|
Posting
Problems
Visitor's
Request
Thank you for visiting
our site
================================
QUESTIONS
OFTEN ASKED
concerning
Christians and
Christianity
Question and answer
format
Discussion
The following questions represent those we
encounter from time to time. We are also open to any questions
that our visitors may raise. We will make every effort to
include questions (your privacy is assured; we will only use
the question) submitted to us through e-mail (see
the note at the bottom of this page). We
invite any questions you may have, no matter how trivial or
insignificant you may suspect we might possibly think. Be
assured that we are honored to have you contribute
any questions whatsoever. We realize
that some questions do seem only on the surface
to be shallow, but they can provoke search
through new avenues.
About
Atheism
But the natural man does not receive
the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.
--I Corinthians
2:14 (NKJV)
Q
How can we
disprove atheistic
claims?
A
Discussion
The word atheism
comprises two parts, the prefix a meaning
no and
theism
meaning God and by modern usage
has simply come to mean by declaration There
is no God. Hence, an atheist
declares no
God exists in reality. An atheist goes a
step beyond agnosticism, which simply declares that one really
doesn’t know or that one cannot really know whether God exists
or not.
Thus, by
implication true atheists lay claim to omniscience (absolute,
universal and unlimited knowledge), for no one can prove God
does not exist without
omniscience, and for one to lay claim to know
that anything does not exist either means that he
suffers from delusions or he outright fabricates.
Therefore, no
honest person can really be an absolute atheist. The person
may honestly think there is no God, but he becomes dishonest
to declare that he knows there is no God. He may even feel that evidence
points in the direction of no God, but there
can be no conclusive evidence without
omniscience!
The other side
of the coin is equally true. We ourselves can
not present incontrovertible evidence that God
does exist. This remains true in spite of the overwhelming and
compelling evidence for those who can see and have experienced
the mighty power of God on a personal level. If we could
absolutely prove God’s very existence, He would be reduced to
the level of the finite; how can finite humankind embrace
and comprehend the infinite?
But God did
become finite in Jesus. He provided pointers through
Calvary and the
Resurrection and gave us a direction. Sure, we’ll never be
able to comprehend the infinite without being ourselves
infinite beings. We’ll never become gods, for only God
is infinite, and yet we’ll be fitted for the
infinite realm in the eternal Presence of God in the
hereafter. We look to grow forever in His Light!
Thus, the
question How can we disprove atheistic claims?
perhaps leads us down the wrong avenue, for we can never
disprove the atheist's claim any more than the
atheist can prove that God does not exist.
Furthermore, should not efforts be directed more toward showing
the reality of God’s love and care expressed through our lives
as a powerful witness to God’s work on earth?
Yes, on a
logical and scientific level we can discuss the many
compelling fingerprints of God within His creation, such as,
for example, the intelligence information through
DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid), RNA (ribonucleic acid), etc. We could
show how laws of physics, biology, etc. communicate design,
purpose and many other expression of the Divine Mind,
but these do not convince those who seek to explain their
views within the closed system, the box, so to
speak. They initiate their course along predetermined and
predisposed avenues. Hence, they fit all information
into their categories with a prefixed supposition. As an
example, they rule out the very possibility of any Divine
intervention, for to them such allowance would immediately
disqualify their investigation as totally lacking in
credibility. But the scientific approach they elevate to the
level of worship loses its authenticity on the
grounds of sifting what considerations they deliberately
reject and what they predetermine to accept. True scientific
perspective demands investigation of all leads, all research
information and all possibilities without prejudice (see
Phillip Johnson’s book, The Wedge of
Truth).
Someone has
noted that those who genuinely love truth will sooner or later discover the
object of their love. Paul provides us a classic
example of one who sought truth. He thought himself to be in a
godly role until God struck him down with a Light above
the brightness of the noonday sun. He found the
real Truth in
Christ!
Q How do we deal
with the problems atheists raise concerning belief in
God?
A
Discussion
We
all discover problems upon problems throughout life. In our
generation many of us have scarcely heard of those who once
scoffed at the notion that any person would ever fly. Even
some of us are too young to remember the
skeptical remarks concerning the idea that man would ever
set foot on the moon.
In each case, what happened?
Obviously,
some people could not be dissuaded. Aerodynamic problems
eventually found solutions through persistence and space
technology eventually developed to the advanced stages to make
space travel possible.
Do we not understand by now
that Christianity reveals its authenticity through the tests
and opposition of times? The early church exemplified the
principle of thriving under great persecution and pressure.
Why? Certainly, human efforts at their very best
could have never pulled them through. It took supernatural
power.
Let us not fear the use of the word
supernatural. Such a term has undergone abuse
in our age. People tend to think of magic, fairy tales,
wizardry, the occult, the dark side of things or myth
even at the very best. But the supernatural
intervention does not necessarily suspend natural laws,
nor ever brings into the natural order a violation of order
and purpose. The genuine supernatural intervention
introduces us to the design and power of God to reveal
dimensions which transcend the natural order of the universe.
Thus, there can be no conflict with the natural order since
God Himself created the natural order and sustains it.
However, the natural order can never control God nor curtail
His purpose. Sometimes, God acts from a higher order and
purpose than our finite minds can ever grasp on this human
plane. Some day when we are restored to the bodies which God
intended before sin corrupted us, we’ll operate on that much
higher spiritual dimension.
Therefore, the early church
depended upon their Supernatural Being to secure their goals
and purposes. The opposition actually provided the lift for
them to get off the ground, similar to the fact that the
resistance of the air to the speed down the runway provides
lift for the airplane. If there were no such resistance, the
plane could never get off the runway into the air.
What do we
seek to unlock by these illustrations? Simply, the
atheist does not take into account the nature of the Christian
life and the realms of spiritual realities which provide
the dimensions and spiritual flavors within
the spectrum of the Christian arena. This spiritual nature
acts as the transforming element within the darkness of a
world otherwise without meaning or purpose. Such light
reaching into this bland, blind and delusion-ridden world
becomes the only hope for deliverance.
Renowned
Christians, such as C. S. Lewis of recent times and
contemporary Lee Strobel, have added greatly to the course of
Christian events. Both C. S. Lewis and Lee Strobel rose from
the shadowy world of atheism into the light of revelation to
become devoted advocates of Christ.
C. S. Lewis
wrote a number of books, among which are the classics,
Mere Christianity and The Screwtape
Letters (both recommended reading) and especially of
interest to children and youth, Chronicles of
Narnia.
Lee Strobel came
to Christ through painful struggles with reality and analysis
through research. His must-read books for the earnest seeker,
The Case for
Christ, The Case for Faith,
and the latest, The
Case for a Creator, are the end results
of in-depth and painstaking research.
Each of
these writers understands the working of the atheistic mind
first hand. Such writers have struggled with many problems
with respect to the validity and authenticity of Christianity
but have successfully resolved many of those problems to
find the genuine light in Christ.
With the
background of these readings and some biblical studies, we may
pinpoint the source of many of these assaults on biblical
revelation's authenticity, such as the reality of suffering,
death and the multiple expressions of evil we encounter in
life. The book of Job deals dynamically with this aspect to
the created order, but tends to be broadly ignored in our
modern world.
This whole scope measured in a humanistic
perspective can never discover a resolution. Why? Simply,
if God is good, just and righteous and He is in absolute
control, evil could never exist? Hence, since evil does exist,
either there can be no God, or if by some means impossible to
imagine, He does exist, He would Himself be evil.
But this is the
hitch. Even though no one can deny all the bad that takes
place, for each has been victimized at one time or
another, the origin of evil does not reside in God?
(See Cosmic
Conflict)
When God
created humanity through Adam and Eve, a perfect paradise
existed. Now, comes the explosion of reality. Satan introduced
evil into God’s created realm. Could God have prevented
it? Absolutely, God
reserves all power and authority to Himself. Then, why did He
not do so?
Had God closed
the possibility to evil, then it would have not been possible
for other than God Himself to have existed. For God to create
anything or anyone, He had to provide a separate entity from
Himself. Within the very nature of being separate from God, a
choice had to be provided. Humanity had the possibility of
eternal fellowship and growth with the power and presence of
God Himself. That had to be the very intention of God. But
since humanity were never robots or puppets in God’s
hands, there
had to be that choice. Therefore, good
can only be realized against the possibility of evil, and
Satan mastered the opportunity to bring the human race into
the abyss of the fall.
The character of
the fall may be found in the polarity, such that good and evil
remain in the tensions of opposites, giving rise to eternal
conflict on this level (Ephesians 6:12). This is the caldron
into which Christ came. His conflict was that of Light against
darkness, righteousness against sin and evil until the final
conflict came at the Cross, where death and hell, the great
enemies of humanity and God, found ultimate
and utter defeat!
While it is true
that battles continue to rage, the war has been won at
Calvary. No longer can
the outcome ever be in doubt. Now we walk the valleys and the
demanding trails with confidence that God has wrapped up
history in the
Atoning Death of Christ. The victory
came to Christ and we as His children share in that
victory.
Other
Aspects Related to Atheistic
Thinking
Q
The expression Thinking Outside the
Box suggests to some of us that we strive toward
something other than, a divorcing from our reality of
experiences and self-expression. How can the two facets
be reconciled?
A
Discussion
We can be
sensitive to such concerns, but we must consider the process
at stake.
