In 2009 it looks like this:

Hmmm… 17 year old boy has sex with his 14-year old girlfriend & was charged with statutory rape.

But a 17 year old girl from the same town committed the same crime, and she was not charged the same way.

An author afflicted with a black-belt in intellect made a comment along the lines that double standards are not unusual, but it’s just unusual to find such a clear example.

Soooo… Fedrz wonders… it must be due to some gender bias that has gotten out of control only recently… It must be. Let’s have a look at what it was like way back when women were “oppressed”, shall we?

The Legal Subjection of Men, Belfort Bax, 1908, p37

So far has this revolting sex privilege been pushed that a boy of 14 can be convicted for committing an act to which he was incited by a girl just under 16, although, as is well known, a girl of that age is often a woman, while a boy of 14 is usually a child.

This, however, does not exhaust the women’s privilege of seduction.  Not merely a female minor, but female adults are protected by exceptional law.  Any person who, by false representations, procures immoral relations with a woman not of known immoral character–though the woman be 35 and the male culprit 14—is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for two years.

The Fraud of Feminism, Belfort Bax, 1913, p65

One of the most infamous enactments indicative of Feminist sex bias is the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1886.  The Act itself was led up to with the usual effect by an unscrupulous newspaper agitation in the Feminist and Puritan interest, designed to create a panic in the public mind, under the influence of which legislation of this description can generally be rushed through Parliament.  The reckless disregard of the commonest principles of justice and common-sense of this abominable statute may be seen in the shameless sex privilege it accords the female in the matter of seduction.  Under its provisions a boy of fourteen years can be prosecuted and sent to gaol for an offence to which he has been instigated by a girl just under sixteen years, whom the law, of course, on the basis of the aforesaid sex privilege, holds guiltless. The outrageous infamy of this provision is especially apparent when we consider the greater precocity of the average girl as compared with the average boy of this age.

No!

It can’t be! Our esteemed academics, in all their gender-idiot-equality glory, would have looked it up, wouldn’t they? I mean. It was sitting right there!

But, you know what the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends, don’t you?  

Step One: Run to the government.

Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.

Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase:

“DOOOoooOOOoooOOOooo Something! We’re not EEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”

Step Four: Wait for totalitarianism to arrive.

Step Five: Pay homage to the “noble suffragettes,” for their kind of feminism was “good.”

Isn’t this the most idiotic idea in the world?

And it escapes from people’s lips without even a thought of what they are doing or saying.

Of course you can generalize. In fact, you must generalize. To fail to generalize is to demand that all things must only be regarded in terms of the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator doesn’t particularly lead to the highest pinacles we can achieve, does it?

The “you can’t generalize” zealots don’t seem to have really thought things through very well. They are thinking one-dimensionally. A more complex, and more proper way of thinking is that “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”

For example, saying something like “women have larger breasts than men” is a sweeping generalization. But, it is a true one – even though some women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of “women” there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of “men” there will be some porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only an idiot would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way a reflection of human intellectualism, therefore, we should not say that “women have larger breasts than men” anymore. It is lunacy! The only thing we might be able to learn then is that “both men and women have nipples.” Wow! Stop everything right there! The Tower of Babel is already reaching into the heavens! What more could we possibly learn?

Generalizations are absolutely neccessary in order to learn anything.

Of course, what one cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Take Marc Lepine, for example. Feminists have been screeching for almost two decades now that Marc Lepine is “proof” of the murderous hatred men  harbour for women. Now that is pure lunacy. The actions of one man is in no way a reflection of the mentality of the 15,000,000 other men who live in Canada. That is a wrong generalization.

But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because the majority of men are taller and heavier than the majority of women – even though in some individual cases, you will be able to see a taller or heavier woman than a man.

We generalize that “birds fly.” But oh my gosh! You can’t generalize like that! Don’t you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins don’t fly? This is such a lame argument, and it ought to be obvious even to the simplest of simpletons that any biologist worth his salt must neccessarily generalize that “birds fly.” Look up, grasshopper… not down!

