If we say what is - is; or, what is not - is not; then it is true!
If we say what is - is not; or, what is not - is; then it is false!
So when saying what is, or, is not; we can only say that it is either true or false!
If someone says that we are all sinners, the response is often,
"It is not truth or fact for everyone".
but ios that response true?
Not in reality. Let me explain:
1+1=2 is true for everyone, even if someone does not believe it...
The earth is spherical, even if someone believes it is flat...
We are all sinners, even if some do not believe that...
What is the problem?
If I can't say what is true, then how can anyone say what is false? Such an objection is really just a way of saying what is true, just contrary to the rejected truth claim. we have to ask, "is it true that it is false?" That is the only way to affirm it!
We cannot affirm a negative! Philosophy 101.
Only the truth is affirming, so every rejection can be true
only by inferring another
truth claim.
All truth claims are implicitly absolute.
So in denying truth, we are making a truth claim.
If folks want us to believe that they are righteous and sinless, it is they who have an evidence problem. Because the only way that is possible, is if they are Gods, because there is no such thing as a perfect man unless He is God incarnate!
Many cannot even bring themselves to consider that
'one man' was sinless and God's true Son, but in denying their sin, they expect us to believe that
they are that man?
I personally am not insulted that I am rejected for speaking the truth. But I do get frustrated that people are so obstinate (like me).
Humanity rejects Jesus, and that is their individual perogative. He forces us to decide in an
absolute and affirming fashion whether He was a liar or God in the flesh. It's totally up to the individual.
Those who proclaim Christ are just doing what they know is right, because they know their Lord. If we don't like it, then so what. It's their perogotive as well to call it as they see it, even if we think they're mad.
We should understand that rejecting, is equal to proclaiming truth. Many do not understand that they imply truth everytime they denounce something, and not just when they affirm something.
I don't understand the problem. If
we don't like people speaking the truth, then
we should be consistent and stop doing it!
We can't say that we disagree without contradicting ourself and proclaiming truth of our own.
So we should be consistent, by shutting our mouths if we do not believe in absolute truth.
Those that believe in truth should be consistent by speaking truth with boldness and without fear. They are the true rebels...
G.K. Chesterton spoke about this kind of inconsistency long ago in his book Orthodoxy:
"But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mind. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything
he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
(Orthodoxy, Chapter title - The Suicide of Thought / 1908)
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : polishing
Any biters in the stream?
™ Version 4.2