Allow us to
reflect upon an infant to illustrate. Certainly the sum total
of experiences of the infant, the sense of warmth and
nourishing security binds the infant to a dependency upon his
parents and others who care for him. All the while such
relationships become a part of his world, but his world
broadens as he matures. He begins to sense that he is not the
sole being around whom the whole universe revolves. Yet, he
connects, and realizes that there remains forever much more
than can possibly be a part of him.
What happens
when he becomes stunted at any stage of growth?
Of course, he
then begins to close out the outside world and divorces
himself from the reality of the other
than himself frame of
reference. He builds his walls to secure his own position and
tends to magnify the significance of the tangible, visible and
materialistic scope to the exclusion of everything beyond that
scope.
Perhaps a little exercise in analytical venture
will demonstrate the human plight when geared simply to the world which one creates
through his own resources alone.
If
I take a paper
cup of water and ask, "What is in this cup?" as I hold
it up, someone may quickly respond,
"Water."
I may say, "Are
you sure? It could be acid, could it not?" What I have
done in reality goes beyond the surface and into analysis.
"But it is
water," I assure as I drink it all.
"Now, what is
left in the cup?" I may press.
"Nothing,"
usually echoes back to me.
"Are you sure?"
I continue as I turn the cup upside down and move it up and
down.
"Yes, I am
sure," comes the affirmation.
"I don’t think
you’re right," I inform. "Even if you cannot see it, air
remains in the cup."
A nod
acknowledges the fact that there remains air in the
cup.
"But," I relate,
"just suppose that we take this cup into the deep recesses of
outer space and expose it to the vacuum of that space, would
there then be anything left in it?"
"Nothing," comes
the smug answer.
"I don’t think
so," I retort. "How about space? Is there space in the
cup?"
Once again a nod
acknowledges that there is still space in the cup.
I then crush the
cup flat and ask, "Did I just destroy that space?"
A puzzled look
on the face of the responder as he shrugs his shoulders allows
me to assume I have his attention.
"NO!"
I inform. "Since the boundaries of the cup define that
particular space, crushing the cup only redefines that space,
even though that space may be very minute."
But suppose I
burn the cup? Even then the
cup has only been changed chemically. It can never cease
to exist. However, it then could no longer serve to
define space other than what it occupies.
This
illustration reflects one process of thinking outside the box. We can
easily leap to unwarranted conclusions, as did the responder
in the above illustration.
For the reason
that thinking
outside the
box draws us out of ourselves and connects us to a
broader context of reality, atheists who remain in their
little world, in their box, assume and are predisposed
to certain conclusions based upon their limited frame of
reference.
Q
[This question relates to the 2004
election] Since local
elections are taking place over our nation and the
presidential election, just around the corner, blasts the
airways with a lot of political thunder, how can we take a
stand without violating church-state
separation?
A
Discussion
This question
can indeed grow from an earnest endeavor to adhere to
legitimate practices, but in reality uncovers a false premise.
The notion of separation of church and state
(also known as the establishment
clause) does not grow out of the
Constitution of the United States. Quite the contrary, the
courts have invented the notion to foster a dichotomy
in promotion of Christian segregation from involvement in any
fashion in public policies or ideas. Unfortunately, the
activists judges have sent a mixed message to our nation.
Sometimes they make decisions on the grounds of freedom of
expression, allowing Christians certain rights based upon
the first amendment. At other times, these judges thwart
liberties to cry out on issues by Christian spokesmen,
relegating them to second-class citizenship.
But by and
large, Christians can on a private basis back a candidate on
grounds of issues. By the same token, they can oppose a
candidate on the same grounds.
Where the waters
become troubled with respect to crying out for or against candidates
arises from the church as a whole, through the words and
actions of the pastor or other church officials. Such
pastors or church officials leave their church open
to losing tax-exempt status because their church
can erroneously become classified as a political
organization. Even though these church officials may
criticize candidates quite correctly and reasonably
constitutionally on moral and spiritual grounds,
the IRS becomes the
left wing battering rod to silence criticism.
Liberal churches and organizations which uphold the values of
liberals have very rarely been threatened with the loss of
tax-exempt status. This statement reflects widely known
practices and should not catch us by surprise.
Pastors and
other church leaders should be the moral and spiritual
conscience for our nation and have an unlimited right to
address moral and spiritual issues. Quite true, not all
qualify as true spokesmen for that role; nevertheless, these
leaders should stand or fall on the unlimited application of
truth alone, for to allow only qualified leaders
to speak would repress freedom and open way for all sorts of
false accusations and deceptions. Indeed, there can be no
national religion.
But that should
never concern us, just as long as truth can be
the ultimate deciding and sifting reality.
Certainly,
Christians do wish to exercise influences without violating
any laws or regulations, except where such conflict with God’s
divine purpose (Acts 4:17-21). The early Christians did seek
to operate within the framework of the laws that governed
them, but when such laws conflicted with God’s higher purpose,
they listened to God rather than people. Even so, they willing
paid the price for such obedience to God. Are we willing to
do the same thing today if such should become
necessary?
Someone has
noted that bad politicians are elected by good people who fail
to vote. Would it not be dishonoring to God for us to fail
to vote and that failure places bad politicians into office?
That is something to think about.
Q
An interesting
and disturbing question has been brought to our attention,
which, we consider, deserves a forthright and immediate
response. In essence, this question grows out of presumptuous
and seriously flawed presuppositions. Yet, we dare not attack
the person or persons posing this question. Rather, we seek to
appeal deeply to the possibility that such a question does
seek to bring to the table an effort for finding the truth. To
state briefly the essence of the question, it may be
summed up something like this:
You
pro-life advocates are obsessed with preserving the life of
unwanted babies, but are you willing to foot the bill or
assume the trouble of caring for them?
A
Discussion
Allow us to pose a few other
questions. While it indeed entails responsibility and
accountability, both financially and energy-wise, to meet the
needs and determine the best way to guide the child, cannot
that same thing be said for every child (yes, and often for
elderly adults) within our society?
What should we propose to do with respect to these
people who currently become a burden upon our society? Should
we resort to a governmental extermination policy in which we
slaughter all children who are unwanted along with the elderly
who are a burden?
IF
every person who
inhabits this planet incurs responsibility and problems for
others (and there’s no person who has ever lived who has
not), THEN, does it not
logically follow from the perspective of dealing with
the unwanted in this proposed philosophy that the whole
human race, every animal, etc. should be
exterminated?
And as far as
the child who has been declared unwanted, do we speak of the
pregnant woman? She can place the child up for adoption, can
she not? After all, I, personally, know of a number
of potential parents seeking to adopt children, but who
find none available for adoption! Does the pregnant woman
choose to murder the child rather than to allow any of these
many potential parents to receive and love God’s special
creation?
On the other
side of the coin, the greatest contributors to society once
found themselves inside their mothers’ wombs. We believe that
every child conceived has a unique niche to fill, a special
role to play and fills a position no one else can quite serve
as well. Every human being finds a unique disposition,
character and qualities that no other person matches exactly.
To murder that
unborn child can be no other than robbing society of that
child’s own unique contributions!
Would it not be
better to choose alternative measures to that of outright
murder of the unwanted child--especially since there are
others who do want the
so-called unwanted
child (see Thank You for
You)?
THINK
ABOUT THAT!
Q This question,
directed to this website, intends to focus on an important
issue. How do you deal with the Iraqi war issue in the light
of your utilitarian
conclusions (see
Utilitarianism)?
After all, doesn’t the coalition sacrifice soldiers, women and
children just to impose their ideological governmental system
upon the Iraqi people? Is not the sacrifice of all those human
lives saying that the end (a democratic government in place in
Iraq) justifies the means (the killing of all those people)?
You have implied on your website that the war in Iraq simply
reflects a defensive posture against terrorists and the spread
of terrorism.
A
Discussion
Before
we spend a few days replying to this very relevant question,
perhaps some of our visitors would like to express themselves
with respect to this problem which does, on the surface, seem
to be inconsistent with our stance, especially in the
discussion with respect to utilitarianism. You visitors may
use the
E-mail
Us Page avenues
of reply.
Since thus far
no guest has responded to this question posed for our
consideration (and
we will continue to be open to guests'
responses), we shall proceed in our efforts to
provide stimulating and provocative avenues in dealing with
the implications this question raises.
First, allow us to provide the
following parable to illustrate
approaches.
Demon Valley lies deep beneath
the mountains of human awareness, concerns and interests. Yet,
demons convene there to decide approaches, deceptive tactics
and battle strategies against humanity.
"Let’s just
everybody bombard the human consciousness with flashing lights
and the jingle of good times, "Brilliant Dose suggested with
laughter. "Pleasure tickles the fancy and fills the heart with
empty thrills that promise much but create a new low after a
season."
"What you say,"
Chief Lucifer pointed out, "has had limited success. But now
we need something more. Not everyone swallows the ecstasy
pill. Many have discovered that such pursuits bring the same
end as the little boy with a sweet tooth discovered when he
stole a big box of candy and slipped away to consume it all
for himself, only to find a stomachache and a craving for
something more substantial."
"I have it!"
shouted Pious. "We’ll approach religious people and lull them
into a sense of safety and comfort. They can withdraw into
their churches or temples or synagogues or whatever
and live the good life for
themselves. Their own group will be their family, only reduced
to a kind of exclusive social club. That way, they will feel
no compassion to reach out to others. That will certainly make
our work more successful."
