Shoving the truth down their throat.

[david_x]

I have seen in many times, both in the real world and on this forum. People seem content to say that "this is the truth, eat it." Other than the obvious anger issues, what, if anything, is wrong with that attitude.

 

[BobW188]

First, foremost and most obvious; it is often not the truth or is at least not provable as the truth.

 

[lebbeaus12]

I believe I understand whay you're trying to say.
Remember reading the scriptures where it says the scripture is good for reproof, instruction, etc... what people don't understand is that it's meant for them to eat and not feed to someone else.
The only people that even have the right to feed scripture is an overseer of someone's soul, a pastor, clergy, etc. and each person is then responsible for proving the scripture and applying it to their own lives. Even the overseer doesn't have a right to force anything.
But, people want to argue and point fingers at others that don't view the scripture in the light that they read it and in doing so imply that God has no influence in their life nor can He correct any mistakes without the help of another. Go Figure....
As christians we have only certain requirements; Let our light shine, (Testimony), do good works that God might recieve Glory and proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord of the World. He does the rest. How easy is that? But noooo.... christians want to be the ones shoving something down someone's throat....
The scriptures say to simply tell people about Jesus and if they don't want to hear it, shake the dust off, because there's a lot of ground that needs to be covered.

 

[HuntingMan]

I have seen in many times, both in the real world and on this forum. People seem content to say that "this is the truth, eat it." Other than the obvious anger issues, what, if anything, is wrong with that attitude.

When its the truth, its the truth. If someone has chosen to reject the facts that really is on them.
For example;
We have our first black president today. Lots of folks dont like that fact. If they dont like it, they can go find another country to live in, I suppose, but not liking the fact isnt going to change it.

 

[sunlover1]

I have seen in many times, both in the real world and on this forum. People seem content to say that "this is the truth, eat it." Other than the obvious anger issues, what, if anything, is wrong with that attitude.

I see that a lot in GT.
IMO it's fruitless because the person closes their ears
immediately.
Now if you have someone spouting about how sin is alright,
then I have to speak up for God.
And if they want to debate that with me, I'll debate it.
If THATS what you mean, then I'm sure it's both sided.
I'm right, NO I"M RIGHT, ... blah blah blah.

First, foremost and most obvious; it is often not the truth or is at least not provable as the truth.

But some folks dont like truth and so cannot receive it too.
Again, both sides.

 

[one11]

I have seen in many times, both in the real world and on this forum. People seem content to say that "this is the truth, eat it." Other than the obvious anger issues, what, if anything, is wrong with that attitude.

I haven't seen that attitude in particular. I've seen bad attitudes and rude posters, such as people saying "you don't think", "you can't think" or implying directly that people are dumb. When people do THAT and or put God down, there may have to come a time where they will just have to be put on ignore because I am sure there are trolls on this forum and people misrepresenting who they are.

This would be a better forum if it were 18 and over imo because some posters are acting like 14 year old's or younger, and I have no way to know their real age.

I can pray for them, but ignore is the best option, even if it has to be done for a time, such as a two week period, and then give the poster a second chance. Jmho

 

[david_x]

I haven't seen that attitude in particular. I've seen bad attitudes and rude posters, such as people saying "you don't think", "you can't think" or implying directly that people are dumb. When people do THAT and or put God down, there may have to come a time where they will just have to be put on ignore because I am sure there are trolls on this forum and people misrepresenting who they are.

This would be a better forum if it were 18 and over imo because some posters are acting like 14 year old's or younger, and I have no way to know their real age.

I can pray for them, but ignore is the best option, even if it has to be done for a time, such as a two week period, and then give the poster a second chance. Jmho

Your a young poster, i'm sure you'll see it by the time you hit 2,000 posts. Haha

 

[david_x]

When its the truth, its the truth. If someone has chosen to reject the facts that really is on them.
For example;
We have our first black president today. Lots of folks dont like that fact. If they dont like it, they can go find another country to live in, I suppose, but not liking the fact isnt going to change it.

People are far less likely to completely reject the truth if they know the person telling them it directly. Just like cultivating earth that has been trodden on before sewing, cultivate the soul with friendship then plant the seeds of truth.

 

[dayhiker]

I don't like the attitude that people think they are absolutely right and have the right to force their ideas down ones throat. So I try to share what I think the Bible is saying and let the Holy Spirit be the one that impresses others to accept the truth.

But there have been great men of God that have differed from the beginning till now and I think they will all be in heaven. For example, my reading of church history has the early church fathers reading the Bible literally but with Origen and Augistine people started to read the Bible and think the best way to read it was alligorically. That method of understanding the Bible dominated till the reformation. I don't think 1000+ years of Christians are going to hell because of it. Yet some great church leaders think people were.

