Países Bajos
Like others, I liked the clear analysis this paper provides for plurality and postmodernist thinking.The different examples are revealing the shocking truth (sic) about current society’s common thinking.
It was probably not meant to be part of this paper, but I would have liked to see some more pointers towards ’solutions’: how do we respond? Just saying that we need to stand up for biblical truth is not enough, in my humble opinion. Actually, a statement like that has often caused more harm than good. As is pointed out in the first part of the paper, people are not receptive for ’objective truths’ anymore - and certainly not ’biblical truth’ in the classic understanding.
I would suggest that we might be closer to pluralists and postmodernists than we think.
First of all: in the gospel, truth is personal - very personal. Jesus Christ reveals himself as the truth. The most common criticism people have regarding Christianity is hypocrisy, where talk & walk are two different things. Interestingly, the word was invented by Jesus himself. His was the living truth because he lived out what he said. In this sense, truth and trust(-worthiness) join hands. Pointing out this definition of truth to pluralists will - in my experience - intrigue them.
Secondly, biblical truth is not a doctrine, nor a philosophy or a set of dogma’s - it is the actual and factual story of God with mankind. The gospel is about something that happened, as Anglican bishop N.T. Wright says. For me, this is not so much a reason to focus on apologetics, but rather a comfort: when people don’t want to accept these historical facts, than probably they simply do not want to know anything about the gospel anyway. The only thing that is left here is to pray.
And thirdly, while truth is not a prevailing question for many around us and certainly not the entry point to get the message of Jesus across, let us focus on those things that can serve as entry points. When we as followers of Jesus build relationships with not-yet-followers of Jesus (meaning: become friends, share lives), we will transfer much more truth than we could ever do by shouting on a street corner.
We can live out the truth ourselves by following Jesus. As we walk in his ’transcendent’ light, others will see it.
13.10.2010
Malasia
Pluralism is a "self-centered" or "anthropocentric" version of the Fall - humans snatch to be a god sotaht they become the measure of everything. The end result is chaos. While we should be sentsitive to be false truimphalsitic, we could be humble and confidence to proclaim the truth of the gospel by living the live that is ocnsistent with the truth.
12.10.2010
Malasia
We, the people who know the truth and convinced that it matters should have the motivation to bring the light of truth to a world suffer from moral bankruptcy because of its denial of absolute truth. However, sadly, it seems that at times churches care more to present itself as "political correct" than to proclaim the truth. We measure our success by how sleek and attractive our programs appear to the world and not by how faithful we proclaim the truth.
12.10.2010
México
Thanks for the encouragement to stand for the truth of the gospel in the face of today’s paricular challenges to it. I am intrigued by the paragraph about the relationship between pluralism, secularism and atheism. At a philosophical level, consistent pluralism should relativise secularism just as it does religion, while atheism, particularly the aggressive new atheism of recent years, strives to impose its own absolute values and seems a strange child of relativistic pluralism. Do we need to make more of a distinction at this point between the fact of plurality and the ideology of pluralism? Perhaps the heightened plurality of our globalised world pushes towards secular culture as a lowest common denominator among people, driving an operational atheism that paves the way for its ideological counterpart, while at the same time generating the alternative response of ideological pluralism and its denial of absolutes.
10.10.2010
Singapur
Thanks for your paper which I enjoyed reading. Especially the story but Rev. Ravi’s experience.
It never fail to amaze me how a person is so blind to their inconsistences. Insisting that there is no such thing as absolute truth when in so doing, he is making an absolute statement.
We need to stand up to all the sweet little lies that is decieving the masses. i.e. all religions are the same... we are all basically good ... etc.
10.10.2010
Mozambique
Thanks for your paper and its challenge. I find it interesting how quickly some attempt to abandon the reality and nature of truth when addressing moral issues. They believe in the nature of truth in other areas of their life. Even those who embrace pluralism demand correct accounting from their bank and a correct diagnosis from their doctor. Yet when a moral or metaphysical question is raised, all is abandoned except their objection to a consistent view of the nature of truth in all areas of life including the moral. May the Lord help us heed Paul’s word’s “I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received” as we preach the gospel at all costs to effectively meet the challenge of exposing fraudulent pluralism
10.10.2010
Usted debe iniciar la sesión para publicar un comentario. Si no tiene una cuenta, regístrese ahora (¡es gratis y sencillo!)