The Power of Persuasion

There are many ways to fall but only one way to stand. The road that leads to faith can be traveled via a crutch, via wishful thinking and projection, convenience and mindless traditionalism, or by thoughtful submission.

If faith is not achieved through thoughtful submission, WE become gods, creating truth based upon our desires and convenience, or out of an unexamined set of "creature comfort" habits.

To arrive at faith through thoughtful submission requires that one love truth more than one's convenience, comfort or desires. That is the "submission" component.

For such a submission to be thoughtful, requires a search for truth itself. If you believe you have found such truths, you can help others do the same only through persuasion.

It might be a cliche but I often say that cliches are repeated because they are true and ignored because they are repeated:

People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

You'll never have someone's heart or mind until you have their respect. You'll never have their respect until you give them the same. Such respect doesn't mean that you have to agree with them. It simply means that you show that you care for them as opposed to caring for winning an argument and nurturing your pride.

This brings me to the latest controversy regarding the burning of the Koran. Burning another religion's holy book does NOTHING to persuade. If Rev Terry Jones were to have gone through with such a thing, does he really believe that even ONE Muslim will in sackloth and ashes be convinced of the teachings of Christ as Lord of all? Can Mr. Jones point to even ONE example from his Christian faith or from secular history where an offensive act has acted as a persuasive one and changed the hearts and minds of the offended?

But you might ask, didn't Jesus offend the religious leaders of His day in similar acts when he took a whip into the Temple and drove away all the money changers? Didn't Jesus do a similar thing when He called the religious leaders of His day "vipers" and "broods of "snakes", et al?

The key to understanding Jesus' repudiation of the religious leaders of His day comes in His motivation to point out hypocrisy. He constantly pointed out the logical inconsistencies of the religious leaders of His day as they claimed to follow the law of God yet failed to love their neighbors as themselves or love God with all their hearts and minds.

If offenses should come, Christ followers should be offending religious attitudes held by people like Mr. Jones. I hope to make a small contribution there with this post.

If Mr. Jones follows this same Christ, the Christ who taught that it was better to give than to receive, better to love than to hate, better to lose one's life than to try and save it, is He reflecting Christ by merely inciting anger and hate with those in whom he disagrees?

Did Christ call me or Rev Terry Jones to burn books or to set hearts ablaze?

The Taste of Goodness In The Pursuit Of Truth

In my last post, I wrote about the limitations of logic. Both Stephen Hawking and James Lee were extremely logical in forming their worldviews which also share many similarities.

In past posts, I have referenced Ravi Zacharias's criteria for truth. Truth must be:
1. Logically consistent
2. Empirically adequate
3. Existentially relevant

I have had the hardest time getting my mind around #3. But things have gotten clearer lately, so I'd like to share these thoughts.

It seems to me that it might be easier for we human beings to test for health than truth. When I say "health", I am referring to our very being. One might say "good" rather than health but because I am only talking about good relative to us (does a belief equip me to be a better person in some way), I prefer the word "health".

In my last article, when I spoke of the paranoid person being just as logical as the healthy person, I demonstrated how paranoia can be logically justified. The presence or absence of logic is no savior in in clearing the muddy waters here. However, the paranoid person can become so restrained as to no longer live a healthy life.

I am seeing this in a close family member of mine. His paranoia prevents him from being able to work. He would LOVE to have a job but he can't be around crowds nor can he be around a blaring radio or t.v. He can't function like a healthy human being. But his paranoia is far from being irrational. But I believe that the truth sets us free. As a result, it brings what we might call health. The truth equips us and makes us better people.

THIS is why I'm not an atheist. Atheism, when followed consistently, means that there is no transcendent purpose maker in life. It means that I define purpose and that purpose only applies to me. I can change that purpose whenever I want to whatever I want. I become my personal god.

But I am a lousy god. We ALL are. Tiger Woods was god of his life when his supermodel wife wasn't good enough for him and he expanded his horizons. James Lee was a lousy god when he decided that the best way he could get the message out about his worldview was to change the programming of the Discovery channel. Most of us write letters. He decided to strap bombs on his person and use a gun. Lyndsey Lohan is a lousy god to herself, offering her an escape from pain through booze rather than true healing.

I could go on and on with the examples, but the point is not to throw rocks. My message is simple. DON'T simply follow your heart. DON'T simply trust yourself.

I believe in Psalm 37:4 which says, "Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart." At first glance, this appears to paint God as a divine waiter. But reverence for God doesn't allow such an interpretation. Reverence directs me to this interpretation. God is saying that as we delight in Him, He will be the SOURCE of our desires. All of a sudden, as I submit my life to Him, I start wanting what HE wants for my life. THEN, I can follow my heart because it has submitted to Him.

Can you test this worldview to be true? No, but you CAN test it to be healthy. You can test it to determine whether or not it works. You can test whether or not it is good.