So I share what God has spoken to me. Its not what God is asking everyone to do. I know some think that if God asks them to do something that they think everyone should the same. God asked me when I was 21 to give away all me secualr albums. I did. It wasn't because it was a sin to have those albums. God just didn't want me to have them. So I gave them to a cousin. I hope she enjloyed them. But it would be a big misunderstanding of who God is I think to talk when God asked me to do ans think that God asked everyone to do the same. Yet many church rules are just that type of thing.

dayhiker

 

[david_x]

I don't like the attitude that people think they are absolutely right and have the right to force their ideas down ones throat. So I try to share what I think the Bible is saying and let the Holy Spirit be the one that impresses others to accept the truth.

But there have been great men of God that have differed from the beginning till now and I think they will all be in heaven. For example, my reading of church history has the early church fathers reading the Bible literally but with Origen and Augistine people started to read the Bible and think the best way to read it was alligorically. That method of understanding the Bible dominated till the reformation. I don't think 1000+ years of Christians are going to hell because of it. Yet some great church leaders think people were.

So I share what God has spoken to me. Its not what God is asking everyone to do. I know some think that if God asks them to do something that they think everyone should the same. God asked me when I was 21 to give away all me secualr albums. I did. It wasn't because it was a sin to have those albums. God just didn't want me to have them. So I gave them to a cousin. I hope she enjloyed them. But it would be a big misunderstanding of who God is I think to talk when God asked me to do ans think that God asked everyone to do the same. Yet many church rules are just that type of thing.

dayhiker

The Church was not just in Europe. The European Christian history seem so wrong, that i wonder if many made it to heaven that way. However, the Church had also spread to Asia during this time so there was probably still a lot of Christians there.

I can't remember this story completely but it is still interesting to think about.
A speaker here at college told us that when the U.S. Embacy was constructed in Japan Christians came from underground. Christianity having survived there for perhaps a thousand years.

 

[Tissue]

The problem with belief in God (or, more particularly, YHWH) is that it's a process. Most people don't believe in God because of rational argument or debate. They believe because of particular experiences. These experiences, by nature, cannot be held in common ground, as observable phenomena to all viewers. They are unique and holdable to the individual alone.

Aggression is a thoroughly ineffective way of generating true belief. Compassion is needed, along with patience and understanding.

 

[god's_pawn]

I have seen in many times, both in the real world and on this forum. People seem content to say that "this is the truth, eat it." Other than the obvious anger issues, what, if anything, is wrong with that attitude.

to me "this is the truth, eat it" sounds like, "i'm right you're wrong deal with it" and neither sound loving to me. as Christians we need to everything in love. thus if you are indeed telling the truth, you must do so humbly and in love otherwise, as Paul puts it, you are just "a resounding gong". another part of this is being willing to accept the truth from others. I've only ever debated a couple people who were willing to openly admit when they were wrong. most people just drop the issue and seemingly hope that no one notices that they were wrong. I find that people respect my comments more when they see that I'm willing to admit my error which i do quite often. i don't think this forum is meant for everyone to come on and "prove the truth" to everyone else, rather this is a place to share your ideas and beliefs and why you have them.

 

[Zecryphon]

I have seen in many times, both in the real world and on this forum. People seem content to say that "this is the truth, eat it." Other than the obvious anger issues, what, if anything, is wrong with that attitude.

The problem with that attitude is that it sets you up as the absolute authority on what is true and what is false. You can't say with any certainty today what is true and what is false because everything has become relative. What is right for me, is not right for you. It's all personal and everybody wants to be right, so for the sake of "peace" everybody now is.

 

[Tissue]

That's not really a proper view of relativism. No rational person today would adhere to total relativism (actual truth is different for each person). There is, however, a focus upon relativism, where some will have different angles of truth, which might look radically different from one another. It's not that the truth itself is actually different for each person, but that the perspective is different.

 

[Zecryphon]

That's not really a proper view of relativism. No rational person today would adhere to total relativism (actual truth is different for each person). There is, however, a focus upon relativism, where some will have different angles of truth, which might look radically different from one another. It's not that the truth itself is actually different for each person, but that the perspective is different.

It's a totally proper view of relativisim. Everybody wants to be right. Today absolute statements must contain, For me personally, In my opinion or it is my belief that... and then the statement follows. And to further illustrate my point about how almost no absolute statement can ever be made, who are you to say what is rational for a person to do? See how easy this is? Truth is truth. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. Perspective really doesn't affect that. The only time perspective comes into play is when you're dealing with a personal truth as opposed to an absolute truth. And since absolute truths can't exist anymore, all we're left with is personal truths and people's varying persepctives.