Many of the arguments that get put forward in regard to sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually retarded retort, “you can’t generalize like that.”

Nonsense.

In fact, no-one is going to figure out one damn thing about anything if they fail to generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the  cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide… well… how is that gonna make you smarter? Huh?

The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (ie. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups.

The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in “this” direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow “that” direction.

It’s time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator.

Tell people who use the “generalizing argument” to shut the hell up. In general, those people don’t have two brain cells to rub together and aren’t worth listening to anyways.

Dance, Baby! Dance!

Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helen’s, not that you care to read my ramblings… oh, wait… why are you here again?

Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of “misogynist,” only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to “rediscover it.”

Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes… as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator… well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun.

Anyhow,

It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge “never before known.” I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now!

Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3406#comments

“The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: Hispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants.” – The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State

(dumb dee dumb dumb… moving along…)

“The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties.”

Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, ‘gender (screeeeeeech!) differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites.’ (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68)”

Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it?

“Click…clunk…creeeeeeek.”

Yup. That’s the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics.

Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions:

Step One: Run to the government.

Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.

Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: “DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! We’re not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”

—

Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff:

Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state… / …in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury… / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.  

Huh?

Whatchoo talkin’ about, Aristotle?

You mean to tell us that it’s near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law?

I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this?

No?

Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!

Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Don’t you believe in equality?

How else can you explain it?

—

(Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling).

Excerpts from Schopenhauer’s Essay on Women

“… Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength, but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and cuttlefish with its dark inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic for the very stupid as the very clever.

Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to those weapons when attacked; and they feel that in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all…  

Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen?

What’s that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you ain’t cleanin’ no toilets?

What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? You’re so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences… isn’t it?

—

Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal – but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin… let’s make sure that men don’t get let off the hook completely.

Here’s an excerpt of Otto Weininger’s preface (p. v) from Sex and Character

[Men’s] sexual egotism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.

Okay then, as long as it’s men that are being blamed and not women!

Mutter, mutter… you’re still a cretin… mutter.

The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves.

“Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one.” 

But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defence and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards.

When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And they’re just figuring out that men and women aren’t treated equally before the law?

Why wasn’t Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. She’s getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope!

Belfort Bax, writing in1908’s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913’s The Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts… so much that, well, I just don’t even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide… to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors… to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself…

Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be “studying” this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it… well… their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their “superior” degrees.

Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women… of course, there are not equal numbers – mainly because women sin less. Isn’t that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it.

Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well.

Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife for malicious purposes.

Judges 4:21 describes the “Mary Winkler’s” of old – killing men in their sleep:

“But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.”

There is nothing new under the sun – we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes – and we did it all to make the ladies happy.

It’s time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking.

It’s time to start telling people who demand a “peer-reviewed study” to “prove” something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up?

Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too.

But, it’s time to tell the Ph D’s and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus – they’ve done more than enough damage already.

It’s not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, it’s that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law.

It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law.

That’s why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming – to fashion, as it were.

The Marxists who were behind the Women’s Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject?

“…Women may have happy ideas, taste and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated – who knows how? – G.F. Hegel

In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic.

While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women don’t much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And that’s usually how it was done – the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour).

This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies… although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too.

But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to “change the law,” it still won’t matter.

There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It ain’t gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently.  

Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start “shaming the sense into eachother.”

As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society – they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” – Karl Marx

(Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization)

Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well.

“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.” – Aristotle

Don’t expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out:

“…the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” – Aristotle

Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies… but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter.

That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost “best interests of the child” that there is… but, point out the factors that are destroying us… nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches.

They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem – and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate.

“SPARTA!” Fedrz cries.

The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helen’s is a good example of the type of “help” we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.

There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past.

No, women don’t necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey-wrench-throwing women themselves?

Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.

