I'm not going to mince words. When prayer was taken out of the public schools (and the ability to discuss the Bible), God promptly withdrew many blessings from the United States, both as a community and all individuals. And yes, that includes from those who not guilty of the actual decision, including the students who are deprived of prayer/discussion in school. Why is this? Why is this "fair" for God to punish all? I'll use scripture in a second part to this, but first an analogy, because I know that this helps these modern generations the most in making the first steps toward understanding, repentance and correction.
A father dispenses a generous allowance to his children. So his kids line up in front of him once a week (after dad has received his paycheck) and he hands each child their weekly allowance. Two things happen. One is that each child thanks their father. The second is that the child tells their dad at least one thing good that they did with the last week's money. (For example a daughter may have spent money on clothes, and dad doesn't want to hear about that, but tells her dad about the dollar she gave to a charity for Haiti). So dad has only two conditions for the generous allowance: one is that each child thank him as he or her receives it, and two that they tell him the one charitable or wise thing that they did each week with even the smallest portion of the money.
One day the Supreme Court, in following all the previous courts, decides it is "mean" and "cruel" that the father expect 1) thanks from his children as he dispenses his money to them and 2) requires them to spend at least a dime or something for a wise and/or charitable action. The courts have all ruled that this is a cruel thing to do, as it is "forcing" children to "thank" the father for something they already were going to receive! Also, it is "unfair" that those "evil" charities and wise actions receive a percentage of the allowance. I mean, how unfair is that? Those kids would be giving a portion of money in good or wise actions only to the places they know about locally! How unfair is that to some charity that exists maybe halfway around the world and tattoos kangaroos? Why don't they get the money? So the courts rule that dad cannot receive thanks from the children, and they cannot donate a percentage of their money to a good cause because it is "unfair" that they are not having a list of every good cause in the entire world.
So the next paycheck day dad is sitting at his home desk and the kids line up. Glancing up at the local policeman with a gun in his holster staring at him, dad hands each child the allowance and the child, also looking at the policeman with the gun, silently takes the money and silently leaves.
***
That is what happened when school prayer and the ability to discuss the Bible at all was taken out of the schools. The courts ruled that children were not allowed to in a school premise (their place of "work" if you think about it) address and thank God, even briefly. Further, the ability to do good was taken from them because it was "unfair" to learn how to do good from the Bible, and it's so meeeeeeeeaaaaaaan that the neighbor's children might have to actually listen to a few words of what Christians do and believe. In other words, don't do ANY good with the allowance if one is selecting only from one's own list because goodness gracious, that's so "exclusionary" and "mean."
Now realize the man with the allowance is God. He now has a man with a gun telling his children that they cannot thank him and that they cannot use their own judgment to give a portion to a wise use or charity. What will the man do? What are his responsibilities?
***
Back to our analogy. The man stops giving allowances to his children at all, so the man with the gun and the courts that sent him will get the hell out of his house.
That is why this analogy is so apt. The moment school prayer and Bible mention was taken out of the schools, God stopped that particular allowance. Period. So the children suffer through loss of the allowance and the wise/charitable funds expenditure recipients also lose their financial blessing. This is the bottom line: without school prayer and Bible mention in schools, God withdrew from ALL that particular form of blessing he had been giving to the nation and to individuals.
This does not mean, of course, that there is no blessings anymore, but think about it: besides 1) one's personal relationship with God and 2) one's worship community's relationship with God, what is the third largest relationship with God? In the "public square" and workplace, which for many are the schools. God basically cut off one third of the blessings allowance to the United States when school prayer and mention of the Bible was prohibited.
***
Young people, I bet you are pissed off reading this, as you should be, if you understand and believe my analogy, which you should understand and believe because it is the cold truth. Yet, all children (say nothing of teachers, etc) have lost one third of the blessing allowance from God that had been previously dispensed, whether you as kids agreed with that decision or not. (Most of you don't remember the time when prayer and Bible mention was OK in school, say nothing of the olden days when it was a fundamental part of education and daily activities as your mind and character were grown in schools, your place of work).
What can someone do who has been cheated of this? Use the analogy for a minute.
1) The dad can stop giving the allowance, but put it in a bank for the kids to get when they are older. Yikes because how do they buy what they need when they need it now?
2) Dad can move out of the country that has that law. That's not practical or cool either but I mention it because I'm telling you, boys and girls, men and women, it would be better to quit the public schools and attend a private/parochial school where Bible and prayer are allowed. Young people.... what is being cool in a "free" and "hip" school mean when you are cheated out of your blessings from God? But that is a solution that is full of pain (leaving classmates, football teams, etc) and often not practical (can't afford to pay for a nearby parochial school, etc).
3) The children can silently keep taking the money and find a way to thank Dad when the cop has gone away. But it still means that cop is standing there every day in your home, censoring the family. They become persecuted refugees in their own home during allowance time.
