BUT
before we can get a secure handle on the nature of this
analysis, we must come to understand the reality of God and
His nature. Most
of us understand the fact of God’s sovereignty. By that very innate
character we refer to as sovereignty, we declare God to be
totally in control, totally exercising His divine authority
and uncontested supremacy over His entire creation. BUT HAVE WE WITHIN OUR OWN
THINKING ARRIVED AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS VERY
ASSERTION?
One of the most
important conclusions with respect to the nature of God’s very
sovereignty relates to His transcendency. That is, God forever
remains other than His
creation (He transcends His whole creation), even though He at
the same time is prominent within and active through His total
creation. To
elaborate, God’s creation forever remains within the context
of God, but God is never limited to nor bound within His
creation such that God Himself could be within the context of
His creation.
Allow us to
make an important application here. Before creation, God
existed; that is, before anything ever existed God was. But on a deeper
dimension, we may understand that God Himself cannot be
limited even to existence, that existence remains within the
context of God and God Himself transcends very existence such
that God can never be within the context of existence. As a matter of fact,
even existence itself grew from God’s creative power and
sovereignty making existence dependent on God rather than God
dependent on existence.
Hopefully, many
of us can begin to catch a glimmer with respect to the
direction we are headed.
If everything remains within the context of God, does
that fact bring us to conclude that evil gains status and
prominence through a sadistic and dark side of our
Creator? This
question itself prompts many to devise various and sometimes
radical resorts to preserve the idea that God is good or to
conclude that God Himself is less than perfect. Among these resorts,
some devalue the sovereignty aspect of God and conclude that
God cannot be completely in control, such that evil happens
beyond the latitude of God’s good jurisdiction. Others argue that God
Himself struggles with a schizophrenic flaw within
Himself.
Many other
extra-biblical conjectures pave the philosophical approaches
to account for God’s sovereignty in the light of the very
existence of evil. Some people even contend that evil
does not even exist but simply reflects a trail of humanity's
struggle to evolve in the process of realizing humanity's
basic goodness.
Be that as it
may; however, little useful purpose could be served with
respect to attempts through such philosophical avenues at
uncovering the truth.
Truth does not easily lend itself to discovery by means
of these multiplicity of avenues generated through
speculation. The
fact remains: God
alone can be the final source and authority in revealing
authentic truth.
Consequently,
we are brought to the biblical account of the origin
and manifestation of evil.
The third
chapter of Genesis portrays the conflict between the forces of
darkness against the forces of light. When God brought into
existence the heavens and the earth and all that inhabit the
universe, His creation reflected His character as Creator,
that of goodness.
Because all creation originated from the Creator, the
creation itself had the potential to remain pure and on course
to realize God’s highest purpose. However, because the
creation itself could in no wise be God or a part of God, that
separate entity from God at the same time had the potential to
rebel against God and thereby fall into enmity against God.
This latter potential became a reality in this third chapter
of Genesis.
God Himself
created humanity through Adam and Eve to sustain fellowship
with their living God, thus fulfilling the bonds of genuine
love toward God and toward each other which could have ushered
them into the countless ages in that perpetual bliss in
relationships.
However, if Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter,
their obedience would have been on the low level of
mechanical, never vital through self expression. Thereby, love would
have been meaningless, without authenticity.
Thus, the
serpent, the hissing whisper that what God had done grew from
deception, intrigued Eve. After all, the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil appeared pleasing. Who does God think He
is to set boundaries, to exclude them from discovering for
themselves their own self value as measured by subjective truth, created
from the disposition of self-centeredness and
self-interpretation that would give them (Eve and then Adam)
liberty to live from their own choices independent of any
influences from beyond their own circumference of a
self-designed world?
In our modern
times the echo of this same temptation takes a leap downward
to conclude that subjective truth must
supplant the notion that there can be objective reality and
consequently, that there can be no absolute truth. Hence, pragmatism and
utilitarianism dictate no other conclusion than the God of the
Bible must give way to the god of self, that each person’s
evaluation and expression becomes that which works for him,
that which must be accepted as equally valid as anyone else’s
subjective
truth. With
that dramatic and drastic renunciation of God by disallowing
absolute truth as
with Eve and then as with Adam, judgment must be
repudiated.
Again, it's as though we say to the carpenter, destroy
your ruler, for your judgment becomes as valid as the ruler or
anyone else’s judgment of distances.
Somehow, for
those who consider the possibility of eternal reward hereafter
and demand that their own positions determine that each
pursues different paths of goodness toward the hereafter, the
subjective truth
allows each to determine the definition of his own good works
and such good works
become validated only through his
own definitions.
However, God
can never be impressed by our egos, nor by all our efforts to
offer to Him our own brand of good works to gain His
favor. All such
good works reflect
our resistance to face our own alienation, our own inability
to measure up, our own unworthiness to stand before the pure,
righteous judgment of the Almighty King of kings and Lord of
lords. Such good works are as
filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) and become an insulting slap on the
face of God, Who has already paid our price at
Calvary. When we dare offer
anything else beside the sacrifice of Jesus, we say in effect
that what Christ did does not measure up and what we do to
earn God’s favor takes the place of the Cross and thus making
the cross unnecessary!
Indeed, we can
never originate the light by which we must see. Those who isolate
themselves from a link to external reality seal out the light
from beyond themselves and grope to fashion the darkness
inherent within their own dispositions into a pseudo light
which is borne of that very darkness itself. “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye
is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is
bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you
is darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matthew 6:22-23)
As the physical light
enters the body by means of the eye to provide a link to the
world at large, so is the spiritual eye intended to provide a
spiritual link to God and those beyond our little
circumference we call OURS! When we demand to be
ruled by our self-centered interests and the distorted filter
by which we see everything in terms of our interests and
selfishness, we opt for the status quo and protect our
religion we have forged from our own invented god or gods to
shield us from the real
truth by our subjective truth. Hence, we arbitrarily
create our own values and indulge ourselves in the
intoxication of self
infatuation.
That is, we begin to measure reality by who we are and
condemn others who conclude that God’s reality created
us. To use
another term to drive home the point, we become the measure to
judge everyone else and mock them for being exclusive because
they will not validate our right to subjective truth.
What we seek to
show in this analysis is the fundamental basis
for fallacy without the faintest intent to create a sense of
hostility toward those who embrace such philosophical
expressions.
However, legitimate and meaningful communication cannot
be established without common agreement on the issue of truth. If we concede that
there can be no absolute truth, we
have no ground to arrive at a consensus on any issue. If there can be no absolutes, anything
and everything must be equally
valid such that making any declarations
would be senseless in the overall scope.
For the purpose
of illustration, allow us to reduce this concept of subjective truth to
the gates of absurdity.
A car swirls into a filling station as the driver
excitedly asks which road he should take at the intersection
to get his wife, who is close to giving birth, to the
hospital.
The filling
station attendant nonchalantly shook his head and spat on the
ground as he casually replied, “It don’t make no
difference. One
way’s as good as another.”
“But I need the
quickest way,” the driver urged.
“Ain’t no
such,” the attendant insisted. “Don’t you know
there’s no such animal as absolute truth? Either way you take is
as good as any other.”
Of course, that
conversation could not readily occur. Why? Well, in the real
world, we all understand that there can be no avoiding the
absolutes. If we
did away with absolutes, our whole society would be flung into
total chaos to the degree that survival could not be
possible.
How do those
who claim no absolute
truth exists support their stance? The only way many of
them seek to make some sort of feeble justification for it may
be found in disassociation or
the creation of the illogical dichotomy. This effort at some
sort of sanity creates compartments. The real world, the
world that operates on time frameworks and special directions
may be thought of as a kind of mechanism which accommodates
the dimension of existence. On the other side, the
world of beliefs, totally divorced from that real world,
remains totally subjective and thereby can be arranged and
manipulated to meet the design of the mind. Each person can create
his own value system and express it in any way he
chooses. If such
a system serves his own ends, if it works for him, if he
functions well therein, it is true for him; it is subjective truth.