"Pious," Chief
Lucifer responded, "that is great. We have had much success in
nullifying religion with such a strategy. But we need
something much more if we really hope to devastate the whole
world."
"I’ve been
thinking," Subterfuge mumbled thoughtfully. "Just suppose we
give everybody what they all really want, except place the
evil under a good-sounding title or
name."
"Hmm," Chief
Lucifer pondered. "You may be on to something, Subterfuge.
Expand."
"Well, we all
remember original
temptation and original sin,"
Subterfuge recalled. "Each person becomes his own god,
declaring for himself to be his own sufficient judge as to
what is good and what is evil. There can be no absolute truth.
He himself becomes the sole frame of reference by which he
validates his own little world."
"I like your
thinking," Chief Lucifer agreed. "But how do we apply this
concept across the board?"
"Tolerance,"
Subterfuge continued. "That’s a good-sounding term and can
hide a multitude of devilment."
"Oh, yes," Chief
Lucifer chuckled. "And those who are exclusive in their views
would automatically be classified as intolerant! I like that.
It knocks down Christianity as bigoted and aloof!"
"Oh, indeed,
"emphasized Subterfuge. "And furthermore, since authentic
Christianity places a thorn in the side of those who want
their liberty, Christianity will really be the sole target.
Everybody else who hates Christianity, even if they themselves
claim exclusivity, will get a free ride with the tolerance
bandwagon."
"And we can
inspire all sorts of terms to connote hatred of Christians,"
Chief Lucifer bubbled sordidly. "How about intolerant, radical religious
right, politically
incorrect,
inspirers of hate crimes, social misfits,
dangerous
influence and on and on we can go. Wow, our
imagination can become very inventive."
"Not only that,"
Subterfuge reflected with a distinct sparkle in his eye, "we
can build on that attitude by inspiring the extensive use of
the counterfeit to
discredit the authentic!"
"Got you!" Chief
Lucifer exploded with his finger waving in the air.
"Christianity will be discredited by all the charlatans and
preachers falling into sexual misconduct and those abusing
others in the name of Christianity."
"Absolutely,"
Subterfuge agreed. "The true Christians will be shunned with
great suspicion and become the scapegoat for all sorts of
evil. Politicians will have a hay day pigeonholing them into
the hate messengers or bigoted fundamentalists not unlike
terrorists."
"Oh," Chief
Lucifer mumbled. "I’m beginning to see some real significant
ramifications to this. The liberals will use this assessment
to grant the terrorists a little latitude. Compared to
Christians, these terrorists can’t be all that bad. Anyway,
the extreme right can be accused as a main factor in agitating
the terrorists into an attack posture. The war on terrorism
takes on a black note sure enough."
"Ah, Chief Lucifer," Subterfuge
gloated, "there’s no end.
I see this basically moving toward eradicating all sensitivity
to principal differences. I mean, let’s move toward calling
war evil, because it kills innocent people, because it seeks
to impose our exclusive views on others, because the whole
world doesn’t agree on procedures. Man, we can create
instability galore!"
"Exactly!" Chief Lucifer
acknowledged, snapping his fingers.
"And the extreme
right wing can clamor all they want," Subterfuge allowed, "but
they’re the right
wing or the extreme religious
right. Those labels can often automatically
discredit them and make them appear to be
fools."
"Absolutely,"
agreed Chief Lucifer. "It also helps many to reduce the 911 terrorists’
attacks into relative irrelevance in the total scope."
"Ah, if I may,"
Pious interjected, "I just might have a piece of the total
picture here. As a second prong, we could create the perfect
dichotomy in the minds of some vulnerable religious
traditionalists at the same time."
"Yes, say on,"
Chief Lucifer encouraged. "Every bit of ammo we can muster
helps assure success, you know."
"Well," Pious
declared with a wily smile, "we can fortify the notion that
religion is the answer, but separate from the world at large.
Religion is available, but divorced from all the evil and sin
in the world. Politics and religion must eternally be
separated. Religion should have nothing to do with
politics."
"Definitely,"
agreed Chief Lucifer. "That works favorably toward the
privatization of religion. Keep it contained in its own little
compartment of society. It’s an individual matter and should
not interfere with politics or business or the public. The
church should not be allowed to speak out on anything
political in nature. When that principle is totally
implemented, then there can be much less interference with our
battle to destroy the world."
"And we have
already met with a degree of success concerning biblical
skepticism among the general public," Pious added. "But it
would be advantageous to reinforce that trend. You know,
inspire many more to speak of the Bible as a fantasy, similar
to fairy tales and the like. This effort could counter the
revival of interest among certain churches and the influence
of radio and television ministers who try to promote respect
for the
Word."
"Of course,"
Chief Lucifer agreed. "While much of the news media has been
instrumental in discrediting the validity of biblical claims,
we should continue to inspire more people to join the
bandwagon."
"You know,"
Pious mused, "we really had a hay day with Search for the Historic
Jesus and similar assaults on the historicity of
biblical accounts."
"And," Brilliant
Dose thoughtfully started, "it still bounces back in the end
toward hedonism, doesn’t
it? I mean, what gives pleasure does speak to this modern
society. I can see where the effort to discredit Christianity
helps one move toward what he calls liberty to enjoy his sin
with impunity. People then can be free to engage in
abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage and a host of other
demeaning practices and beliefs. The terrorists can feel proud
to create wars and throw themselves away through suicide
bombings to enter into the delusional world of eternal
pleasures to fulfill every imaginable lust. Everyone will
confuse liberty with
license!"
"Hmm," Chief
Lucifer mumbled, his fingers scratching under his chin as
though deeply focused. "Brilliant Dose, you keep bouncing back
to the pleasure aspect. But your argument does have some
merit. Since pleasure is your cup of tea, I would expect to
hear that coming from you. However, your point is well taken.
Fitting your contribution into the total scope does add a
certain degree of fuel to boost the effectiveness of the total
picture, you know. Just keep up your brand of conniving as we
all work together."
And thus the
conference and its aftermath afflicting humanity continue
a infinitum
from the abyss of the deep, shadowy valley. Evil surges, but
just what does this parable say by way of answering the
question up for discussion?
Please allow us
to preface what we intend to point out with this assertion.
Perhaps we can glean some of the presumptions of the
questions. Such effort to scrutinize the questions should not
disparage the questioner in the least. Quite the contrary, he
should be commended for his apparent honesty to seek answers.
Yet, by the same coin, we can not hesitate to establish the
truth from our perspective, while at the same moment, seeking
to keep an open and eager desire to see more light and learn
those factors and elements we may unwittingly fail to account
for. After all, the discussion should remain a two-way
street.
Having thus
clarified our goal and our hope to bring to light the truth,
may we proceed to uncover avenues some may have never even
considered.
Demon Valley does not represent
more than a kind of parable. Every true parable has but one principle
meaning symbolized. To a certain degree, this parable
retains that character. Then what is the precise central
meaning of the parable? The whole parable would fall apart
were it divorced from the centrality of original
sin and the consequential
fall. Restated in the context of societies
since the fall, every
person reserves the
right to himself; that is, every person
becomes his own
god to declare what is good and what is
evil for
himself alone. Many of the ramifications of this original sin and
the original
fall have been dealt with in the convening of the
demons in Demon
Valley, which fairly well sizes up much of the
ills within our societies.
Amazingly, the crux of
utilitarianism grows out of this self-conscious hub
inherent within original sin and the consequential
original fall. Allow us to
illustrate.
Our world grows out of the
central consciousness of our beings, who we are and where we
find ourselves. We cannot divorce ourselves from our own
experiences and impressions which feed our growth and develop
a frame of reference within our
consciousness.
William Temple, an English
theologian and philosopher, declares in so many words that
each person from birth finds his physical nature such that his
growing awareness starts at point zero, where he is at each
moment along life’s way. His horizon depends on his location
each particular time along the way. His awareness grows from
who he is, his identity emerging from immediate relationships
and each circumstance and environment along every step of his
growth.
That remains the natural
course of every person. However, from the time of the
fall this self-consciousness has become the fertile
breeding ground for self-centeredness.
It provides the incentive to live within the
box, to become the god of one’s own self. Hence,
there remains but one further device to implement the
principle of utilitarianism. "I become the god of my
soul and my direction cannot be forestalled. Consequently, my
end (goals) justifies the means" echoes through the
self-centered human disposition when left to its own natural
course (see discussion of character of
the end within the means).
While we must
acknowledge the value of human life, even among the most
radical Islamic fundamentalists, we must at the same moment
understand the source of hatred and open hostilities giving
rise to wars, suicide bombings, insensitivity to innocent
victims and suffering and plight of everyone else. Truly, in
their perspective the end justifies the means! These
arrogant, bigoted and intransigent human beings have sealed
themselves within their own self-centered and
impenetrable microcosm. Nothing can ever be open for
discussion. Everything has been predetermined by what their
view is. Everyone else in the whole world must suffer total
annihilation. Only this radical Islamic fundamental and
totalitarian world government must be allowed to exist.
Quite the contrary,
authentic Christianity thrives from love expressed through
grace and forgiveness. Every person must be allowed to receive
the liberal focus as potential children of God. The genuine
cure rests with Christianity, but Christianity does not
express itself through denial of choice. Christ Himself
allowed other religions to exist and sought to reach people,
even poor, lowly sinners. No one was ever pressed to accept
Him and His doctrine (John 3:16-17). The "whosoever" within
this frame of reference recognizes unrestrained choice.
Having thus
established a basis, we find the following questions may
provoke certain avenues of thought with respect to the
questions posed for discussion:
-
The terrorists declared war
against the United States, other democracies and free
societies of the world in the 911 attacks. Do we consider
that their ends really justify their
means?
-
As having Christian influence, are
we justified to put a halt to their efforts, even in Iraq,
to subdue all nations of the world? Or should we allow this
force of darkness to take over in the name of peace? If we
surrender to this force of darkness, would living under the
torment of having either to be tortured and killed or to
embrace this radical evil be an end justified by
the means of surrendering ourselves completely to this
black invasion?
In reality,
did we enter Iraq with the intent to establish our form of
government or to allow the people to choose for themselves
how they would be governed?
-
If we are in a world war against
terrorist, certainly many innocent people will suffer from
lateral fallout, but not by intention or design on the part
of our country. Is it worse that we allow those thousands of
innocent victims to live and sacrifice millions of innocent
people over the world to come under threat of total
annihilation? Indeed, war is always wrong because such came
through the fall, but by choice we can protect the
largest number of people possible. We do not choose to kill,
but to protect. Sometimes killing becomes necessary in order
to protect everyone else.
-
Consider the fact that terrorists
deliberately resort to using innocent civilians (including
women and children) and holy shrines and anything under the
sun, no matter how valuable or dear to people and even
resorting to a sacrilegious defiance, to provide themselves
a haven from which to launch their brutal attacks. Does
this philosophy not show that this enemy of humanity
has no restrictions whatsoever concerning the
means to reach its own lewd end? Then are we
as a nation unjustified in measures to halt this cancer upon
societies?
These are but a few
thoughts we should face before drawing conclusions, do we not
agree?
Q How do we deal with the intrusive
and defiant pornographic pervasion even
into the
privacy of our homes through the Internet and sometimes
television? It is especially disturbing that children can be
sucked into the very harmful downward spiral by innocently
falling into the trap. What can be done about this serious
problem (See Dr. James Dobson's Website Pure
Intimacy)?
A
Discussion
Even with filters and
the best guards possible, the likelihood for anyone, including
children, at some point or another in life crossing paths with
shocking pop-ups from the porn industry can be expected. Our
legal system has been slow to award decency as a legitimate
goal, preferring to hide under the flimsy assurance of freedom
of speech or expression. They have never given serious
consideration to society’s claim for a right to be free from
such an intrusion.
Thus, since we do not
have adequate support in the courts to establish measures to
protect families (or even children), we must resort to other
recourses.
One recourse simply
rests with our votes. We need to vote into office those who
represent our core values such that we can be guaranteed the
appointment of decent and honorable supreme court justices,
those who uphold the Constitution of the United States rather
than ignoring, rewriting or totally misinterpreting it.
As it now stands,
however, we are left with measures to restrict access and deal
with those problems on our own individual initiative. Perhaps
one of the very first steps regards recognition and
understanding the serious nature of porn’s pervasive and
intrusive dangers. Many people are drawn into the trap without
the least effort or intention of ever seeking pornographic
addresses either on the Internet or the television channels.
Moreover, because of
easy access and the private nature of exploring porn sights,
some church members unfortunately find themselves hooked on
sexual exploits on the Internet. Sadly to say, even pastors
sometimes allow themselves to be drawn into the trap.
But some would argue,
"What harm can come from fantasies which do not actually
violate any other person?" The harmful captivation not
only becomes a pit for those participating, but adversely
affects marriage relationships. For the participant
self-esteem suffers and increased guilt tends to sever
fellowship with God and interrupts the quality of interactions
with other church members. Beyond that, testimonies to others
suffer credibility and quality.
Q
Why
do many of us fail to take into account the vital importance
of the economy when considering a candidate for the position
of President or for those running for the Congress of the
United States? Is it not true that a healthy economy would
stimulate growth and security for everyone? Certainly, the
economic outlook provided a measure of influence in this 2004
election results. But my question is: Did the economic
outlook prove strong enough to affect the final
outcome?
A
Discussion
Economic stability, growth and protection reflect
genuine and valid considerations when choosing a candidate.
Most Americans would agree that a sound policy stressing
elements to stimulate the economy and to enhance the health of
our democracy should never be sacrificed to sustain any
person's political ambitions.
But
what indeed constitutes the means to initiate and assure a
thriving economy?
May
we at this point introduce a little diversity of views? Though
the following point and counterpoint format reflects the
conglomerate abstractions from actual views, the persons
herein given title names merely symbolically represent views
from several avenues coming to our attention and intermingled
under these titles. Actual persons remain anonymous for
the sake of protecting privacy.
Of course, we may
readily see that portions of these views do bring to
mind certain political perspectives which embrace at
least parts of these views. With this qualification in mind,
may we introduce Mr.
Pro
and Mr.
Con,
as well as Ms.
Conservative and Ms.
Liberal? Also, we have a
guest with us who willingly consented to bring additional
perspectives into the discussion: Mr.
Christian. For the sake of
completing our imaginary pursuit, I am the host who directs
the interview.
Host: Mr. Pro, I see you're just antsy to get into
the discussion.
Mr.
Pro: Yes, of course, we all know the importance of a
strong and growing economy. Dare we not agree that of
all elements within the platform of any candidate, the economy
remains the first and foremost
consideration?
Host
(after a brief
pause): Yes, I see your hand, Mr.
Con.
Mr.
Con: I agree that the
economy must be an important consideration, but the economy
would take on an irrelevance within the context of anarchy or
terrorism. Under anarchy no security of home or possession
could be maintained and, no matter how strong the economy,
people would not be able to realize the benefits under such
threats. Also, terrorism would plow under liberties and, even
if the economy thrived under forced labor by the reign of
terror, the economy could not bring relief from terror. So,
I...
Ms.
Liberal: Excuse me,
but…
Host:
Please, Ms. Liberal, remember that we must restrain ourselves
from speaking out of turn
.
Mr.
Con: It’s OK. I’ll
concede.
Host:
In that case, go ahead, Ms. Liberal.
Ms.
Liberal: I just wanted to say that even under
the most radical government, a good economy creates the forces
for change. Where every physical and material need can be met,
radical ideas and aggressive governments will
eventually grow into irrelevance. Prosperity is the real key
to a healthy society. That’s the reason governments should see
to it that every need for everyone be provided, irrespective
of social standings, race, religion or the like. That's my
two-cents' worth right now, but I intend to keep a crack in
the door to respond to further comments.
Host:
Ms. Conservative, I see your nod for
recognition.
Ms.
Conservative: I… Well, Ms. Liberal
certainly makes some convincing points. For example,
absolutely, a good economy can create the force for change,
but where does a good economy come from? Out of a vacuum? I think not. Economy
must find cultivation to thrive. Good economy grows
from the right atmosphere. Under a repressive,
dominating despot the people must become slaves and often
barely subside or even expire through depravation.
History shows this to be normally the case. The only
ones to prosper become the ruling dictator and his elite
henchmen.
Ms.
Liberal: Hold on there. I must…
Host: Ms. Liberal, we must
follow procedure.
Please allow Ms. Conservative to continue. I assure you that
you’ll have your opportunity to
respond.
Ms.
Liberal:
Sorry to get a little
carried away. By
all means, Ms. Conservative, do please
continue.
Ms.
Conservative: Oh, really, I have a
feeling that you and I are after the same end, Ms.
Liberal. It’s
just the means and applications upon which we principally
cannot come to see eye to eye. My view specifically
relies upon free enterprise to stimulate the economy, creating
jobs and productivity through tax breaks and other
incentives. This
would remove government from the burden of propping up
weakness and failures that forge dependencies on handouts and
waste through bureaucracy, corruption and political
manipulations. We
must move toward eliminating the perception that the
government provides an infinite resource of funds and support
for free handouts.
Host
(after a long pause): Have you concluded your
remarks, Ms. Conservative?
Ms.
Conservative: Oh, there remain
volumes I could say, but I do not wish to hog the time. However, I
do request an opportunity to respond to further comments
by anyone, if I may?
Host: Very well. Ms. Liberal, I believe
you indicated a desire to respond to Ms.
Conservative’s
position, did you not?
Ms.
Liberal: Ah-hum! Of course. By all means. You know, I am amazed
at the rhetoric of the pro-wealthy advocates. The rich get richer
and the poor get poorer!
Oh, yeah!
Let’s all count on the good-hearted rich to share their
profits with the workers—the poor and needy of our
nation. Give tax
breaks to the rich so that they can get richer and make the
poor the slaves of the rich. Well, excuse me if I
can’t see the fairness of helping those who have made it to
the top as those who need a
break.
Host
(following a moment of silence): I see your hand again,
Ms. Conservative.
Ms.
Conservative: It appears that I have
hit a sensitive issue with my terminology. However, there’s just
one big problem with the approach Ms. Liberal embraces. She has pitched the
poor against the wealthy and the wealthy against the poor.
