How Do The Arts Affect A Culture's Thinking About Church?

One of the things we do in our family is discuss how the producers of entertainment use it to manipulate our emotions and program our minds.  I picked up a season of The Big Valley off a bargain shelf recently and it provided us an excellent teachable moment.  

In an episode entitled "Fallen Hawk", one of the sons in the wealthy Barkly Family, Heath, (Lee Majors)  challenged an old acquaintance of his to ride a wild horse they were trying to tame in exchange for a financial favor he was requesting. The friend was injured when the horse through him off paralyzing him. Heath then felt that it was his duty to care for the injured man and his wife.

Heath's benevolence began to look scandalous as he grew closer to the wife. And although there was intentional ambiguity, in the end, that there was no reason for concern was firmly established.  But in the midst of this ambiguity, the scene below is inserted.  This scene advances the story line not one bit, but it does allow for the caricaturization of Christians as self-righteous, and judgmental busybodies. 

This scene is obviously meant to elicit disdain. Nevermind the fact that, to be obedient to scripture, the deacon would have approached Heath if there was a concern, not his mother.  Worse, the deacon admits basing the conclusions on "the talk" around town.  What an easy church person to hate and ridicule.  But the Church doesn't get to defend itself in these kinds of scenes; or does it?  

This episode was aired in March of 1966.  

Another way we are manipulated is by music.  Two years after the airing of this episode a song written by Tom T. Hall and performed by Jeannie Riley, entitled Harper Valley PTA, topped the charts. The song is very similar in sentiment to the Big Valley clip.  With an ad hominem argument the song effortlessly brushes aside the folly of a mother wearing immodest clothing, and "drinking, and a-runnin' 'round with men and going wild," in front of her teenaged daughter.  It simply accuses the accusers of being hypocrites. There.  Done.  One is left to presume that since everyone else is doing wrong too, evidently, doing wrong must be okay, and no one dare say anything for fear of being thought a hypocrite.  

This little musical ode, like the video clip, are just two examples of many.  They covertly program us to judge anyone as a hypocrite who dares to challenge bad behavior while at the same time giving us aid and comfort in our own sin. After all, it does get one thing right, and that is that none among any of us is without sin.  But the idea of judging ourselves; or of a righteous God judging us, vanishes. 

But non-believers are not the only ones being affected by the arts.  The American Church has also been impacted.  Could it be that American Christianity now so desires to say, "We're really not like that", that it is willing to tailor its outreach, its worship services and its sermons around proving it?  Could this mentality be at the root of "Emrgent-ism" and "Seeker friendly-ism", and avoiding certain doctrines as one might avoid mention of a pink elephant?

I am one of those who sees the Church as the only hope in responding to all that ails our society.  While I doubt that the majority of preachers of the 1960's understood what was happening during that time, they certainly didn't understand it enough to teach their congregations how to mentally navigate the powers of the media, or the cultural shifts that that media was bringing about.  But such ought no longer to be the case.  It takes so little time to understand a few logical fallacies, and only a little more to teach on how to apply them to the predominant thinking of our day.  Perhaps if love tempted us to protect the unwitting, there would be fewer of them who are misled by the arts. 

More interesting reading    

If life imitated art

The 14th Amendment And "Marriage Equality"

I just read a blog post entitled "why are Christians opposed to marriage equality?"  The post explains that "marriage equality" is simply a word game meant to make opposition more difficult. But the author's reasoning from the perspective of history, as well as the current popularity of cohabitation, in his response to a commenter who disagreed with his post is most interesting.  The exchange: 

Commenter:  Alternatively, the phrase ‘marriage equality’ is intended to convey the principle that its advocates actually see as the issue. It relates directly to the argument that failure to recognize gay marriage constitutes a substantive violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. You will dismiss this of course, but it is hardly the deceitful re-branding of the issue which you pretend it to be.

Response:  Thank you for visiting my blog and for your comments. Both are greatly appreciated.

Firstly, you say “alternatively, the phrase “marriage equality” is intended to convey the principle that it’s advocates actually see as the issue.” Tell me then, Daniel, “what was intended to be conveyed as the principle by advocates when they used terminology (phraseology) as gay marriage / same-sex marriage / homosexual (gay) union?” The concept of “Equal Protection of Law” of the 14th Amendment has been with us since the period of Abraham Lincoln. Yet only now are these advocated of same sex marriages challenging traditional marriage with Constitutional Law and “Equal Protection.”

