If true, what are the viable options: 1) Avoidance, 2) Denial. 3) Attempting to cling to some comforting lie (which doesn't lessen or eliminate the pain but rather only postpones letting go of it until all excuses have been ripped away by some devastating harsh reality or untoward event). If false, do we conclude truth is pleasant to ponder by day and wrestle with in the night?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby [b]Proposition: Truth is often too painful to face.
If true, what are the viable options: 1) Avoidance, 2) Denial. 3) Attempting to cling to some comforting lie (which doesn't lessen or eliminate the pain but rather only postpones letting go of it until all excuses have been ripped away by some devastating harsh reality or untoward even ...[text shortened]... lse,[/b] do we conclude truth is pleasant to ponder by day and wrestle with in the night?
gb[/b]
Supposing the proposition is true, are those really the only viable options you can think of?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby [b]Proposition: Truth is often too painful to face.
If true, what are the viable options: 1) Avoidance, 2) Denial. 3) Attempting to cling to some comforting lie (which doesn't lessen or eliminate the pain but rather only postpones letting go of it until all excuses have been ripped away by some devastating harsh reality or untoward even ...[text shortened]... lse,[/b] do we conclude truth is pleasant to ponder by day and wrestle with in the night?
gb[/b]
I suspect that we can identify the more painful truths by the extremes we go to to construct belief systems and even entire institutions that reject, or at least, postpone the need to accept them. These systems can be anything from the secular to the religious.
Originally posted by LemonJello Supposing the proposition is true, are those really the only viable options you can think of?
No. Chose a simple illustrative series, letting bevity rule. Don't be bashful, Jello. You're not the kind of guy to beat around the bush. Beef up the list of viable options, hardcore objective in nature or soft ones flavored with speculation and subjectivity.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby [b]Proposition: Truth is often too painful to face.
If true, what are the viable options: 1) Avoidance, 2) Denial. 3) Attempting to cling to some comforting lie (which doesn't lessen or eliminate the pain but rather only postpones letting go of it until all excuses have been ripped away by some devastating harsh reality or untoward even ...[text shortened]... lse,[/b] do we conclude truth is pleasant to ponder by day and wrestle with in the night?
gb[/b]
How do you determine what the 'truth' is so as to verify this?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby No. Chose a simple illustrative series, letting bevity rule. Don't be bashful, Jello. You're not the kind of guy to beat around the bush. Beef up the list of viable options, hardcore objective in nature or soft ones flavored with speculation and subjectivity.
[b]4) Other?
.[/b]
I'm confused why you think yours is a list of viable options. It seems to me to be a list of asinine and/or doomed options. I do not consider your options viable, and they should not be expected to work reliably. The basic supposition here for your "if true" case is that (1) there is(are) some fact(s), F, about the world (2) S knows about F and (3) S has negative conative attitudes towards F. Your "viable options" for S all seem to have something to do with S's trying to undermine (2) to release the tension. But that is actually the worst place for S to attack the problem; and, anyway, (2) only seems to count in favor of S's being a good cognizer. S should actually try to attack either (1) or (3). That is, if there is some fact about the world that you find unfortunate or painful; then work to smartly reform it (supposing you can), or else take strides to have a healthier attitude toward it. You are familiar, I presume, with the so-called serenity prayer? (God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference, or some such.) I suppose this prayer outlines the basic idea.
Gentlmen, you both appear to be awardly arming yourselves for battle on debater playing fields with rules you've learned by heart. Please slow down. Simplify. Suppose for starters the truth in view is a call from your attorney or doctor, or mail containing lab results or the date of an IRS Audit, or contact with the local police department or hospital regarding the status of one of your family members involved in a major automobile accident. Would you start talking forum debaters technique gibberish or zip your lip, listen hard and thoughtfully ponder the matter? That's what this thread is about. It's intent is to focus attention on "facing truth".
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Gentlmen, you both appear to be awardly arming yourselves for battle on debater playing fields with rules you've learned by heart. Please slow down. Simplify. Suppose for starters the truth in view is a call from your attorney or doctor, or mail containing lab results or the date of an IRS Audit, or contact with the local police department or hospital r ...[text shortened]... hat's what this thread is about. It's intent is to focus attention on "facing truth".
gb
I see that you have a rather nasty habit of pretending to want to hear what others think; then simply ignoring any points they make while presuming to tell them they are not playing by the arbitrary rules you attach to your thread. I think I have already responded in some substance to your request of me to approach the subject of "viable options". If you do not care to respond back in substance, then just say so.
Originally posted by LemonJello I see that you have a rather nasty habit of pretending to want to hear what others think; then simply ignoring any points they make while presuming to tell them they are not playing by the arbitrary rules you attach to your thread. I think I have already responded in some substance to your request of me to approach the subject of "viable options". If you do not care to respond back in substance, then just say so.
Is it true that willfully refusing to let a new thought through
may cause a permanent crease in a person's forehead?
As a Christian I am willing to admit losing a debate.
I am willing to admit "Boy, I did a lousy job of explaining that."
I am willing to say "Maybe I need to go back and study that more."
I am willing to say "Logically, I did not make too good of an argument."
Having said that, it has been over 35 years since I let Jesus come into my heart. If this ton of harsh realistic bricks have not hit me yet, waking me up to the cold, stark, really realistic fact that Jesus is not really Son of God afterall, I doubt that it is going to hit me.
I have had tragedies since trusting in Christ.
I have had disappointments since trusting in Christ.
I have had times of wondering if God heard my prayers about something.
If this so-called harsh realization of the untruth of the Gospel hasn't come crashing down on my supposed "naive dreams" yet, I doubt it will.
Indulge me to quote the Apostle Paul:
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38,39)
The church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.
Everything contained in the bible can be completely true if but one thing is also true: That God exists.
All of the arguments, every single one of them lodged against the bible, become totally weightless if God exists as the bible describes.
The logical continuation is this; if per chance one simply entertains the notion that God exists, they would then understand that the bible makes complete sense.
Thus, in conclusion, all of the skeptics who ever existed and exist today, have but one simple thing to face, if they want to make any sense of the bible; that being, God exists.
This option (what believers would call "truth" ) is so abhorent--so scary and undesirable--the skeptics choose to deny it, let alone even take the small, seemingly easy step of merely supposing it.
From the believer's perspective: God's existence is a truth that the skeptics dare not face, for it's evidently too risky a venture.
Originally posted by sumydid Everything contained in the bible can be completely true if but one thing is also true: That God exists.
All of the arguments, every single one of them lodged against the bible, become totally weightless if God exists as the bible describes.
The logical continuation is this; if per chance one simply entertains the notion that God exists, they w ...[text shortened]... istence is a truth that the skeptics dare not face, for it's evidently too risky a venture.
Originally posted by sumydid Everything contained in the bible can be completely true if but one thing is also true: That God exists.
All of the arguments, every single one of them lodged against the bible, become totally weightless if God exists as the bible describes.
The logical continuation is this; if per chance one simply entertains the notion that God exists, they w istence is a truth that the skeptics dare not face, for it's evidently too risky a venture.
From the believer's perspective: God's existence is a truth that the skeptics dare not face, for it's evidently too risky a venture.
What risks are involved in the venture? It seems to me like facing such a truth would not entail any risk; it would entail only benefit. Maybe I'm not a skeptic. Are there only believers and skeptics, or is there room in between?
Proposition: Truth is often too painful to face.
07 Dec '11 07:16
Back to Top