One of the
greatest problems with this dichotomy can be found in
the arbitrary erection of the division, the chamber
itself. What
constitutes the nature of such division? How does anyone step
from the real world into the subjective truth
domain?
Perhaps a
little mental gymnastics will lead us toward a greater focal
point. Jim and
Dan made an agreement to co-rent a dormitory near the college
campus and share equally in the cost of the rent. However, each day of
the month the landlord would show up, Dan made it a point to
be gone.
Later in a
conversation with Bill, who prodded Jim with respect to his
beliefs concerning subjective truth, Jim
would resort to his reflexive, “What you believe is OK for
you, because that’s your truth. And what I believe is
true for me, because I believe it.”
“Very well, but
didn’t I hear you complain to Margaret the other day that Dan
always leaves you holding the bag when rent is due?” Bill
prodded insistently.
“Yeah,” Jim
acknowledged.
“You heard right.”
“Something
about that bothers me,” Bill mused. “Didn’t you say that
truth is subjective, that there can be no such as absolute truth?”
“That’s
right. So…?” Jim responded.
“If truth is
subjective and Dan believes it to be OK for him to allow you
to pay all the rent, isn’t that his subjective truth and
right for his set of values because he believes it?”
Herein
we can see one of the many dilemmas facing those who seek to
enclose themselves into their own inner chamber and lock out
reality.
This isolation
knows little of altruism. After all, reality is
perceived as that which originates within the creative ingenuity of
self. Any
incursion of facts
or information from
the external world must be made to fit into
the scheme of things to comply with this isolationism. What is referred to as
tolerance in
reality becomes an unwritten truce which loudly demands I leave you to your own
world and you leave me to mine such that dialogue with respect
to our differing views serves no substantive purpose.
But those who
promote this status quo
under the dictates of subjective truth may
react indignantly, “I do know what love is! I
do care for other people!”
While we do not
dispute that perspective and while we only hold up the
standard without seeking to injure or repel the person, we
must seek that forbidden dialogue based upon the true
standard, absolute truth. Based upon this
disclosure, we must remind ourselves that subjectivity demands
that love become love as embellishing the subjective stance of
the person loving; that is to say from the perspective of the
one loving, You are the occasion for
me to love myself even more through you! Unmitigated
subjectivity demands that self remains the center of any and
every occasion.
If the world revolves around self and self remains the
hub around which all events and occasions rotate, there can be
no exception to this principle. From this basic
premise, even devout care for others must be operative within
the pragmatic and utilitarian scope that promotes self or
becomes self-serving.
Hence, there
can be no other god than that of self. Oh, yes. Those who advocate subjective truth to
counter the notion of absolutes may worship a deity, but
that deity becomes nothing more in reality than a projection
of self,
Again, we are
reminded of the serpent’s whisper in Genesis, chapter 3, "You’ll be your own
god…"
Even this analysis in and
of itself per se intends no judging, no critical assault upon
the nature and character of the subject personalities, but
simply seeks to bring light into the foggy darkness that
threatens to seal the victims into isolation. Yet, we desire to
probe deeper into reasons and origins.
Our society
offers a slippery and rocky avenue down the path of
disassociate and dysfunctional families and groups. (Almost one out of two
marriages end in divorce)Unstable and disintegrating
families, especially those torn with conflicts ending in
divorce,
have set adrift children without the vital link and connecting
strength found in acceptance and love. The basic needs of
children to belong, to feel needed and cared for, to have a
voice in family affairs leaves a thirst to find some sort of
bonding that would help them discover who they are and provide
some sense of direction and purpose in life. This sad and
destructive lack of moral and spiritual values that would
promote proper family bonding leaves society groping in a
hostile environment not unlike that found in a war zone.
The first
course for many children as seen from their desperate plight
may well be perceived in terms of simply breaking away, to
gain liberation to discover life that complies with their own
sense of isolation.
These malfunctioning children tend to retreat into
their own world and bring other acquaintances into the vacuum
of their own boundaries to create artificial bonds as a kind
of loose family relationship they could not realize within the
scope of their own torment referred to as
their own homes. Thus, the only real world they
have ever known within the prison of their own homes cannot be
trusted nor perpetuated.