For many years there was what was referred to as the “Common Law.” In Ohio the Common law encompassed “equality of marriage.” It was referred to as “Common Law Marriage” and until (I believe) October 10th, 1991 the Common Law Marriage Laws remained in full-force. specifically the Common Law Marriage gave equal rights to cohabitating persons who would claim to be married. Though they’d not undergone any ceremony or received license certifying their union. I do not believe, at this writing, the Ohio Common Marriage Laws specifically stated that it be between a man and a woman. At the time of such writing legislators would have no need to be gender specific as to who qualified as a married couple. yet, I find no record of any gay couple taking advantage of such legislation, nor if questioned as to the legitimacy of their union, giving rise to the Common Law itself as it’s protector. The fact is clear, gays have always, in one manner or another, been allowed to become married.

Homosexuality pre-dates the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and yet no gay advocate utilized this possible free pass founded in Ohio. If indeed it existed to the extent of permissibility of homosexuals and homosexuality, whether knowingly or not, we cannot be certain as it was never challenged. and Perhaps other states as well held similar laws upon their books.. I believe that this new challenge to traditional marriage and the notion of gays being both a minority and disenfranchised is yet another attempt to demoralize America and break down Christian values held in our nation for nearly 400 years.

“Cohabitating heterosexuals” aren’t seeking special treatment, nor benefit, under the law yet they reside together as man and wife. If their living in a happy, sinful life-style is good enough for them why then shouldn't it be for gays? I would venture to say that at this time in our lives there are more people cohabitating than are married. Gays posit themselves as a minority and a disenfranchised people in need of “Equal Protection under the Law.” Your counter-part, the cohabitating heterosexual, does not see it that way. When counting, worldwide, the number of gays cohabitating and cohabitating heterosexuals, it is we, the traditional married couple, who are a minority and soon to become disenfranchised. And therefore in need of “Equal Protection of the law” in order to preserve our traditional way of life..”

The phrase “marriage equality” is intended to convey the principle that it’s advocates actually see as the issue.” I stand on my principle that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman and too; homosexuality is an unnatural act and an abomination before God Almighty.

Abortion Roman Style Versus Canadian Style

The degradation of the meaning and sanctity of life has its consequences.  An infant who finds himself in the birth-canal can be murdered with impunity, and in some cases, perhaps, with celebration.  Just inches and moments later that same baby has acquired all the rights of a citizenship and his life is protected by law... or so we may suppose.  But even a child knows that inches and seconds do not human rights make.

So it should not surprise us that, given the modern mindset among modern elites, an elitist Canadian Judge would defend a mother who strangled her newborn child.  Judge Joanne From "The Blaze":

“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,"

 So what is the punishment for a mother killing her newborn?

“Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

This article brought to mind a passage from "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" wherein Gibbons paints a similar picture, but with different motives.  A practice that had become somewhat common during Rome's decline was the killing of newborn infants.  But pay attention to the motivations.  Gibbons explains as follows:

There are many of [Constantine's] laws, which, as far as they concern the rights and property of individuals, and the practice of the bar, are more properly referred to the private than to the public jurisprudence of the empire; and he published many edicts of so local and temporary a nature, that they would ill deserve the notice of a general history. Two laws, however, may be selected from the crowd; the one for its importance, the other for its singularity; the former for its remarkable benevolence, the latter for its excessive severity. 1. The horrid practice, so familiar to the ancients, of exposing or murdering their new-born infants, was become every day more frequent in the provinces, and especially in Italy. It was the effect of distress; and the distress was principally occasioned by the intolerant burden of taxes, and by the vexatious as well as cruel prosecutions of the officers of the revenue against their insolvent debtors. The less opulent [well off] or less industrious part of mankind, instead of rejoicing in an increase of family, deemed it an act of paternal tenderness to release their children from the impending miseries of a life which they themselves were unable to support. The humanity of Constantine; moved, perhaps, by some recent and extraordinary instances of despair, * engaged him to address an edict to all the cities of Italy, and afterwards of Africa, directing immediate and sufficient relief to be given to those parents who should produce before the magistrates the children whom their own poverty would not allow them to educate. (*)

So in Canada, murdering your offspring is understandable because having babies can be depressing and onerous while in ancient Rome it was considered acceptable because the parents didn't want their children to experience the same distresses of poverty and enslavement by government.  It would seem that ancients rationalized it out of compassion for the child, while in modernity it is rationalized out of the compassion for the self.

