I’ve gotten my share of personal attacks and character assassination, being accused of hate preaching and all that nonsense. So, I want to take the time to point out inconsistencies in the relativistic philosophy of the modernists.Blessed Pius IX of blessed memory mentioned in his Syllabus of Errors the kind of heresies taught by the modernists or as we often call them liberals.
“All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.” (Error #4)
“The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself.” (Error #11)
“Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” (Error #16)
“Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” (Error #18)
“The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.” (Error #21)
So, now we know some basic sayings most commonly professed by modernists. So, I want to explain the inconsistencies of this modernist philosophy. If you mention the existence of absolute, objective truth, they might accuse you of preaching hatred, or what you say is offensive and that you should stop. If they do speak out, they might rehearse their mantra about how there are multiple truths and that there is no one path. Basically they are saying, “The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths”; so, the only thing everybody must believe is that there is no one true religion. That is completely contradictory, because by saying the only absolute truth is no absolute truth, they are saying there is an absolute truth. And so they are dictating their own desires upon those they disagree with; you cannot do as much as speak of your religious beliefs, but they can sure as heck shove theirs down your throat without your consent. How consistent is that? They want to bully you through character assassination with accusations of hate to force you to give up your beliefs for their belief that there is an absolute truth. In other words, you are not allowed to believe and say that some who profess to be Christians have no valid Baptism and are not Christians, or that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation if not at least the desire thereof, or that Catholicism is any less true than Protestantism, but they sure can believe your faith is not from Christ and the apostles or that your belief is hateful and there’s nothing you can tell them otherwise.
They tout morality being universal, yet if it were, then how come not everybody agrees 100% on ethics? Obviously outside of religion, morality is relative, and so it only makes sense that if we desire universal, objective or absolute truth, then we must desire to embrace a faith which teaches universal, objective or absolute truth. Imagine if more people embraced universal truth: Nazism probably would have been ended earlier if not even prevented, the Jim Crowe laws would have likewise been earlier ended if not prevented. Yet of course we live in a society where we’re entitled to our own opinion, that is at least if you’re a non-Christian or heterodox Christian.
Last but not least is how they get very emotional which often includes getting visibly angry telling from their comments. They will say things like repeating the ad hominem, “You are preaching hatred” or “Your comment offends people.” While failing to define terms like “hatred”, “love” and “kindness” especially how Scripture defines them, they will repeat their mantra to no end in the hopes of emotionally beating you down to a pulp and yet they talk about hatred. What’s even worse is they want to silence people who say things they disagree with and it could be the smallest thing and they make the biggest hissy fit over it. One particular individual who agree with me on my criticism of the Democrats and Republicans later stated, “I think it is very much a good call to be a bit more selective with what gets posted.” Hmm. Interesting. She said she wants the two-party system done away with (which includes the end of the Democratic Party), and yet she displays the same exact spirit they do in their desire to censor people over what they deem offensive. It is also funny how she agreed on my criticism of the two major parties, when another person could just as easily accuse us of hatred for the two parties, and it’s not hate but yet it’s hate when I say something she disagrees with. Here is where the self-serving purpose of the political correctness crowd is exposed. They don’t really care as they claim to avoid what might potentially offend others; they are just looking out for their own interests, going as far as to silence others who disagree with them on what’s true or false while going to further lengths than that person to make them embrace their view.