Hence, it can be small wonder that they do resort to a
spirit of isolation to arrive at subjective truth, that
truth they can control, that they can direct and feel less
threatened by, for objective reality has always given them a
bogus and illusionary path. Thus, we can
understand that what they reject cannot be recognized as
light, but as a reality of suffering, abuse and a multiplicity
of frustrating and painful setbacks ending in chronic
distrust.
There can be
little wonder that these individual loners often find some
bonding through a partnership with likeminded seekers in the
fight to protect their ideology based on subjective truth. Thus, they find
alliance to wage warfare against those intruders they perceive
as intolerant and
bigoted. While we do not indict
them on the basis of their plight, we would like to throw out
a lifeline that somehow we may generate even a spark of hope.
Within their
chaotic pursuits they seek to cling to an isolated world, a
world divorced from all channels of credible reasoning bathed
in rays of truth that originate from beyond the circumference
of their darkened world.
We do not lay claim to superiority nor dare hold
ourselves up as spotless examples to lure them. Except for God’s
grace, not a single one of us could lay claim to be any better
than those who have fallen into this pit of subjectivity. Quite the contrary,
many of us would be far worse than these unfortunate souls who
struggle to find some reason for existence, even if it
involves a defensive mode, a protection of the perceived
solitude they have invented to warrant their journey through
life. We can
never use ourselves as the standard by which we judge others
(Matthew 7:1); we simply seek to hold up Christ Who alone
remains the true standard. But Christ would never
fail to love and embrace the sinner; yet, He loves the sinner
too much to leave him in his own plight. For that reason He
cancels the sinner’s debt by taking that sinner’s place on
Calvary!
We have indeed
placed quite a significant responsibility upon the home
environment for the breakdown in moral and spiritual
absolutes reflected through failure to accept absolute truth in
favor of promoting the notion of subjective
truth.
While emphasis must be placed upon the importance of
the home environment, this declaration must not distract from
other major influences coming to bear upon our society leading
down this path of whirlwind destruction. The arrogant cynicism
of many colleges and universities demand eradication
of absolutes and
tread with malice and disdain upon sacred ground. These schools do not
wince at their open hostilities against family, Christian and
traditional values.
In abusing scholasticism many professors often
denigrate any value system which reflects the slightest
suggestion of decency, moral or spiritual conduct, Christian
and home values, traditional values, etc. These professors and
their schools in general often sink to the level of
capara. They use and abuse
their positions to reject outright and arbitrarily any and
every value which does not foster their darkness and evil
agenda.
There yet
remain a number of other sources which adversely influence
significant movements toward this devastating philosophical
sinkhole reflecting subjective truth
as the core premise of this mindset! We do not take time to
go into all of them, for every one of them share in the same
pool of deception.
Yet, suffice it to say, all who arrive at the doorsteps
of this dark world with its menacing power to desensitize and
tranquilize find themselves addicted to the intoxicating
delusion of security, a protection against the world of ideas
abroad.
We may compare
this isolation to cancer cells of the human body. Such cells function
independently from the harmony and union of the whole body and
grow wildly to demand their places. Such maverick cells
rebel against the purpose and linkage to the human body as
their unchecked growth destroys healthy cells of the
body. When
allowed to continue, these wild, uncontrolled cells eventually
destroy the body.
Within that destruction these cells sever themselves
from the very source of their own survival as well as causing
the cessation of functions that keep the body, the host,
alive.
Our Creator,
God, created all of us to live together in the harmony that
can only come as we grow to be one with each other
and one with God
Himself. Our
great enemy, Satan, came to distract us from God’s purpose and
to destroy that union with God and with each other. That disharmony
continues to be reflected through the mindset of the world,
that of disowning the reality of absolute truth to
be supplanted with so-called subjective
truth.