It would seem to me that the charge of murder against the Canadian girl is a little too severe for our modern sensibilities.  Perhaps practicing medicine without a licence would be more agreeable to our palate.  After all, it's not like she murdered her child with a gun.
 
Notes:
______________

* Gibbon, Edward (2008-07-24). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Kindle Locations 6406-6414).  . Kindle Edition.

The Language Of Racism

When we think about water pollution we generally judge a body of water as polluted or not.  If a polluted river meets an equally sized unpolluted river we would not then consider the water "half" polluted.  That's just not a term we would use to describe polluted water.  We simply think of it as polluted or not.  How polluted is another discussion entirely.

It would seem that race is seen the same way in our time.  The truth of this can be seen in the words we use.  This language betrays beliefs so deep that most are not even aware of them, yet, once we look more closely it becomes glaring.

We now have the first "black" president of America.  But wait.  Is he the first black president?  Actually no, he is the first half white president.  But wait.  Like water pollution, we don't speak in those terms do we?  When was the last time you heard of a river that was half clean?  No, in the mind of the racist, our president deviates from purity of white in the same way polluted water is in some degree less pure than clean water.  This is, of course, non-sense.

You see, our language reveals that we think in these terms when it comes to race. Any deviation from the pure standard of white is... well polluted... so our language would suggest.  Why else would a half-white president be referred to as black?  \

Worth noting is the fact that non-whites do not challenge whites on this obviously racist standard.  That's because they have been conditioned to accept this standard themselves. I had a non-white youth-group member in our church recently ask me, where do black people come from?  Do you see the culturally ingrained premise in that question?  An equally fair question would be, where do white people come from?  I wonder why he didn't ask that?

Marin Luther King envisioned a day when all the people of the world would be judged, not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.  I now personally think that to be a lost cause.  The very people who are supposed to be the champions of such a cause, and those who have the most to benefit from that cause,  are so fixated on skin color they are blinded to their latent racism.  The white "protectors" seek their own redemption for the wrongs of others.  They also glory in self-righteousness by making themselves out to be the saviors of those whom they obviously see as inferiors.  And we now know that there is no class of people more loyally devoted to a party they see as their saviors as those who have been made unwitting victims by that same party.

As for me, I reject that Obama is the first "black" president.  He is simply the 44th person to hold that office. Not until we all see it that way will King's dream be realized.

The FOUR "R's"?

I heard a homeschooling advocate say in an interview recently that history was more important than math and language.  The interviewer's response was the same as mine, which was that it's not one of the three "R's".  He went on to make his case but it gave me reason to wonder.

In thinking about this I found that I could make the case that deficiencies in any of these four areas would result in various barriers to a more fulfilled life.  I decided that the "R" representing "reading" probably trumped history, because if a person can read he can teach himself the other three.  But there is another reason that we have the 3 "R's" and not the 4 R's... which I now think should include  "Retrospect".   (Hey, if Arithmetic can start with "r" then why not "retrospect" for history?)

Education's primary goal, it might be said, is to provide the opportunity for a more prosperous life.  If a person, at the very least, cannot read, write and do math, his prospects of being productive are weak.  He brings only his brawn to the marketplace.  But while the impact that ignorance of history makes on well-being is of more of a secondary nature, the consequences of such ignorance when it is more wide-spread can actually be more severe than ignorance of just reading, writing and math.

The reality of this is not as readily obvious for if only one person finds no reason or purpose to think outside his own time, society can easily absorb his ignorance into itself and the society, as well as the one, will probably be no worse off.

But when masses of people become ignorant of history the impact changes drastically.  A culture that is predominately ignorant of history lives in a time bubble devoid of the stabilizing influences it offers to the present.  History provides a culture with a reference point beyond its own time by which it can judge its own direction.  If a person knows history he can observe and discern the course of events according to that history.  He need not endure the trials and tribulations of his ancestors, or have a faulty view of the nature and proclivities of himself and his fellow man.  He is able to judge with clarity those who offer security in exchange for liberty.  But without a predominance of that knowledge, a culture becomes lost in time, and consequently, ripe for the oppressor's picking.

The prospects, therefore, of prosperity. that give us reason to apply ourselves to the 3 "R's" can all become nullified by our culture's whole-scale ignorance of history.  The Despot's restraints are first loosened by that ignorance, then broken.  And while the Despot lures the hapless citizen into deeper captivity with promises of a brighter future, the need and desire for that future grows ever more desperate as the cultural state of being declines.

This is of course why we homeschool our children.  The men who lust for power know that the opportunity to achieve that unfettered power lies in the classroom of the masses with the chief focal point being history.  They know that they must detach the child from the actual past and provide for him a past that is more conducive to the garnishment from them of power.  While our children may not escape the oppression of the tyrant, with a clear understanding of history, they won't have to fall prey to his wiles, and may possibly become a voice of reason in a dark and desperate culture.

The Prudish Homosexual

Sometimes the juxtaposition of words can shine a light on things. While it might easily be said, or perhaps even expected, that a disciple of  Christ would be a prude, somehow the idea of a prudish Homosexual has the feel of an oxymoron.  While we can and should admit, given the breadth of the dispositions of mankind, that there are instances of devoted and monogamous homosexual relationships, we also must realize that even in such cases the idea of a prudish homosexual falls short. ⁽¹⁾ There is a reason for this.  To discover that reason let's take a look at the definition of the word "Prude":

The online dictionary defines it this way:

"One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous. "

Considering this definition one word pops out at us right away: righteous.  This word is probably a good reason why the word prude is not considered to be a complement.   Le'ts take a closer look at that word, righteous as well to see why.  Merrian Webster defines it as "acting in accord with divine or moral law".

So we can see now why there is no such thing as a prudish homosexual.  The term prudish homosexual introduces cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance is like saying that it is forbidden to forbid, or, there is no truth... and that's the truth.  These statements are inconsistent with logic. In the same way, accusing a person who rejects the existence of absolute moral law of being excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous, is also inconsistent with logic.

Interestingly enough, the online dictionary goes on to say this:

"Being called a prude is rarely considered a compliment, but if we dig into the history of the word prude, we find that it has a noble past."

This "noble past" points to a time when it was generally accepted that there was such a thing as righteousness.  While the Christian perspective is that there are none righteous, no not one, this does not wipe away the existence of righteousness from which mankind falls short.  It remains that being a disciple of Christ, and thus being transformed into his righteous image, and being sanctified, ought to be the out-workings of that relationship.  The word prude, therefore, while causing us to be an object of contempt to the world, ought to give us reason for thankfulness in our hearts to God who has seen fit to transform us by the renewing our minds.
_________________

Note 1:  From the Christian perspective there is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian no more than there is such a thing as an adulterous Christian. Christians find their identity in Christ, not whatever garden variety of sin that happens to be "besetting" them.  "Homosexual Christian" does not describe, therefore, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attractions.  Such a Christian could easily be considered prudish, and given the shame all mankind inherently feels about his sinful behavior, Christians, above all, would not be desirous of waving as a banner, or claiming as an identity, their shame.

The Drawing To A Close Of The Information Revolution

Few realize it but a revolution of 60 years is showing signs of closure.  The re-election of Barack Obama was a signal that a victor in this revolution, brought about by the proliferation of the television set, is now beginning to emerge.  Since it is an un-named revolution, hidden perhaps within other simultaneous revolutions like the sexual revolution, I'll simply suffice to call it the Emotionian Revolution.

It's clear that information has always played a crucial role in struggles, whether armed or cultural.  But this revolution is different because it has been the very concept of information that appears to have been the objective behind the revolt.

Historically, as it involves information, strategies have centered on its control; bluffing opponents and deceiving enemies with false information, as well as propagandizing the populace to arouse passions against enemies, have all been effective uses of information.  The American founders understood this well and so enshrined the freedom of information into the Constitution as a defensive bulwark against those who would control information for their own gain. But the television set has changed all that.  The control of information has been rendered irrelevant because information itself has been rendered irrelevant.