 

[Zecryphon]

Pride, selfishness, egomania, lack of faith in God, a deluted sense of self-importance, and general lack of compassion and tolerance.

How much tolerance is in your post? Think about it. You've said that anybody who says "this is the truth, eat it" is an egomaniac, is prideful, has a lack of faith in God, and all the other personal insults you have concluded this person is guilty of. How do you know for a fact any of what you assume is true from one sentence? You've made a whole slew of absolute judgments about someone you don't even know? Is that being compassionate or tolerant at all?

 

[Tissue]

It's a totally proper view of relativisim. Everybody wants to be right. Today absolute statements must contain, For me personally, In my opinion or it is my belief that... and then the statement follows.

It doesn't have to, but it's more proper to state it that way.

And to further illustrate my point about how almost no absolute statement can ever be made, who are you to say what is rational for a person to do?

A Junior philosophy major with a keen interest in epistemology, an IQ of 170, and SAT scores of 2190 out of 2400, under the new system. You don't have to accept my viewpoint, of course. I could be wrong.

Under your description of a total relativism, an expert's opinion would have no more weight than the opinion of a four-year-old, which is chaos. No intellectual or academic I have ever heard of adheres to such a view.

See how easy this is? Truth is truth. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. Perspective really doesn't affect that. The only time perspective comes into play is when you're dealing with a personal truth as opposed to an absolute truth. And since absolute truths can't exist anymore, all we're left with is personal truths and people's varying persepctives.

There are examples of perspective in Scripture. Strictly speaking, there are contradictions in the Gospels. Many Christians explain this as two people seeing the same event (a car accident, say), and delivering renditions of the event that, while different, are not incorrect in their description of the event. This is what I am talking about.

Ask ten different people to describe their view of God, and you will get ten different answers. Depending on where you get these answers, these ten people might not at all disagree with the viewpoints given by others. They may all be talking about YHWH, and may all be of a similar mind on orthodoxy. Nevertheless, their views are very, very different.

Have three children face a person at different angles: one in front of their face, one in front of the back of the person's head, and one looking down on the person's head. Now have them draw what they see. Very different pictures with very different attributes; some that the other pictures would not feature. But none of these pictures are wrong.

 

[Zecryphon]

And to further illustrate my point about how almost no absolute statement can ever be made, who are you to say what is rational for a person to do?

A Junior philosophy major with a keen interest in epistemology, an IQ of 170, and SAT scores of 2190 out of 2400, under the new system. You don't have to accept my viewpoint, of course. I could be wrong.

But how does any of that make you any more right? This isn't about personal academic achievement. This is about whether or not a statement is true and that is not decided by your ability to study for and perform well on a test. See, the way your statement comes across is, you're saying that you are right because of things you've done, not because the statements you make are actually true.

Under your description of a total relativism, an expert's opinion would have no more weight than the opinion of a four-year-old, which is chaos. No intellectual or academic I have ever heard of adheres to such a view.

Have you heard the opinion of every academic in the world on this issue? If not, how can you say with any certainty that what you believe is right? How are you arriving at the conclusion that what you believe is right and what I believe is wrong? The method by which we ascertain truth is of far more importance than personal accomplishments. But all you're doing is going back to what you have done, what you have heard and using that as the basis to determine what is right and what is wrong.

See how easy this is? Truth is truth. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. Perspective really doesn't affect that. The only time perspective comes into play is when you're dealing with a personal truth as opposed to an absolute truth. And since absolute truths can't exist anymore, all we're left with is personal truths and people's varying persepctives.
​

There are examples of perspective in Scripture. Strictly speaking, there are contradictions in the Gospels. Many Christians explain this as two people seeing the same event (a car accident, say), and delivering renditions of the event that, while different, are not incorrect in their description of the event. This is what I am talking about.

But you're also applying that across the board in an effort to say that no one can ever be right because of perspective. A person's perspective does not alter that which is true. Something is either true or it isn't.

Ask ten different people to describe their view of God, and you will get ten different answers. Depending on where you get these answers, these ten people might not at all disagree with the viewpoints given by others. They may all be talking about YHWH, and may all be of a similar mind on orthodoxy. Nevertheless, their views are very, very different.

Which is why relying upon the word of man for truth is a faulty approach. You want the truth you go to what God has declared is true, not man.

Have three children face a person at different angles: one in front of their face, one in front of the back of the person's head, and one looking down on the person's head. Now have them draw what they see. Very different pictures with very different attributes; some that the other pictures would not feature. But none of these pictures are wrong.

 

[ReformedChapin]

It doesn't have to, but it's more proper to state it that way.



A Junior philosophy major with a keen interest in epistemology, an IQ of 170, and SAT scores of 2190 out of 2400, under the new system. You don't have to accept my viewpoint, of course. I could be wrong.