If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help – not one single bit!

These academics “discovering” such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack-shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of “misogyny.”

“Why were things in the past so misogynist?” That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for “why” has been “the evil patriarchy,” when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the “new intellectuals” of slackademia are spineless idiots.  

Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise:

Genesis 3:17

(17) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

.

.

.

PS – Sorry for the small print. I’m still trying to figure out how this new blog works, and I can’t figure out how to change it yet – but, me and my pathetic computer skills are working on it.

Absolute Truth exists. It does not need us. We serve it, not the other way around. The Absolute Truth is the beginning and the end. It is never changing. It is what it is. It was here before us, and it will be here after us.

Was there evolution? Was there creation? Was the Genesis story of the Bible a mix of evolution and creation? There are obvious relationships between the stories of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) and the religions, stories, myths and legends found in cultures outside of Judeo-Christianity. Gilgamesh is one such example. There is little doubt that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Noah in Genesis 6 are talking of the exact same event – “the Flood”, and some guy floating around with a boat full of animals. The found transcripts of the Epic of Gilgamesh predate the supposed Pentateuch author, Moses (circa 1300BC), by several centuries and it’s believed that stories of Gilgamesh himself predated the writings of him quite significantly, through the oral tradition and so on. There was a real world wide flood too. 12,000 years ago, the Pleistocene Ice age ended, the glaciers melted and ran into the oceans, causing them to rise significantly (some 400ft, I believe). All of those continental shelves… well; they were not underwater during the Pleistocene. In fact, whatever humans there were probably lived on those shelves, as they were nearest to the ocean, where humans choose to live in the largest numbers even today.   

I’ve heard of many interesting theories about those days. One that’s intriguing is that since both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon existed on earth for a period together, that perhaps Homo-Sapiens are the hybrid result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbreeding. Some speculate that this may have been the original sin. Or maybe not. We will never know, but there is an answer – an absolute one that is the Truth – and it doesn’t need nor even care whether we figure it out – it exists on a completely separate plane than us.

But, whether Evolution or Creationism; whether Neanderthals bumped uglies with Cro-Magnons; whether merely evolutionary psychology, or alien technology enhancing us with some strands of superior DNA, there is something about the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the fall of mankind which deals directly with the Absolute Truth and its counterpart, the Relative Truth.

.

.

Genesis 3 (New International Version)

The Fall of Man

 ¹ Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” ² The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³ but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

 ⁴ “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 ⁶ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. ⁷ Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 ⁸ Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. ⁹ But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

 ¹⁰ He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

 ¹¹ And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 ¹² The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

 ¹³ Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
      The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 ¹⁴ So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
       “Cursed are you above all the livestock
       and all the wild animals!
       You will crawl on your belly
       and you will eat dust
       all the days of your life.

 ¹⁵ And I will put enmity
       between you and the woman,
       and between your offspring ^[a] and hers;
       he will crush ^[b] your head,
       and you will strike his heel.”

 ¹⁶ To the woman he said,
       “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
       with pain you will give birth to children.
       Your desire will be for your husband,
       and he will rule over you.”

 ¹⁷ To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
       “Cursed is the ground because of you;
       through painful toil you will eat of it
       all the days of your life.

 ¹⁸ It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
       and you will eat the plants of the field.

 ¹⁹ By the sweat of your brow
       you will eat your food
       until you return to the ground,
       since from it you were taken;
       for dust you are
       and to dust you will return.”

 ²⁰ Adam ^[c] named his wife Eve, ^[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

²¹ The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. ²² And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” ²³ So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. ²⁴ After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side ^[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Footnotes:

1. Genesis 3:15 Or seed
2. Genesis 3:15 Or strike
3. Genesis 3:20 Or The man
4. Genesis 3:20 Eve probably means living .
5. Genesis 3:24 Or placed in front

.

.

The Absolute Truth is God, of course. He is the beginning and the end. He always was and he always will be. He is who He is and does not exist in relation to our plane of existence, but rather, separately from it.

