Oprah Winfrey’s Speech Shows Abysmal Understanding of Truth

Oprah Winfrey’s Speech Shows Abysmal Understanding of Truth January 8, 2018

It shouldn’t come as a shocker to anyone who is familiar with Oprah Winfrey, or the entertainment industry’s secularization – but the speech Oprah gave upon the reception of her award is abysmal in many ways. No, I’m not talking about how she highlights her experience as a child when substantive ethnocentrism was abundant. Nor am I speaking toward her rightly calling out the disgusting nature of sexual abuse in an industry rife with little boys pretending to be men. What I am speaking to is the assumed narrative within this framework that inevitably capitulates to moral relativism when carried to its logical end.

We can dissect these two ideas within our culture today and find that both are not monolithic issues. More clearly, rather than taking speeches like this at face value and assuming the person is operating under the set of definitions and presuppositions you are – you ought to understand there is a clear ideology under-girding the whole proposition. Oprah even mentions this in her speech. The whole of her speech is set within the ideal that “your truth is the most powerful tool we all have…It’s one that transcends any culture, geography, race, religion, politics, or workplace.”

Now, anyone listening to the speech itself will see this within the context of sexual abuse. It is especially hard to avoid these implications given the veritable smorgasbord of sleazy men brought forth and paraded about in order to placate the desire for justice. The untold stories of women who have been sexually abused defines “your truth” – and this is the thing which will cause all injustice to come toppling down. In other words, your truth is the savior.

It would be problematic enough if it stopped here, yet for Oprah, the confines are limited even further. The truth, in Oprah’s speech at least, is confined to the experience of women who have suffered at the hands of powerful men, and the men who listen. But here’s the rub: what about those cases where women are donning the #MeToo, yet their experience is not true? What about the look they got from a man who silently passed by on the street and this too became a #MeToo moment simply because it was unwanted? What about due process – is it equally as important in allegations of sexual abuse? We might even dare to ask about men who have been sexually abused? Or, maybe closer to the home turf, did Oprah speak out against any of the men she witnessed playing these power-plays?

Perhaps the most important question though is this: why does Oprah perpetuate the lie that truth itself is limited to one’s experience if she’s on a conquest for absolute truth?

The reality is that women like Oprah Winfrey have no legitimate desire for the truth. There is a reason why she abandoned the definite article and used the personal pronoun instead. It clearly indicates where her priorities lay, and given the applause of her constituents and the broader culture, theirs too. Now, this has been the case for years at this point, but I wish to simply make a case to Christians to understand at least two things from this, beyond Oprah being a person of influence in your life.

There is No Such Thing as Neutrality

I feel this should be obvious, but for many it seems that this is not something regarded as truth. However, whenever we deal with people who have a worldview, which is everyone, that worldview will be reflected in various mediums. What is more than this is the fact these worldviews are being imposed upon those who share in this medium. It is inescapable – yet it is also regarded as a highly effective means to disseminate this worldview and change the minds of the less discerning.

In some cases, this is done in a good way, however, the majority of worldview dissemination is predominately wicked, as it supplants truth by subtly exchanging it for a lie. Think of it within the context of movies, television, or any other form of media. Fictional stories carry a plotline with an intended agenda by their creator; no movie you or anyone else sees is without that agenda.

Whereas in many cases, the extent is behavioral (i.e. you shouldn’t hit other people because hitting is wrong), the majority of cases are ideological. You cannot define a moral precept without exposing the underlying ideological principle (i.e. hitting people is wrong because it is unkind). It is not simply a tool to change behavior, but change the mind, so that wrongful behavior is modified on the basis of reason rather than simple affirmation of the “positive” behavior they wish to impart. This is done in several ways, but the most common has been repeated exposure to the concept along with affirmation of said concept, in likeness to an already established moral norm.

Take homosexuality for example. While there have been multiple attempts at normalizing homosexuality – with the purpose of calling it good, none have been as successful as entertainment. The reason is simple: when we are being entertained, we are far less likely to scrutinize what we are being entertained by. Over the process of years, the boundaries and ethics were pushed further and further with the specific goal of complete integration into the ethical system of the viewers.