4) The children can obtain knowledge, understanding and righteous indignation about this treatment of Dad, and all dads and moms in this situation, and start to use the laws of the land to combat and reverse what has been done. That is what you ought to do. And trust me, even you kids who are uncomfortable with Christian or other religion ought to fight for reversal of the prohibition of school prayer and Bible mention. Why? Because you were riding the draft, to use a sports and aeronautical term, of the benefit of the daily school prayer and Bible mention, even if you did not believe. Yes, all of you benefited, just as the charities benefited from the children's donations, even if they didn't know Dad or support his occupation whereby he got that paycheck!
Young people, and older people.... how can you have genuine freedom and spiritual blessing when a minority of people, with force, removed the source of one third of your routine blessings from God? Sure, you "still have" God in your silent heart and in the "allowable" places such as churches, but huh? Why is THAT OK? It's not. That's like saying that you will thank God for your allowance "someday" when it is "safe" and the "coast is clear." But if Dad keeps giving you the allowance with the armed cop in the room censoring you, is he teaching you the right thing by continuing to do so under coercion? No. And that is why God will not do so either.
God doesn't "continue" to bless schools and all who attend when an armed cop has muzzled everyone because quite simply it is teaching everyone that behavior, faith, goodness and freedom don't actually matter, as you will "get the goodies anyway" and that just is patently false in not only being faithful to God but in life. It took little time for people to accept the banishing of God from the public schools, sadly, shockingly little time.
Young people, your parents did not silently protest what was done by giving you "extra prayer time" once you got home from the prayerless school, did they? And you didn't come home and say "Hey mom and dad, we can't pray in school anymore, or mention the Bible, so let's have that five minutes we were deprived of in school each evening here at home, or in the morning." Very, very VERY few of you even went guerrilla and underground to protest and compensate for what was taken from you. You "adjusted" and very quickly even started to agree it was "fair" not to pray in school.
Want a good cause? I sure suggest this one.
PS What would I have done? I'd have had the daily prayer in protest each day right outside the school's grounds, just one inch over the property line I'd have parents and children gather before school for the daily prayer that the school denied. And I'd have done that nationwide and year after year until this egregious ban was withdrawn.
Showing posts with label denial or ignoring God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denial or ignoring God. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why immediate obedience to God necessary
This is especially directed toward young people, those under thirties and most especially young teens (hi there!) because, frankly, I've about given up on your parents' and teachers' generations of understanding these things. They are so infested with "magical" thinking instead of 1) faith and 2) logic and reasoning based on facts. You've been raised that way too, but I have a great hope that you recognize something is very wrong: totally wrong. So this is part of the "faith and reasoning" series where I teach you how to have logical faith based on the truth, accomplished through reasoning and the facts, and also develop your skills in using classic logic to solve problems and form opinions.
Here I am going to first give you an analogy that you can all relate to, and then we will use logic to analyze the analogy.
Suppose that a society, such as the United States, recognizes all at once that cigarette smoking is dangerous for one's health and causes cancer. (I'm not doing a smoking bash here or making an extreme medical statement; I just want to use a genuine topic based on facts for the analogy). So let's suppose that everyone realizes all at once that smoking causes specifically lung cancer and that it is certain to happen for each person eventually. You will have, based on human nature, reactions that divide the population into roughly thirds. One third will quit immediately. One third will want to quit but being pretty heavy smokers or with a big addiction, they have to use various methods to quit, but they have perfect intention to do so as SOON as they can. But then we come to the other third. That third will plan to quit "someday" and use "magical thinking" to manipulate the situation, thinking that they "know better" than the doctors. So that third group will "plan" to quit someday but will continue to smoke and, actually, will work on the members of the first two groups to get them to continue to smoke along with them.
This third group gives this reaction, this very bad reaction, for a combination of reasons, but they all come down to 1) lack of faith and 2) arrogance and self pride overcoming logic. The lack of faith is simple in that they just do not believe either the dire warnings of the doctors or the evidence of their own eyes, which is lots of people getting lung cancer and dropping dead of it, including in their own families. They just refuse to believe and have lack of faith in either the policy or the facts because of reason number two, their arrogance and self pride. That arrogance and pride gets its strength from "magical" thinking. Here are examples of magical thinking:
1. I can keep on smoking longer than anyone else without getting the lung cancer because I'm physically and spiritually better than anyone else.
2. Because I know better than everyone else I can tempt people to also keep smoking, which they enjoy after all, longer, and not have to give up something they enjoy too! So I'm putting to rest their "false fears."
3. Besides, it's not fun being part of a rapidly dwindling group of smokers. I want company and to heck with the consequences, so long as I am partying out and smoking with lots of friends. Hey they know the risk so if they listen to me keep smoking and get cancer, it's their fault ("destiny") anyway.
4. I want to keep doing this wrong and dangerous thing and to rationalize it and keep having a good time with lots of smoking friends, I will tell them they were "born to die of cancer" or that it is "their destiny" if something happens and they get sick. I will make it sound like "the force is with them" or they have "karma" or they will have a better "future life" to make up for their current life being cut short by doing this dangerous smoking.