I’ll concede that
in the absence of laws and business ethics where mobility from
the bottom to the top remains sealed off from skilled and
dedicated workers who desire to ascend the corporate ladder,
serious impediments do adversely affect economic growth. But that never needs
to be the case and historically can be controlled
successfully. But
also, historically, incentives for productivity in industry,
services and expansion of the work force help keep people
employed and prosperous.
That course has done more to stimulate the economy than
pitching employee against employer as a conflict to maintain
absolute social equity such that progress up the corporate
ladder has no real rewards. It seems to me that
the possibilities for the worker to move toward promotions do
two important things:
It encourages him to do a better job where he is such
that the economy will prosper better and it provide better
resources for industry or corporations to draw on motivated
workers to fill openings.
Host
(after a moment):
Oh, I see everybody’s hands waving. However, since we
haven’t yet heard from our guest, Mr. Christian, I believe
everyone will agree that we should extend courtesy to
him.
Mr.
Christian:
Thank you very
much. It’s an
honor to be invited to participate in an interesting
discussion dealing with an important issue. I ask myself what I
can bring to the floor that relates to this from a slightly
different perspective.
Such a question opens up the possibility of so many
varied avenues that I actually feel a bit overwhelmed to
attempt to bring a fresh, new perspective, but then I draw
upon a few of my own experiences providing a Christian
orientation. I
truly believe that Christianity offers dynamics which can
transform the landscape into challenging
discoveries.
But since I have
indicated that I intend to draw upon my experiences, I would
like to begin with some direct dealings with wonderful people
in Tucson,
Arizona. Out in that arid
country I had the privilege of serving a community that had at
least four ethnic groups constituting almost all the community
itself, Afro-Americans, Mexican Americans, Indians and
Anglos. Much of
this population could easily be classified as subsisting at
the poverty level, struggling to maintain the bare
essentials.
Our community
center provided these ethnic groups social and spiritual
activities and counseling as well as clothing, food and other
assistance. Some
of these people found a deep change through Christ and
embraced Christian values.
I wish I could
report that every family grew in the Christian faith and edged
away from poverty through applying themselves to secure jobs
and reaching successful levels of productivity. Of course, some
did. That in
itself was worth our efforts to encourage them and to be there
for them.
But a
significant number developed a dependency on receiving
handouts. Some of
these homes we visited had dirty clothes piled up and
eventually discarded.
These dirty clothes for the most part were perfectly
good, wearable and could have benefited those who would take
care of them.
However, the
situation for these people was such that they felt no need to
wash the clothes, for they could simply go pick up other
clothes at the center.
But one of the most glaring examples of how the human
nature expresses itself could be found in a government low
income housing, where qualified people could secure a place to
live. While some
of these dear people maintained their dwelling and kept their
houses and surroundings clean, others simply made a garbage
bin out of theirs and let the buildings run down
completely.
May I suggest to
us that the most important issue has to do with the human
heart? Where the
heart is right, the environment will be transformed. Where the heart
remains filled with darkness, darkness, chaos and filth will
be reproduced to create a degenerated environment.
Q
Here’s a question
which deals with the meaning of authentic love. Some of us are young
people pondering the future with a suitable mate. How do we really
discover what true love is and how can we be certain that we
have found it when someone very appealing comes
along?
A
Discussion
Within
the scope of our society this concern definitely takes on very
overwhelming significance and deserves volumes of related
avenues toward establishing a Christian perspective. However, we may be
able to pursue some helpful paths which could provide, at
least partially, fruitful efforts. Allow us to offer some
key elements within the following narration:
The House of
Aristocracy
Sir
Henry:
I
say, Grover, it’s quite considerate of you to drop by,
especially on short notice.
Grover: I
must confess, Sir Henry, you did sound quite… well,
perturbed. Is
something bothering you?
Sir
Henry:
Perturbed? I
guess you could say as much, Grover. After all, it’s…yes,
you might even say that it’s a ghastly situation. I do need a sounding
board. I mean,
you’re always there, Grover. And, well, you’re a
good listener and can advise in issues like this, I
think. I
mean, of course you can.
Grover: Sir
Henry, if I may suggest something as an old friend, just cut
to the core.
You’re obviously too cautious. You do know me better
than that.
Sir
Henry:
Well,
hang it all, Grover, I’m…I’m a bit taken back by what has
happened. I mean,
it’s not easy when your own daughter is involved, you know.
Grover:
Victoria?
Sir
Henry:
I’m
afraid. Oh, how
humiliating! I
mean, it’s not that I don’t love her, but…but how could
she? I mean, how could she?
Really?
Grover: Oh,
dear.
Pregnant?
Sir
Henry:
No,
no, nothing like that.
But almost as bad. Really, it’s that
blithering idiot she’s running around with. Can you imagine a girl
of her stature stooping to the gutter? How could
she?
Grover: Tell
me about this guy.
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
there’s nothing much to tell. He’s just
the
common
run of the lot. That’s
all.
Grover: Oh?
Sir
Henry:
What’s
the bloody meaning of oh?
Grover: No
offense, Sir Henry, but you’re really not telling me much with
this derogatory language. Your conclusions
surely must be based on something.
Sir
Henry:
Grover,
as intelligent as you are (and you surely must be intelligent;
you’ve never married), you can sense that…that I’m too
humiliated even to speak of this dreadful matter, much less to
go into the sordid details.
Grover: Then,
I just suppose that we’ve reached an impasse. Without knowing
the details, I really see little I can do to be of any
use to you, other than allowing you
to vent.
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
very well, Grover.
Mark.
Grover: Mark?
Sir
Henry:
Mark! That’s the name of the
guy.
Uh…Gibson.
Mark Gibson.
Grover: And?
Sir
Henry:
Well,
I…I’m thinking. I
blush to think what Victoria
has gotten herself into. That guy…uh…Mark, is
one of those radicals.
Grover: Radicals?
Sir
Henry:
You
know. Religious
fanatics. He’s
off the deep
end.
Do you know what he thinks love to
be?
Grover: That’s
serious, Sir Henry.
He’s one of those free
love freaks,
huh?
Sir Henry
(laughing uncontrollably): Mark? I should say not. Never! He’s off the other
deep end. He’s
one of those religious purists, if you catch my
drift. I
seriously doubt he’d ever get beyond handholding before
marriage. That’s
just the extremist he is.
Grover: Hmm. What’s the matter with
that?
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
Grover, don’t be so naïve. Come to think of it, I
believe I am beginning to see why you never
married.
Grover: I
really don’t understand, Sir Henry. Are you
saying
you
would like for the boy to proposition your
daughter?
Sir
Henry:
If
I were not a gentleman and I didn’t know you better, Grover,
you’d feel my fist impact your bloody nose with those
words! The real
problem is that he’s influencing Victoria and moving her
toward his radical beliefs.
Grover:
Call
me a bit out of the mainstream, but I see a true virtue in
purity. If I
could have ever met the right kind of girl to marry, I know
that I would have considered purity a desirable
quality.
Sir
Henry:
Confound
it, Grover. I
didn’t intend to suggest I’m condoning that sort of
indiscretions.
It’s not so much the notion of purity,
but the very concept of what love is.
Grover: And
just what is that strange concept of
love?
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
you know. I mean,
these cults embrace the most bizarre fantasies about
love. They all
dismiss the very basis of real love:
Hormones.
Grover: Hormones?
Sir
Henry:
Yes,
hormones. What
else could signal us we’re in
love?
Grover: But
hormones?
Of course, hormones come into play, but wouldn’t that
alone make a weak union?
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
no! You’re
beginning to sound like Victoria…
and that bad influence,
Mark.
Grover: But…
Sir
Henry:
But
nothing.
That’s the only reason I fell in love
and got
married.
Grover: I
rest my case.
Sir
Henry:
What
is that suppose to mean?
Grover: Well,
Sir Henry, your hormones led you to marry,
but
did they keep you
married?
Sir Henry: I
can’t believe you said that, Grover. You’re hitting below
the belt. We
didn’t stay married because…because we fell out of love! It’s as simple as
that. Yes, that’s
it.
Grover: In
other words, your hormones let you down?
Sir
Henry:
And
what’s wrong with that.
It can happen to
anybody.
Grover: Oh,
sure. It can
happen, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it must
happen. Some
things can be avoided, you know.
Sir
Henry:
And
I suppose that I could have avoided falling out of love by
controlling my hormones?
Grover: Let
me ask you this, Sir Henry: Do your hormones
control you, or do you have any choice in the
matter?
Sir
Henry:
What
a silly question.
My hormones are what I am as a man. Without them I could
not love at all.
Grover: Then
you would probably not understand that hormone drive can be
directed either into constructive or into injurious
channels. Am I
right?
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
I see where you’re going. Just as I have begun
to suspect, you do share some of the same radical views
as Victoria and that…that crude Mark.
Grover: Look
at it in this way:
Just because some people try to give the highest and
noblest expressions to their sexual drives don’t necessarily
make them radicals, wouldn’t you agree? They can love deeply,
but their love doesn’t center in themselves but in
others.
Sir
Henry:
What
do you think to be the bloody reason that I am deeply
concerned for my daughter? I’m not a
pervert. I want
what is best for her!
Isn’t that beyond myself?
Grover: Indeed,
your concern for your daughter is commendable, Sir Henry. And yes, it is not a
sexual love, is it?