Therefore,
those who land within the trap of subjective truth
find one mode to exercise judgment against others. Their absolute and unyielding position,
that which makes them intransigently intolerant, comes
immediately into play against any and all who claim exclusivity. While they pride
themselves with respect to tolerance of any and all beliefs,
they at the same instance demand that everyone else eradicate
any claim to exclusivity. Yet, in reality, exclusivity becomes
a mark of uniqueness to distinguish each belief from all other
beliefs. Thereby,
underneath all this uproar over tolerance, no one is
given the prowess to think for himself, to dare to be
different from those who advocate the nonexistence of absolute truth.
BUT
subjective truth,
as devastating, insidious and emboldened as it is, represents
only one prong of the total scope of judging. Another brash, brutal
and insensitive prong closes out all light and rages with
unmitigated contempt for all other variations within the
minutest degree from their very own primitive and base
ideology! These
advocates greatly detest the very notion of any kind of
dialogue, but rather resort to terror to annihilate even the
least opposition and everyone, including women and children,
associated with those who do resist their dominance. The only conscience
these hoards of savages nourish relates to their self-centered
and egotistical manipulation of their god to assure a
self-pampering position of gaudy profusion of sensuality and
hedonistic embellishment, all rewards to fulfill their lust as
a gift for some great deed, such as would be
received for suicide bombings. The appeal? For male
suicide
bombers, seventy virgins with whom to sleep,
a crass indulgence prompted solely by lust. How much more
repugnant can this be?
For decent people it seems too far-fetched to
imagine. Yet,
this promise becomes the incentive for extremist Islamic
suicide bombers. The
philosophical notion behind the murdering of all who do not
agree appears to rest upon the premise that to kill those who
proclaim the truth will in and of itself destroy that truth
they proclaim! Let us remember: People of Christ's
day thought that by killing Christ, they would destroy the
Truth He proclaimed. Now, we know
better.
This segment of our world resides beyond
hope. Right?
It may seem
so, but the difficulties of reaching a few of these
desensitized people can be overcome. Some of us have heard
the testimonies of a few who had been identified with
terrorists. Yes,
these few have been converted to Christianity and speak with a
fire of compassion that few of us have ever experienced.
Even if there had been only one convert
from radical Islam, such a soul would have been worth
all the prayers, efforts and cost which we
could ever pay. The very same conclusion may be
drawn concerning those overcome with the delusion of
subjective truth.
Therefore, we need never judge even the
terrorist to be beyond hope. We do need to pray for
them, that more of Islamic radicals and those overcome
with the delusion of subjective truth will come to
the true light.
We need to leave the judging to God alone, for He is
the standard, not we.
Whichever prong, whether those who make
the pragmatism of subjective truth the
hub around which a whole philosophical approach revolves, or
those who create their own brand of truth within the
inventive, radical minds of Islam to shut out reality and to
force upon everyone else in the world their deadly religious
virus, or any other system to supplant God Himself,
the lethal consequences remains the same. Since the true God
becomes supplanted with the god of self as happens in both
cases, the void, the meaninglessness and the end remains
always the same—destruction, death and hell!
Cure: It
should definitely seem to us that the task in presenting an
effective cure for this disruption of God’s purpose exhibited
through such radical and intransigent dogmatism must indeed be
a colossal challenge. Surely, it is
even conceivable that such an undertaking could well be humanly
impossible.
However, what is impossible on the
human level must be assuredly affirmed as possible
on God’s level!
Hence, through
reliance on God, we must put forth a dedicated effort. But at the same time,
we must acknowledge this fact: Communication remains the vital bridge in
any possible influence upon these people (whom God still
loves) to recognize the need for an about-face change. These who embrace this
self-centered philosophical perspective will never be cast
beyond God's outreach and care. If the need for a cure
cannot be communicated, the very greatest efforts will prove
futile.
Yet, in the example of the radical Islamic
converts to Christianity, the efforts can occasionally
yield fruit.
Sometimes, God’s light penetrates the deepest darkness
to reveal His divine love and grace. At that moment,
Salvation becomes possible.
