The Truth Hurts… But It’s Still the Truth

Interesting thing about truth…it’s true whether you want it to be or not. Sometimes we like it. Sometimes it doesn’t matter either way. Other times, however, we don’t particularly like it at all. It’s those times that we have to be very careful.

The Church in America today has to be very careful when it comes to truth. You see, so many of us tend to base what is true on how we feel about a certain thing. But truth isn’t based on our own individual feelings. While there are some who might argue against the idea of absolute truths, their own argument fails the test of their claim. After all, if I were to say, “There are no absolute truths,” then can I really say that that statement itself is true?

But today, we see many truths that are not so popular and end up being thought of as not being true after all.

For example…many people today, even within the Church…don’t like the idea of waiting until they are married to have sex.  Just because they don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do. Also, people don’t like the idea of hell. Now, granted, I think that many people have a distorted concept of hell, but that’s another topic for another day. The point is, just because people don’t like the idea of hell doesn’t mean hell doesn’t exist.

How about a more popular one? Many people, I’d say perhaps even most people, don’t like the idea that Christ is the only way to God’s Kingdom. That doesn’t magically make other ways possible. It just means that people start to believe things like, “All I need to do is be a ‘good’ person, and I’ll go to heaven.” This idea is nice. It’s comfortable. It makes things so much easier and convenient. But it’s not true. No matter how much we might wish it were.

So, what’s the point of all this? Basically, it is just to remind everyone that how we feel about something has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of that something. If something is true, it’s true no matter how we feel about it. If we like it, it’s still true. If we’re ambivalent, it’s still true. If we don’t like it, it’s still true! We have to be very careful about what we believe to be true or not true because it is far to easy to make a judgement call based on how we feel about it.

Just because I don’t like the idea that some of my family seem to be on a path that will lead them away from heaven, that doesn’t mean I can just decide to accept the idea that since they’re generally good people, they’ll be with me in heaven. The only way to heaven is through Christ.

So, why do we do this? Why do we believe things based on how we feel about them? What affect does that have on us? Well, look at it this way…if you believe that “good” people will all go to heaven, how hard will you try to share Christ with them? You won’t be likely to try very hard, will you? I mean, why bother? They’re good people. They’ll go to heaven anyway. So why stir up controversy and potentially make them uncomfortable when it won’t make any difference in the end, right?

Wrong!

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father except through Him. Period. None. It’s a narrow path that leads to heaven and a nice, wide, well-populated road that leads the other way. Do you want the people you love on the wrong path?

That, of course, brings me to the main concern I already mentioned. We don’t want to make people uncomfortable by talking about Jesus. I agree. We don’t. I know I don’t. So, what do we do? Did you know that you can share Jesus without making people feel uncomfortable? Did you know that  you can share Jesus in a way that doesn’t have to be filled with controversy or anger or judgement?

There is. And if you come back next week, I’ll go into a little bit of how that is possible. But I’ll give you a hint before we get to next week. The hint is one, single, four-letter word: Love!

Chew on that for the next few days and I’ll be back to expound on that a bit next week.

Until then…

Grace, love and peace.

Share This Post On

7 Comments

  1. “You probably need to learn to read.”

    You probably need to learn how to be less vague when you are losing an argument.

    “Actually…AM READING. As in currently. Which means I’m not finished yet, but will be when I get to the last page. Perhaps you are able to pick up a book and internalize it instantly? I’m not. I have to read it.”

    So you haven’t actually read an entire atheist book. That’s what I said.

    “Once again, you make assumptions about me and what I know.”

    Perhaps I give you too much credit.

    You missed this one: What do you mean by “explanitory power” and how does theism provide this?

  2. “Personally it would worry me if I had a faith that I couldn’t back up at all outside of my particular niche of people,”

    You probably need to learn to read.

    “or having almost read an atheist book.”

    Actually…AM READING. As in currently. Which means I’m not finished yet, but will be when I get to the last page. Perhaps you are able to pick up a book and internalize it instantly? I’m not. I have to read it.

    “Semantics. It was a snap-on parenthesis and you know what I meant by it.”

    Once again, you make assumptions about me and what I know.

  3. “Therefore, the argument of “my God is real, while that other god over there is not” is out of the scope of this writing as I’m not addressing another faith. Since I’m addressing people who already believe in the Christian God, I see no reason or need to provide proof of such a being.”

    So just asserting things without having to back them up gives you satisfaction? Fair enough. Though I seem to be your only reader, or at least the only person who comments around here.

    Personally it would worry me if I had a faith that I couldn’t back up at all outside of my particular niche of people, because it would tell me my arguments were very weak. And if my arguments were weak, I’d start to wonder whether what I believed was true.