5. I'm an addict and a weakling and can't quit. But I'm too proud to ask for help, especially because I mocked the very people who did this health study and made the discovery of the danger. So instead of doing what I know I should do and ask for help, I'm too proud and self superior so I'll not ask for help, keep on doing so, and, in fact, sabotage any smoker quitting service I can, since that way I can tell myself that even if I was not proud, none of the smoker quitting services exist or really work anyway.
6. I'm neurotic, obsessive compulsive, depressed, anxious and/or paranoid. I think everyone is pretending that smoking is dangerous and pretending to get sick and die. I also think they are pretending that dead is really dead.
7. I'm all or some of the above in 6 and I think, since I can't think properly, that if people stop smoking and dying of lung cancer that "something worse will happen." Maybe the world is resting on the back of giant turtles who like to breathe cigarette smoke and if we all stop smoking the turtles will get mad and drop the earth and it will break.
I wish I was joking but I am not. I personally, and through second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of "Kevin Bacon" know people that believe all of the above: a LOT of them. They believe it not only in the actual analogy that I give, but worst of all, they believe it when you apply this analogy about acknowledging the reality of the one true God and of obeying him. They "postpone" or refuse in total to believe in God and to immediately obey him for all those reasons I have listed above.
So we have used logic to list the reactions and reasons of the three groups of people in the smoking analogy. And we have used logic to recognize that just as the analogy cites doctors who document the facts that, in the pretend USA example, that every smoker will get lung cancer and die, this analogy can now be applied to belief in God. God is the doctor who explains that if one smokes that each and every person who smokes will get lung cancer and die. Thus to transfer the work we did on the pretend case study to actuality, God is like the doctor who warns what will one hundred percent will happen, disbelief in God and sins are like the smoking of cigarettes (the thing that is dangerous and wrong to do even if it is "fun"), and hell (not being saved and not having eternal life) is like the inevitable lung cancer in our pretend analogy.
Do you see how powerful logic based on facts can be? Now you can use the logic you developed in the pretend analogy to understand why so many people deny God or worse, even when they understand the risk and reality (the consequences of "cancer") they PUT OFF obeying what they can see and suspect is true and worse, hold their friends, family and society itself back from being believers and immediate obeying of God. You can work down the list of seven I gave to you above and now substitute disbelief/sin/disobeying of God for wherever we list the action of smoking. We can list not being saved, being punished by God in this world, going to hell, and hurting other people by being unjust and/or sinning or spreading unbelief as the substitute for the getting and dying of lung cancer.
Let's work through one example, the first one. The smokers in the first example of pride think they can resist the consequences of smoking longer than anyone so they keep smoking and figure they will quit at the last possible moment. Thus they figure because they are physically and spiritually "better" than anyone else, they can keep smoking until just "before" they actually "get" cancer and then quit in the nick of time. That's the "logic" of pride in the first reasons to keep smoking example.
Now here is how it translates. Yeah, OK, maybe there is a God and maybe he will punish us if we sin. But because I am physically and spiritually "stronger" than anyone else, I will keep doing what I feel like, including sin, because I figure due to my superiority and my good deeds that if I figure out there really is a God, I will by lying around on my death bed after a really fun life and can quickly convert and be forgiven. I know that God will give me a really cool life, including with postponing obedience to him, because he made me so physically strong, good looking, popular, smart and spiritually so "complete" and "evolved" that I can control when I "flip" to believe in God, if he convinces me AND still have postponed obeying him until the last minute.
Here's the problems with this thinking. *sigh* I can't believe I even have to explain this but here goes. If one is disbelieving and disobeying God, no matter what "good deeds" you are doing, you are still 1) sinning 2) encouraging by your life other people to sin and 3) refusing to give God what is due to him on the spot NOW and FOREVER, throughout your life. The people in this category think they are so "blessed" that they can decide if or when to totally surrender to God. They imagine that they are just so wonderful that they can keep making this "personal" decision and that it's theirs to make AND that they will have ample time to "make the switch" if they must. But what happens? Let's go back to our analogy.
1. They keep smoking and get the cancer much faster than anyone else. Hmm.
2. They keep smoking and make money off of it by keeping others smoking through their business and/or their example. Thus their postponed obedience costs other people their lives.
3. They get in a crash and die before they can "make the switch." Ooops.
4. They don't realize that by the time they think they can "make the switch" that they already have the deadly cancer growing undetected. So they stop smoking and then find they have the cancer already because they "postponed" too long.
You can logic through, then, how this maps to disbelieving/postponing obeying God.
1. They disbelieve or postpone obedience and their sin or behaviors kill them even quicker. They go to hell.
2. They know what they are doing is wrong but they make money off of it or at worse by continuing to do so their children do the same neglect of God and thus they make money and tempt others by neglecting God, piling up a lot of unforgiven and some unforgivable sins. They go to hell AND they bring others with them through their delays in obedience.