Under your description of a total relativism, an expert's opinion would have no more weight than the opinion of a four-year-old, which is chaos. No intellectual or academic I have ever heard of adheres to such a view.



There are examples of perspective in Scripture. Strictly speaking, there are contradictions in the Gospels. Many Christians explain this as two people seeing the same event (a car accident, say), and delivering renditions of the event that, while different, are not incorrect in their description of the event. This is what I am talking about.

Ask ten different people to describe their view of God, and you will get ten different answers. Depending on where you get these answers, these ten people might not at all disagree with the viewpoints given by others. They may all be talking about YHWH, and may all be of a similar mind on orthodoxy. Nevertheless, their views are very, very different.

Have three children face a person at different angles: one in front of their face, one in front of the back of the person's head, and one looking down on the person's head. Now have them draw what they see. Very different pictures with very different attributes; some that the other pictures would not feature. But none of these pictures are wrong.

The academic forms of relativism I have observed are based on the notion that we cannot the truth therefore were a left only with our subjective perceptions.

Right now with our world of tolerence scholars try to synthesize all different religions so there is unity but in the principle I underlined above. It's not that any of these perspectives is the absolute truth but that we cannot know any of them to be truthfully totally therefore lets all just get along and be buddies.

At the lay level things are different though. People no longer really apply the laws of logic to their world view. For example my mother once said that Allah the Muslim god is the same as the Christian God. I promptly corrected her, but I observered the perception which lay people have during our times.

BTW congrats on your excellent grades and test scores. But for me humility is the highest among virtues of men.

 

[Tissue]

But how does any of that make you any more right? This isn't about personal academic achievement. This is about whether or not a statement is true and that is not decided by your ability to study for and perform well on a test. See, the way your statement comes across is, you're saying that you are right because of things you've done, not because the statements you make are actually true.

No. I am saying that you should believe what I say because of my credentials, and because of the rational argument I can provide with it. Something doesn't become right because of said credentials, but on the subject of mathematics, I would be more impressed with a claim from a mathematician than a pastor. The mathematician does not reach 100% certitude, but one would be wise to listen to what they had to say on the subject.

Have you heard the opinion of every academic in the world on this issue? If not, how can you say with any certainty that what you believe is right?

Because I have reflected upon the matter, discussed it with others, and consulted my own worldview (which speaks of a fallen humanity). I believe it is right, and would argue the matter with anyone. I'm still open the fact that I could be wrong, however.

How are you arriving at the conclusion that what you believe is right and what I believe is wrong? The method by which we ascertain truth is of far more importance than personal accomplishments. But all you're doing is going back to what you have done, what you have heard and using that as the basis to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Ah, now this is a mischaracterization. I did not list my personal accomplishments as why you should believe my case. I list them as to why you should bother listening to my case. Everyone does this. Whose opinion would you rather have on your teeth, a dentist, or a police officer? The dentist could still be wrong on the matter, but surely he'd be a lot more likely to be right about your teeth than a cop.

But you're also applying that across the board in an effort to say that no one can ever be right because of perspective. A person's perspective does not alter that which is true. Something is either true or it isn't.

I've never said that no one can ever be right. I said no one can be 100% certain. We can still get close (say, perhaps, 99.9999999999999999999% on things such as 1+1=2). At that point, it's practically 100%. But there is still that minute chance.

I've also never said that someone's perspective alters what is true.

Which is why relying upon the word of man for truth is a faulty approach. You want the truth you go to what God has declared is true, not man.

The trouble is, all we have of God's declaration is words in a book. Words can mean vastly different things to different people. For example, imagine a hill. When I do, I think of one at my childhood house, which was roughly two feet tall (massive for a young child), and was perfect for sledding. When you think of one, I can guarantee you your vision is nothing like mine. We're thinking of the same general thing (bumps on the ground), but the shape, nature, and size of them will be vastly different, which could slightly tint any conversation we might carry on the subject one way or another.

You must interpret any text you come to, even if it is in your own language. You interpret Scripture in light of what you know is true (there are many stars in the sky, so God means Abraham will have a lot of children), and in light of experiences. Thus, even this small measure of interpretation introduces a very small extent to which we might be mistaken. For example, when bringing up a passage of Scripture in class the other day, I got the chronology of some early parts of the Gospel mixed up. I was thoroughly certain I was right, and told a friend of mine so (who told me to go look it up). I did. I was wrong. Things like this can happen all the time. It's why we must constantly dive into Scripture, so things like that happen less often, but we can never totally remove them.

This is not the only way in which we might be mistaken. But look no further than sincere people with contradicting viewpoints of Scripture to know that Scripture must always be interpreted, and this introduces a potential level of error in ourselves.