Questions To Ask A Religious Liberal (below) InPlainSite Musings on An Interview with Neale Donald Walsch (below) INDEX True for You But Not for Me
If you say no belief is true for everyone, you want everyone to believe what you do. You’re making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false. Cultural Relativism
is the view that all ethical truth is relative to a specific culture. Whatever a cultural group approves is considered right within that culture. Conversely, whatever a cultural group condemns is wrong. This view seems leaves no place for social reformers. The abolition movement, the suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement are all examples of social movements that ran counter to the social circumstances of the culture Utilitarianism
The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.. The belief that the sole standard of morality is determined by its usefulness. However, from the biblical perspective, the problem with the philosophy of utilitarianism/situation ethics is that it ultimately provides no consistent moral framework. Situation ethics also permits us to do evil to achieve good. This is totally contrary to the Bible. Moral Relativism
In the modern Western world, ethical relativism poses a challenge to the biblical basis for ethics. Relativism affirms that moral right and wrong are only socially and individually determined. Ethics is split off from any objective moral order. Cultural norms of morality are relative to particular societies, individuals, and historical periods. What is "right for you" may not be "right for me." What is wrong today may not be wrong tomorrow. Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism
Moral relativism has been rejected by a near unanimous number of both secular and theistic ethicists and philosophers. Yet it is still popular to espouse this view in many of our secularized cultural institutions. It is thought to be more tolerant, more open, and more intellectually respectable than the old-fashioned "absolutism." However, moral relativism is inconsistent with tolerance, closed off to the possibility of moral truth, and an intellectual failure. Religious Relativism
Relativism is itself a religious belief. It is a dogma. if you look at it closely, the statements of religious relativism are every bit as dogmatic as the statements of the Koran or the Bible. Truth and the Christian Worldview
The purpose of this paper is to show that Christianity, as a revealed religion, is objectively true, regardless of the existence of competing worldviews. ALSO SEE Religious pluralism
is the belief that every religion is true. Each provides a genuine encounter with the Ultimate. One may be better than the others, but all are adequate. How to Talk to a Theological Liberal (If You Must)
What do I mean by theologic liberal? Unfortunately, what they believe will vary greatly depending one what axe each individual has to grind. In fact, the term "theological" is misleading, since many I have conversed with are essentially naturalists. The best way to describe them is that they associate themselves to Jesus or Paul or the Bible, but in a way that distorts the essential message. They use Bible passages for their purposes which conveniently look like they may support the liberal's axe grinding, yet they dismiss anything which they don't like as myth. Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance
Liberal Tolerance has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not comply with it, one will face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps legal reprisals. Liberal Tolerance is neither liberal nor tolerant. Four Killer Questions
Dr. Jeff Myers of Bryan College and Summit Ministries suggests four "killer questions" to help anyone think critically.{1} The first question is, What do you mean by that? In other words, define your terms. The second question is, Where do you get your information? The third is, How do you know that's true?, and the fourth killer question is, What if you're wrong?These four killer questions are powerful to spark meaningful conversation and encourage yourself, and others, to think critically. Use them wisely, be prepared for some interesting conversations 
Questions To Ask A Religious Liberal
Excerpt from Fuzzy-Thinking Liberals and Their Contradictory Moral Philosophy
by Mark Kelly Also See Flat-earth Atheism and the Pledge of Allegiance When they specifically reject Christian moral values, they say things like "That's just your opinion," "Christians shouldn't force their values on others," and "Christians shouldn't try to change other people's beliefs." Those are curious comments, coming from people who say there aren't any standards of right or wrong that apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time. "If each person has to decide what's right and wrong for himself, why do you insist that something wrong for you also is wrong for me?" "If my moral values are just my opinion, aren't your values just opinion too? Why should your opinion be any better than mine?" "If no one should tell someone else that their beliefs are wrong, why are you telling me I'm wrong?"
The liberal denies moral absolutes, but in fact he believes very strongly that some things are absolutely right or wrong. Take, for example, his idea that Christians are wrong to try to change other people's religious beliefs. Is that wrong for everyone, everywhere, all the time? Is it possible it might ever be right for someone?
If not, then that's a moral absolute – something the liberal denies is real! Two critical questions for a liberal, then, are "If we both agree that there are some things that are right or wrong for everyone, everywhere, all the time – what makes your absolutes true and mine false?" and "What can you give me, other than your opinion, to prove that what I'm doing is wrong?"