A glimpse of the new battlefield upon which this revolution would take place occurred in 1960 during the first televised presidential debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This debate, it so happened, occurred as the  TV set was becoming increasingly prevalent in the American home. These debates are noteworthy, therefore, not because of the ideas that were debated, but rather because of the impact the medium would have on the outcome of the election.  Nixon, it was said, looked old, pale, unshaven and sweaty while his opponent appeared young, tan and energetic.  That none of these qualities have any bearing on presidential qualifications is very much a foreign thought today.  That we would cringe at the thought of voting in a primary for a profusely ugly candidate is a testament to the revolution and its success.

The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, in contrast, remain noteworthy to this day for their ideological content.  They embody the battle of the mind and worldview of that day between contestants wielding weapons of ideas bolstered by information.  But this occurred during a time when people drew conclusions from ideas and experience.  But because of the advent of the television set, the Nixon/Kennedy debates would not be a battle of minds, but rather of images.  They would therefore forever change American and global politics.  Television would lull Western societies into a false sense of intellectual grandeur and glamor while at the same time actuality relieving them of reason and the toil of thinking.

The power of the moving image accompanied by emotion-arousing music, complete with caricatured, easy-to-hate strawmen, was not a new concept, to be sure. It was developed and used effectively during World War II.  But the migration of that arrangement from the scarcity of the big screen to daily ingestion by the family while congregating in the living room would prove to be an extremely powerful weapon that would bring about previously unforeseen or imagined changes.  Information, and then informed reasoning, would become a thing of the past for the collective society.  It would become a thing akin to a strategically ill-placed fort, bypassed and ignored by conquerors while its inhabitants fawned for logic-based intellectual battle.

The very concept of an informed citizen experienced a sort of reverse petrification process.  He would be transformed from an individual anchored by truth and reality into a caring, feeling and malleable citizen, one who hates and loves the correct ideas no matter how dissonant they may be. He wouldn't bother to consider the origins, reasonableness or consequences of his feelings, for to do so would require contemplation. Since these new feelings--not ideas--were installed by a medium that bypassed the cognitive filter of the mind, their installation went unnoticed.  As far as this modern new man was concerned, the mindset originated within himself.  Truth itself would be a casualty as these feelings, rather than an informed, principled and thoughtful position, would increasingly become the basis of a new kind of "truth".

The Nixon/Kennedy debates marked a beginning of the revolution by providing the discovery of a new means of conducting warfare through the image-driven campaign and the power of the TV.  It was quickly realized by some that with this new medium the political ground rules had drastically changed.  A projected image could now trump ideas. This fact ceded enormous amounts of power to television journalists and executives.  It was an opportunity that leftists immediately began to exploit.  But it wasn't by any means limited to just the news media.  All programming became a tool by which feelings-based values could be implanted.  The left was successful in populating every aspect of the medium with liberal ideology and ideologues.  Within 12 years, to even their own surprise I am convinced, they were able to take down a sitting president, all while successfully projecting an image of themselves as fair, objective, bystander journalists.

The media continued to consolidate this power and appeared to have been home free with their agenda when they met with their first counter-attack from the unlikeliest of corners, AM radio.  In August of 1988, Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show, the first of its kind.  A society in decline does not lack an awareness of its decline. They only lack an awareness of exactly how it's taking place.  The society is disoriented. 

Limbaugh's strength was his ability to say things that many people intrinsically knew but were unable to articulate. He was able to cut through the fog of liberalism. Within a few years, he would become a household name across America.  Not surprisingly he was immediately attacked from media strongholds.  Nevertheless, he was arguably instrumental in a major political upset for leftists in the Republican revolution of 1994.  With the mimicking of his success by like thinkers and communicators, AM radio would become a lone beacon of conservative dissent.  This conservative outpost would eventually pave the way for Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House.  Unfortunately, conservatism itself would be successfully blocked.

The left's failed attempt to mount a counter offense in AM radio is in its own right telling.  Talk radio, as it turned out, is a poor medium for manipulating emotions. It is a medium for the mind.  In response to radio's inroads, TV media, which had begun 24-hour cable news programming in 1980, dared to up the ante as it began to test the waters of shedding the pretense of objectivity.  Any boundaries that once existed against biased propaganda, they discovered, had long since vanished. They found themselves free to transition their "journalism" to an emotion-based, biased bullhorn.  The "news" media, for all practical purposes, was no more.  It had become a de facto state-run propaganda machine.  The lines between the Democrat party and other power players like the entertainment media, government unions, universities and public education had solidified into a nation-wide machine that would by comparison make New York's Boss Tweed operation look like a playground bully.

