PDA

View Full Version : Truth and consequences



Mycernius
27-02-06, 19:28
I been thinking today (Too much time sat in traffic) that if you knew something from the past was an absolute truth would you tell people?
For example: Take Islam. One of the many things that Islam will tell you about Mohammad is he was illiterate and the Koran was told to him by the angel Gabriel, to which he then recited to someone who could write. I have a few points about his. Mohammad was a fairly successful merchant and after the Koran was revealed to him, a successful leader. I find the fact that a successful businessman was illiterate a bit far-fetched. Surely to succeed in his profession he must have had some idea of maths and words to be able to trade very well, but Islam holds that he couldn't read or write. We could debate this fact until the cows come home, but that is not the point of this thread.
Now to the next part. You or I have invented a machine that lets us see into the past. Viewing the life of Mohammad you see that he could read and write and using his knowledge of Judaic and Christian lore and he created the Koran. Would you then make that knowledge public? Before you say yes, the world would need to know the truth, think on this. There are over a billion followers of Islam, some are ardent believers, some are partial believers. People are killed by these beliefs, but people are also helped and supported by these beliefs. If you reveal that their Holiest book is a lie what do you think the fallout would be? You, yourself would be a instant target for fundamentalists willling to kill you, as even with the truth they would not believe you. An agent of Satan as far as they are concerned. Others would turn from their belief, but to what? If Islam is wrong then surely other religions could be wrong. Some would turn to desperate measures, even commit suicide because of the truth that you have revealed. Could you bear that load on your mind? Could you destroy a persons system of beliefs for the absolute truth? It doesn't have to be Islam. Take the 10 commandments. If you knew they were written by a committee, or even the death of Elvis. People believe that he is alive, other believe it was suicide, killed by the FBI, CIA, NSA (Please tick box), faked. It is the pillar of strength they cling to, to help them through life. Could you really destroy this for the absolute truth?

Mitsuo
27-02-06, 20:16
I believe that I would. I mean people need to know the truth. But of course I would be very subtle about it, and have them discover it for themselves.

bossel
28-02-06, 04:16
I'd go for the truth. Anytime. (unless my life is threatened, that may lead to some sneaky measures to reveal the truth)

Mars Man
28-02-06, 10:29
A very good matter for discussion. I call this the 'Pauline Food Stumbler' paradox. I'll explain that later since I have suddenly experienced a time crunch. That paradox applied here, would basically say that 'if you knew 'x' were true, fine, and you don't have to worry when and if others attempted to point out your incorrectness. However, it would bring wrong to point out the others false belief in that that may cause the others to stumble, thus fall out of the social group.
Gotta go for now...but will return. :wave:

Kinsao
28-02-06, 17:27
I would tell the truth, but in the example you gave in the OP I doubt if many people would believe me, and I would probably end up either in a mental home, in prison for 'inciting terrorism' or some such offence, or hiding myself away on a deserted island moaning "why can't everyone leave me alone? and why didn't I keep my big mouth shut?" :bluush:

Mars Man
02-03-06, 08:24
I would tell the truth, although it may have to be done through some sort of imagined pretext of 'trading' one thing for another.

As far as the 'Pauline Food Stumbler', that idea came from his letter to the Corinthians (1 Co. 10:25~33). Many have applied it so as to say one would have to let those who think a matter is against 'the law of the Christ' go on thinking such, and not act in a way that would cause them to go wrong or have a falling out.

An example I had heard which explains it is the matter of drinking alcoholic beverages. In the Bible Belt (USA) many have always thought it against "God's will" to drink, but some had started to see that there was really nothing wrong with that. It was said to have been impressed on those who took it as o.k. to not drink in front of those who didn't think so, because it may cause problems and so on, and that it would be wrong to try to convince those others to see it as o.k. So the dilemma is knowing 'the truth' yet having to let others 'live the lie', so to speak.

Presenting the sharing of 'truths' as a trading of something for something else, could 'let one down lightly'. I'd be interested in hearing some other sides to looking at it. :-)

mad pierrot
02-03-06, 11:04
You'd better be careful what you post about Mohammad!
Lest the Imam read this and decide you need to be executed....





(Lame joke.)

Actually, that's a great question. I'd stick with the truth. One painful truth feels better to me than 1,000 comforting lies, but then again maybe I'm just masochistic.

Tsuyoiko
02-03-06, 12:43
It would seem that telling the truth would be the right thing to do, but I'm not sure it would do any good. Would believers accept the proof? Look at all the creationists who don't accept the proof of evolution. It's there in front of them and they refuse to see it. I don't know that this situation would be any different.

So yes, tell the truth, but don't expect everyone to believe you.

Mars Man
30-03-06, 16:59
Being honest, even if that means simply acquiesing that a matter could possibly be true but that you don't have enough 'evidence-beyond-a-doubt' convictions that it is, indeed, truth.

Of course as honest an effort to be as realistic as possible, and think from number of angles is important too--though perhaps a bit more abstract.

Mitsuo
19-04-06, 00:52
Like I mentioned above, I would tell the truth. Mostly because it's the best thing to do, and not that hard.

The hard thing is accepting the truth.

himagain
21-01-12, 04:50
My belief is that one should allow others to retain their own personal religious beliefs
because they fill a deep personal need that transcends "truth".

The Alani Dragon
21-01-12, 18:28
I pride myself as not lying to people, so when asked as to how such information was gained I believe that it would be impossible to hide the existence of the device used. Would I put myself and family in danger over the existence of this device, not on your life.

LeBrok
21-01-12, 21:03
During last 100 years, science already disproved much of bible "knowledge", disproved necessity of god or supernatural powers in our lives, linked people to all nature on Earth and our origin, discovered god gene and explained existence of spirituality and religion by evolution and social behaviour. We can empirically prove that holly books contain no extraordinary knowledge and no supernatural powers. We can statistically prove that religious people are not luckier or protected by powers from tragedies. We have historic records telling us that religions stand behind wars, genocides, terrorism, that religious leaders where not saints and they and their choices were not guided by spirits, etc...
And what happened?
People still believe the way they did, because spirituality, the feeling of spirituality, the under-liner of religions, is not based on logic, but on emotions.

The truth can't kill spirituality, spirituality is much stronger than truth, spirituality can band, distort, and create new truth. The truth that feels better and agrees with spirituality.

So, you can travel in time, tell people the truth, and nothing is going to change, period.

American Idiot
25-11-13, 17:22
if I had a time machine, as is described in the thread, first I would put it on the market and make a killing from it or else maybe sell it to the military and again, make a killing from it.

As far as telling the truth about some historical person/event or about what other's believe, yes I would tell the truth but my first priority would be making money from the time machine. I could care less if others wanted to believe a lie or not.
As long as I know the truth, that is all that would mater to me, and to hell with everyone else.

toyomotor
26-11-13, 03:49
If politicians were to tell the truth all of the time, what a turmoil the world would be in. If used car salesmen and real estate agents were to tell the whole truth, there would be no sales, likewise with many consumer goods manufacturers. I'd be happy if the media told the whole truth all of the time, so at least I would know that the news I'm hearing/reading is true. Lies make the world go 'round.

Tiffany01
11-06-14, 16:43
No matter what, I will stick to the truth. I must give my best to do it