Doesn’t that love for others tell you that it should go
deeper than mere sexual attraction growing from the physical
nature of hormonal action?
Sir
Henry:
But
that’s for my loved ones and friends, which has nothing to do
with my hormones.
My mate (or wife) is…is…well different. She’s suppose to meet
my…my craving for physical intimacy. It’s her role to
satisfy me!
Grover: And
what’s your role for her?
Sir
Henry:
Hang
it all, Grover.
I’ve heard that somewhere in your Bible God created
women for men—never vice versa. They’re supposed to
satisfy us men.
If sometimes they get satisfaction…well, that’s a bonus
for them, but whether they get satisfaction or not, they’re
always supposed to submit to us men; yes, your Bible even says
that, too.
Grover: Oh,
yes, I indeed know what the Bible declares, Sir Henry. But even though a
woman was truly created for Adam, the first man, and continues
to serve the same role for men everywhere, the Bible makes
explicitly clear in Genesis 2:24 that the man and the woman
are to become one, which means they are to be in
perfect union.
Also, a man is to love his wife as Christ loves His
church and gave Himself for the church, as Paul states in
Ephesians 5:25.
Now, let me ask you, Sir Henry, what do you
think the Scripture means by loving your wife as Christ loves
the church?
Sir
Henry:
Do
I look like some sort of minister, Grover? I’m more practical
than to dig up old, irrelevant sayings to support antiquated
ideas.
Grover: Antiquated?
Sir
Henry:
Indeed,
we’re living in the twenty-first century. What may have been
some cultural expediency for ancient times does not mesh with
our modern, electronic age.
Grover: I
see, Sir Henry.
You say in effect that the baby should be thrown out
with the bath water!
Sir
Henry:
What
does a bloody baby have to do with any
thing?
Grover: Well,
you have Victoria.
Sir
Henry:
So?
Grover: And
I suppose she was a baby once.
Sir
Henry:
Some
nineteen years ago, but what does that have to do with
matters?
Grover: And
you bathed her.
Right?
Sir
Henry:
Obviously. So what’s your
point?
Grover: Not
once did you throw her out with the bath
water?
Sir
Henry:
We
didn’t ever throw the bath water out. We drained it from the
tub.
Grover: But
you kept Victoria. That’s the
point.
Sir
Henry:
I
don’t get it. Of
course, our purpose was to keep Victoria. The bath water had
served its purpose.
Grover: Ah! There’s the
purpose. The bath
water was useful to accommodate the needs of the baby to be
kept clean and fresh, but once that purpose had been served,
the dirty bath water was no longer
useful.
Sir
Henry:
That’s
so obvious that no point can be served to call attention to
that fact.
Grover: Yes. In this case it is
indeed obvious.
But we might make the same analogy to the Old
Testament.
Religious customs and rituals served to point the
people to the coming of the Messiah. Many laws and
ceremonies found fulfillment at the Cross? Like the bath water,
they had served their purpose.
Sir
Henry:
So-o-o?
Grover: Paul
focused on the spiritual reality surrounding marriage and the
meaning of bonding to become one. If a man loves his
wife as Christ does the church, he would willingly sacrifice
his life, if necessary, to protect the well being of his
wife. The husband
finds fulfillment in giving himself away to his wife, such
that the sexual intimacy brings ecstatic fulfillment in the
giving process.
You see, dear Sir Henry, the joy comes through giving
much more than self-centered taking.
Sir
Henry:
What…what…I
mean…? Grover,
you leave me dumbfounded. You’ve never spoken to
me about such religious…uh…insights before.
Grover: Sir
Henry, I have started to on several occasions only to have you
divert our conversation away from religious
matters.
Sir
Henry:
But
I don’t really know what to think. I mean, in a strange
way what you say is starting to make sense. I…I must give it some
thought.
Grover: Absolutely.
Sir
Henry:
But
one aspect still troubles me. I’ve been looking
through the eyes of a guy who finds pleasure in beauty and
passion. Is
this perspective terribly wrong?
Grover: No,
I should say not.
It’s only natural to appreciate the magnetism that
sexual attraction presents. But we all need to
realize that, at best, these remain the surface, superficial
levels. That
should only be the starting point, not the entire
consideration.
There can be far greater dimensions in relationships
than surface, shallow gratifications.
Sir
Henry:
I
guess I blew it with my wife, Jennifer. Our relationship
soured when I found her less than challenging to my sexual
expectations.
Grover: You
know, you may have just taken the first step toward possible
reconciliation!
Sir
Henry:
You
could be right, I suppose, but I have some other matters to
get squared away before I think seriously about our
relationship.
Grover: Like
your relationship to God?
Sir
Henry:
Perhaps
we could discuss that over the next few days, Grover. I have never known you
to be a man of faith before and even if I had, I probably
would have dismissed the notion that I wanted anything to do
with it. But
now…
Grover: But
now, this matter with Victoria
has shed new light on the subject of
Christianity?
Sir
Henry:
Not
only that, but I am beginning to plug in to some things that
Victoria and Mark have tried to discuss with me and I have
been too bull-headed to listen. Strange. Yes, strange indeed
that it has taken this sort of crisis to point me toward the
possibility of genuine change.
Grover: A
crisis tends to prod us to focus beyond ourselves or to turn
us inwardly to nourish our pain, which can indeed fester into
bitterness. Sir
Henry, I am greatly pleased that in your case it has been a
door to look beyond—perhaps to find a genuine
resolution.
Sir
Henry:
Resolution? Strange. At this point, I’m too
confused to focus.
I… I believe I need a moment to reflect and… well,
digest what has happened. It’s… it’s as though
I’ve been shoved into a new world I didn’t even know
existed.
Grover: Reflection
can be great, Sir Henry.
Only…
Sir
Henry:
Only?
Grover: Yes,
only let it be open to expansion rather than an occasion to
focus on self and the problem. That could shut
doors. Just keep
looking outwardly.
Sir
Henry:
Outward
at what?
Grover: Perhaps
I should express it this way: it’s helpful to think outside the box. You’ve heard the
expression, I’m sure, Sir Henry?
Sir
Henry:
Well,
certainly, Grover, but to me that’s always meant not to be so
narrow-minded as to shut out reality.
Grover: It
surely can, Sir Henry, but to think outside the box suggests
being open to external realities beyond ourselves and to
develop a sensitivity to the possibility of worlds of
exploration beyond our little backyard experiences and
concepts.
Sir
Henry:
If
you say so, Grover, but a creature of habit such as I will
find it hard to depart from comfortable, secure surroundings
to venture into the unknown.
Grover: You’ve
taken the first step, Sir Henry. Now, to get you into a
spirit of anticipation and excitement about possible new,
wonderful discoveries—that’s the key to success!
Sir
Henry:
Wait
a minute, Grover.
How’d we get down this street?
Grover: This
street?
Sir
Henry:
You
know… how’d we get into this train of
thought?
Grover: You
mean with respect to thinking outside the
box?
Sir
Henry:
Well…
uh… yes, I would say so.
I mean, when I said I’d give it some thought, I didn’t
mean that I would draw quick… uh… or premature
conclusions. I
mean, I just want to sort through things.
Grover: Quite
true, Sir Henry.
I don’t question you or your intentions. I only seek to clarify
some difficult matters to deal with. Believe me, I’ve been
through enough myself to appreciate the necessity to sort
things out, and I know the tangling issues that seem to bog us
down. I’m just
trying to lend a helpful hand over rough spots I’ve had to
work out in the… well, curves life can throw at us
sometimes.
Sir
Henry:
Oh,
Grover, I’m not sure where this is leading, but… I… I… uh… do
not intend to cast aspersions on your integrity, of all
people. I know
you want to help, but right now I don’t even know how
to respond
Grover: Quite
all right, Sir Henry.
I’m not going to press you, but I do not wish to leave
you without some… some sort of handle either. This isn’t intended to
strap you when I say that the Bible teaches us in Matthew
10:39 that
he who finds his life shall lose it: and
he who loses his life for Christ’s sake shall find
it.
These
words of Christ are intended to liberate us from ourselves
such that we can find ourselves through a genuine relationship
with Christ, a union, if you will. We can become one with
Him!
Sir
Henry:
You
know, in a strange way, those words resonate with me, like…
like… well, like uncovering a deep purpose I have never been
conscious of—up ‘till now, at least. Thank you,
Grover.
While this
dialogue continues, allow us to pause to reflect upon the
course of this conversation. What is our take on
Grover’s approach?
Do we feel that he perhaps drove Sir Henry a bit too
far or became a bit too direct and abrasive? Or do we feel that
Grover sensed the need to press the crisis to cause Sir Henry
to face up to reality?
What would we suppose to be the final conclusion to the
matter; after all, could it not conceivably tilt either
way?
We
intend to continue with this issue sometime in the
near future.
A
NOTE CONCERNING THE DATES
Several
questions brought up for discussion represent a previous
year--that of 2004. Since our website
deals with events and issues, no matter when they were raised,
we feel that we do a service to gear issues that certainly
affect long range concerns to no time limitation.
Q
How
do we come to grips with the problem of
credibility within the scope of
political rhetoric?
A
Discussion
In many respects this question hits the nail squarely
on the head.
Another way of expressing it, perhaps, may be simply
through exploring the total spectrum within our society,
including, not only the political arena, but social,
religious, private and public (or business) life. That is, how do
we discover the needle of truth in the haystack of claims and
counterclaims?