3. Life happens and they get in a wreck and die or something else happens before they can repent. They go to hell.
4. They wait so long that their hearts are so hardened that even when they "decide" to "make the switch" they just can't do it, because they can't be humble, tender and flexible enough to finally do what they so called "planned" to do all along. So when they are ready to "switch" they find they can't at all, or they do it half hearted, and with a cold heart, like God is a formula to now apply. They go to hell.
I'll leave this with you to work through mapping in your own minds the other "reasons" for disbelief/postponing obeying God, listed 2 through 7, matching the smoking/lung cancer analogy and "reasons" with what that means for disbelieving/postponing obeying God. Pay special attention to the lack of one person converting in their heart to God as a bad example that then leads others back down that path to ruin. This is the heart of why God's judgment is especially stern to those who aren't really making an "individual life style choice," but are actually leading others the same way, often deliberately, as in reasons number 5, 6 and 7 but really all of them, as they want to "party on" with what they are doing, and that requires undermining those who might otherwise have repented and followed God.
*sigh*
Young people, you've been sold a bill of goods (an expression for being stiffed) by the previous generation. Previous generation, wise up.
Here I am going to first give you an analogy that you can all relate to, and then we will use logic to analyze the analogy.
Suppose that a society, such as the United States, recognizes all at once that cigarette smoking is dangerous for one's health and causes cancer. (I'm not doing a smoking bash here or making an extreme medical statement; I just want to use a genuine topic based on facts for the analogy). So let's suppose that everyone realizes all at once that smoking causes specifically lung cancer and that it is certain to happen for each person eventually. You will have, based on human nature, reactions that divide the population into roughly thirds. One third will quit immediately. One third will want to quit but being pretty heavy smokers or with a big addiction, they have to use various methods to quit, but they have perfect intention to do so as SOON as they can. But then we come to the other third. That third will plan to quit "someday" and use "magical thinking" to manipulate the situation, thinking that they "know better" than the doctors. So that third group will "plan" to quit someday but will continue to smoke and, actually, will work on the members of the first two groups to get them to continue to smoke along with them.
This third group gives this reaction, this very bad reaction, for a combination of reasons, but they all come down to 1) lack of faith and 2) arrogance and self pride overcoming logic. The lack of faith is simple in that they just do not believe either the dire warnings of the doctors or the evidence of their own eyes, which is lots of people getting lung cancer and dropping dead of it, including in their own families. They just refuse to believe and have lack of faith in either the policy or the facts because of reason number two, their arrogance and self pride. That arrogance and pride gets its strength from "magical" thinking. Here are examples of magical thinking:
1. I can keep on smoking longer than anyone else without getting the lung cancer because I'm physically and spiritually better than anyone else.
2. Because I know better than everyone else I can tempt people to also keep smoking, which they enjoy after all, longer, and not have to give up something they enjoy too! So I'm putting to rest their "false fears."
3. Besides, it's not fun being part of a rapidly dwindling group of smokers. I want company and to heck with the consequences, so long as I am partying out and smoking with lots of friends. Hey they know the risk so if they listen to me keep smoking and get cancer, it's their fault ("destiny") anyway.
4. I want to keep doing this wrong and dangerous thing and to rationalize it and keep having a good time with lots of smoking friends, I will tell them they were "born to die of cancer" or that it is "their destiny" if something happens and they get sick. I will make it sound like "the force is with them" or they have "karma" or they will have a better "future life" to make up for their current life being cut short by doing this dangerous smoking.
5. I'm an addict and a weakling and can't quit. But I'm too proud to ask for help, especially because I mocked the very people who did this health study and made the discovery of the danger. So instead of doing what I know I should do and ask for help, I'm too proud and self superior so I'll not ask for help, keep on doing so, and, in fact, sabotage any smoker quitting service I can, since that way I can tell myself that even if I was not proud, none of the smoker quitting services exist or really work anyway.
6. I'm neurotic, obsessive compulsive, depressed, anxious and/or paranoid. I think everyone is pretending that smoking is dangerous and pretending to get sick and die. I also think they are pretending that dead is really dead.
7. I'm all or some of the above in 6 and I think, since I can't think properly, that if people stop smoking and dying of lung cancer that "something worse will happen." Maybe the world is resting on the back of giant turtles who like to breathe cigarette smoke and if we all stop smoking the turtles will get mad and drop the earth and it will break.
I wish I was joking but I am not. I personally, and through second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth degrees of "Kevin Bacon" know people that believe all of the above: a LOT of them. They believe it not only in the actual analogy that I give, but worst of all, they believe it when you apply this analogy about acknowledging the reality of the one true God and of obeying him. They "postpone" or refuse in total to believe in God and to immediately obey him for all those reasons I have listed above.