Who then, is the Relative Truth?

Could it be… could it be… Satan?

.

Is “the original sin” the act of allowing our brains to place the Relative Truth before the Absolute Truth?

.

Is this not how Eve was tempted by Satan? Did Satan really lie to Eve, or did he take the Absolute Truth and merely manipulate it? Did he not create Relative Truths to convince Eve to do that which went against the Absolute Truth? His first question, was a sneaky trick question (Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?) And after that, he did not lie, he manipulated the Truth. Did they surely die (no, not right then, and they were offered a chance at eternal life). Did they become like God and know good & evil? Yes… and what did Eve do? She used her mind to justify that certain truths about the fruit were more important in order to enable her to over-ride the Absolute Truth. (It was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desireable for gaining knowledge).

Is this when man “evolved” out of being a mere animal? Is this when man became man? Our brain is our biggest tool – but, it can also be self-destructive. Our brain is “our tool.” It is to man what the ability to fly is to birds, what fins and gills are to fish. It is “our tool of survival.” Is our superior brain the result of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons shacking up for the winter in the same cave? Man became “man” when his brain either evolved, or was granted, the ability of reason and the free will to choose. That’s what makes us different than animals. We have a brain which can choose. Animals do not. Animals only do what is in their nature and therefore when animals kill or steal, they are not sinning. They have no free will and are merely following their natures.

A distinct characteristic of Judeo-Christianity is that it is monotheistic.

If Judeo-Christianity is monotheistic, and God is the Absolute Truth, then monotheism is also the belief in one truth.

Well, that is perhaps a little simplistic, isn’t it? Of course sometimes there is more than merely “one truth.” There are both Absolute Truths and there are Relative Truths which exist all around us.

“Thou shall not kill”

That is Absolutely True – we should not kill.

But, should you kill if failing to do so will result in your own death? Should you kill to protect your family from danger? Is it justifiable to kill when fighting evil forces in a war? Ahhh… the Relative Truth! Bugger, there it comes!

And this is the power of our brains, isn’t it? It’s the power to ask these questions. That really is the essence of our “tool” called the human brain.

But the brain also has some defects.

One defect is the ability to take the truth, and manipulate it into what we wish to be true for our own purposes.

Take Al Capone. A mass murderer, who felt he was unjustly imprisoned because he was such a humanitarian during the Great Depression by creating soup kitchens and using his accumulated wealth in various ways to give aid to the impoverished people around him. He really did help the poor. Al Capone used the Relative Truth to justify why he repeatedly broke one of the basic laws of humanity – murder. His evil actions were justified because of the good which resulted. Well, justified to himself anyway. Jail is full of innocent people.  

Our brains need to be tempered by something bigger than ourselves, in order to maximize the brain’s ability while minimizing its own destructiveness.

The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth. It must be that the Absolute Truth is of more importance than the Relative Truth.

Exodus 20 (New International Version – UK)

The Ten Commandments

 ¹ And God spoke all these words:   

 ²I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    ³ You shall have no other gods before me.

    ⁴ You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

    ⁵ You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

    ⁶ but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That serves as the “temper” for our brains. Of course the Relative Truth exists, but when our brains become destructive to ourselves and to society, is when we convince ourselves of that a Relative Truth has become higher in importance than the Absolute Truth.

Our “relative truths” must work within the laws of “absolute truth.”

Our brains might allow the manipulation of the truth to eventually figure out how to fly… but, in order to fly, we must stay within the bounds of certain absolute laws, like gravity.

Another factor which comes from the monotheism of the Bible is that in order for a society to be cohesive, the people must all subscribe to one version of the truth.

Have you ever been on an internet discussion forum? Particularly, one advocating for a social cause? If you have, you’ll know what I mean about how they operate. It’s a jumbled mess. People argue and argue, because everyone subscribes to different truths. There is no “one truth” to subscribe to which unifies all of the commenters to one underlying belief. It results in confusion. Most often the conversation either devolves into nothingness for the sake of getting along, or it blows into bits as the various “truths” compete against eachother. The direction of “the cause” rarely moves forward, but rather neuters itself through disagreement or outright kills itself.

The same goes with societies and cultures. Before Judeo-Christianity, you will find that many of the cultures worshipped many gods. There were fertility gods, war gods, or whatever. And often, the people of those cultures became followers of one god more than another, resulting in the various factions competing against eachother – often to the point of violence.

It matters not to me all those who attempt to discredit the Bible by illustrating relations to paganism or similarities to other religions. I know of much it, and I am truly, deeply fascinated by it. However, possibly the most defining feature of Judeo-Christianity is that it subscribes to the belief in monotheism. One God. One Truth. The Absolute Truth. Is this what has propelled Judeo-Christianity into becoming the most successful of them all? I believe that it is.

The Bible is a blue-print for society. It shows us how a society ought to be formed. It takes away certain Relative Truth arguments which would be destructive, and instead promotes productiveness. The Bible is the Book of Life because it promotes those ideals which cause a civilization to grow, prosper and flourish. Religions/cultures which cannot/do not promote this are ways of death.

The US Founding Fathers subscribed to these ideas as well, based upon the ideals of John Locke. They placed their laws on three levels:

1 – God’s Law

2 – Natural Law

3 – Civil Law

They believed that the lower levels of law must correspond within the rules of the higher ones. The lower laws must work within the bounds of the higher ones. At the top is the Absolute Truth.   

The US Founding Fathers used both Deductive Reason (search for Absolutes) and Inductive Reason (Relatives). But they placed them properly upon the ladder of importance.

This notion was challenged when Hegel, in the 19^th Century, came up with the Hegelian Dialectic.

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

The inductive reasoning of the Hegelian Dialectic “dethroned” the authority of God as Absolute Truth.

The Hegelian Dialectic allows for the argument of 1 + 1 = 3, or 5, or 105… the truth is relative.

Since “the truth is relative,” who is to say that your idea of truth is any more true than my idea of truth?

It takes away the monotheism of our Judeo-Christian civilization because it places the Relative Truth at the highest level. (In fact, at all levels).

There was a time when our oldest institutions, such as Harvard University, were mandated to be “keepers of the Truth.” They have now evolved, through the Hegelian Dialect, into becoming “changers of the Truth.”

This thought-disease that caused Adam and Eve to be ejected from Paradise is now the ruling thought process in all our educational institutions, our governments & laws, our families, and even our churches. Destruction is beginning to happen. We are separating as a people. The US Founding Fathers based their new system upon the authority of the Bible, and said that “liberty” is based upon the individual willingness to place personal morality on oneself – morality based upon the Bible. In that way, we all follow the same general path and still work together as a unit, and the more we place it upon ourselves to follow the morality illustrated in the Bible, the less need will there be for the government to pass laws against the people to maintain/control unity.  

We have rejected Absolute Truth in favour of the Relative Truth.

We are becoming divided as both a civilization and as a people. The foundational building block of our society, the nuclear family, is destructing. Crime is increasing as are psychological problems and suicide. We are not reproducing enough to maintain ourselves as a population – through both unwillingness to do so, and by contracting swaths of sexually transmitted diseases which are directly and alarmingly affecting our infertility rates. Soddom and Gomorrah are truly making a comeback as our civilization is self-destructing, and in but a few more generations, we will become so insignificant that we too will be “wiped from the face of the earth.”  

But, no matter what they say, the Absolute Truth still does exist. Whether we can prove it or not, there actually is an answer to questions like “how did the universe get created?” or “where do we come from?”

And, I suspect, we’ll soon be recieving a smack up the back of the head for disobeying a fundamental law, which is: The Absolute Truth must precede the Relative Truth.

To fail to heed such a timeless principle means to walk the Road of Death.