It is something as subtle and seemingly sweet as showing a character in mortal peril, saying how he desperately wishes to be reunited with his spouse and child. The lengthy scene climaxes as he almost plummets to his death – yet by a miraculous turn of events, he evades death and defeats the villain. Fade to black. Cut to the next scene where we see other heroes running with a smile upon their faces to their wife or husband, and then the camera pans to the character who miraculously survived. Time slows as his face slowly turns to glee. The camera zooms out and shows the embrace of two men and their adopted child.

What happens here is a manipulation of feelings rather than the intellect. It is the classic bait and switch. A traditional relationship was shown first, then the progressive relationship – all with the intent to tug at the heartstrings. Feelings are far easier to persuade and this method carries with it the ability to rouse an otherwise placated crowd. When you frame the conversation in terms of the feeling of love rather than the definition of love within an ethical system bound in terms of good and evil, you can overcome that ethical system if given enough time and exposure. While there are obviously competing worldviews, it is without question that the entertainment industry is predominantly liberal in every sense of that word. If you think that ideology is absent from your entertainment, you are either painfully naïve or willingly obtuse.

The Nature of Truth Doesn’t Depend on Personal Experience

Truth by nature of its intrinsic quality is true, regardless of one’s hypocrisy, situation, or experience. Truth is not fluid, but rather stative and unchanging. It is not your truth or my truth; it is the truth. The sad thing about all of this is that by seeking to limit truth to one’s experience, it becomes a never-ending game of manipulation. It never moves from the emotional to the logical, meaning it camps objectivity on the basis of feelings rather than facts. We might better understand a person’s story through their experience, but one’s story is not the litmus test for truth, how the world operates, nor the beliefs of people within that world.

Secondly, it denies any chance that truth is a transcendent principle, being handed down to mankind through the very revelation of the Scriptures. Ultimately, I am not in the least bit surprised by this – yet it needs to be said nonetheless simply because Oprah (and many in this nation) claim a sort of spirituality. What this simply reveals is that their notion of what makes one a spiritual being is rooted in a denial of the things that are spiritual.

It is also a denial of rudimentary philosophical proposals grounded within a set of ontological ideals, meaning it is a denial of truth as a quality flowing from the personhood of God to mankind. It sets things without relation to their Creator, ultimately exchanging that intrinsic relation bound in bearing the Imago Dei for a relation reflective of one’s self. In other words, they’ve simply supplanted the place of God for themselves, as they are seeking to affirm that which is right in their own eyes. Even though Oprah roots her proposal in what she calls absolute truth, it is the absolute truth of those who claim to have been abused, and to those who listen.

This is the same exact thing that is done in virtually every sphere of liberal ethics, from abortion, to homosexuality, to race-relations, and more. It is the accuser who experiences the perceived problem who leverages authority and veracity, rather than the truth itself. Those who listen are able to join in – inasmuch as they keep silent, save when they must applaud and affirm. Those who do not listen are simple-minded contrarians who don’t care about people, nor their feelings.

All this does, and we’ve seen it in virtually every major, polarizing discussion as of late, is place the emphasis upon the individual. This is why a white man can’t speak to issue of ethnocentrism, unless he agrees with the predominant view of the day that Trump voters are a monolithic breed of beasts, white people are, as a class of people, guilty for the crimes of their ancestors, and white people are intrinsically racist. Yet this is also why a man cannot speak to the evils of abortion. In reality, the dominating proposition is that it takes victimhood as a separate class and endows them to wield ultimate authority.

In effect, people have taken what they believed to be a system of oppression, flipped it upon its head to free the oppressed, with the sole goal of then oppressing the oppressors. It is akin to the reversal of a caste system by implementing a new caste system wherein the top dogs are subjected to the punishments they inflicted upon those they deemed lower than them. Their time has come.


