IrContent

BOOK MEME

What is a meme? Basically a list of questions on a certain topic that people answer and sometimes send around to others for their answers (a blogging practice referred to as “tagging”). This is one I have created from several others plus some of my own. I don’t generally tag, but feel free to propagate!

Number of books you own: I don’t know for sure, but I have filled over 120 feet of shelving.

Percentage of these books that you have read: About 30-40% [In my defense, many of them are reference!].

Last book you purchased: “In Defense of the Soul: What it Means to be Human” by Ric Machuga.

Last book you read: “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer.

Book(s) you are currently reading: “The Divine Comedy” by Dante Alighieri, and, “In Defense of the Soul” by Ric Machuga. [Note: I am quite happy that I am actually reading the last book I purchased!]

Upcoming books to read: “The Suffering of the Impassible God” by Paul L. Gavrilyuk, and, “Tell the Truth” by Will Metzger.

A book you have read more than once and may yet read again: “The Dark Tower” (series) by Stephen King.

A book your friends might be surprised that you own: “The Satanic Bible” by Anton LaVey [Sounds scary but is actually rather humorous.]

A book that changed your life: “When Skeptics Ask” by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks.

A book you’d want if you were stranded on a desert island: “Summa Theologica” by Thomas Aquinas.

A book that made you laugh: “The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” by Douglas Adams.

A book that made you cry: “The Endless Knot” by Stephen Lawhead.

A book that you wish had been written: “Systematic Thelogy” by Jesus.

A book that you wish had never been written: Tie between “Left Behind” by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, and “The DaVinci Code” by Dan Brown [Neither was worth its popularity nor its controversy.]

A book you are glad was never written: “Coffee’s Undisputed Link to Impotence”

According to the popular view of God’s leading, since God spoke directly to people in the Bible, He will also speak to us today. Though we can see God’s past works through past circumstances, answered prayers, and other believers, the only way we should expect God to speak directly to Christians today is through the Bible (the only way promised). This is not to say that God cannot manifest Himself to anyone He chooses – it’s just that we should not expect it based on anything in Scripture.The popular view sees the special manifestations of God in the Bible as God’s normative method of communication. Since God does not change, it is assumed that He continues this practice today. But is this really the case? Even in the Old Testament era it was exceedingly rare for God to manifest Himself, it just doesn’t seem that way because the OT is a record of these events. Further, when God spoke there is no indication in the records that He did it through the “signs” or “inner impressions” that followers of the popular view seek today. When God manifested Himself there was no doubt about it. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 state that if someone claims to speak for God and is found to be false they were to be killed, yet today it seems that everyone in the church is hearing from God on a regular basis. Not only is there no reason to expect this from Scripture, it would actually represent a change in God’s methods, so the idea fails either way.Many Christians are being told that God speaks directly to them today “just like in Bible times” through subjective impressions, signs, and other means. This is because they are taught to expect that since people of God were spoken to directly in the Bible that they can expect the same today. When God does not do so, some other means must be put forward. Hence, we are told to look for “signs” instead of real manifestations or miraculously verified messages. We use language like “I felt lead” or “I feel called” so that when things go awry we can piously blame ourselves. But do we find this kind of waffling in Scripture? Hardly. Note how Experiencing God author Henry Blackaby (the prophet of the popular view) admits to this subjective problem:

“Is it important to know when the Holy Spirit is speaking to you? Yes! How do you know what the Holy Spirit is saying? I cannot give you a formula. I can tell you that you will know His voice when He speaks. . . .
No one of these methods [circumstances, answered prayers, other believers, and the Bible] of God’s speaking is, by itself, a clear indicator of God’s directions.
But when God says the same thing through each of these ways, you can have confidence to proceed.”

Really? Suppose one had an inner impression backed up by “signs” that they were supposed to kill their only child. What could be said in response? Someone might argue that God will not contradict His word – but this does not contradict anything, God can certainly use humans to kill others and in fact He has. The reason I ask this particular question is that one of the heroes of the “signs” movement is Abraham who was asked to do this very thing! He did not look for confirmation, check Scripture, seek counsel, or anything else. He just did it. The fact that God stopped him is immaterial - the command was real and Abraham was going to obey.

The Bible, according to the popular view, is just one of many ways God speaks to Christians. And apparently we cannot know God is “speaking” unless the Bible is backed up by our own experiences. But are we expected to wait on an experience before they can understand the word of God? Are someone’s feelings about Scripture indicative of its meaning? Can contradictory experiences create contradictions in Scripture? It is easy to see the problems that can crop up with a mystical view of God’s leading.

As with most other “knowing God’s will” schemes, the question that is consistently begged is this: how do you know that you know? The whole “sign” system still fails at this critical point: how can one know by experience what God is doing? There is always an alternate explanation to signs. For any given sign we have to ask ourselves how we know whether God or Satan placed it. For example I once knew a woman who was trying to go on a mission to Brazil. When her passport got messed up she asked for prayer against Satan who she thought was trying to stop her. When I suggested that perhaps it was not God’s will that she go she simply laughed. You see – she had to know God’s will in advance in order to interpret the sign as satanic opposition instead of indicative God’s will. But if we need to know God’s will in order to interpret the signs of His will then what good are the signs?

In light of the popular view’s questionable and unsupported assumptions, its confusing and sometimes contradictory methodology, the dangerous consequences that its principles could lead to, and the impossibly subjective and circular means of verification that the system is tested by, I think it needs to be abandoned. If we claim that “God told me this” we had better be ready to die for it. God’s will for us is clearly spelled out in Scripture. Let’s be about getting that done before we worry over any particulars. If they really matter God can always tell us in the clear and unmistakable manner He did in Scripture.

It is often said that “there are no atheists in foxholes!” This is in reference to the idea that when people are faced with their own mortality they will cry out to God for salvation (temporal if not eternal). Quips like this may be generally accurate but I think there is a danger in presupposing that people will reach out to God when life gets bad enough. For one thing, life may never get that bad for many people and for another it smacks of the idea that God is a life preserver and salvation is the means by which he saves people from a bad life. In any case, a clear example of this not occurring was pointed out in a very interesting movie about mountain climbing . . .“Touching the Void” is a true story, a docu-drama about two young climbers (Joe and Simon) who sought to stand atop the last great peak in a section of Peru that had yet to be conquered. It was a brutal climb and eventuated in Joe severely breaking his leg in a fall. Simon attempted a rescue that went awry to say the least - Joe ends up stuck in a seemingly bottomless crevasse with his leg broken. The rest of the film concerns Joe’s excruciating ordeal, and his unbelievable escape.The climax of the film involves Joe’s overcoming the odds and pushing himself to survive. It is a great “triumph of the human spirit” type movie - except for one odd scene. At one point Joe pretty much thinks it’s all over for him and he gives a short soliloquy on his catholic upbringing and how he left the church. He says he always wondered if, when the chips were down, he would reach out to God for help. His answer is chilling: “It never even occurred to me.” Joe states quite clearly that he really does not think there is anything after death (hence the film’s title). Then the story simply picks right back up as if nothing had happened.Joe’s decision to fight for his life was basically just an arbitrary choice on his part. He says in the film that it was due to his stubborn nature and not wanting to die alone. So the very heroism he showed is undercut by his worldview which espouses a meaningless universe where actions are not, at the end of the day, meaningful at all. Basically, if there is really nothing after death then life is ultimately meaningless. In an atheistic world it is not just that death is a void, life is as well: de-void of ultimate meaning or significance. If I were to meet Joe someday I’d like to ask him how it is that his atheism can explain this drive to overcome, or his appreciation for the essentially useless beauty of uninhabited mountain ranges.The fact that he survived under the circumstances seems miraculous itself. If it wasn’t a true story I would have thought it was completely ridiculous - it does not seem possible that someone could survive against such odds. He might say that it was due to his courage and willpower. He might even blame God (if he believed one existed) for his broken leg in the first place. But though Joe’s broken leg can be explained by gravity and bad climbing conditions (which he willingly and enthusiastically challenged), it will be far more difficult to explain some of the elements of his survival . . .

Like how he could fall 40 feet, break through the ice, fall another 20 feet down into a crevasse without further injury and just happen to land on a tiny platform only a few feet away from another 100 foot drop. He would have to explain how he just happened to have enough rope leftover to lower himself to the bottom of the crevasse plus the single remaining ice screw to secure it. He would have to explain how there just happened to be an opening to this crevasse that was within his greatly impaired ability to reach. He would have to explain how, much later, there just happened to be water available on the day he probably would have died without it. He would have to explain how he just happened to end up in the camp’s latrine area where the smell revived him one last time to call out for Simon (who should not have even been there)- who just happened to hear him in the middle of the night with the chance of weather conditions that could have easily made this impossible.

It is these elements that saved Joe Simpson just as much as his hard head and will to survive. If any one of them had not been in place all his striving and pain would have been for nothing. But in an atheistic universe where all is random and meaningless, all these startling survival aids must be chalked up to chance - with his survival only meaning the opportunity for a few more years of ultimately meaningless existence.

So I guess maybe there are atheists in foxholes and cravasses - let’s not wait until they face death to tell them that the true void is life without God, and that the welcome void they might expect after death does not really exist.

I’ve heard this more than once in varying conversations: “I don’t follow any religion, I have my own beliefs.” What exactly is this supposed to mean? On the surface it’s a rather obvious truth - like saying, “I have my own body.” No kidding, so does everybody. We all have our “own” beliefs whether we learned them from someone else or made them up ourselves. We can’t avoid having them, in fact. Even saying we don’t believe in a thing means that it is our belief that that thing is false. If we try to wriggle out of that by saying, “We just can’t know,” then we believe it can’t be known. Most of these “agnostics” claim they do not know if God exists or not but I’ve never met one that lives as if He does “just in case.” The fact is that our true beliefs will always manifest themselves in our actions . . . I think what is meant behind the bland statement of “my own beliefs” lurks what is supposed to be a profound statement . . . but only ends up meaning something along the lines of, “I make up my own religion as I go along.” This is supposed to remove the speaker from any pitfalls associated with “organized religion” because their faith is internal and not subject to any authority. The “believer” getd to be their own independent, changing source of truth. Rather shaky grounds if you ask me. I’ve not encountered many things in reality that change because of my thoughts about them.I think that it somehow comforts a person to not have an authority outside themselves for their source of belief. It’s a great situation to be in because one can never be wrong (being the source after all), and, more importantly, one can never sin (it’s difficult to fall below one’s own standard). Further, one can never be proven false because he is not making any kind of truth claim about reality . . . or is he? Here we find the main problem with this idea of “my own beliefs” - do these people think their beliefs are true or not?

It seems absurd to think that someone believes what they think is false - in fact I don’t think it’s possible by definition. So they must think that “at least for them” their beliefs are true. But if a belief is true its contrary must be false. For example, if I say I believe that getting drunk is OK then it must, by force of logic, not also be wrong. But these kinds of beliefs are almost never held to be universal truths (true for everyone), for that would be far too “narrow minded” or “bigoted” - self-righteous if you will. Yet that is exactly what any claim to personal, subjective truth is - SELF righteous. This is because the person is claiming that what they themselves think is, in fact, righteous.

The person may wish to escape the problem by stating that their beliefs are only true “for them.” In the above example it might work like this: “For me getting drunk is OK, but for someone else it might not be.” OK so what we’re dealing with is not a belief about what is ACTUALLY TRUE - but our own preferences concerning it, “Whatever I like is OK for me - and that is what truth is.”

But what happens when we apply that ideal to people more evil than us? Was it right for Hitler to have millions of Jews killed because he liked it? Of course not - that’s objectively wrong. But if killing is objectively wrong (independent of anyone’s feelings) then why isn’t getting drunk? We only have two choices. Either the difference is real, objective (“It is universally true that getting drunk and murder are in different moral categories”) - or it is personal and subjective (“I think that getting drunk and murder are in different moral categories”).

But now we have another problem: how do we know how to choose between these two options? Do we use subjective or objective means to determine which difference (objective or subjective) is true? It’s really the same problem all over again - without an objective standard we can never arrive at an objective truth. This means that we are trapped in our own feelings and can never reach that which is really TRUE. Our beliefs, in this sense, are really only our preferences.

For illustration let’s take a less controversial subject - ice cream. If I say, “Chocolate ice cream is delicious,” I’m not really saying anything about the ice cream - I’m only telling you about my experience of it. Ice cream is not essentially delicious or non-delicious (the way a triangle is essentially a three sided figure). The OBJECT (ice cream) is only said to be delicious in the experience of a SUBJECT (me). So the answer to the question, “Is it true that chocolate ice cream is delicious?” is only true or false in relation to one’s preferences because that’s all the question is really asking about - preferences. It cannot be universally true that ice cream is or is not delicious because different subjects have different experiences. (This doe snot invalidate objective truth, however, for statemetns about preferences are objectively and universally true).

What does all this mean? It means that if we are not asserting that what we believe is true for all people then all we are really communicating are our preferences. But we know that preferences cannot really say anything about universal truth because they only tell us how we feel about things. This idea of “my own religion” is thus sort of self defeating.

Suppose I say that “X” is true, and someone else says that (for her) “X” is not true. She is responding to my statement about “X” being universally true in reality but is responding only with what she feels about “X”. Well, just as my feelings about gravity don’t change gravity in reality, neither do her feelings about “X” change what it is in reality. “True” is said of a thing when it corresponds to reality - which our feelings cannot change - and is therefore always objective and universal. If she wants to argue that her beliefs are really true then she will have to say that they are true in reality - universally, objectively - not just how she feels about them.

If “my religion” only applies to me then it is not universally, objectively true. If I do not think that my beliefs are universally, objectively true, then I am believing what I think is false. And that’s about as irrational as someone can get.Then again, that’s just my belief . . .

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. Atheism is a recognized religion and it is being taught in publicly-funded schools all the time. The only question is which religion will be taught. I think that public schools should teach the truths this country was founded upon, and American Freedom is rooted in belief in God.

1620’s-1960’s

American Government upheld religion in many ways from the very beginning: The Mayflower Compact: The reason for coming to the new world was “for the advancement of the Christian Faith . . . in the name of King James the Defender of the Faith” (1620).

The Old Deluder Satan Law: The first public schools were started in the 1640’s to teach children to read the Bible in order to resist the schemes of Satan.

The Declaration of Independence: The authors are quite clear that America’s morals and government are based on belief in God, His special creation, and His moral absolutes. As they wrote in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The Amendment encourages religion and free speech. “Free Exercise” was given to keep government out of churches, not the other way around. Not only is ‘separation of church and state’ not in the Declaration or the Constitution, the idea that liberals try to read into it is against the very foundation of America and its practices. The Massachusetts Supreme Court (Kneeland, 183 stated that the First Amendment “ embraces all who believe in the existence of God. This provision does not extend to atheists because they do not believe in God or religion.”

Promotion of Religion in Public Schools: McGuffy’s Reader used in public schools from 1830’s-1930’s reads, “God is the Creator, and His creation enables us to understand Him. In proportion as we investigate the secrets of the natural world, we are able to understand the nature of God.”

Presidential Prayer Proclamations: President George Washington (1789) declared: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . .[I recommend] to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer”

Congressional Prayer: At the very first Continental Congress Benjamin Franklin urged that “In the beginning…we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.–Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered…. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?… I therefore beg… that henceforth prayers…be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.” Congress has begun with prayer ever since.

School Sponsored Prayer: Class prayer was practiced in Schools for over 300 years from the 1647 to 1962 when it was outlawed by the Supreme Court (in Engel, 1962).

Government Supported Missionaries: In 1796, under president Washington, Congress gave land to the United Brethren for the purpose of “propagating the gospel among the heathen.” In 1803 Congress granted money, signed by President Jefferson, for a Church to do missionary work among the Indians.

Religious Based Colleges: 106 of 108 of the first colleges in America were founded on the Christian Faith. Harvard’s (1636) Rules for Students stated its mission: “To consider well the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, John 17:3.”

Compare America’s rich Christian heritage with the Secular Humanist Manifesto of 1933:

1. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”
2. “Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.”
3. “Modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values…We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.”

In denying God, His special creation, and Moral Absolutes, the religion of Atheism is not only ungodly, it is un-American.

1960’s – 1990

Following the atheistic humanism of Darwin, Nietzsche, and others, the Supreme Court ruled that God was to be removed from the public square:

• Class prayer banned from schools in 1962.
• Class devotional Bible readings banned in 1963.
• Laws protecting the unborn nullified in 1973.
• The Ten Commandments banned in schools in 1980.
• Teaching creation banned from schools in 1987.

Laws removing God from public life make the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional! Not only do these losses flatly contradict the foundational beliefs and tenants of American government, they were not lost by majority vote. Most of these were taken away from America by a non-representative minority (5 Supreme Court judges or 34 senators). That is taxation without representation!

Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian and is credited (though mis-quoted) with the idea that church and state must remain separate, asked, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” The answer is that they cannot be secured, and this is borne out in experience. Between 1960 and 1990:

• Abortion rose1,000%
• Child Abuse rose to an all time high.
• Violent Crime rose 500%
• Teen Suicide rose 300%
• Divorce rose 200%
• Teen Age Pregnancy rose 200%

Wake up America!

I’ve been studying the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) cult for a while now and will soon have an article on them on SoulDevice. But I have already thought of several reasons why people would want to join (well, men at least). So here are my top ten reasons to become FLDS…

10. You won’t burn in flames when God rids the earth of all those pagan monogamists!9. You get to have as many wives as you want but only have to support the first one (the rest, being illegal, are considered “single mothers” by the state and are eligible for welfare, food stamps, and medicaid)!8. You get to keep a fresh supply of young girls to marry no matter how old you are and they can produce a whole lot of children since you can get started with them when they are as young as thirteen!7. You don’t have to worry about beeing good looking or nice because God just tells the Prophet who the girls are to marry!

6. You can be very creative with your family tree since marrying your wives’ daughters is OK so long as they aren’t yours!

5. If you REALLY like your own daughters you still can’t marry them - but you can probably get away with a little fooling around. Who will remember whose kids they are anyway?

4. Same with sons!

3. If you beat up your disobedient child or wife they can’t tell anyone because they will go to Hell! Even if they risk Hell to escape you, the police chief and the mayor are FLDS too! And even if your family manages to escape the commune you can always run to another one - they have convenient locations such as Bountiful, Canada and Colorado City, UT!

2. You get to be a god after you die and have sex with whichever wives you choose to wake up forever on a planet of your own!

And the number one reason to become FLDS (as if any one of these were not reason enough!) . . .

1. You might get your name in a Jon Krakaeur book!

I hope this has been as disturbing to you as it has been to me. This cult is sick - every detail of the above, and more, is going on right now . . . today.