"Taste and see that the lord is good" - Psalm 34:8

The Insanity of Logic Estranged from God

Stephen Hawking has announced that that God is no longer necessary in order to start the Big Bang:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

He also is warning us to abandon the earth or face possible extinction:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

The latter, resonates with what the the recent Discovery Channel bomber James Lee was saying. James Lee, influenced by Daniel Quinn's series of books and Al Gore, believed that humanity was "filthy", that the earth would be better off without us, and that we faced extinction if we didn't stop global warming. He believed we needed to stem the population growth by no longer having children:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

Before I go any further, let me be unequivocal in saying that I do NOT for a moment place Mr. Hawking in the same category as Lee in terms of a proclivity towards violence.

But both of these men share dire predictions, building their reasoning upon humanistic, naturalistic presuppositions.

I would actually agree with their conclusions that if the world is merely a product of naturalistic random processes, independent of God, then we are doomed unless we can take extreme actions.

One can be logical but be wrong. Logic is as only as truthful as its presuppositions. Both a young-earth creationist and an evolutionist can look at the same Grand Canyon but logically come to different conclusions based upon different presuppositions. The evolutionist will claim, a lot of time and a little water formed the Canyon. The young-earth creationist will claim that a lot of water (Noah's Flood) and a little time formed it.

Positivism is a philosophy that says that science can NOT say what is ultimately true. It can only correlate observations. In other words, it can only connect the dots.

The task of science is not to find out what nature is, but only what we can say about it.

Science can ask what and how. This line of questioning is authenticated by technology. Science can not answer "why". This is the domain of religion. When one asks "why", one is inherently asking about purpose and purpose is ALWAYS tied to someone's will. "Why" is therefore tied to "who". For the atheist, "who" is us. It is me and you. For the person of faith, this "who" is outside of ourselves. "Who" is God.

It is funny for me to watch atheists and agnostics moralize, asking questions along the lines of, "If there is a God, why does evil exist?" as if they can justify a logical definition of good and evil outside of God's very own existence. If God doesn't exist, why can't I eat pork or abort a baby in the womb? Because YOU say so? Or because the law might say so?

As C.S. Lewis learned when he was an atheist, for him to say the world was broken assumed that he had a reference point (the idea of good). But where did this reference point come from? A fish doesn't complain about being wet. It doesn't even know it is wet because all it has known is water.

"If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" --Encounter with Light

I greatly respect Mr. Hawking and have learned a lot from him. My respect comes from the fact that he is extremely gifted in his use of logic. But logic alone will cause one to go insane (ala Mr. Lee). As G.K. Chesterton pointed out in his classic book "Orthodoxy", the paranoid person is also logical.

They believe everyone is out to get them. When you tell them that is not true, they say, "Well of course you'd say that. You're out to get me. You would say that." Reasoning can not penetrate such thinking. Logic has limits. Its limits are in the realm of faith.

For more information, check out:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/18/129289331/can-science-explain-creation
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/27/129471676/my-covenant-with-mystery

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.html

Also, check out my favorite blog 13.7's post on Hawking and God:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/09/08/129736414/hawking-and-god-an-intimate-relationship#more

The Truth We Dare Not See

This 18 year old girl had her nose cut off by the Taliban. We live in a world where bad things happen to good people. This picture is one of the greatest proofs that you and I can't choose truth based upon what we like, or what makes us feel comfortable.

So often, I write in this blog about how we are afraid to look at truth. But I believe that it is healthy for us to look at these things. The truth will set you free. This is why I believe in eternal damnation. It is NOT because I like the doctrine of hell. The fact that I hate this doctrine proves that I am not projecting or engaged in wishful thinking. To reject a belief because it is unpleasant would be equivalent to rejecting the existence of death itself. But it is wise to write a will and to buy life insurance.

The truth will set you free, if only we dare to see.

A Great Storm, A Greater Message

I'm concerned about the state of my country and the broader world. These observations will not be constrained by the political ramblings of those who hold strong party loyalties. If my politics is coherent with my philosophy, it too will be about seeing the bigger picture that transcends Republocrat and Democan.

911 changed everything. Osama Bin Laden targetted the world trade center because it was a symbol of America's economic strength. That economic strength is a key to our military strength. That military strength is a threat to Bin Laden's worldview. Bin Laden is an enemy of Israel. I believe Israel's strength has been given to it by God. But He has used the U.S. in the process.

9 years later and look at our economy today. We have record unemployment and seemingly no end to this recession. Those in political power today believe we can spend our way out of such woes believing that economic growth starts from the top down. They bailed out financial institutions saying they were "too big to fail", took over a controlling interest in GM and nationalized our health care.

The other side of the political fence spent money on war. In Afghanistan, I ask whether or not we have a clear definition of victory. Do we have a clear achievable objective? I'm not so sure... In Iraq, we toppled Saddam, but inadvertently strengthened Iran as a result as we upset the balance of power in that region. Now Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear nation with a tyrant in control who has visions of bringing about the next Islamic Imam through an apocalypse with Israel, "the little Satan", in his sights.

Back at home, our defecit is on target to match our national debt in a few years. China is funding our overspending by buying t-bills. "He who has the gold, makes the rules." The only way we can continue our massive spending on bailouts and two wars is to borrow from them.