Listen, I have no issues whatsoever with sexual abusers getting their “just-desserts” because of what they’ve done. I have no issues whatsoever with ethnocentric individuals or groups being called to the carpet. Both of these types of people are fundamentally wicked and perverse, and they do legitimate damage. What I have a problem with is the solution to these things – for if we ground things in an epistemology of victim-hood rather than a set of ontological truths from the character and being of God, we are simply going to perpetuate the lie.

Anyone can claim victim-hood. At some point in the history of every people group, there has been oppression and mistreatment. I say this not to diminish hardship of any individual currently, but to simply express the reality that is indicative to all mankind: sin is abundantly present and the solution is not found within the power of your truth, but the truth. Perhaps the most damning proposition of following your truth is that for men like Weinstein, et al. – they were following their truth.

In seeking to be profound, all Oprah does is repeat the mantra of a society that rejects any foundation to truth, and thereby ethics, save a foundation wherein the past is jettisoned as antiquated and simple. There is nothing here “…that transcends any culture, geography, race, religion, politics, or workplace.” The thing that is abundantly present is a progressive system of values that spurns not only the legitimate metaphysical relationship humans have to God, but even the conception of humanity rooted in human history.

Since this is the case, therefore, there are two categories we deal with: the truth or the lie. Notice I am not using the personal pronoun, but the definite article. The reason is simple, but I want you to pay particular attention to it. Truth is no respecter of persons and simply doesn’t care if I believe it to be true or not. It is not dependent upon my conception of it, nor will it be maligned in its quality if I seek to defame it, reject it, or twist it. Instead, the result of such action is not that truth is changed in some capacity, but rather, the hearer is presented with the opportunity to believe truth as defined on its own terms, or reject it and believe the lie as they wish.

Yet the more profound problem in this is found within the concept that your truth can ever save you, whether from the evils of man, or on a more profound level, the wrath of God. It can’t. It shan’t. Truth is not subject to your experience, but rather, is bound within the nature and being of the triune God of Scripture, who reveals it to us through the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. It is the truth which shall set the captive free. We mustn’t be so bold as to presume subjective truth has any legitimate power. That’s precisely why we’ve gotten into the present mess we’re in.

"Not surprisingChurch + children = Child molestation and underage pregnancies!"

Church Should Be Your Excuse for ..."
"I have a funny jokeIf children were being molested in Dennys restaurants as much as ..."

Church Should Be Your Excuse for ..."
"That's sad for you, for sure. But you need to keep looking! There are definitely ..."

Church Should Be Your Excuse for ..."
"yeah, also, i don't see a ton of offenders "falling onto their faces and begging ..."

You Cannot Deny Someone Forgiveness and ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jeffrey

    “But here’s the rub: what about those cases where women are donning the #MeToo, yet their experience is not true? What about the look they got from a man who silently passed by on the street and this too became a #MeToo moment simply because it was unwanted?”


    • Gilsongraybert

      Sure, roll your eyes at those who have served lengthy prison sentences for a crime they did not commit.

      • JRene

        How many would that be? This article is a fresh reminder of why so many people despise Evangelicals and why the evangelical cult is quickly on its way out.

        • Gilsongraybert

          Since records began being tracked, I believe it is roughly 2-7% of the accused have been wrongly accused. The percentage of those actually being imprisoned would likely be under 1%. Historically, we have cases where AA’s were tried and jailed/executed for rape, even though they had nothing to do with it. The point is not how often it happens (nor to dissuade someone who has experienced sexual assault from reporting). The point is that if we want justice, we should actually seek it for both parties, and secondly, there is a reason why parties are innocent until proven guilty. Finally, people lie. People do exaggerate. It is not the majority of cases where it is the accuser doing this, but we still have to provide adequate examination of the facts. This shouldn’t be hard to understand

      • Jeffrey

        If you want to discuss phony outrage movements, let’s start with the countless evangelicals who shriek ‘persecution!!!’ every time someone laughs at their idiocy, not the women trying to create a workplace where they don’t have to suffer real-world consequences because some loser gets his feeling hurt when she says ‘no’.

