Historical relativists insist that the historian is a product of his time, and as such he is subject to the unconscious programming of his era. It is impossible, allegedly, for the historian to stand back and view history objectively because he too is part of the historical process. Hence, historical synthesis depends on the personality of the writer as well as the social and religious milieu in which he lives. (Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume I: Pirenne: Meyerhoff)

While I do agree that our unconscious programming plays a part in our writing (whatever its context), the problem is that the historical relativist embraces this programming and transfers it to the conscious domain. At this point all the history he writes is severely damaged. This has not always been the case, and I feel for the next generations of those that would study history. They will have a much harder time getting through to the actual history rather than the “story” the liberal historical relativist would have them believe.

A man who stopped taking his prescribed medications for mental illness began arguing with a group of people along the Arkansas River in Pine Bluff, Ark., and the incident quickly escalated. According to police, the man grabbed a gun from his car and fired it into the air as an apparent threat. He then headed toward James Woody, a fisherman who was unloading his boat. Woody reached into his truck for the pistol he keeps for protection. The disturbed man chased Woody around the truck, then threatened his life. Woody turned and shot his assailant, killing him.
Associated Press, 08/27/06

Read More Armed Citizen Reports

Some interesting talk has been going on in the scientific community about restoring some of the prehistoric landscape. I first heard about this idea from my brother, but I’m not sure how all of this would be done, nor do I think it is necessarily a great idea, but hunting for a mammoth would certainly be a kick, and it might actually give a lethal purpose to some of the extreme cartridges available today.

Begin with Christian Theism and “water-down” each worldview. As Christian Theism gives way to Deism, and Deism gives way to Naturalism you approach the Line of Despair. In other words, once your worldview reaches naturalism the implications of this worldview naturally lead to Nihilism (which most people are unwilling to live with…because living with Nihilism is by definition not possible).

This image was created based on a similar diagram presented
by Dr. Richard Knopp of Lincoln Christian College and Seminary.

This denial of the ultimate outcome of Nihilism (suicide) leads many to “create” worldviews based more on faith than Christian Theism in order to provide meaning to their existence. As you progress from Marxism to Atheistic Existentialism to Secular Humanism each worldview becomes more socially tenable, however the bottom line is that these worldviews do not provide the best answers to the questions of life, and are based on great leaps of faith.

Short description of worldviews and criteria for assessing a worldview.
worldview.pdf
Learn more about Francis Schaeffer (originator of the Line of Despair)
Early Years, Later Years