So we have used logic to list the reactions and reasons of the three groups of people in the smoking analogy. And we have used logic to recognize that just as the analogy cites doctors who document the facts that, in the pretend USA example, that every smoker will get lung cancer and die, this analogy can now be applied to belief in God. God is the doctor who explains that if one smokes that each and every person who smokes will get lung cancer and die. Thus to transfer the work we did on the pretend case study to actuality, God is like the doctor who warns what will one hundred percent will happen, disbelief in God and sins are like the smoking of cigarettes (the thing that is dangerous and wrong to do even if it is "fun"), and hell (not being saved and not having eternal life) is like the inevitable lung cancer in our pretend analogy.
Do you see how powerful logic based on facts can be? Now you can use the logic you developed in the pretend analogy to understand why so many people deny God or worse, even when they understand the risk and reality (the consequences of "cancer") they PUT OFF obeying what they can see and suspect is true and worse, hold their friends, family and society itself back from being believers and immediate obeying of God. You can work down the list of seven I gave to you above and now substitute disbelief/sin/disobeying of God for wherever we list the action of smoking. We can list not being saved, being punished by God in this world, going to hell, and hurting other people by being unjust and/or sinning or spreading unbelief as the substitute for the getting and dying of lung cancer.
Let's work through one example, the first one. The smokers in the first example of pride think they can resist the consequences of smoking longer than anyone so they keep smoking and figure they will quit at the last possible moment. Thus they figure because they are physically and spiritually "better" than anyone else, they can keep smoking until just "before" they actually "get" cancer and then quit in the nick of time. That's the "logic" of pride in the first reasons to keep smoking example.
Now here is how it translates. Yeah, OK, maybe there is a God and maybe he will punish us if we sin. But because I am physically and spiritually "stronger" than anyone else, I will keep doing what I feel like, including sin, because I figure due to my superiority and my good deeds that if I figure out there really is a God, I will by lying around on my death bed after a really fun life and can quickly convert and be forgiven. I know that God will give me a really cool life, including with postponing obedience to him, because he made me so physically strong, good looking, popular, smart and spiritually so "complete" and "evolved" that I can control when I "flip" to believe in God, if he convinces me AND still have postponed obeying him until the last minute.
Here's the problems with this thinking. *sigh* I can't believe I even have to explain this but here goes. If one is disbelieving and disobeying God, no matter what "good deeds" you are doing, you are still 1) sinning 2) encouraging by your life other people to sin and 3) refusing to give God what is due to him on the spot NOW and FOREVER, throughout your life. The people in this category think they are so "blessed" that they can decide if or when to totally surrender to God. They imagine that they are just so wonderful that they can keep making this "personal" decision and that it's theirs to make AND that they will have ample time to "make the switch" if they must. But what happens? Let's go back to our analogy.
1. They keep smoking and get the cancer much faster than anyone else. Hmm.
2. They keep smoking and make money off of it by keeping others smoking through their business and/or their example. Thus their postponed obedience costs other people their lives.
3. They get in a crash and die before they can "make the switch." Ooops.
4. They don't realize that by the time they think they can "make the switch" that they already have the deadly cancer growing undetected. So they stop smoking and then find they have the cancer already because they "postponed" too long.
You can logic through, then, how this maps to disbelieving/postponing obeying God.
1. They disbelieve or postpone obedience and their sin or behaviors kill them even quicker. They go to hell.
2. They know what they are doing is wrong but they make money off of it or at worse by continuing to do so their children do the same neglect of God and thus they make money and tempt others by neglecting God, piling up a lot of unforgiven and some unforgivable sins. They go to hell AND they bring others with them through their delays in obedience.
3. Life happens and they get in a wreck and die or something else happens before they can repent. They go to hell.
4. They wait so long that their hearts are so hardened that even when they "decide" to "make the switch" they just can't do it, because they can't be humble, tender and flexible enough to finally do what they so called "planned" to do all along. So when they are ready to "switch" they find they can't at all, or they do it half hearted, and with a cold heart, like God is a formula to now apply. They go to hell.
I'll leave this with you to work through mapping in your own minds the other "reasons" for disbelief/postponing obeying God, listed 2 through 7, matching the smoking/lung cancer analogy and "reasons" with what that means for disbelieving/postponing obeying God. Pay special attention to the lack of one person converting in their heart to God as a bad example that then leads others back down that path to ruin. This is the heart of why God's judgment is especially stern to those who aren't really making an "individual life style choice," but are actually leading others the same way, often deliberately, as in reasons number 5, 6 and 7 but really all of them, as they want to "party on" with what they are doing, and that requires undermining those who might otherwise have repented and followed God.
*sigh*
Young people, you've been sold a bill of goods (an expression for being stiffed) by the previous generation. Previous generation, wise up.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The need for truth in music, the arts.....
This is just a personal and philosophical/theological and factual observation, that is follow up to what I've been blogging where I explain that faith is authentically obtained by seeking the truth, the genuine, absolute truth, rather than "the best" "faith for me." Recalling what I've written that if one really cherishes and seeks the truth, one will inevitably find it-and the one true God-because God and his creation are the truth, let me explain my feelings about music.