        • Gilsongraybert

          You are literally bringing up a non-sequitur. I didn’t say there’s phony outrage over sexual abuse, but that not all instances of alleged abuse are legitimate, and therefore, we ought to consider that an unwanted advance is not the same thing as rape, nor do all accusations of rape necessarily mean rape transpired. If the framework is universal truth, as her speech indicated, then truth itself should reign.

          • Mark

            Would you be happier if Oprah used the word “experience” instead of truth?

  • Tianzhu

    Oprah convinced her vast army of devotees that she is a Christian – but also open to other forms of “spirituality,” and apparently she convinced her fans that they, too, could have it both ways. Stephen Mansfield’s book Where Has Oprah Taken Us? is an in-depth look at her “spirituality.” Speaking as a Christian who voted for Trump (as the lesser of two evils) and who is skeptical of whether he is a true Christian or not, I find Oprah’s form of spirituality much more disturbing and malign than Trump’s belated alliance with evangelical Christians. The mainline churches have been pro-feminist, pro-abortion, and pro-gay for decades now, but the wider culture is largely unaware of this, whereas Oprah’s stand on this issues has been hugely influential. One danger in her running for any political office is that she could woo and win a lot of Christian voters, and probably energize them in a way that neither Trump nor Hillary did. Frankly, she scares me.

    • Mark

      Now you know how we feel about Trump.

      • Tianzhu

        It’s been so much fun to watch a bunch of hysterical, paranoid drama queens acting like some 5yo kid screaming, “Mommy, there’s a monster in my closet!”

        Trump Derangement Syndrome is the best reality show ever, and apparently will never end. They go on acting like shrieking children, and the rest of us laugh.

        • Mark

          You might want to quiet down, you are doing a lot of shrieking over there!

  • Illithid

    “Truth is not fluid, but rather stative and unchanging. It is not your truth or my truth; it is the truth.”

    Agreed. How does one decide what that truth is?

    “…truth is a transcendent principle, being handed down to mankind through the very revelation of the Scriptures.”

    How do you know that what you call Scriptures are true? I read nothing in them that couldn’t have been written by a human living in the time of their origin… and much that any decent person should be ashamed to champion.

    • Gilsongraybert

      I believe the fundamental problem here is in the framing of the question: “How does one decide what truth is?” Rather, it should be: “How does one recognize truth when they are exposed to it?” Ultimately, that is the far more difficult question, but at least puts it in the proper light. I am convinced the Scriptures are true given than I have yet to be able to disprove them, they have stood the test of time, and they paint an incredibly accurate reality. I actually came to faith seeking to disprove the Scriptures, and the study itself led me to see that the coherence of the whole was undeniable and it leaves us with a dictum. The Christian faith requires just that: *faith* – but it is not one subjected to anti-intellectualism, even though the gospel itself is foolishness to the world.

      • Illithid

        Well, I checked my mail at just the right time, eh?

        I don’t think that framing is actually correct. It seems to assume a privileged position, that we know that this set of ideas is true, and can now ask how we recognize it. But we don’t know which ideas are true when we encounter them. I don’t think we can ever be certain that our beliefs are true (aside from tautologies, or things like, “a being that calls itself Illithid exists”). We encounter a variety of claims, all with proponents who claim that they are true. Some of them are contradictory, so testing them logically and against observation is necessary.

        I hold (almost) all my beliefs tentatively, pending contrary evidence. Some have been tested so exhaustively that I no longer doubt them (liver tastes bad to me, I have two cats). Some I have never directly verified, but they explain all known data and no competing idea seems likely (the Earth is roughly spherical). Some are held loosely, but experts in the field agree and their explanations make sense as I understand them (the sun burns by fusing hydrogen into helium). But all are subject to change.

        Having been unable to disprove an idea is a pretty good basis for belief. I disagree that your Scriptures accurately describe reality. To continue, I would have to know what you mean, for instance what you think about the age of the Earth and universe, whether you think a global flood occurred as described, whether you think the story of Babel accurately portrays the origin of different languages, if the Exodus really happened, etc. Legions of dead saints walking the streets of Jerusalem. In all of these areas, the story presented by Hebrew/Christian holy writings seems quite contrary to reality.

