Walking Among Counterfeits
Numerous times I have had the experience of walking through a distinct mall in Lima, Peru called “Polvos Rosados.” Essentially it’s a giant dome with hundreds of vendors selling counterfeit versions of popular products. Counterfeits of expensive luxury brand watches, counterfeits of clothing brands such as American Eagle, Adidas, and Giorgio Armani, and occasionally the questionably acquired latest electronic gadget such as IPads, MacBooks, and smartphones.
To notice the difference between a counterfeit and an original when it comes to some of the products it would take a professional. For instance the luxury watches (Omega, Rolex…etc). Several vendors will carry similar, if the not the exact same counterfeits, but each vendor will insist that their fake is a more realistic fake than the one being sold around the corner.
Courtesy of Roy from flickr.com
Counterfeiting Truth
It seems that in the West (Canada, U.S., and Most of Europe) we live in an era where we are being sold several versions of counterfeit morality. Each insisting that their moral reasoning is more true than the other. Insisting that their fake is less fake than the next person’s.
Isn’t this how our politics function? Think about it. Here in Canada we have three dominant political parties. Despite evangelically preaching that they are different they are actually very similar. This is especially true when it comes to how they relate to human life.
Two of the three will explicitly tell you that human life in the womb is actually not human life. The third will tell you they won’t discuss it or will vote against those who try to reintroduce the subjective for debate. Two of the three explicitly will tell you that human life is of so much value that they will even help take your life if you determine that your life is not worth living any longer. The third, once again, dispassionately ignore the subject.
But at the same time they will say we must prevent teen suicide and suicide among first nations people. How can the state at the same time say that it will help you keep living a purposeful life, but it can’t tell you what your life’s purpose is since it would be imposing its values on you, but then go ahead and say that its values are true, so it will go ahead and impose it on society anyway. It will help you take your life since your life is not valuable enough to continue living. Especially if you’re in pain or your family doesn’t love you enough to add value to your life. Despite on another issue saying that life has infinite value and will take measures to increase the value and purpose of the life of those suffering.
Phew! Wait so which one it is it? Both stances can’t be true at the same time? Is one true? Or both wrong? If one stance is true, then which is the counterfeit stance?
This is the observation, now for the argument.
The Exclusivity of Truth
Here is the popular moral reasoning of our post-modern time. There is no truth, except for subjective truth. “What might be true for you, doesn’t necessarily have to be true for me.” The post-modern enlightened person will propose. Whoah! Hold on to your enlightened reasonable thinking caps! You can’t have your cake and it eat it too, as the popular saying goes.
Truth is mutually exclusive. The moment something is held to be true, everything else is excluded. If 2+2=4 then 2+5=4 is not true. Independent of how much a person might feel that 2+5=4 is true.
If someone holds atheism to be true then he or she automatically excludes theism.
Buddha, who was a Hindu, had rejected and excluded Hinduism to start a way of life which came to be known as Buddhism.
Islam believes in Allah and that Muhammad is his final prophet. To hold that belief Islam has to exclude the Christian trinitarian understanding of God, that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and was resurrected from dead, and atheism, along with other Eastern religions.
Christianity clearly states in its ancient creeds that it holds that there is one God existing in three persons and that Jesus Christ died and was risen from the dead. Any other belief is excluded.
Even worldviews that claim that they accept all views mutually exclude those who don’t accept all worldviews. Such is the perspective of our politicians.
To be clear, exclusion is not be equated with intolerance. Exclusion refers to the belief system, but tolerance to the person which holds the belief system. For instance, I have a close friend who is claims to be an atheist and dabbles in Eastern spirituality. I exclude his beliefs based on my belief and he excludes mine based on his yet we respect and care for each other.
“What is Truth” – Pontius Pilate
As we conclude I can’t help to being a lead to a question that literally divides history: What is Truth? To question Truth is not a product of the enlightenment. This questions has been around from antiquity. The time often associated with an “enlightenment,” when historically examined is more of a rebellion against Truth. This rebellion is nothing new. The first time it took place is poetically documented in the first book of the Bible in Genesis. Adam and Eve, representing the first humans rebelled against God, not by eating forbidden fruit from a tree, but by taking it upon themselves to determine what Truth is. Was that not their temptation, to be like God, to have that authority?
Similarly we see the questioning of Truth by Pontius Pilate as he condemns Truth itself to death. Caving into demands of the Jewish authorities and valuing his relationship with Herod above justice, Pilate condemns Jesus to death with the following question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38).
Jesus showed Pilate what truth is. Two Thousand years ago Truth was put to a horrendous death by means of crucifixion. Three days later Truth rose from the dead and was revealed to his closest followers along with five hundred people (1 Corinthians 15:6). If Jesus was indeed risen from the dead, then he is Truth and any other claim to truth is merely a counterfeit at best.
As a former atheist I decided to put Truth on trial. Did Jesus actually rise from the dead? Based on the overwhelming historical, scientific, and archaeological evidence there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus did rise from the dead and that he is God, the Truth, the Way, and the Life (This evidence I will discuss in my next post).
Question: What do you think is reasonable criteria for determining truth?