Therefore, we
would certainly be remiss to ignore some profound
opportunities:
All our yesterdays have created the prospect and the
limitations for decisive actions today and all our tomorrows
are shaped and molded by our decisions and actions today! Yet, God works in and
through it all (“…for without Me you can do
nothing.”–John
15:5 NKJV). This is to
say that our decisions and actions must express God’s
life through the Holy Spirit within us. In the absence of both
the acknowledgement of and submission to the Holy Spirit’s
presence and His power and authority within us, our
efforts become futile, for the Holy Spirit bears witness to
Christ and testifies to His life within us.
Thus, in a
measure of setting the table, we have provided a platform for
everyone to bring anything and everything on an equal footing
to this same table such that consideration may be afforded to
each idea on the grounds that all of us express
open-mindedness and sensitivity to all light, irrespective
from whom it comes or what it contains. Transparency and
honesty precedes successful interactions and exchanges leading
to vital life-changing responses. We must never resort
to closing out the light to protect our blindness with respect
to any avenue of discovery. This commitment should
never be evaded, most especially from us who belong to the
household of faith! As long as we cherish
the truth, we need never fear any additional light nor seek to
protect our concepts and perspectives concerning truth, for when we
genuinely love the truth, we must be
willing to change ourselves to comply with that truth rather than
to wince from it.
Therefore, we
have extended an invitation to a dialogue. An open and honest
dialogue on a level playing field can provide a
non-threatening exchange based on mutual respect and express
an urgency to discover and share truth. We thereby invite and
encourage our website visitors to use the e-mail response
for this website to express freely varying views without
hesitation or fear of violation of your privacy (which would
totally be against our policy). Nevertheless, we can
address your issues or concerns generically without violating
in any way your complete anonymity.
This
predetermined attitude serves as the first step toward the
cure. Unless
there can be openness, we create and sustain a gulf of
separation that cannot be bridged.
Advisedly,
allow us to introduce a dialogue format to expedite our
efforts to reach a common ground. As we have sought to
make evident, we intend to keep a level playing field such
that consideration of all facets of truth may reign within our
thinking and reasoning.
Ms. S.T. (Subjective
Truth).:
I feel that I am liberated in acknowledging that
everyone should be totally tolerated for his own views, just
as long as he believes earnestly in his own
religion.
Dr. Islam: And I know that all you
infidels have no part in truth, for truth comes only from
Allah. And we
have his holy Koran from his prophet Mohammad.
Mr. Christian: I understand that no human
has a corner on truth.
Dr. Islam has a credible point in that we ourselves
cannot manufacture truth. Indeed, truth does not
nor can originate with any of us.
Ms. S.T.: I truly believe that Dr.
Islam and Mr. Christian both can be right, for what works for
each of them becomes his set of principles and beliefs true to
each of them. As
in my case, a principle or idea is true for me because I believe
it. Therefore, it
works for me.
Dr. Islam: Ms. S.T., would you accept
the Islamic religion—the true religion?
Ms. S.T.: Why, of course. I would accept it as a
good religion for you.
It’s right for you and I tolerate your right to it and
to express it freely.
Dr. Islam: But you reject Islam for
yourself and that makes you an infidel!
Ms. S.T.: If I follow you correctly,
Dr. Islam, it’s alright for us to tolerate your religion, but
you are duty-bound to be completely intolerant of any and all
other religions.
Do I understand you correctly?
Dr. Islam: At least your hearing is
correct, Ms S.T.!
Mr. Christian: Without any intention to
disparage either of you as persons with a right to express
yourselves freely, I do take issue with both of your
philosophical approaches. Truth is not
necessarily what either of you believe it to be. I’ll go even
further. Truth is
not necessarily what I believe it to be. Truth goes far beyond
us and cannot be cornered by anyone and exploited for personal
gain or used to establish a stance divorced from that reality
extended from beyond ourselves and our own grasp. Furthermore, the
complete truth cannot be discovered within the framework of
our own minds and observations, but must be revealed by the
One Who generated all truth.
Dr. Islam: Mr. Christian, when I hear
you speaking such rubbish, it’s like the howling of the wind
causing dust and litter to slap against my face.
Mr. Christian: Dr. Islam, in all due
respect, how do you ascertain your perspective to be validated
within the context of your life and experiences? In other words, what
significance and resonance with reality justifies you