        Also, if you care to reply, what do you mean by ‘faith’? I do not ask this frivolously; it’s a key question in this sort of discussion.

        And finally, have you ever encountered someone who embarrassed you by being on your side? Pud does that for me. As self-ordained spokesman for all atheists, I apologize about that… 🙂

    • Tiny J

      In the same way that you know gravity is true.

      • Illithid

        Gravity is trivially easy to demonstrate. Can you suggest a test by which I might verify any supernatural Christian claim?

        • Tiny J

          Sure. Ask God for a sign. Don’t tell anyone, especially me. See? Trivially easy.

          • Illithid

            It didn’t work. 🙂

          • Tiny J

            “Don’t tell anyone, especially me.”

          • Illithid

            Yes, I got the joke. Thus the smiley. Actually thought it was pretty funny.

            You wouldn’t happen to have a serious answer to my question, would you?

          • Tiny J

            It wasn’t a joke. It was a simple instruction that you’re incapable of following.

          • Illithid

            So… no, you don’t. Kbai.

          • Tiny J

            “Don’t slit your wrists.”
            *slits wrists. Waves bloody appendages in my face.* “Hah! See?! You’re wrong. Told you so!”
            “It’s not a matter of-”
            “Told you so! LOL!”

          • Illithid

            Oh, what the heck. I don’t have any other discussions going at the moment.

            So, you said that the way to test if any Christian supernatural claim was real, demonstrating Cristian scriptures to be true on a par with the existence of gravity, was to ask God for a sign and not tell anyone about it.

            Do you have any scriptural basis for this? Because I don’t recall anything to that effect in the Bible. Or is it, as it seemed to me, an obviously paradoxical joke you threw out because you don’t actually have any way to demonstrate the truth of what you believe?

          • Tiny J

            “I don’t recall anything to that effect in the Bible.”
            Isaiah 7:11
            Judges 6:36-40
            Jonah 1:7
            Those are just the 3 I have memorized right now. If you want to go through the whole Bible and look up the other 2 dozen, go for it.
            To be clear, I’m not saying that asking God for a sign and not telling anyone is the ONLY way. I’m saying it’s what YOU should do. It’s not a joke, or a paradox.
            Side note:
            If you were demonstrating the principle of gravity, I wouldn’t know about it if I closed my eyes and sang the Oscar Meyer Weiner Song instead of paying attention.

          • Illithid

            Weird how none of those references mention not to tell anyone about it. So that was your personal idea. God told me that was silly.

            As a side note, in the Jonah story, the sailors cast lots to see who had offended”the gods”, plural. Funny, no?

          • Tiny J

            I know none of those references mention not to tell anyone about it. I’m telling you to keep it secret because otherwise you might think that it’s okay to have this conversation. The principle of not making a production out of your relationship with God is very pervasive in the new testament and the writings of the prophets. Also I only quoted scripture because you asked me to. I’m not sure why you seem to need me to quote the authority of a book that you don’t believe in. In order for your own argument (“none of those references mention-“) to mean ANYTHING, you first have to acknowledge the Bible as the perfect Word of God. Then YOU would have to prove that my telling you to keep it to yourself is unbiblical (it’s not, but that conversation is like a 3 year old with a nerf football trying to play in the NFL).

            You don’t believe in God. You don’t have a relationship with God. Therefore, God didn’t tell you anything was silly. You are a liar, like your father before you.

            No, the sailors misconception isn’t funny. How could that be remotely funny? “They were wrong and the guy who knew better pulled his head out of his butt long enough to keep from getting them killed.” How do you get “funny” from that? Is it “funny” like kicking puppies or is it more “funny” like cancer?
            You know what’s funny (in the car crash sense)? You’re exerting more effort avoiding the proof that you demanded than it would take to get it.

          • Illithid

            I was joking, not lying. “… like your father before you.” Seriously? Since you’ve descended to personal insults, and since you say you don’t want to have this conversation anyway, I grant your wish. I’m done.

          • Tiny J

            It’s okay for you to lie repeatedly, make fun of me and my God, but when I point out that you’re lying (which is an act of Satanic worship but that’s okay because you don’t believe in him) I’m the one who’s out of line?

          • SCUBAsabre

            Nowhere did “Illithid” make fun of you or your god. She/He asked you for a way to demonstrate and prove something. SHOW in quotes where these “perceived” slights occurred?

            Please show in quotes the “lies” that you also assert?

            It reads more like when you have no response, you decide you are a victim so you get to make a personal attack. That is how your responses read.

          • Tiny J

            “Can you suggest a test by which I might verify any supernatural Christian claim?” This is a lie, the poster had no intention on following through.
            “It didn’t work” Lie.
            “Yes, I got the joke. Thus the smiley. Actually thought it was pretty funny.” This is an insult.
            “You wouldn’t happen to have a serious answer to my question, would you?” This is a lie and an insult.
            “So… no, you don’t. Kbai” This is a lie, an insult, and a deliberate attempt to make me angry (it worked).
            “Do you have any scriptural basis for this?” This is a lie. The person is implying that a Bible verse will change their mind when they’ve already demonstrated they don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God
            “So that was your personal idea” This is a lie.
            “God told me that was silly” This is a lie.

          • SCUBAsabre

            LOL… Now that’s funny… so if you merely disagree with the poster or find their answer inconvenient to defen your position, it renders it a “lie” or an “insult” “for you. Got it….

            News flash snowflake, you being “offended” does not render someone that seriously and politely asked you a question with ill intent. The poster told you the results and you assign malintent merely because you can’t find a response?

            You are exemplify the “I’m a victim” if someoen has a direct and substanitive response and you don’t have an answer. You keep injecting YOUR personal interpretations and adding meaning and intent to things that isn’t there.

            Newsflash… if the commenter tells you, “it didn’t work”… it didn’t. You use circular logic at best and then get defensive when it doesn’t hold. Not a single thing you posted in this reply was a lie or an insult. Perhaps you should consider counseling if you find yourself this paranoid and persecuted. No, not an insult, a sincere suggestion. However, I am sure you will now go off on another meandering rant assigning ill intent to me too. Wait for it…. go.

          • Tiny J

            You ask me to list the ways she lied. I do. You then say I’m wrong by using the same logic that you’re trashing me for using. You accuse me of things you can’t prove and call me names while insisting that its okay for you.
            Plus, every single thing you wrote in the third paragraph is wrong. I never claimed to be a victim. I never received a direct or substanitive (not really a word) response (just sarcasm and lies). I did not inject my personal interpretations. I did not add meaning and intent to things that weren’t there. You are proving my point when I said “Tell no one. Especially me.” It was specifically to prevent this exact thing from happening. Thanks for proving me right.
            I’m not offended. I am angry at the liar. This bears repeating:
            I am not offended. I am angry at the liar. In fact, until you made contact with me, I didn’t even realize how almost everything this person said was a lie or based on a lie.
            You person wrong. “Newsflash… if the commenter tells you, “it didn’t work”… it didn’t.” You really don’t see how hypocritical that statement is, do you? “I am sure you will now go off on another meandering rant assigning ill intent to me too” You really don’t see how hypocritical that statement is, do you?
            Rule of the Internet #29:
            The first person to use terms like “straw man” or “snowflake” is the person who is wrong.

          • SCUBAsabre

            This is what the Tiny J’s of the world do… they use false constructs and arbitrary litmus tests born out of … the air??? rather than answer a question.

            When you (Illithid) or I address on point the responses lapse to the personal attack in lieu of substance. It’s a formulary for this part of the site in my experience so far. I have tried to have several conversations similar to yours and it ALWAYS ends in a personal attack when the author or commenter lacks a substantive response. It’s sad and frustrating because I genuinely came to Patheos to interact to understand the varied Christian perspectives and interpretations only to find either refusal to post substantive comments if they don’t support the Author’s view (authors have the right to not allow a post no matter how respectful and appropriate) and or a personal attack laced with snarky comments.