I totally love music and as I reckon I've blogged before, I was listening to blues and pop music and rock and roll from the cradle (much helped by my much older brother playing the radio.) I wanted to play an instrument-and sing-but was kept from having any music lessons at all until I was able to pay for them on my own when in college. So I have a very clear love of music.
However, my friends, especially those in the music industry, wonder how I have lived for decades without listening to either current music or replaying those I've enjoyed in the past.
It became painfully obvious to me in the 1980's that almost without exception, all popular music, even the most brilliant of pieces, were written and composed by people who did not believe in the true God. Now, I am not saying I wanted Christian music because, actually, I find the same problem in much of Christian music from around that same time period. Since the 1980's the groundwork for the brainwashing and destruction of faith (genuine, factual, orthodox faith) that had been put in place during the 1960's-1970's started yielding their global bitter fruit. Even though most popular songs have absolutely nothing to do with God or faith as a topic, it was still painfully (and repulsively) obvious to me that the songs were all written in a distorted, God less and nihilistic mindset. Even the "happy" songs were clanging and warped, sometimes subtle, but usually very obvious to me. But it was obvious that ALL genres of music had become pieces of production made in in pained, God less and angry/manic depressive music "factories."
Now, young people especially, here is the crucial point I need to make to you, regarding both this topic of music (and art) and of faith and life in general. You must learn to distinguish between and properly manage, and put respectful boundaries around the two completely different mindsets of "truth" and "validity." Your parents (and many of their parents) combined the two, erroneously, in their minds, and have therefore caused their own mental, spiritual and emotional downfalls. It started with "let it all hang out." That is the philosophy that if you feel a certain way, then it is valid, "authentic" and honorable, and must be shared, even if everyone who listens to it then goes off the deep end and wants to shoot themselves. There is a huge difference between being "valid" (which means that right or wrong that is how you think/feel) and the truth, which is reality, a reality which includes the one true God and his role in this world.
For example, someone can write a miserable song because they feel like shit and they think they are evil reincarnated alien spawn. That's "valid," because that's what they think and feel (usually because they were brought up that way, or fell into the hands of sick "gurus"). But it is not the truth, because they would not feel that way if they were taught and came to believe in the truth of the world, a world that very much includes the one true God.
So sure, I am not against someone who has to do a "core dump" in the form of music of their sadness, anger, alienation, addiction, misery, aimlessness, vengefulness, spite, and so forth, since that is "valid...." that is, indeed, how he or she feels.
The problem is that like building houses on sand foundations, instead of bedrock, I noticed starting in the 1980's that virtually the entire music business prompted songs written, composed and produced by people who had totally lost their footing in the truth. They no longer even believed there is a truth, in the world, in their public lives, or in their private lives. They came to think that the current (or past) "validity" of what they think or feel IS the truth, which it most certainly is not.
So even the most inane and harmless of happy songs (those few there were, especially as rap, metal, angry punk and other genres took over increasing market share) were written by people who thought that the truth was to force out something commercially happy as a product, even though they did not believe in the truth. In other words, unhappy people living with perspectives that lacked recognition of truth were writing both happy and unhappy songs. This means that instead of most houses being built on solid foundations, most houses were now built on sand.
I can hardly listen to anything of the past few decades without seeing directly in the souls of those who produced and wrote these pieces and seeing their alienation, their loss of truth and worst of all, their determination that their "validity" IS the truth, and must be imposed as depressive and warped realities onto each new generation of listener. These adults raised children in the business who completely lost truth about life in the world and yet, brilliant as they are, produced brilliant music that is like a poisoned apple, great to eat but it kills you with each bite. We are on the THIRD decade of this disaster. That is why I cannot listen to music, most music, without pain.
I can even tell you the last song I gave a serious listen to as it came out, the version of "What's the Story (Morning Glory)" by Oasis. That is absolutely the last popular song I listened to and heeded and admired as it was released. Why is that? Of course technically it is wonderful, but more to point, it put into words exactly what I have described above: the disaster of being in a world where all your dreams are made when you're chained to the mirror on your razor blade. I pretty much turned off the radio after a few good listens of that, and that's no lie (as my stalkers can attest!) This is why I cannot listen to even the big hits, the really brilliant songs, even those of great compelling validity, of the late 1980's, the 1990's and the 2000's thus far. ALL of them are only "valid," very, very, VERY few of them are written by people with their heads screwed on properly and who believe in any truth, say nothing of the truth, of life, and of God's role in life.