Our nation's leaders, just as dependent upon financing, are beholden to corporate lobbyists that influence them to support policies that gut our middle-class by outsourcing their jobs overseas. Yes, we get great prices by buying imports at Wal-Mart and Target that were made in China, but look at how this has impacted our employment numbers.

Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae and the like collapsed in part because our nation's leaders relaxed regulations saying everyone should have a right to own a house. But when you add to the outsourcing of jobs overseas, you can see how many people who once worked in blue-collar jobs in auto manufacturing, or even in white collar high-tech, lost their jobs and could no longer pay those mortgages.

Pretty depressing eh? Why do I write such things? I am a Christian. Post 911, Every weekend I have walked through the doors of churches and NOT heard a hint of these things. Yes, I've seen the effect of these things as I've watched brothers and sisters lose jobs and struggle. But week after week, I've only heard messages while important and valuable, are mostly insular. Those messages have been on how to become better people in the form of internal Spiritual transformation.

Don't get what I'm about to say out of context. I believe that the root of the problems that I have described is due to the church's lack of ability in being a powerful influence in the field of debate. We have failed to transform our culture's worldview. The path that I have described is a logical path of a secularist, humanist culture clashing with religious extremists (the terrorists).

Spiritual transformation is at the root of the problem. That transformation will only come about as Christians first BE the change that we preach, and secondly communicate that message. We have failed to be an effective influence. Many times, we are saying the right things in the wrong way. Space does not permit me to expound here but I've went this direction in other blog posts.

With the above said, my concern is this. When the storm that is brewing comes, who will buy into the church's credibility? If we have been only talking about how to be better people, but have been silent in warning the flock and non-believers when they lend an ear, aren't we rendering ourselves to being irrelevant and undiscerning?

How can I trust Christians in shining light on my soul's spiritual path, if they can't even demonstrate such wisdom on national and world issues right in front of our noses?

I'm laying out the warning now so that I don't fall into the same pit. I don't have a crystal ball and I hope I'm wrong. But get your house in order. Save your money now. Buy gold as a safer currency. And most importantly pray, pray, pray. Build your house upon the rock so that when the storm comes, it will stand.

When the greater storm comes, perhaps the wisdom and foresight that you'll see in this post will grant me the authority and credibility for you to lend me your ear in hearing the greater message that I have been speaking in this blog and in my life.

For more information and greater detail from a brilliant economist, check out Paul Craig Roberts' article: http://www.infowars.com/the-ecstasy-of-empire/

Despite, his rants against Israel, he has an enlightening perspective.

Avoiding Meaning

I walked into a popular Mexican food chain today and ordered a burrito. This is one of those places that customizes the toppings in front of you according to your direction. When I asked for onions, they almost acted like I was from Mars! You would have thought that NO ONE EVER puts onions on a burrito but me. I know this chain's competitor does....

I feel like this when I ask the simple question "why?". I feel like people treat me like I'm from Mars. It often seems as if I'm asking a question that is not obvious to most people but VERY, VERY obvious to me.

I wonder if the "why" question is obvious to everyone, but is the "pink elephant" in the room that everyone knows to ignore, but I never received that memo. Here it comes.... "why?" Perhaps we are afraid of meaning. Sure it could give us a fulfilling life but meaning means purpose and purpose always involves someone's will. Volition means being and we don't want to face the only being that could possibly give life transcendent meaning.

Why does the pink elephant look like God?

Remembering for the wrong reasons

The great thing about traditionalism is that it has a good memory. The bad thing about it is that it remembers the wrong things. It has forgotten why it should remember in the first place.

Why? Well that is the problem... It doesn't ask the question "why"?

It seems that many people throw out their brains for denial purposes. I think the dominant mindset says something like, "If I think, I'll find that my faith is not true and have to face the idea that it is just my crutch."

With that said, I think this is an ill-formed opinion. Reason necessitates its own limitations. It is reason that says that the earth doesn't revolve around me, i.e., their are truths that exist outside of my ability to know them. To believe in such things would therefore require faith. But such faith can be informed.

For instance, we believe that the universe is expanding not because we can directly see it expanding, but rather because we can see a red doppler shift in the light spectrum of the cosmos. And just because we can't even begin to imagine what it is expanding into, or what is beyond space, doesn't mean that we can't believe in the expansion.

"He alone stretches out the heavens..." - Job 9:8

Traditionalist Christians have (and still do among many Catholics) conducted their worship entirely in a dead Latin language that died with the Roman empire. Why? If they even ask this question, how can they come up with any other answer except, "because that's what we've ALWAYS done."

"An unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

Question your traditions. If they have outlived their purposes, why not throw them out? This is not a repudiation of traditionalism. On the contrary, traditionalism tied to purpose, is to be lauded.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. " - George Santayana

Traditionalism tied to purpose says, "Remember, so we don't repeat the same mistakes our others before us have."

THAT is why we remember. THAT is the purpose of traditionalism.

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead." - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy