Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Truth or Consequences?

Did any of you watch that game show? Gee, it is so difficult for me to remember. I suppose I vaguely have some distant memories of repeats. I am only 25, after all. Just kidding. What I do remember of the show, however, is that is was fun. Basically, people had to answer a question truthfully or experience consequences that were rather entertaining for the viewer. Unfortunately for us "real world people" we have had to experience, more than likely, the fact that consequences in real life aren't always very fun. We'll talk more about that later.

Suffice it to say, we know that we'll experience consequences if we don't acknowledge the truth in our lives. But what is the truth? Well, Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6

You see, Jesus is either who He said He is, or He is a liar or lunatic. Either you believe Him or you don't. Sorry, but good men don't lie. Oh, and please don't elevate Him to the level of a prophet. Unless, of course, you think it's natural for prophets to lie and call themselves the Creator of the Universe.

Jesus Christ is often referred to as "The Rock". Well...

You can't throw a rock in a pond without causing ripples. The Rock is the Truth. The ripples are the consequences. So what do we really want in our lives?

Truth... or consequences?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

"But, what is the truth?" Oh, if the answer were so simple and so black and white! If you delve deeper and explore, it doesn't take long to realize that there are many many shades of gray and many interpretations and definitions of "Truth". You state "your" "Truth" here, but that doesn't make it "true" for all. This has been debated for centuries and probably will for more to come.....
I think you open a can of worms.........but, critical thinking as a result can only be a good thing in my humble opinion.

Unknown said...

Wow, very powerful and provocative. This is exactly why people persecute Christians because Christians have the audacity to claim that Jesus literally meant what he said when he claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. Jesus also said that b4 abraham was "I AM" cluing in the religious leaders of his day that He considered himself to predate abraham and identified himself as the "I am" of Exodus. You could go on and on with all the ways in which Jesus made exclusive claims, as did his followers. For example Peter claiming in Acts that there was "no other name under heaven by which we are saved."

It is objectively clear that such were the claims of Jesus and his followers. A person can believe this or not, but to doubt the that the claims were made is disingenuous.

The Apostle, Paul, called the gospel offensive. Why? The biggest offense is the assertion that belief in Jesus is essential for reconciliation to God. How does one make such a statement without sounding offensive? You do your best. Christians, myself included, believe that people are driving over a cliff into a chasm. We feel compelled to hold up a warning hand. Most try to do this with a loving attitude, but some will take offense no matter how you say it because it is highly offensive to them that you would even believe or make such a claim.

We are all trying to arrive at the truth of so many things. What is the best form of government? Is string theory going to at last give us a theory that explains everything? Opinions fly like hornets after their nest is struck by a stone, over so many issues.

I believe that only one God created man and the universe. I believe that he set the cosmos in motion with physical laws that explain and govern each quark and lepton. Is it possible to have just ONE religious truth? that depends on whether or not you have an understanding of the God who created all things.

Nobody can claim with certainty that such a God is unknowable or that He has chosen not to reveal truth to the world, or that He is not intimately involved in his creation.

I have experienced this God both cognitively and on an emotional level and am so certain of this "truth" that I am willing to sound anti-intellectual and even offensive for the sake of the few who find comfort in Christ.

I would not hurt a fly but to some making exclusive claims of truth is harm enough.

redshift said...

I think the truth of the matter is that you need some R&R. Your shoulder may still hurt, but I still suggest some time with the fishing pole. Bate is optional. Be sure to bring along the Book.
Oh...by the way..."anonymous", the truth will set you free as well...just got to know Him.

Anonymous said...

Redshift.........you both "miss" my point and "make" my point at the same time with your post.........:) SIGH

redshift said...

Thanks for you post, Anonymous. Sorry it took so long to respond. Hard to find time. I, personally would like more of your feedback.
Hope to see more of your posts.

Anonymous said...

Here is a good example of how 2 perspectives can change the whole meaning of something......
Listen the first time with eyes closed........then again with the visual of the video......

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid89761511001?bctid=390914587001

Unknown said...

Dear anonymous:

Hilarious! I laughed so hard I almost shed tears. I have a comment about perspective. The girl in the video perceived herself in a relationship with a guy who had no such thoughts. Her perspective did not change his.

Now, one might argue, her gyrations and undulations were very persuasive. Perhaps, with a little time she could persuade him to see things her way. Perspectives can change with new information. But these are matters of the heart, subjective.

Is there such a thing as objective reality that is a bit more concrete than perspective? I submit that "truth" can be placed upon a continuum. At one end is absolute truth and at the other, relative truth. Absolute truth does not change with perspective. For example, if I jump directly into the path of a train moving at 50 miles an hour, with just my tee shirt and jeans on I will be railroad kill. Relative truth, of course, varies with perspective. Blue and black look good together, in my opinion and you'll never convince me that it does not, but you may prefer orange and purple.

The problem comes when you get closer and closer to the middle of the continuum.

Anonymous said...

More points to ponder...

I submit that only those who have chosen to believe in absolute truth about a particular subject will consider the middle of the continuum a problem....

Some may consider the middle a more balanced and healthy position between two extremes and see this as a positive.

An absolute truth must be proven beyond any doubt which would negate the necessity of faith wouldn't it?