    I mean, if you can’t defend your beliefs in a conversation among adults, then you have two problems: either you believe something false, or you (or Ken Ham, etc) are not intelligent enough for the job.

    “I resent the accusation…”

    You have proved that you do not understand the basics of the previously mentioned sciences (and the method), so if you indeed read what you say you have read, then you have a very poor memory, indeed.

    If you argue like you don’t know the issues at hand, then you will have to excuse me for assuming that you haven’t listened to the occasional podcast, or having almost read an atheist book.

    “In fact, as I mentioned before, I feel I would have to accept MORE on faith to accept the premise of evolution as I don’t see it having nearly the explanitory power as theism.”

    Now this is interesting. What do you mean by “explanitory power” and how does theism provide this?

    “Here, unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be asserting that one can lie and not be aware of it. I’m fairly certain that such a claim runs completely contrary to lying, by definition.”

    Semantics. It was a snap-on parenthesis and you know what I meant by it.

  4. I’ll refer to my comments on the previous post for most of this, though I will hit a couple of points very quickly.

    “But if you claim things like “my god is real, while that other god over there is not” then you have to provide proof that can survive outside of the Christian faith bubble.”

    I disagree with this, but only based on the context in which I originally wrote. That is, my writing was targeted to people who have the same (or VERY similar) core beliefs…in other words, the target demographic was “Christians.” Therefore, the argument of “my God is real, while that other god over there is not” is out of the scope of this writing as I’m not addressing another faith. Since I’m addressing people who already believe in the Christian God, I see no reason or need to provide proof of such a being.

    “This is a blatant lie, or you are deluded. I have seen you disregard evidence before. Not only that, but you have made it very clear that you do not do your research on both sides of the argument, you stick to pages like AIG.”

    I resent the accusation and it shows that you do not have all the facts. While I do use resources such as AiG, I also subscribe to other podcasts such as “The Atheist Experience” and “No Gods, No Guilt.” I’m also in the process of reading “The God Delusion” and still have Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis” on my list of “to-read.”

    Therefore, your claims that I only use pro-theist resources is completely unfounded. I just remain unconvinced in such things as evolution because I simply don’t feel that the evidence is all that compelling. In fact, as I mentioned before, I feel I would have to accept MORE on faith to accept the premise of evolution as I don’t see it having nearly the explanitory power as theism. And it would seem that people like Anthony Flew would agree with me on that.

    “So there, now I have shown you how you can prove to yourself that you just told a lie (be it deliberate or not)”

    Here, unless I’m mistaken, you seem to be asserting that one can lie and not be aware of it. I’m fairly certain that such a claim runs completely contrary to lying, by definition.

  5. “You are, certainly, entitled to your opinion. Though the principle still remains true (and thank you for being the poster child for it) that truth is not based on emotions”

    We agree there. But if you claim things like “my god is real, while that other god over there is not” then you have to provide proof that can survive outside of the Christian faith bubble.

    Like I said before: you have not done so.

    “At least I will accept the fact that if the evidence proves me wrong, I will accept that and change my stance”

    This is a blatant lie, or you are deluded. I have seen you disregard evidence before. Not only that, but you have made it very clear that you do not do your research on both sides of the argument, you stick to pages like AIG.

    You don’t even understand the most basic principles of geology or biology for Darwin’s sake! Heck, you don’t even grasp the scientific method.

    So there, now I have shown you how you can prove to yourself that you just told a lie (be it deliberate or not), and if you are true to your word I expect you have changed your stance by the end of the year.

    “But, I simply don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. There are more holes, gaps, assertions based on nothing more than “faith” in the evolutionary camp than there is in the theist camp.”

    Clearly you don’t even have a clue what atheism means. Want me to explain it to you or will you look up a definition yourself for a change?

  6. You are, certainly, entitled to your opinion. Though the principle still remains true (and thank you for being the poster child for it) that truth is not based on emotions. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it false. THAT is what is not a valid argument.

    At least I will accept the fact that if the evidence proves me wrong, I will accept that and change my stance. But, I simply don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. There are more holes, gaps, assertions based on nothing more than “faith” in the evolutionary camp than there is in the theist camp.

    You’re in a glass house, so you should probably be a little more careful.

  7. The problems start when you can’t prove that your particular religion has the absolute truth and the way to heaven.

    If it comes down to “read the bible with an open heart” then I’d say your religion is on equal terms with all the others out there.

    And then you assert that people that don’t agree with your point of view do it because they are uncomfortable with certain parts of the bible (as well they should be), etc. But that’s not a real argument, as anyone could tell you.

    This was a particularly vacuous post that didn’t contain anything but emotional pleadings and poor rhetoric.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *