Note:  We seek to provide links that can be helpful on this Website.  However, we do not necessarily endorse all the subject matter nor all the ideas expressed through these Website  links. 

Posting Problems

About Us

Most of the time you will find we as opposed to I used throughout these writings when the writer is referenced. The reason that such plural pronoun is most often employed regards the source. Philosophies, Christian views, and doctrine most frequently reflect the disposition representative of many Southern Baptist people. This does not suggest that all Southern Baptist embrace every expression. Rather, the we is used to reflect the views that many Southern Baptist do embrace, without my being so brazen to make myself a sure spokesman for any one of the Southern Baptist. Neither do I claim to be right and those who disagree with me automatically wrong. I readily confess that I do not have all the answers, but I sincerely portray what I perceive that most of us have in common. In those areas that I am merely expressing my own opinion or discuss matters that may or may not reflect Southern Baptist thinking or use personal stories related only to my experiences, I do use the pronoun I.

Having said that, we endeavor to deal with subjects of interest to readers and subject material which can provide each reader with a direction toward discovery. Of course, this Website provides a Christian-based approach without rejecting any person on the ground of religious orientation or cultural background or race or country of origin. While we make no apology for who we are, we believe in the free expression of love toward and unrestricted acceptance of all peoples. ...God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). This does not intend to suggest that we accept all that every religion, cult or philosophy embrace. Indeed, not every belief or action can be equally true to all other beliefs and actions. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to the disposition of arrogance; we believe that when the revelation of genuine truth shines into the darkness of ignorance, bigotry and self-centeredness and darkness will dissipate. Hence, we intend to deal more with right doctrines than the condemnation of wrong doctrines. This does not mean that we never point out evil, but even when such is necessary, it should be done from the light of the truth and the love for the ones caught up in such evil (See Reasonable Response).

More specifically, we are Southern Baptists, not as aloof and full of piety reflecting a better-than-you stance, but as blind people who have been given sight solely by God's grace, not because of who we are but because of Who God is. Moreover, such can never be presented on the basis of any merit on our part, for all glory must be given to God. The statement that Christ did not come to make bad people good, but to make dead people live fairly well centers our focus.  When dead people are made to live, then the life of God ushers forth and produces fruits of righteousness!

  Anyway, it is never we who can claim goodness, but because Christ lives within us, He alone imparts what goodness there is.  Hence, Christ reflects His goodness through us, and His goodness transforms us into His Image such that we grow up into the fullness of His Stature (Ephesians 4:13).

....................................

Click to go back to top of page.

Thank you for visiting our website. 

Our aim is to serve the needs of those who search together with us to explore with a desire to uncover a greater expanse of truth than we can ordinarily be aware of.  Of course, we make no claims with respect to cornering the truth, for no person can embrace total truth any more than the lowly ant can reach the sun and thoroughly explore the entire burning, exploding surface.  Truth will forever remain greater than the sum total of all populations of earth, past, present and future!

Notwithstanding, we move in a direction, ever growing, ever enamored and learning, ever expanding our horizons and encountering the reality enlightening the human soul.  Such a journey attests to much more than mere observations, more than meditations, more than speculations, more than just an adventure.  Certainly, these elements may well be a reflection of the journey in part, but ultimately, we shall discover that Reality can be no less than God Himself!  We believe that all of us can come to the dynamic conclusion that in Him all things consist (are held together with His meaning and purpose). --Colossians 1:16-17  

But we always invite the participation of each one who visits these pages.  You can add much to the direction and nature of our exploration by bringing your own thoughts, suggestions, criticism and questions.  You may wish to send an e-mail.  We do take seriously every person's comments and we are open to all additional light that may be given such that we can continuously grow ourselves and seek to improve these pages significantly.

Again, thank you, and we trust that you will both explore with us and contribute to the journey through your comments.

Click to go back to top of page.

Informative Interview

 A fictitious situation and characters depicting reality in the current Congress

Interviewer:  Congressman Rawhide and Congressman Wildside, I greatly appreciate your willingness to discuss a few issues with me.

Honorable Rawhide:  Why, of course.  It’s a pleasure to have you interview us.

Honorable Wildside:  My sentiments exactly.

Interviewer:  Good, then we can bring to the table some of the… well, shall we say, the hard questions people are asking.  OK?

Honorable Rawhide:  Really, sir, there are no such as hard questions—just hard-headed people who refuse to accept our expertise.

Honorable Wildside:  Again, my sentiments exactly.  You would think people would learn sooner or later that we Congressmen know what is best for them and stop questioning us.

Interviewer:  Hmm, I see.  Then, you would say that the constitutional rights for free speech and redress of grievances have little relevance?

Honorable Wildside:  I, for one, can’t understand why John Q. Public would even concern himself about so-called free speech or petitioning Congress on anything.  He’s not in Congress and can’t see from the vantage perspectives of the politically correct disposition we have.  He has never climbed the political ladder and tends to interpret the Constitution literally, not as a living document to be interpreted in the spirit of the generation in which we live.

Honorable Rawhide:  Well, my colleague and good friend and I see the situation a bit differently, though he is well-intentioned and has a correct spirit.  You see, I do partly, at least, understand why John Q. Public roars in protest.  He reflects the prodding from the radical voices of the fundamentalists Christian rightwing agitators.  They’re incessantly broadcasting what transpires in Congress and, of course, play on the ignorance of those peons, who can’t have a clue regarding the complex nature of issues and problems that only political experts can understand and deal with.

Interviewer:  Well, I see, Honorable Congressmen.  Hmm… but something bothers me about your take on this.  Let me put it this way:  I have noticed that some Congressmen would differ with you and a few would see things from the Christian perspective.  Now, is it not true that those politicians also came up the ladder?  Why do they not concur with your views regarding the Christian voices?

Honorable Rawhide:  Why, I would think that to be obvious.  For political expediency and personal reasons, some sell out to the cause promoted by those radicals, but they have no care what happens to our nation.

Honorable Wildside:  And it would not surprise me if money or favors were somehow passed under the table to bribe those Congressmen!

Interviewer:  I see, I…

Honorable Rawhide:  Please excuse my good friend.  I think his statement was really just a slip of the tongue.  We…

Honorable Wildside:  Oh, yes, I reveal my thoughts too quickly sometimes.  There’s absolutely no solid evidence to suggest such a breach.  However, I make no apology that those Congressmen sell out our national interest by representing the special interests of the radicals.

Interviewer:  Curious.  Different people—even among politicians—tend to disagree among themselves as to what the national interest really should be.  And what is there among Christians and their ideology which disqualifies them from having a voice along with everyone else as to governing principles since they themselves are also affected by political legislation? 

Honorable Rawhide:  Intolerance!  That’s what.

Honorable Wildside:  Oh, yes, and exclusivity.  What makes them think they’re better than everyone else, anyway?

Interviewer:  Oh, by intolerance and exclusivity you’re saying that these Christians have intentions of silencing opinions and ideas of all others?  That they demand that only their voices alone be given sole right to speak out on issues?

Honorable Wildside:  Why, uh, yes.  I guess you could put it that way.  They’re pretty demanding, I’d say.

Honorable Rawhide:  I would… Well, I don’t fully go along with my colleague here, but these Christian radicals do have a lot of audacity to claim that they themselves alone are right and everyone else is wrong.  Oh, they really don’t mind for others to speak up if they can also counter with their voices, but they do stir up a lot of people who don’t think for themselves.

Interviewer:  Let me get the strait of this.  You say that these Christians are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?  Does that mean that these Christians must judge everyone else also to be right that these Christians can be considered right themselves?

Honorable Rawhide:  Oh, definitely.  That makes perfect sense.  Yet, even then, I’d suspect some trickery.

Interviewer:  Then I take it that you yourself consider everyone else to be equally right, even those who disagree with your philosophy or political views?

Honorable Rawhide:  I would say so—just as long as they all are tolerant of everyone else.

Honorable Wildside:  True, there could be no issue if everybody were tolerant of everybody else.

Interviewer:  Then, if everybody is right about everything, what’s the point of disagreeing with anyone else in—say—political matters?  After all, if everybody is right, why try to change the views of anybody?

Honorable Wildside:  Politically, everybody is right in his views just as long as those views serve him.  Each one needs to go his own way to serve himself in what is right in his own eyes.  But the problem is that we have these Christians who try to say that their views are the only ones that are right. 

Interviewer:  Suppose the Christian’s views serve him well.  What’s wrong with his faithfulness to his own understanding?

Honorable Rawhide:  I would say that if he keeps his views to himself, he has a right to those views.

Honorable Wildside:  Huh!  I can imagine his radical ideas being contained.  Hardly.  He wants to impose them on everyone else.

Interviewer:  I see something very interesting here.  You suggest that everybody’s views are equally valid except for Christians. A Christian’s views cannot be valid only because Christians insist that they believe them to be absolutely true, thus not false.  Do we consider that nothing can be both true and false at the same time?  Oh, I know the notion that what’s true for you may not be true for me and vice versa.  But is there anything beyond subjective truth?  Can I owe a bill and at the same time refuse to pay it because I think to myself that I am free from all bills?  Can I start across a street and decide I need not look, for to me, even without looking to make sure, no traffic is coming?  Can I allow anything to happen to me and even injure me without so much as a complaint because I concede that what happens to me remains the nature of others doing what benefits themselves at my expense and is all right because what they believe for themselves is right for them?

Honorable Rawhide:  Oh, but we do recognize conflicts, opposing beliefs seeking to overpower our beliefs and vise versa.  There must remain an underlying philosophy of might makes right and only the strong deserve to survive, known as survival of the fittest.  Thus, we can strong arm in Congress to force a bill we support to pass, even if it means threatening to sabotage the efforts of other Congressmen or going so far as to cover up certain facts that could hinder our goals if they were known.  Our might makes what we do right because we are stronger.  In that way we show that we are the ones who deserve to survive.

Honorable Wildside:  That’s about the size of it.  We launch from strength, not from weakness, as do those Christian radicals who believe in the fantasy of absolute truth.  Yes, and what they call love can only be a weakness that opens them up for defeat. 

Interviewer:  What you two propose would create detached individualistic worlds in conflict at junctures of opposing ideas.  On the biological level we call cells that become highly individualized within the human body such that they break links of coordinated purpose within the DNA and RNA structure of governing genetic functions cancer cells.  In a society those who break ranks with the sociological links and structures that make societies function and survivable are similar to cancer cells within a society.  Such spread drives societies toward disintegration and anarchy leading to the demise of such societies.

In other words, there must be an overriding moral and spiritual navigational reference that every component within a society assumes moral, ethical and spiritual responsibility and accountability such that the society can thrive.      

Honorable Rawhide:  I’d say that your gibberish reflects a distinct fantasy; you have the fairy-tale mind of those believing in absolute truth.

Honorable Wildside:  Yes, indeed.  You, sir, speak just like the radical Christians.

Interviewer:  It’s amazing to me.  In your denial of reality you claim anything goes except the belief in absolute truth!  Would you venture so far as to say that it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth?

Honorable Rawhide:  I would say that it’s subjectively true that there’s no absolute truth.

Interviewer:  Oh, then, suppose that someone subjectively believes in absolute truth.  Would that be true for him in his own subjective way of thinking?  In other words, the notion of subjective truth would make it true for him, would it not?

Honorable Wildside:  I would say that it’s absolutely true that there’s no absolute truth.

Interviewer:  Honorable Wildside, you’ve just contradicted yourself.  You’ve declared one absolute truth to deny that there is any absolute truth.  And you, Honorable Rawhide, have made the notion that there’s no absolute truth dependent upon the subjective idea of each person who believes there’s no absolute truth.  Can a person in his own subjective mind believe that there’s absolute truth?  If so, is that true for him?  It seems to me that you cannot evade the issue that there must be an overriding reality which either way you go in your belief leaves you in a dilemma!