            I’ve learned much more from the Progressive Christian posts, even if I didn’t agree with an author’s point or part of it, such that I could understand the interpretations/ beliefs/ assertions and the basis for them. All I get from these Evangelical posts is double standards, snark and judgments rather than substance.

    • raven nevermore

      Truth? I often get the distinct true truth about a particular truth as I discover it is staring back at me with the obvious, and usually with a grin as if I were too stupid to catch on immediately (in one sentence too). The old Greeks had a phrase for truth: that which is! That may not satisfy today. Truth always has a universal applicability to it, past down to every generation and various cultures. Still, there seems more. A true truth is known by what it is not, and it is recognizable for its inherent good; this transcends wordplay. The only method to ascertain what truth isn’t and can be noticed for its own good, is to live truth. Truth is not just a concept. You’ll know as you live it in satisfaction, otherwise life has disconnections and possibly unnecessary contradictions. Knowing Jesus, I think, helps to make sense of it all.

      • Illithid

        I’m sorry, I don’t want to be rude, but I didn’t understand any of that. What is a “true” truth, as opposed to… what, a false truth? Truth is “that which is”, sure, but how does one figure out what is? I say by testing hypotheses, which can never prove something true absolutely, but can eliminate huge amounts of falsehood. It also leads to the idea that a hypothesis which can’t be tested is baloney.

        Truth is inherently good? “A thousand children under 5 will die today.” That’s true, but not good. “Life never gives you more than you can handle.” That sounds good, but isn’t true.

  • pud

    Where’s this invisible “jesus” fella? Oh, in your head. got it

    • Jack Lee

      Pud, your input is always appreciated.

      • Tiny J


  • Mark

    I see the Metoo movement as less about victimhood than a means of drawing people’s attention to an apparent problem in our culture. Are suggesting that is a problem? I think you have to be careful making the distinction. I would agree with you however that there are people/populations that cling to being victims. In that category one should include some Evangelical Christians.

    You also mention this notion of truth but, like others have commented, which truth? Doesn’t the choice suggest that it is subjective? The truth for Christians may not be the truth for Hindus, Buddhist, atheists, etc.; There is a choice. Also, the notion that truth is only bound to God of Scripture ignores the fact that the God of Scripture was experienced by people and it was their experience which was supposedly recorded. So how can truth not be subject to experience when that is the only way we may know about it?

  • Tiny J

    I’m a little confused by the wandering subject matter. Are we reading about Oprah’s speech? Are we reading about moral relativism? Are we reading about bad logic? Are we reading about ethnocentrism?
    Answer: kinda.

  • Chert

    Lexiconic gymnastics?

  • smithflight

    Read your article then I read Oprah’s speech.

    I read her speech much differently. May I offer another perspective that you might find helpful?

    When she speaks of “your truth” she is speaking of the victim’s stand point. As you know much of sexual violence is hidden from view and when it is exposed victims are often called liars, which is really the opposite of truth isn’t So when Oprah says “your truth” she is saying to victims you are not liars. She also follows up saying she is inspired with women who have spoken up and told their stories/testimonies . It’s like she is saying to victims everywhere, tell the truth about what happened to you, you are the only one knows this truth, your story. Shine light on it and give it voice!

    I invite you to re-read the speech and may I suggest you change the word “truth” with “story” or ” testimony”. It might give you a different perceptive on what I think she was trying to speak to you.

    From reading your Blog I know you highly value truth, but I think you may have missed the forest for the trees on this one.


  • enchess

    I know Illithid covered this, but just to add another voice: Obviously there is only one set of truths. That’s trivial to show using basic logic. (Are there any objective truths? If the answer is no, that would be an objective truth, a contradiction) So we agree there. But why would I have any reason to believe Christianity is true? Upon leaving the faith, I found my new worldview to line up much more closely with my actual experience. Why should I, or any non-Christian, accept something that conflicts with our daily experience at truth in absence of any evidence? I get annoyed at Christians for basically the exact reason you get annoyed at people who say “your truth” or “my truth”.