If perfection was required before anything could be done, nothing would be done. But God in His manifold wisdom and grace has elected to work with that which is imperfect, viz. humanity. "Be ye holy as I am holy." God has no priorities. Priorities are required of finite creatures. We do not have the time, stamina, ability, etc to do it all. Thus we prioritize. But what is God's priority? Would He have us achieve internal perfection before attempting to reform the world? Are results more important to God than means? Is orthodoxy more important than orthopraxy?
To all of these statements I give a resounding "NO." I do believe in the importance of orthodoxy, but how can we separate it from God's requirements? This is my perception of a problem in the Reformed movement. The youth are "jumping ship" as they say. Ought we to focus our efforts on the church before trying to reform the world? Some think so, "judgment will begin at the house of God," is true but is it everything?
The more I learn the more I see moderation. "Moderation in everything," even in moderation? Moderation for moderation's sake? Again NO. This ignores the express point of it all. "What does God require of man?" How do we learn what He requires? What does He require? He requires us to live righteously, believe orthodoxy, evangelize the lost, occupy till He comes, be fruitful and multiply, and on and on and on.
I have long championed right thinking over right living as the more important thing. Why did I do this? For one to excuse my own sins because at least I believed the right thing. But Proverbs tells us a different story. Wisdom as defined by the first 8 chapters (this is as far as I got with an in depth look at this concept) is not just right thinking but also right living. Proverbs assumes continuity. What one believes affects the way he lives. "Wisdom is the principal thing." Get wisdom.
So what does God require? Everything. But how are we to prioritize? Let me lend my thoughts here. We will not be perfect. We should not try to achieve perfection before trying to influence this world for God. If we were to try this we would logically end up as hyper-isolationists, if I can say that. We would be ultra-introspective so much so that we would be of no earthly good. We would spend a lifetime of possibly asceticism trying to reach personal holiness without interaction with anyone else. With interaction comes influence. And if you cannot influence until "you are ready" then you will never interact.
You are not required to be perfect before getting married. Some tend to think so. But God gives grace so that we may grow through the process. We live more righteously because of the complementing aspect of relationships; because God makes it work that way to our benefit.
Parents are not required to be perfect before having children or else there would never be any children. But God gives them to us and expects us to grow through the process.
Churches should not isolate and internalize without influencing the world. They should actively seek dominion in all spheres. The church is not perfect but it will grow through the process.
Children should not be excommunicated following their baptism. They should be able to eat with Jesus and grow through the process learning by participating.
I am an advocate for activism; activism in personal lives, activism in the family, the church society.
The fractured and splintered churches and their "pet" doctrines simplify the truth. In many cases several groups understand aspects of what God wants from us. We prioritize not God.
Moralism is not holiness, activism is not righteousness, purism is not perfection. God requires a pure and active moral creature; He demands it all. How we prioritize is seen by our denominational affiliations. How do we encompass all of the correct and complementary views? Whose doctrines and practices are closest to the "truth?"
I do not think the issue is as much about how much we know as it is how we know it. In the garden, Adam and Eve through obedience (i.e. growing through the process) would learn what was good and evil, but they chose differently. What does God require? Obedience; that is what I mean by "everything." God requires perfection of thought, word and deed. But this is a practical impossibility by man. Thus God in His omniscience gave us simple (not easy) instructions: obey!
Monday, July 14, 2008
Growing through the process.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
The PROOF of God's existence...
To introduce this topic let me give a bit of my background.
I was raised in a Christian home. So naturally I became a Christian because I believed everything I was told, right? NO! I believed what my parents taught me was true, but that did not make me a Christian; in fact I resisted it.
In my teen years, as many others do, I was searching for identity. But did I look to Christ first? No. I looked elsewhere. I was particularly interested in mythology. But any thinking person could not accept mythology as true. It cannot be true. There is no basis for morality in mythology (specifically the Greek/Roman types). So I continued searching.
I started looking into other more modern myths such as vampirism, but was quickly dissuaded. I came to the realization that Christianity seems to be the most reason-able religion, but really just based upon my limited experience and introspective reflections. So then I accepted what my parents believed then, right? Have you learned by now that I do not do that. I did not.
I wanted to know if maybe other "Christian" branches had the truth; I looked into Catholicism then the Eastern Orthodox. But I did not find truth there either. This took place when I was about fifteen. I had not found the truth for myself. I believed my parents' faith to be true, so by default I accepted what they believed as true.