While categories sometimes oversimplify issues and
philosophical expressions, they are nevertheless useful to
help us sort things such that we may better get a handle to
grasp the reality of the situation.
Take highway travel within our nation. Laws that govern the
use of the public highway network through every state dictate
an order of operating vehicles as safely as possible and, to
some extent, as efficiently as possible. If we compare the
attitudes within our society, we may find three broad
categories of approaches that may help us analyze these
issues.
In spite of the ridiculous nature of this illustration,
the underlying principles can help us understand how absurd
certain views would be if taken to their logical
conclusions.
First, one group of activists declares that laws
certainly cannot be avoided without sending our society into a
tailspin causing a complete loss of control and into the abyss
of anarchy.
However, their concern leads them to suggest that
everyone must have equal opportunity to express himself. Even though they find
themselves in a small minority, the drivers who desire to
drive on the left side of the highway should be given an
opportunity to realize their desires. Thus, laws could be
rewritten to allow this minority to drive on the left side of
the highway every other day. As a matter of fact,
on odd days of each month drivers could be required to drive
on the right side of the highway. In addition, on even
days of the month drivers could be required to drive on the
left side of the highway, thus fulfilling both the majority’s
desire and the minority’s desire.
We sometimes see this principle employed through our
court system and the Congress of the United States. The majority cannot
trump the rights of the minority. Hence, in Congress
(namely, the Senate) the filibuster can be resorted to, thus
sometimes successfully applying a veto to the will of the
majority.
However, the minority has rights, according to this
disposition. On
the other hand, within our order of government, we assure all
human rights in principle, even though sometimes rights of the
minority need to be guarded and assured. But in the matter of
rule a democracy presents itself through the voice of the
majority, not some elite who must judge what people must
think, do and adhere to.
As
with giving everyone an expression with respect to driving on
the highway, we encounter all sorts of problems. Either
the whole matter of transportation and travel in general would
come to a snail’s pace because of intense over caution or
increased accidents or both due to confusion by some as to
whether today is the 15th day of the month or the
16th day of the month or our system would break
down altogether and lead to rebellion and anarchy.
This same problem could very well develop within our
government, leading toward anarchy or toward total dictatorial
rule by the minority.
Greatly
disturbing, there remain those who are even more radical (to
name one as a typical example, the ACLU). They
would declare absolutely that humanity should have the utmost
expression of liberty.
Everyone should be allowed without any restrictions
whatsoever to drive on either side of the highway he chooses
at any time he chooses. Accidents and deaths
would be totally irrelevant. Besides, such
accidents would decrease the population and provide more space
and property for everyone else.
Moreover,
we see this attitude expressed openly and boldly within such
organizations as the ACLU,
Planned
Parenthood,
etc. Such
organizations as these become well marked in the support of
ironically so-called abortion clinics designed
as death houses to torture and kill unborn babies. Their whole scope
centers in the execution of the liberty of the
mother to trump the right of the unborn
child!
Can there be any difference in the attitude of from the
attitude that the right of the mother has precedence over that
of her unborn child.
The classification of a group of people as having no
status to assure rights can be no different in principle from
that of racism!
While a great many radicals fall into these two
categories and develop a myriad of ramifications to express
themselves politically, philosophically and socially, and in
one way or another some may even have expressions using both
radical avenues, we must be able to detect the logical end to
proposals issuing from these groups. The illustration of
the highway travel may help us to picture the dangers of these
groups.
On the other hand, many of us fall into the category of
absolutes.
We believe that laws to insure safety and fluid
movement on our highways should be enforced effectively. While these laws do
not insure total freedom from accidents, they do succeed in
reducing accidents and promoting safe
travel.
The same thing may be said for the way we seek to
protect our family and religious values. We must declare in no
uncertain terms that we will refuse to tolerate efforts to
reduce or eliminate these genuine liberties based on the
nature of our nation from the time of our forefathers.
Q How
do we cope with the outcome of the midterm elections for
2006? From a
Christian perspective does it not seem likely that our value
system is now at high risk of suffering setbacks and possible
eradication altogether?
A
Discussion
While we are indeed right to be
concerned, we need not throw in the towel and concede to the
demonic pressures. To consign our society to the villainous
ploys of those who would place Christians under tyranny must
not be an option!
Quite
the contrary, we who have the mindset of Christ, we who value
the perspective of our forefathers and their moral and
spiritual fortitude, we who honor and respect the true
Constitution of the United States of America, we who are
against tyranny and judicial legislation, we who are
genuine Americans, etc., have every right to fight for
the authenticity of the nation forged upon this
continent. We
must resist that which would destroy us and our nation. We need to be reminded
of Patrick Henry’s gallant declaration, “Give me liberty or
give me death!”
We also need to catch the fire of the other great
statesmen of our history and make our voices heard loud and
clear. We need
never waver nor compromise in the battle that cannot be lost
without sacrificing the very distinction that makes our
country unique among the nations of our world. To give so much as an
inch here would invite an avalanche of exploitation that could
overwhelm us and nullify all our efforts. The enemies of our
country within our own ranks prove more dangerous than all the
remaining enemies of this whole globe. We must be tenacious,
resolved, dedicated and convicted within ourselves that this
remains a battle worth any price we must pay, even at the cost
of our own lives, if necessary, that we reverse this cancer
with the cure the truth affords (John
8:32).
Yet, no person has a corner on access
to the revelation of truth. Neither Democrats nor
Republicans have a patent on truth. Issues transcend all
party lines. The
truth cannot be captured with religious or denominational
proclamations. No
individual person (other than God Himself) can authentically
lay claim to sole ownership of truth. Hence, we must
understand that truth reaches far beyond our finite, frail
existence and radiates from the infinite domain of God
alone.
The humanist, the religious bigots, the cults and many
and varied factions may cry through the darkness and
distortion of human pride, arrogance and audacity, but truth
remains as the proverbial and elusive end of the rainbow
within the fog of such clamor. The only true
recipients of truth must grow from union with
God in a relationship marked with absolute devotion and
obedient response to the revelation through
God’s Word! Thus, the revelation
must come through that kinship with God Himself by means of
spiritual linkage (I Corinthians
2:12-16).
Therefore,
within the election outcomes we must make a determination with
respect to that revelation of God, for however the process
develops within the scope of the new Congress we should wait
and make no rash or premature conclusions with respect to what
direction the political climate will take. Paramount to our
concerns Christian, family, moral and spiritual values must
never be compromised.
Those within Congress who support these values must
certainly be supported and encouraged. Those who are bent on
the destruction of these values should be resisted and exposed
relentlessly!
Thus, we need to take a wait-and-see stand.
Finally, but certainly not least, while we
wait, we must wait in prayer and anticipation. When we do act in
response, we must act out of a prayerful disposition and
anticipation through faith. We must always be
found in an attitude of prayer (I Thessalonians 5:17). In everything we must
do all to the glory of God (I Corinthians
10:31).
Q How can the
Freedom from
Religion activists promote the
total obliteration of religion (and very especially
Christianity) from any public presence on the grounds of the
offenses such expressions and activities create for the
Freedom from Religion
disposition?
A
Discussion
First,
this dark segment of our society adamantly demands tolerance
toward their persistence to remove anything and
everything that could even remotely be interpreted to
bring them offence.
However, they care absolutely nothing concerning the
provocative offence their very public presence and demands
cause the rest of society! Do we really
perceive just what they are doing? The
Freedom from Religion
rights supersede and
nullify rights of all other beliefs and actions! They can promote
themselves and their darkness all they wish, but deny any
other point of view that differs in anyway from that of their
own! Can
tolerance be only a one way
street?
Second,
if the Freedom from Religion
activists can be serious concerning complete neutrality
with respect to all controversial issues, then they would have
to buy into the notion of total destruction of all living
matter on earth, for as long as there remains one living
being, there will be views that could be interpreted as
controversial and offensive views.
Q
Few
honest people would dispute the value of prayer, especially in
a crisis situation.
However, can there be a kind of reflective prayer which
would extract an overall biblical spirit that would give us
proper spiritual focus as we seek to pray?
A
Discussion
While there’s definitely more than one
single answer to this important question, any of the answers
must incorporate the spirit of the Scriptures in general, for
the Holy Bible secures for us the heart and character of God
Himself through its unfolding Revelation. Jesus Himself provided
for his disciples the model prayer (Matthew 6:9-13),
the Lord’s prayer (John, chapter 17),
etc.
An
example of a reflective prayer incorporating the spirit of
God’s Word with respect to a relational focus on God
follows. While
this can in no wise be exhaustive, it does center on God
Himself and helps us keep our focus:
A
Prayer of Reflection
Oh,
God,
In
You we find our strength,
Our
security,
Our
purpose and direction!
But
even more than these gifts
You
Yourself are our life,
For
you not only give us gifts
Of
grace, mercy, love and kindness,
Of
provisions and light in the
darkness,
Of
relief from our despair and
loneliness,
BUT
You
have given to us Yourself through
Christ;
In
Jesus You took upon Yourself
Our
guilt, our sin, our separation,
That
Your life may become our life,
That
Jesus may live out His life in
us.
