Reading in Lee Strobel's book "The case for the real Christ", there are many conflicting beliefs that he is trying to pull straight. What is real? Who is this "real" Jesus? What if its just a popular Jewish name in the BC? (Which, in fact, it was) But Strobel isn't talking about the "it", he is talking about the "who", and if that who could possibly be the Great "Who"- God Himself, and what exactly that is.
I highly recommend reading his book, but when I came to one's argument about Relative Ruling, I madly grabbed for my notebook and a working pen. Frantically flipping through three or four and finding them full, I began to plot out my hypothesis for what I would actually write.
You see, when I read, I look for error. It may seem strange... and I must admit it is. I would stand correctable if I denied it. You see, I am a perpetual truth definer, and a chronic lie finder. I find every loop-hole in an argument, whether I want it to be true, or desperately wish it to be false. I count no thing automatically right. You may see my following article/essay/mad-midnight-writing a bit presumptuous to some, but I am relying on this fact:
are not possible when
And now,"Does absolute certainty always bring about oppressive rule?"
If complete certainty makes one so inclined to say "I am right because the is the only truth for all people," thus saying, "those who disagree are wrong", many would say this would lead to oppressive leadership; a leader certain of truth who presses those who differ into submission under that "truth".
If truth is completely relative, objectionably, religiously, morally, historically, and all follow that basic method, anarchy results. The people ruling themselves completely, with no rules. (Ruling without rules? interesting choice of words there Valary-Mac, I should say "Governing themselves without agenda",)
In this case, let us make a "relative" observation: Anarchy brings about the "evil" side of humans.
Now, if we want to speak more in relative terms, we wouldn't be able to define evil, and thus not able to tag it onto something or someone. So we might say, since "observation" is allowed by relativists: Anarchy often is observed to bring about what many personally perceive as "negative".
Using another "relative" observation, I'll "interpret" that humans always fight for the top. Which is something so undeniable, that some have attributed this attribute to our supposed animal ancestry.
And therefore, we see oppressive leaders springing up left and right (or at least what we perceive to be left and right, but that may just be our narrow, bias interpretation ;D). Now using their uncertain belief that others pain is relative, and so is morality, so making his rules according to his "uncertain beliefs", IF complete certainty brings about oppressive leadership.
And now, (as we have simply observed over and over again,) the "certainty" driving this relative anarchy brings about the worse oppression of all. Try to explain that one away!
IF the reason that we oppress others (through our tendency to fight to the top and rule over) we have put all stock in our "truth" that is not supposed to apply to anyone else, AND we have seen it played out over and over again, never stopping in our history, nor seeing a stop, there is certainty that it will continue unless there is a change or a deliverance. (the difference you see, is that change can be brought about by ourselves or outside forces, but deliverance always comes from an outside force- whatever that may be). If one of these two are outside our range, we would only be assigned a short life to fight against a certain, unmovable fact that falls back in place no matter how long us humans manage to keep up an act we just may sincerely believe in.
But if I were to argue that there is a deliverance, or even the audacity to specifically and most certainly utter The Deliverer's name - Jesus Christ, would you hear me through? You have the obtain and the right to say no. But please do.
You may say, "Christians are claiming to have this deliverance from this miserable life-cycle, but we don't see that in many 'christian' leaders. We see them oppress and waging bloody war upon those who care to disagree; where is the Deliverer in these stories?"
I would say that, in accordance with the Christian teachings, while those true Christians, if they be just that, have been delivered, it is yet possible for them to still walk away from the Deliverer. Sad, but true. (Much theology and doctrine goes into that; totally different blog post for that one). This is when some may act as in the old flesh - the undelivered body and mind - into the way us humans tend to... well, digress. One may walk completely away from the Deliverer and hold the banner of "delivered" above their nation of oppression - just another guise we have been making, breaking, exchanging, and fusing since the fall of mankind.
And now... just something funny I noticed. While writing this article/essay/mad-midnight-writing, I continually had to stop and go over my spellcheck, and discovered that I continually spelled "relative" wrong, spelling it "reletive". I, in my strange mind, thought perhaps I would honor the earliest relativist thinkers by misspelling their theory name, but thought better of it, thinking you may not take it seriously if I continued to misspell one side of my friendly little arguement. :)