In the winter I was seventeen going on eighteen, I had what Christians call a conversion experience. The faith of my father became my own faith. I had finally found the truth. Something awakened inside of me and I yearned so much for the truth of God's Law-Word that I read it every day, every chance that I got.
This is how I came to believe in God. But that is not to say that I have no rational basis for belief in His existence. I do. But as a caveat let me note that no one will become a Christian just because they read what I say and believe in the existence of God. God has to reveal Himself to the individual for them to truly put their faith in Him.
Transcendental Argument for God's Existence*:
There is proof that God exists. But if you expect me to upload a picture of that proof you are severely mistaken as to the nature of the question: "Does God exist?" The proof is not materialistic and it is not empirical. It is philosophical. Now, I am not a trained philosopher, but I will do my best to open up for you the enigma that is the philosophical proof of God's existence.
Normally we argue and debate about things we believe or do not believe, but this proof goes beyond that. In order to deal with the claim of God's existence we call for proof. But in order to provide proof we must first deal with what qualifies as proof. Do you see how you have to keep going backwards until you find the starting point?
So what qualifies for proof? Some might say a miracle or an appearance of God. But is that the only thing that can qualify as proof? To an empiricist or a skeptic, yes. I believe that would be the only thing they would accept as proof. Wait a second, what is up with the "empiricist" or "skeptic" talk? What I am saying is that there are differing philosophical schools of thought; and differing schools have differing criteria on how they arrive at their conclusions. If a "monist" and a "dualist" get into a debate they will most likely "speak past" each other. Why? The reason why communication breaks down is because everything known by a person is interpreted by their understanding. That is to say, your world view affects everything you believe; and people who hold differing world views cannot rationally resolve their disagreements without first dealing with the problems between their world views. What is next?
You have to talk about presuppositions and the pre-conditions of intelligible experience. This is the only way to rationally resolve the differences between world views. The proof of the Christian God is that without Him no other world view makes any sense. Without Him no other world view can rationally sustain an argument as to the origins of laws of logic, scientific laws and laws of morality. No other world view besides the Christian theistic world view can account for these laws in a consistent and internally coherent manner.
As to the laws of logic, the atheist cannot "logically" prove why we must use the laws of logic. As to the laws of science, the atheist cannot prove the basis for scientific laws. As to the question of morality, without God who is the arbiter of right and wrong? They cannot give a reasoned response. Morals are either conventions, stipulated or arbitrary. How then can they be laws?
The Christian theist has answers to these questions. What is the basis of these laws? The laws of logic are a reflection of the thinking of God. Morality is a reflection of the character of God and scientific laws reflect the way in which Gods sustains the creation. How do we know this? God has revealed this to us by His Law-Word.
The Bible reveals to us who God is and what He is all about. Consequently the world reflects this (general revelation). We see this in our everyday experiences. We view the world through our understanding and it logically makes sense because we know God. The atheist views the same world. Surprisingly it makes sense to him too. But the problem is he has borrowed the Christian theistic world view in order to make use of the tools of logic.
The laws of logic do not arise organically from an atheistic perspective and as such they cannot hold to a non-contradictory view of the world. Thus at the root atheism is irrational.
The proof of the existence of God is that without Him you cannot prove anything.
*Credit goes to Dr Greg Bahnsen for the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (from which I heavily borrowed) and to Cornelius Van Til whose reasoning Bahnsen furthered.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Epistemological Crisis Resolved
So where do we go from here?
We do what God says to do.
Well, what does God say we should do with our lives? The answers are in the Bible. Read it. If you read it and just do not understand then read a good book that tells you "what God wants us to do with our lives." If you do not know where to find such a manuscript, that is because it is not yet written (i.e. I have just been inspired to write it). There are other good books out there...Perhaps I will provide "a list of good books" that have the same goal as mine: to instruct in the ways of God.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Epistemological Crisis
What do you believe? Why do you believe it? Most people have not reflected adequately upon these questions. To ask these types of questions is to begin to develop epistemology.
I have asked myself these types of questions for nearly ten years now. My answers have not always been the same. That is, I have grown in my understanding of the true nature of the universe. Put another way: I have matured.