Thus,
we pray that we grow up
Into
the image and stature of Jesus
That
the world may see
The
life and very face of Jesus
Within
us as God’s shinning Presence
And
radiant Revelation of Himself.
Keep
us true to You,
That
the Truth may always shine
through
That
the Truth may convict and set us
free
That
Your Holy Name be glorified
And
others may truly be born again.
In
Jesus' Name, Amen
Q
Islam’s rapid growth greatly threatens the
stability of our world!
Why has this religion become one of the fastest growing
religions in the world?
A
Discussion
Such
growth can become a reason for concern, but such growth cannot
be that difficult to understand when we examine the
facts. We from a
Christian perspective tend to draw conclusions based upon the
Holy Bible as God’s revelation. We also understand the
overall dimensions of biblical revelation to rest upon love
expressed through value of all human life, equipping those who
respond with a sense of moral and spiritual worth of the
family as God’s institution and we are mindful that God
Himself has ordained governments to fulfill the role of
keeping peace and order.
However, we must also acknowledge the counterpart of
Christian values and concern, those religious and
antireligious entities based on principles of hate and
destruction.
First,
extremist Islam factions do
punctuate their radical commitment with the sacrifice of their
lives to foster their evil hatred and godless darkness into
our world. Their
extreme conviction tends, therefore, to become a point of
admiration among those rebelling against the hypocrisy and credibility
gap societies throughout the world
often exhibit.
And, unfortunately, even many nominal Christian groups
give genuine Christianity a bad rap. Unfortunately, also,
even some genuine Christian groups move tentatively toward
promoting Christianity and Christian principles. Such weak expressions
of Christianity and Christian principles among many who
represent Christianity to the world leave much to be desired
with respect to the exercise of deep conviction. Therefore, the impact
upon the world at large by such half-hearted gestures becomes
marginal at best.
Second,
even when devoted people reflect Christianity through deep
conviction and exuberant love and faith and even when they
sacrificially risk their lives in the cause of Christ as they
live out the personality and character of Jesus Christ in
localities throughout the world, such reflections of faith
sometimes become obscured behind the misconceptions caused by
the less dedicated or false Christians.
Indeed,
stereotyping all too often short-changes those devout souls
seeking to bring light into the darkest corners of our
globe. And why
should we be surprised?
Satan remains alive and well and
will resort to any ploy to diminish
the impact genuine Christianity can make! And who is better
equipped to serve the ends of satanic efforts than those who
worship at Satan’s feet, including his misguided
and beguiled radical Muslim puppets? (See I
Peter 5:8.)
ALSO the Scriptures
themselves reveal that God knows the heart and intent of
everyone (Jeremiah 17:9-10). The Bible speaks of
Christians undergoing hatred and persecution (Matthew 10:22;
Mark 13:13; John 15:18-19; 17:14). Since God knows every
evil conniving of human hearts and has through Christ revealed
His message to His followers that Christians will be the
targets of all the forces of darkness, should it not be
evident that Satan works through many other religions, as well
as explicit anti-god forces, to weaken and to destroy
Christianity?
Thus, the hatred and contempt of Islamic radicals for
Christianity reflect the empowering of Satanic exploits.
Moreover, because
of the demands of the gospel, true Christianity will never
become popular among the masses (Matthew 7:13-14). For this very reason
Satan and his forces of darkness also entice the masses. Unfortunately, the
vast majority hates genuine Christianity and sometimes creates
alliances with radicals to oppose Christians. Furthermore,
counterfeit Christianity can also give others opportunity to
stereotype all Christians by that false representation of
Christianity, such that genuine Christian character and nature
has little chance to be observed.
Consider
the publicity charlatans under the banner of Christianity and
how they become a gain for the purpose of the news media , if
we will. Often
sly, subtle innuendos picture all Christendom characterized as
being somewhat less than open and above board when so-called
ministers manipulate or exploit people for personal profit and
are exposed. Or
may we consider the shock wave that triggers public scorn
toward Christians when a wayward minister falls prey to sexual
improprieties and has been discovered in a compromising
relationship with some church member.
Not
only do actual cases as these mentioned undermine the
credibility of the whole of Christianity, but let us consider
disgruntled and dishonest church members who seek to destroy a
minister through false accusations freely spread viciously
among members and even among the public at large. Or consider greedy and
dishonest church members using credit with no intention of
paying their debts.
Their reputation undermines the perception of Christian
values.
Please
allow us a moment to place this whole scenario into
perspective. The
news media or people relating events as these mentioned herein
find no real interest in admitting that every genuine,
authentic disposition within the hearts and lives of devout
Christians provides for the enemy an opportunity to use the
counterfeit in the minds of people in an effort to discredit
the genuine. And
why not? If many
of these opponents can convince others that Christianity is
corrupt, they themselves will succeed in convincing themselves
all the more that there can be nothing to Christianity
anyway. Thereby,
they release themselves from accountability and absolve their
conscience such that they convince themselves that they can
live loosely with impunity.
Take
the direction pursued a step further. Consider those who
detest Christianity to the degree of obsession. Every discrediting
report regarding Christians fuel their illusions and cause
them to seek ways to express their contempt for Christians and
Christianity itself.
What better way to strike out at their enemy than to
join others who despise Christianity. Hence, some of those
who identify with Islam and even become Muslims in actuality
seek to stab at their enemy, Christianity.
Of
course, many other elements converge to account for the rapid
growth of Islam, but these mentioned incorporate principle
reasons within our own United States for this rapid
growth.
Q
Just
what on earth is going on? Have
some of our citizens completely sold out American values—the
very foundation upon which this nation exploded with new hope,
a new beginning from bondage and intense evil from which they
fled?
Or
have enemy aliens infected the political and judicial systems
of our democracy to destroy our nation from within? Just look at what’s
going on in California, for example! How can Berkley city
officials spit out bold and aggressive contempt for our
military recruiters and declare the military uninvited and
unwelcome in their city?
A Discussion
We
sense a very deep outrage in the nature of these
questions.
Indeed, to a large extent we can identify with this
angry, bitter cry.
However, we must rise above our feelings and clear the
cobwebs produced by intense contempt for those who detest our
Christian and family values such that we can understand that
ours regards a difference in real values that
forbid us to stoop to their level. Granted, these
officials detest us and all we stand for because we refuse to
embrace their bigotry.
Often they resort to such terminology as tolerance
for all groups, not excluding the radical Islamic
factions.
Yet, their tolerance stops far short of
exercising even an inkling of tolerance for all others who
fail to endorse their philosophical notions on
tolerance to the letter. Their hostilities
toward Christianity in particular echo incessantly in their
blatant denunciation of the Christian world view.
The Christian world view takes into
account our national interest in protecting our civilization
against the evil terrorists who would overrun our nation with
a perspective of annihilating Christianity, freedom and
democracy. Yet,
we have heard from different groups in California who decry
what they claim to be our government’s provocation
causing the Islamic terrorists’ assault on the twin towers and
other targets during 9-11! Perhaps this same
spirit finds hostile expression in Berkley toward the Marine
recruiters. One
of those voices raised in obscene rumbling called the Marines
mass murderers.
We would guess that if we consider terrorism to merit
world domination and justify all their terrorists’ acts that
indiscriminately slay even innocent women and children, then
those who belch wholesale hatred of America and all it stands
for (and especially hatred of Christianity and family values)
should be praised for their contempt!
But
let
us turn the other cheek, so to speak. While we detest this
disposition of capara,
allow us to see the reality from a Christian perspective. Some few Islamic
terrorists have come to know Jesus Christ as personal Lord and
Savior and now bear joyous testimony to the power and reality
of God in Jesus Christ.
If God can reach those responsible for such atrocities
against humanity, there remains hope that those in California
could possibly turn to God. Indeed, we would pray
toward that end.
If they never repent, God will surely deal His own
judgment upon them in His own time and in His own
way.
URGENT!
Very disturbing news coming out
of Washington with respect to Congress’ indecision on the
Marriage
Amendment carries detrimental
potential against the survivability of our nation, of our
society, as we know it! A report that adverse influences
bear more heavily upon the congressmen than pro-family efforts
must spur the ones of us who believe in decency and truth to
rush to register our support. If we have not, please let
us act immediately to halt the forces of evil. In this post
election for 2004, we need to redouble our efforts to get
Congress to act. (Let us check the Links Page to
contact ACLJ, LC or others who can help us contact our
congressmen!)
Read
Open Letter to
ABC
Click to go back to top of
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Disclosure
With the
exception of references to public figures and other areas of
public domain regarding any entry into this website, I, as the
textual content writer, respect the rights of privacy and am
also very careful never to violate copyrighted material.
Consequently, any illustrations used herein simply represent
conglomerate abstracts that do not place anyone at risk of
being identified personally.
NEW
LOOK
Our text has been revised. We no longer make
frequent use of the he/she,
his/her, himself/herself, etc., gender friendly and neutral
terms. One of the major reasons for this change regards an
effort to make expressions less interrupting;
indeed, some readers find the frequent usage distracting.
While we do seek to be accommodating to gender sensitivities,
we now make use of the generic he, him, etc.
without attaching any male chauvinistic slant to these terms.
We trust that for the sake of simplicity and clarity, everyone
will understand the merit of this change.
Click to go back to top of
page.
This page is not yet complete,
but it will continue to grow. It will be added to
frequently.
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 ourselves can
continuously grow 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.
|