Don't expect any answers. There aren't any.
InPlainSite Musing on An Interview with Neale Donald Walsch
(author of Conversations with God) by Dennis Hughes, Share Guide Publisher Share Guide: I'd like to start off by asking, what do you mean by the new spirituality? And how do you think that it applies to the times in which we live?
Neale Donald Walsch: “...The sad part about our past is that religions, ironically enough, are responsible for creating the most destructive idea that has ever been visited upon the human race: the idea that there is such a thing as "better." .... Let me explain. The basis of most organized religions is that they have as their founder or founders have received a direct revelation from God. The most recent of which is Joseph Smith of the Book of Mormon, as recently as 1867. But many religions traditionally claim that their founders' experience of the word of God is the one true experience. And everyone else's experience of the word of God is at best a mistake, and at worst a blasphemy. And from this construct has arisen a concept that "We are better than them." Share Guide: Yes, that's a sad thing right there.
Neale Donald Walsch: And so one either has to believe in a God who's terribly prejudiced, or disbelieve the teachings of such exclusionary theologies. Religions have taught us that "we are better than they." And because we are, somehow, better than they, we get to go to heaven and they don't. Christians will tell you outright that they believe that. They may not use the word better. But they certainly believe that they'll go to heaven and Jews will not. Share Guide: It's divisive for the unity of humanity.
Neale Donald Walsch: Yes. It becomes "our neighborhood is better than your neighborhood." It becomes "our family is better than your family." It graduates to "our state is better than your state," and "our nation is better than your nation." And it circles all the way around to where it started: "Our God is better than your God." And because we believe that our ethnic group, our society, our political party, our God, is better than your God, we kill each other...”
It is tremendously sad how little Neale Donald Walsch knows about Christianity, which has never claimed to be better than anyone else. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is with an analogy, which, although imperfect, does help make the point. Let us assume for the moment that the Flu Shot is the only way to avoid getting, and possibly dying from, the flu. So we are constantly urged to get the shot by the medical profession, the media, newspapers etc. Why aren’t we telling these sources that they are intolerant and hateful for trying to fob their views off on us? After all isn’t it narrow minded to insist that THEIR WAY is the only way to avoid getting sick? That they think that they are better than everyone else by getting the shot. Especially considering that the doctors are not pulling their beliefs out of thin air. A virus causes the flu not the medics. All they are doing is tell us what the facts are and how to avoid unpleasant consequences of the disease. So are Christians. They didn’t make any of it up. And No! I am not better than you are for getting my flu shot. I am sometimes tempted to think I may be just a bit smarter (especially after reading bilge like Walsch spews out), but never better. On the contrary I am admitting I am not in control, am sinful, and am in need of forgiveness and a great deal of help. That takes humility. [See The Gospel a Hate Crime.. Welcome to the 21st Century] It is true most religions so tend to think of themselves as The Only Way, which makes a comparative study a necessity if one is to come to any conclusion about one of them being correct, or all of them being absolutely off base (The only two choices). There are some good articles one can use as a starting point ON THIS PAGE As far as the killing each other is concerned ... While there is little doubt that Christianity has done much that it shouldn’t See The Dark Side Of Church History The Crusades, Inquisition, Witch burnings, the Holocaust .. Is Christianity an excuse for brutal, heartless and senseless atrocities?
However, history shows that religion has not caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity? The assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.
On The Other Hand
The indirect and unconscious influence Christianity has often exercised in avowedly secular matters--social, intellectual, and institutional--affords striking proof of the dynamic forces that have been generated by the faith over the millenniums. See The Social and Historical Impact of Christianity
And since you are here, you may as well take a few more minutes and see what Walsch’s fellow New Agers are up to. Beware! The New Age Movement Is More Than Self-Indulgent Silliness It might seem odd to accuse the New Age prophets of these things. After all, they and their followers appear to be nice, well-cultured people who use the correct fork at the dinner table; they claim that their goal is the betterment of the human race and of the Earth. Nevertheless, these radical New Age leaders believe that the two World Wars were necessary for human evolution, and that the birth pangs of the New Age began with the atomic explosions in 1945. They also advocate sending those people who are unwilling to enter the New Age into oblivion, and reducing world population to 2 billion - or less. Such is the blood lust of the "compassionate." | 