As this revolution draws to a close, AM radio, like the reason and logic based ideas it trumpets, is being reduced to a mere nuisance.  The emotions of voting for a man of the people, so vacuous of real content that anyone's Utopian hopes can easily fit inside his created image, has proven impervious to pertinent information.  The logic-based facts of America's very real financial predicament, for example, simply bounce off the walls of closed minds. No fiscal hole is so deep, it is evidently felt, that the pockets of the rich can't be raided to fill it. Interestingly enough, and also telling, is the fact that so many rich, who are the supposed causes of all that ails us, are on board with the soak-the-rich scheme.  That would give a thinking society reason for pause, but not this one.

The 2012 election was a milestone for several reasons, the most relevant of which was that President Obama did not attempt to hide, and in fact was refreshingly forthcoming with his revolutionary Marxist inclinations. He even removed the facade of his stance on marriage, a milestone in its own right. The conservative media had become prevalent enough so that the availability of information about his views and intentions were plentiful.  It wasn't a lack of unbiased news outlets that brought about his success, for it was not as if his positions were cognitively considered, and then embraced in the minds of his supporters.  And it wasn't like any views that opposed leftist views were refuted either. Such would have meant the thoughtful consideration of valid information, and then the ramifications of that information.  No, for the first time, a  growing number of the people based their choice on how they "felt" about the image of Barack Obama that was projected.  The sad reality of this election was that only a minority of his voters actually shared his revolutionary ideas.  But that minority, coupled with those who had projected their Utopian ideas onto an image, were enough to breach the last remaining barrier between a free nation and tyranny, that bulwark being the voting booth.  He was able to gain a majority of voters without hiding his true identity, and he did it in spite of numerous and disastrous scandals and decisions, any one of which would have had a Republican falling to an embarrassing defeat.

To be sure, this revolution was not about Barack Obama, nor was it about conservative versus liberal ideology.  The name and face of the man in this past election are irrelevant, as they will be in the next.  What is relevant and revolutionary is the ability of someone unseen to create an image with any smart looking and sounding face by the manipulation of emotions and feelings through entertainment, social and news mediums, while at the same time quelling critical thought in the majority of the voting population.  What had been the minority has now become the majority.  There is now a new frontier before us.  The only question is, where will the image manipulators take us now?

Lies From The Pit Of... Man?

This meme makes a truth claim.  It says that God hates the pain of divorce. Can I assume then that God only hates divorce when it causes pain, but He is otherwise OK with it if the feelings are mutual?  When we make claims about God like the one on this meme we ought to be very careful, for we are acting as prophets declaring a "truth" about God.  Any claims we make therefore should be able to rest on God's Word, and not on a conjured up image of a god that feels more acceptable.  So does the Bible agree with this claim?  Let's take a look:

"I hate divorce," says the Lord, the God of Israel,
(Mal 2:16)

There's no clarity lacking in that short statement is there?  There's nothing to be found about the pain of divorce here either, nor anywhere else in scripture.  But that's how Satan works.  He twists what God says.  It is a familiar tactic, indeed the one he used to bring down the human race:

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"  (Gen 3:1)

Notice Satan isn't sinister sounding here, or apparently not even repulsive.  He just twists God's words ever so slightly so that they say something God never said.  That's what this meme does too.  It is based on feelings and man-centered theology.   At the heart of it is the insinuation that man is basically good and his not being distraught (experience pain) is the goal of God's love.  This view is eternally disastrous and dangerous.  If man actually is deserving of God's love, then how do we reconcile that with what the Bible says is the eternal destiny of those who reject his Son?  Such a view does not grasp the reality of man's position as a sinner before a holy and righteous God.

The Bible says that all men stand condemned before God and are objects of His wrath, divorced or not.  But the Bible also presents us with Good News.  It says that we may hide in the righteousness of God's one and only Son and thereby escape His wrath.  The real question is not, does God love me in spite of my sin, but rather, have my sins been washed from God's sight by the blood of the Lamb?  As the old Hymn, written in a time before man-centered theology had become predominate, says:

"Just as I am without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me".  

The Fog Of Senselessness

Yesterday's addition to the growing roster of massacres will be viewed just as the previous massacres were viewed, which is in a vacuum.  It will be as if there were no indicators leading up to it that would have warned us that this sort of thing will be a new reality in our brave new world. It will have just happened, out of the blue, so to speak.