And there are more definitions of "truth" than "absolute" and "relative". There are numerous in between......(one need only to google "epistomology, or definition of "truth" for the tip of the iceberg, as I'm pretty sure you must know) which would be much more practical than debating it here.....

I am glad that you enjoyed the video and appreciate your personal opinion regarding your definition of truth. I am going to end this discussion on my part (for it could go on and on....as it has indeed for centuries) with a small portion of just one position written that I can relate to and feel maybe states it better and simpler than I can:

How a person conceives of truth will, of course, have a profound influence upon what sorts of criteria they use of differentiating between truth and falsehood. A person who adopts the Correspondence Theory of truth will use one set of criteria while someone who adopts the Semantic Theory of truth will employ different criteria; as a consequence, they could easily look at the exact same claim and reach different conclusions about its truth status.

Thus, another fundamental problem which needs to be looked at when discussing truth is: whenever someone claims that some idea is true, what exactly do they mean by “true”? And what does it mean if we say that it isn’t true? They might not mean the same things you mean! It would be difficult to disagree with a person over the truth of a claim if we aren’t speaking the same “language” of truth in the first place.

If we define truth differently and use different criteria of truth, then it would be easy to disagree about what is and is not true, but very difficult to reach some sort of common ground. It isn’t unusual for people to employ very different ideas about truth unconsciously, so one of the tasks of epistemology is to develop clear and forthright explanations of the nature of truth which people can discuss out in the open, perhaps even reaching some sort of accord.

Thus, it makes a lot of sense to have a clearer understanding about how you and others understand and define truth before disagreeing too strenuously about just what qualifies as true in the first place. That could prevent any number of unnecessary misunderstandings before they go too far.

Unknown said...

Anon: I'll miss you. But I will still comment and your comment responding to my comment etc

You said, "I submit that only those who have chosen to believe in absolute truth about a particular subject will consider the middle of the continuum a problem....

Some may consider the middle a more balanced and healthy position between two extremes and see this as a positive."

Of course, that depends on the topic. This comment casts Christians as extremist and unhealthy. Hmm, those people (whoever they are) who hold this view seems a bit judgmental. lol.

I can honestly say that I understand why a person would NOT believe in God the same way that I do. There are some Biblical teachings that I cannot comprehend and that break my heart. For ex., the idea of God being a personal God, intimately acquainted with his creation, and yet allowing all of the suffering and heartache to continue. The doctrine of hell is another example of a teaching that I cannot get my mind around.

But on the other hand there is enough evidence that goes beyond subjective interpretation for an honest skeptic to at least exclaim, "hey, that's not for me, but I can see why they would think that."

Many intellectual skeptics have come to faith in an attempt to discredit the Christian world view. And many believers have abandoned the faith because they felt the price was too high to pay to continue in their faith. I cannot judge them and do not.

You said, "An absolute truth must be proven beyond any doubt which would negate the necessity of faith wouldn't it?"

Great comment. I am absolutely sure, at least intellectually, that Jesus came to earth to die for the sins of mankind. At this stage of my life faith enters when I am confronted with suffering, heartache, deprivation and other dire circumstances I experience and see others experiencing. All things being equal, you could show me the specifications of a bridge over a 10,000 foot chasm--prove to me that the ropes and wood planks spaced a foot apart will hold my weight--and I might be convinced intellectually that the bridge will hold, yet crossing that bridge is a whole 'nother matter.

Another way to look at this is that you could try to convince me that if I use your marketing sales funnel as directed I will be rich. This may be absolutely true, but my ability to purchase your product may be limited by my finances, my level of self-confidence, my knowledge or my study of the internet that led me to a poor user review. What you as the salesperson perceive to be absolutely true, to me as the potential consumer may seem questionable at best.

You said, “And there are more definitions of "truth" than "absolute" and "relative". There are numerous in between......(one need only to google "epistomology, or definition of "truth" for the tip of the iceberg, as I'm pretty sure you must know) which would be much more practical than debating it here.....”

This confirms what I said earlier. I regard the extremes as being absolute and relative, or, in the language of some philosophers (but not others) concrete vs intangible. Some pit ontological against meta-physical (science vs religion or facts vs an Ultimate source of Information) or objective vs subjective. And so forth. As with most theories, each possesses elements of truth, but not the whole. While resting in the middle seems a noble compromise, I believe it is even more exciting to allow the paradoxes created by opposite poles to create cognitive dissonance and wrestle with that dissonance until insight either bridges the opposing ideas or negates one or the other.

But I am getting sleepy. I cannot prove it to you; however, if you were to hook me up to a machine that reads brainwaves, or if you were to look deep into my droopy eyes you would conclude, “this guy needs a nap.” Of course such a plan would be costly and time consuming, so I believe it would be best for you to take my word for it. : 0

Anonymous said...

Not going to comment on your comment, but wanted to leave you with one last activity that I think you will find enjoyable! Close eyes again and re-listen ...... insert "God" as the subject for "you". Another fun perspective!

Enjoyed our banter and hope it gave food for thought for everyone!

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid89761511001?bctid=390914587001

Anonymous said...

So......are Mike and Michael one and the same? Hmmm