I wish I could give you a real life example, so instead, imagine along with me the difference in a song about the exact same life experience written by a person who is valid, but does not know about or accept truth, and a person who is valid and is writing from a position of acknowledging the truth. So imagine that each songwriter wants to write about the misery of an addiction and ruined life, for example. One songwriter believes freaky things, nihilistic things, and writes about his or her addiction in that context. Even if they never mention their depressive and nihilistic mindset, that mindset, of course, is the well spring and informs their talent, which shapes their song. The other songwriter writes about the same intense valid misery in their, his or her, own life, but the well spring they have is one that still has at least a foundation in the truthfulness of a world that was created good, where there is a God, but where things go terribly astray. They might even come up with very similar words, and/or the instrumentation and music may be similar. But there would be a profound difference. Like I said, I wish I could give you actual examples but the scale is totally tilted with the bulk of compositions being of the "valid" but not grounded in overall life truth perspective. I'm not as able to access, not being part of the music industry crowd, of course, information where I can make such a real life comparison. The best I can do is point out how the blues, the old, traditional blues, were written by often very sad and afflicted people, and they are powerful and valid, but also honest because they were written by people who were still in touch with truthfulness in the world, including at least a nod toward the reality of God and his goodness, even if that did not comprise any of the song. This is why the old traditional blues are truly treasures of validity and honesty, in addition to their musical craftsmanship.
However, when I have a song recommended to me, which happened quite a bit in the early 2000's when people would email me "OMG I can't believe you never listened to this songwriter or this song or this group or this band" and then attach a link, I do listen and there it is again, but no one else understands what it is, since it's so pervasive. Only someone who grew up in the 1950's and listened to music that was still created on the foundation of truth (even if personal valid experience was miserable) can explain to you that there is a very stark "before" and "after." So after I listen to the song I resist the urge to shoot myself, and then research the artist and his or her other tracks. OMG, it is always the same. You can tell in their discography that they are totally into "validity" while living in a miserable, manic depressive, warped lack of truth. I then have to resist shooting myself after just reading the song titles. Good grief, it is a nightmare.
This really is a topic that lends itself more to face to face discussion (imagine that!) and having the help of a DJ who can pull examples of what I mean. But I thought that many of you, since you are questing, alert, and aware that these are disturbed times, will get the gist of what I mean, and have insight not only into how/why I perceive and do things as I do, but think about the facts as I have presented them and examine your own experiences for further insight.
A person can write the most brilliant piece of music ever, and it still be a wrong thing to do. That is a controversial statement, I know. By wrong I don't mean criminal or necessarily sinful or immoral. But just as products should not be subliminally marketed (the old popcorn hidden in the movie film scam), depressive "validity" that is denial of truth should not be deluging people, as it has for decades now, because that is dishonest. Artists, you must understand that it is possible, very possible, to be "valid" and "authentic," but totally dishonest. That is the boundary you must start to recognize, for the well being of not only your audience, but of your individual self.
I hope you understood as best as I could present these words tonight. I still love music, but for decades, music has not loved me back.
I totally love music and as I reckon I've blogged before, I was listening to blues and pop music and rock and roll from the cradle (much helped by my much older brother playing the radio.) I wanted to play an instrument-and sing-but was kept from having any music lessons at all until I was able to pay for them on my own when in college. So I have a very clear love of music.
However, my friends, especially those in the music industry, wonder how I have lived for decades without listening to either current music or replaying those I've enjoyed in the past.
It became painfully obvious to me in the 1980's that almost without exception, all popular music, even the most brilliant of pieces, were written and composed by people who did not believe in the true God. Now, I am not saying I wanted Christian music because, actually, I find the same problem in much of Christian music from around that same time period. Since the 1980's the groundwork for the brainwashing and destruction of faith (genuine, factual, orthodox faith) that had been put in place during the 1960's-1970's started yielding their global bitter fruit. Even though most popular songs have absolutely nothing to do with God or faith as a topic, it was still painfully (and repulsively) obvious to me that the songs were all written in a distorted, God less and nihilistic mindset. Even the "happy" songs were clanging and warped, sometimes subtle, but usually very obvious to me. But it was obvious that ALL genres of music had become pieces of production made in in pained, God less and angry/manic depressive music "factories."
Now, young people especially, here is the crucial point I need to make to you, regarding both this topic of music (and art) and of faith and life in general. You must learn to distinguish between and properly manage, and put respectful boundaries around the two completely different mindsets of "truth" and "validity." Your parents (and many of their parents) combined the two, erroneously, in their minds, and have therefore caused their own mental, spiritual and emotional downfalls. It started with "let it all hang out." That is the philosophy that if you feel a certain way, then it is valid, "authentic" and honorable, and must be shared, even if everyone who listens to it then goes off the deep end and wants to shoot themselves. There is a huge difference between being "valid" (which means that right or wrong that is how you think/feel) and the truth, which is reality, a reality which includes the one true God and his role in this world.
For example, someone can write a miserable song because they feel like shit and they think they are evil reincarnated alien spawn. That's "valid," because that's what they think and feel (usually because they were brought up that way, or fell into the hands of sick "gurus"). But it is not the truth, because they would not feel that way if they were taught and came to believe in the truth of the world, a world that very much includes the one true God.
So sure, I am not against someone who has to do a "core dump" in the form of music of their sadness, anger, alienation, addiction, misery, aimlessness, vengefulness, spite, and so forth, since that is "valid...." that is, indeed, how he or she feels.