In maturing, however I have never seen truth to cease being truth. What I knew to be absolutely true when I was fifteen, I still know to be true. But the more truth I acquire, the more I find myself to be alone. No one likes to be alone, even a "loner" such as myself. I have idealogical enemies everywhere. I have a few idealogical friends, but more enemies than friends. This may be my own feelings, but sometimes it feels as if those closest to me do not understand the weight I bear because of all the issues.
In politics we want "change." From what to what? What is wrong with the system? Does anyone even ask the question? No, because if they did they would probably realize how to fix the problem. So we get this vague idea that we need change. What is reality? The truth is that it does not really matter who the president is.
Whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in office will not make a difference. Unborn humans will continue to be murdered, women will continue to be disrespected by being thrown onto the front lines of war, Christianity will be the only taboo religion, homosexual "marriages" will become recognized by all 50 states, the family will continue to deteriorate, science will continue to be replaced by socio-political pseudo-religious propaganda, energy prices will sky rocket, the government will continue to interfere with free market energy alternatives, taxes will go up (or at the very least some tax credits will go away = taxes going up), and then it will begin again in 3-4 years.
In economics we want a free lunch. Admit it. It is true. But the problem is "there is no such thing...". But no matter what we say in assent, we still want to believe we can get that free lunch. "We believe what we want to believe." (Demosthenes). So instead of admitting truth that God cursed Man to enrich himself only by toil, we instead turn to legalised theft through the redristribution of wealth or we just try to destroy wealth because of envy. Furthermore, we do not want to deny ourselves anything. "I want it and I want it now!" There is no working hard and saving money to purchase the one thing we really want. "Instead why not get everything you want on credit? The government is not fiscally responsible so why should I be?" Additionally we are in an intellectual crisis. What is the inverted yield curve? What does that even mean? Did the speculators drive up the price of oil? I suppose it has nothing to do with the millions of vehicles on the US highways. "No, we do not have a high demand for oil which could drive up prices. We are a hard working nation who do not primarily seek after recreation." No one studies economic theory. It is too much work and we do not like to work. We want everything and we want it for free; that is, we do not want to work hard for it.
In church we want a loving God. No, what we really want is a benevolent santa claus who will never be upset with us and who only has but gifts to give away. But what does every primitive culture agree to about God? He must be appeased. So every religion is designed to appease God or remove guilt from the human conscience. They are the same thing really. So is God angry? You better believe it. You better get right with God or you will see wrath up close and personal. But Christians do not help the situation either. They actually comfort the wicked in their wickedness. "God loves you..." What? That is not what the Law-Word of God says. Other Christians do only slightly better. Mix one part Christianity, two parts humanism, one part existentialism, three parts moralism, one part subjectivism, one-half part existentialism and one-half part materialism and you end up with the run-of-the-mill evangelical Christian. The Church is poor and the kingdom of God seems to be losing to the kingdom of darkness. For those Christians who do care about the truth, thank you. But even still you resist truth, because the truth hurts and it is too much work and it is hard to bear. But even Jesus' disciples forsook Him at a critical time. The truth was too much for them...Later they redeemed themselves by laying down their lives for the sake of the truth. I may never have to lay down my life for the truth, but I am "giving up" my life to the pursuit of the truth and all of the hard work that accompanies it.
In school we want easy. "Why should I have to work hard? Everyone else gets easy teachers. Is this test open book? Take home? Is there extra credit? Does attendance and participation count towards my grade? Why do I have to read? What is on the test? But wikipedia says..." Actually I have not heard that leveled as a legitimate argument, but only colloquially. Why is it so difficult to understand that anything worth having is worth working for?
What does it take to influence people to change? Do we respond only to creative advertising? How does one achieve a position of influence? Is that a noble goal? What is truth?
Should I care? Should I bother? It hurts so much to know the truth and to keep it bottled inside. It is like a fire that burns inside of me. Why does no one listen? Why does no one care? I know I am not the only one, God will always have a remnant. But it is hard. I am not yet ready to challenge academia. I am currently under tutelage. It is not my role to retrain Christians. I am not a pastor or theologian. I am not able to restore the economy. I am trying to implement successful personal financial management myself. I am not able to teach everyone how the economy really works. I am currently teaching myself economic theory. I cannot depose the establishment. They are so entrenched that the people they rob would die for them. How can I awaken such people who are that blind? I am not a charming orator. What good is it for me to know the truth and alone benefit from it? But how do I give it to people who "cannot handle the truth?"
This is my epistemological crisis. Given what I know, what am I supposed to do next?
Friday, June 27, 2008
How could a loving God send people to hell?
Posted by Michaelsei (that's me!) on Helium.com
This is truly the wrong question to ask. As usual we approach thinking about God in a self centered way. "Why, God, do I deserve to be punished?" Instead we ought to raise our level of awareness to the depth of reality; which is: God is righteous. When we think in this way about God, the issues become clearer. That is not to say that we will like the conclusions, but that they do begin to make sense.
If you will accept the statement, "God is righteous," as a premise, then I can show you by this thinking: (1) that God must send people to hell, (2) God is loving, and (3) hell is not what we should be worried about.
In order to really understand what it is at issue, we need to decipher this statement: God is righteous. First, when I say "God" I am personally talking about the triune God of the Bible. Second, when I use the word "righteous" I really mean that righteousness as we know it is simply a reflection of who God is and what He is all about. God holds the moral high ground and as such is righteous and without sin. Note: He is without sin. As a consequence He cannot sin. That is to say God cannot contradict Himself. Furthermore He cannot allow sin to enter His presence (or glory; truly God is everywhere and sin is too so that makes me a liar. No, for the sake of simplicity I will use the word "presence" what I really mean is "glory."). We know this concept anecdotally as, "I'll burst into flames if I go into church!" and/or as a phrase, "No man can see God and live." Thus it is clear to see that God must send people to hell because God is righteous and cannot allow sin in his presence.
If God is righteous and is the standard of righteousness, then we who are mere mortals are bound to His Law-Word. Let me ask you a question; have you ever sinned? Let me be more specific; have you ever lied? cheated? stolen anything? Perhaps you have had anger without merit towards another (even if you think you were justified, your thinking was clouded by emotion so how can you be sure?). Maybe you have lusted after someone. If you have done any of these you have broken God's Law-Word. God calls this sin. In light of the previous paragraph you can only conclude that all men must be headed for hell. Who can say that they have not sinned? If you can show me someone like that then you may have found a liar. So God destroys all of humanity in a vengeful spirit, end of story. No. He sends His Son to take the punishment for sin and makes a way to seek and find Him in this dark and fallen world. Not all are saved. Not all want to be saved. But for those who are saved, the love of God is not merely an intellectual idea but an experienced ideal. So what is the love of God? The love of God is that He is not allowing everyone to perish in their sins but He is saving some. That is real mercy and grace. "To err is human, forgive divine." Why do we say this? Because it is so hard to forgive. God does forgive, this is love. Seek and find Him and you too will experience that love.
What can be worse than hell? Well, what God says is worse than hell for starters. What place has God prepared for the devil and his demons from before time began? Where will He send all of the unrepentant sinners on that Final Day of Judgment where time will end and [for us] eternity begin? The answer: what the book of Revelation refers to as the Lake of Fire. The lake of fire is not hell. It is not synonymous with hell and should not be confused with hell. Hell is bad, yet it is only temporary. The lake of fire is worse, but it is everlasting. If this does not unnerve you then do not ever say, "I wasn't warned."
Yes it is true that if you end up in hell you cannot change your religion, start serving God and go to heaven after all is said and done. Your chance to go to heaven really does exist. God is love and has made a way for you to avoid the lake of fire. Seek after Him and find Him. Acknowledge His existence, then follow Him. Read His Law-Word and obey it. If you believe Jesus (i.e. believe what He taught) and that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved. If you persevere in this faith you will be saved. Obey Him by getting baptized. But if any of these elements are missing then you have reason to doubt your salvation (if you "used to be" a Christian but are not persevering then it is probable that you never were saved). If there are any doubts as to the truth of my statements then seek the truth and you will find it. Or contact me.
How could a loving and righteous God NOT punish unrepentant sinners? If He did not punish them, how could He reward the repentant sinners (now called saints)? Reward and punishment are two sides to the same coin (two "faces" of the one God). That is, whatever face of God we are beholding when we die is the face of God we will experience for eternity. So in a way, bear with me, we could say that a loving God could not send people to hell. Let me leave you with this last thought: God's wrath sends people to hell, but God's love saves some from hell.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Re:Re:Letter to My Friend
"Well, I’m back and forth. My only concern is that McCain may have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. I may end up voting Const. party anyway, but what would you say about the justice appointment issue? Do you not believe that McCain would do that, or would you just say that on other issues, McCain’s positions are bad, so though a judge may be pro-life, he may also be anti-liberty, and any compromise on any issue is enough to reject him?"
I wouldn't make my decision for support on one issue. Granted if the Conservative party endorses McCain, and you vote for him on that ticket, you would be sending him the message that you want him to be conservative (i.e. including any appointments etc). However it won't bind him to anything. He can just as simply ignore and patronize his conservative constituent, especially since republicans have us conservatives "in the bag." The future of the Republicans, think "log cabin," is pandering to the homosexual community and trying to be progressive/liberal.
The reality is that we do not need a pro-life judge nominated. This thinking is truly borne of the self-defeating strategy of incrementalism (i.e. accept the evil but slowly work to overturn it). What we need is a president who will himself overturn Roe vs. Wade by resisting evil. This can be accomplished through veto and simply having enough support in Congress to prevent a veto override. I don't think McCain will do this, let alone O'Bama. I'll vote for neither.
I don't know if Chuck Baldwin has this strategy in mind, but I don't think he'll get elected either. That is, if he had a chance I would really work hard at convincing him to adopt this strategy. On the other hand, we need to have this strategy in mind for the day will come, if we faint not, when we will have our candidate take office. Until then, I will labor to spread the ideology of theocentrism in all of life and thought; esp. in politics.
America's Economic Future, Slide Show
http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
$9.2 trillion in listed/visible debt = $5 trillion of public debt + $4 trillion in intragovernmental debt
$70-80 trillion in unlisted debt due to required future entitlement payments
OR
The government will NOT continue its entitlement program as currently administered.
Letter to My Friend
I was going to FWD a Constitution Party email I had but instead found a link http://www.scconstitutionparty.com/DontWasteYourVote.aspx I am really struck that one so principled as yourself would change stride (moral imperative to utilitarian) for "the short term." I thought that principled people like us most often made decisions based on long run consequences.
To tell you the truth, it isn't even good for the "lesser of two evils" to be in power in the short run. No matter who is in office, the same legislation will be signed. No political power rests with any president who is unwilling to resist evil (or at the very least unConstitutional bills). You want the guy who will keep the sluice shut over the guy who would open it...When both are being overrun by a tidal wave.
The liberals don't quit. If they have a bill rejected, they resubmit it until it is signed. They may change the name of the bill (i.e. Federal Reserve Bill, 1913), they may pressure the president (i.e. Howard Phillips referenced Ronald Reagan in a letter saying "they tell me I have to"), or they may try an end run (i.e. watch current events; Ireland rejects EU Reform Bill and now the EU wants to run it through as a Treaty to bypass the voting populace). Any other president other than a true conservative will not resist the liberals...
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Essay for my HIS-101 class
Michael S. Davis
Ms. Sandra Floore
History 101-005
June 17, 2008
Joaquin Phoenix, as Commodus in the movie “Gladiator,” was convincing as a portrayal of a man unfit to rule. This similarity however is quickly overshadowed by the many apparent disproportionate Hollywood-isms added to enhance the screenplay.
In the movie Commodus is depicted as a cruel, villainous son whose love and hatred of his father, Marcus Aurelius, resulted in the subsequent murder of his father at the hands of Commodus himself. In reality Commodus was nowhere near Marcus Aurelius when he died and quickly arranged for his father’s funeral as a good son would. In “Gladiator” Commodus dies in the Coliseum fighting a gladiator, but in reality he was never defeated due to the gladiators’ fear of their emperor. The reality is that he was strangled to death after he was nearly poisoned.
There are several depictions in the movie based on fact however. Commodus was popular with the mob that was Rome. He did fight gladiators in the Coliseum. He was an inept leader. He was by all appearances insane. But the similarities are not complete because even in their depiction of these ideas they alter historical accuracy. The type of “insanity” he had in the movie was one of a fearful, power-hungry despot. In real life he seems not to have had any issues with his status as emperor, but he enjoyed abusing his power to such an extent that you would think he was literally crazy. This may simply be the corrupting effect of power.
As a leader he treated everything as an inferior commodity to himself, the greatest “commodity.” He lived only for his selfish ambitions and this was ultimately his undoing. The movie as well as history bears this out.