Sure, there are those who take advantage of these events to enact some new law, so it won't happen again of course. There will be reflexive demands for more gun controls.  And we will all be sad that twenty innocent children were murdered for no apparent reason.  But in the end it will simply be senselessness.  But that's just it.  Once a a society rejects God, everything becomes senseless.  Everyone will have a vague notion that things have gone horribly wrong, but few, unfortunately, will be able to identify why.

The reality, however, is that these events don't happen in a vacuum.  First, today, like yesterday and the day before, thousands of children will be murdered in this culture, with the culture's blessing.  The only sin of the victims of these murders will be that they are out of sight, and as such, out of mind.  More senselessness. I have often pondered what the response would be if 4000 children a day were lined up and shot because they were unwanted.  Given the response from yesterday's events, I'd say we'd be sickened; in fact I'd say that we'd risk our very lives to make it stop.  But we don't, and they won't.  They are out of sight.

Second, the very school where this tragedy took place is no different from the previous ones.  They all teach that there is no ultimate and objective good and evil.  They all teach that everyone of us came from nothing, and are the result of nothing, and have a destiny of nothing. Life, we are taught from our earliest years, has no meaning.  The school must teach it.  It is the law.  If there were ultimate laws, you see, that would imply that there is an ultimate law-giver.  And if there is an ultimate lawgiver, there is one to which we will all give an account.  And such as that will simply not do.

Third, these schools teach materialism.  They are materialistic because they are designed by secular materialists sent by the populace to do just that.  As such, education is worshiped as the sole means to the best materialistic life that can be achieved. It is a high place... an idol. The idea that anything is higher than one's own life or material achievement is wholly alien to the properly trained child.  Gone are any transcendent realities or altruism, or worse yet, any fear of God that would give good reason for one to reign over himself and his passions.

When a society teaches itself that life is ultimately meaningless, then it ought not be surprised when some in its ranks take that teaching to heart.  It is in that heart, understand, where the ultimate problem resides.  Attempt to conform the outside with your millions of laws and regulation all you want, but it will be the heart, darkened or otherwise, that will dictate a man's path.

Given that many of those darkened hearts who exercise their passions simply take their own lives in the process, just how are the attempts to reign them in by legislation to be applied anyway?  They can't be.  They can't be because the problem is not a legal problem but a heart problem.  The problem is the rejection of God.  Having put God away, concepts such as objective truth and sin have receded into the fog of senselessness.  They're no longer seen or noticed.  But they do rear their ugly heads still, as from out of nowhere... as if out of the fog. They harass us... like a hand extending from the fog to slap us from our drunken stupor.

God Loves Everyone So Do As Thou Wilt

Following is a discussion I had with two Christians on Facebook.  I think it highlights the end to which our current approach to theology inevitably leads, that theology being: (a) that God loves everyone unconditionally, (b) That what the world doesn't realize, and needs to be told, is that Jesus loves them, (c) That God hates the sin but loves the sinner.  

Missing in this theology... (well maybe it doesn't qualify really as theology but probably more as pop-theology, or perhaps an approach to reaching out to the world) is any suggestion of God's holiness or his wrath. It is a contorted theology in which the Christian becomes ashamed of the wrath of his God.  While pop theology doesn't necessarily reject God's wrath, or eternal damnation in Hell fires, they simply become the big pink elephant in the Bible.

In this discussion both of these guys hold "judging" as the offense of offenses.  Both hold to relativism, one takes a hard view, the other a softer view.  The personal view trumps everything.  What is absent in both views is a sense of not being loved and accepted by God.

So, here is the discussion.  I've removed the names and replaced them with with Bob and John.  It took place in a short time so please excuse the typos on everyone's part.

_______________

Dan-Where do you get Jesus accepts everybody?

Dan-What I mean is, where does it say that in the Bible Bob?

Bob- well doesn't Jesus love everyone?

Dan-Are yo asking me? What does my opinion matter? What does the Bible say Bob?

Bob - one of our commandments say "love thy neighbors" am I right or wrong?

Dan-what if your neighbor is an unborn child Bob?

John - I personally am very against abortion, I believe it is murder and even unborn children should be loved. However, Jesus does not view anybody with different views as lesser people.

John - I believe he does, but he loves and cares for their parents too.

Dan -  Does Jesus love unborn babies?

John - And people who disagree as well

Dan - What does loving the parents too have to do with anything?

Bob -  This is where I disagree with a lot of stuff. I believe that my god is a merciful and forgiving god and that is not judgmental. Yes, Jesus does cares for unborn child its a gift from god.

Dan -  And yet you vote for one who advocates their slaughter?

John  Abortion. Even if the parents get an abortion he loves them just the same. I didn't vote for Obama, but that doesn't make me right.

Dan -  Who you voted for has no bearing on what is right or wrong. I'm simply trying to reconcile the murder of innocent human beings and your professed beliefs.

Dan -  God is merciful, yes. But does that make it OK to crush and dismember the unborn?

John  I DO NOT agree with abortion, and I would never get one. Not even if I was raped. But I don't want to say other's beliefs are wrong when I expect them to be open minded about mine. It's a 2 way street.

Bob - See this is where the problem is. Those our president advocates for it doesn't mean he is the one dragging people to the hospital to get an abortion. its an individual choice on that person. who are we to say NO!! her judgement should be between her and God not US!!!!

Dan - So you would be OK with me killing my 1 year old son?

Dan -  After all, God is merciful right? And it would be open minded, right?

Bob - That's up to you and God. I won't say it's okay but due it it your choice and you will face the consequence judgment day.

John - This is why I'm against abortion Danny. I do truly believe it is the same thing to kill a one year old and an unborn child. Bob doesn't, but her beliefs are hers and I don't want to tell her how wrong she is when she's never told me that. We all just need to be respectful of what others think.

Dan -  So John, what you are saying is that there is no absolute truth.

Dan -  Right?

Dan -  So if I tortured, raped and then killed my 1 year old, while you don't agree with it, you have no right to tell me its wrong?

Dan -  Then God would judge me, but I'm still ok because Jesus died for ALL people. right?

Bob -  I have a right to tell you your wrong. but i can't STOP you from doing it!

John - Not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying if you want people to listen to your side you have to listen to their's. I believe it is an absolute truth, and it is part of the reason I did not vote for Obama. But I still think we should be respectful and listen to Bob.

John -  And If you believe Jesus is your savior and accept him as such then yes, you're still fine.

John -  Jesus never stops giving second chances.

Dan -  John,  how have I been disrespectful?

Dan -  Disagreement is not disrespect, though it may feel like it at times.

John - You haven't. I'm sorry, it did seem like I meant that. That's not how I intended that to come across at all. You've been very respectful. I think a better word for what I meant was open-minded.

Dan -  I believe I am open minded John. But that's another discussion and I don't want to get distracted. I'll get back to that in a moment if you wish.

So, what you are saying is that I can torture etc, my child and its OK if I accepted Jesus? Is that what you're saying?

Dan -  Just trying to clarify, not wanting to put words in your mouth.

John -  If you believe you're open-minded you probably are. And technically yes. Jesus died to forgive all of our sins, all of the things he declared wrong. That would be one of them and technically you could get away with it. Still, he gave up his life on the cross so why would you want to do that. Wouldn't you want to try and do what he wanted as a way of thanking him?

John - Jesus never said ANYWHERE that murder was worse than lying. A sin is a sin, harmless or not. Who are we to decide what's worse in Jesus' eyes. When we sin we all suffer death, but Jesus died so that we may have the chance to live with him in heaven.

Dan -  I'm not seeing where anyone is advocating lying. I am seeing where Christians are saying that murdering the unborn OK>

John -  Lying was just a comparison. To us a lie seems way more acceptable than murder, but Jesus didn't ever say that to be true. And Danny, I agree with you on abortion, but I'm with Bob. I've got a lot of work to do. I respect your opinions and I hope you respect mine as well.

Friend of mine - And where does Jesus say to keep on sinning after you accept Him?! He says to turn from your wicked ways and repent. He says in Matthew 18:15-17 that if you see your brother sinning to GO TO HIM, even eventually brining him before the church. He never ...See More

John - It is entirely impossible to quit sinning. Realize it or not we sin everyday. We look at somebody and make a judgement, that's a sin. We may not even mean to, but it happens.

John - Anyway, I can't keep debating, I really do have a lot of homework this week. Ciao.