The problem is that like building houses on sand foundations, instead of bedrock, I noticed starting in the 1980's that virtually the entire music business prompted songs written, composed and produced by people who had totally lost their footing in the truth. They no longer even believed there is a truth, in the world, in their public lives, or in their private lives. They came to think that the current (or past) "validity" of what they think or feel IS the truth, which it most certainly is not.
So even the most inane and harmless of happy songs (those few there were, especially as rap, metal, angry punk and other genres took over increasing market share) were written by people who thought that the truth was to force out something commercially happy as a product, even though they did not believe in the truth. In other words, unhappy people living with perspectives that lacked recognition of truth were writing both happy and unhappy songs. This means that instead of most houses being built on solid foundations, most houses were now built on sand.
I can hardly listen to anything of the past few decades without seeing directly in the souls of those who produced and wrote these pieces and seeing their alienation, their loss of truth and worst of all, their determination that their "validity" IS the truth, and must be imposed as depressive and warped realities onto each new generation of listener. These adults raised children in the business who completely lost truth about life in the world and yet, brilliant as they are, produced brilliant music that is like a poisoned apple, great to eat but it kills you with each bite. We are on the THIRD decade of this disaster. That is why I cannot listen to music, most music, without pain.
I can even tell you the last song I gave a serious listen to as it came out, the version of "What's the Story (Morning Glory)" by Oasis. That is absolutely the last popular song I listened to and heeded and admired as it was released. Why is that? Of course technically it is wonderful, but more to point, it put into words exactly what I have described above: the disaster of being in a world where all your dreams are made when you're chained to the mirror on your razor blade. I pretty much turned off the radio after a few good listens of that, and that's no lie (as my stalkers can attest!) This is why I cannot listen to even the big hits, the really brilliant songs, even those of great compelling validity, of the late 1980's, the 1990's and the 2000's thus far. ALL of them are only "valid," very, very, VERY few of them are written by people with their heads screwed on properly and who believe in any truth, say nothing of the truth, of life, and of God's role in life.
I wish I could give you a real life example, so instead, imagine along with me the difference in a song about the exact same life experience written by a person who is valid, but does not know about or accept truth, and a person who is valid and is writing from a position of acknowledging the truth. So imagine that each songwriter wants to write about the misery of an addiction and ruined life, for example. One songwriter believes freaky things, nihilistic things, and writes about his or her addiction in that context. Even if they never mention their depressive and nihilistic mindset, that mindset, of course, is the well spring and informs their talent, which shapes their song. The other songwriter writes about the same intense valid misery in their, his or her, own life, but the well spring they have is one that still has at least a foundation in the truthfulness of a world that was created good, where there is a God, but where things go terribly astray. They might even come up with very similar words, and/or the instrumentation and music may be similar. But there would be a profound difference. Like I said, I wish I could give you actual examples but the scale is totally tilted with the bulk of compositions being of the "valid" but not grounded in overall life truth perspective. I'm not as able to access, not being part of the music industry crowd, of course, information where I can make such a real life comparison. The best I can do is point out how the blues, the old, traditional blues, were written by often very sad and afflicted people, and they are powerful and valid, but also honest because they were written by people who were still in touch with truthfulness in the world, including at least a nod toward the reality of God and his goodness, even if that did not comprise any of the song. This is why the old traditional blues are truly treasures of validity and honesty, in addition to their musical craftsmanship.
However, when I have a song recommended to me, which happened quite a bit in the early 2000's when people would email me "OMG I can't believe you never listened to this songwriter or this song or this group or this band" and then attach a link, I do listen and there it is again, but no one else understands what it is, since it's so pervasive. Only someone who grew up in the 1950's and listened to music that was still created on the foundation of truth (even if personal valid experience was miserable) can explain to you that there is a very stark "before" and "after." So after I listen to the song I resist the urge to shoot myself, and then research the artist and his or her other tracks. OMG, it is always the same. You can tell in their discography that they are totally into "validity" while living in a miserable, manic depressive, warped lack of truth. I then have to resist shooting myself after just reading the song titles. Good grief, it is a nightmare.
This really is a topic that lends itself more to face to face discussion (imagine that!) and having the help of a DJ who can pull examples of what I mean. But I thought that many of you, since you are questing, alert, and aware that these are disturbed times, will get the gist of what I mean, and have insight not only into how/why I perceive and do things as I do, but think about the facts as I have presented them and examine your own experiences for further insight.
A person can write the most brilliant piece of music ever, and it still be a wrong thing to do. That is a controversial statement, I know. By wrong I don't mean criminal or necessarily sinful or immoral. But just as products should not be subliminally marketed (the old popcorn hidden in the movie film scam), depressive "validity" that is denial of truth should not be deluging people, as it has for decades now, because that is dishonest. Artists, you must understand that it is possible, very possible, to be "valid" and "authentic," but totally dishonest. That is the boundary you must start to recognize, for the well being of not only your audience, but of your individual self.
I hope you understood as best as I could present these words tonight. I still love music, but for decades, music has not loved me back.
Friday, August 14, 2009
A question to make you uneasy
Here is a question for you to think about. It is directed to Christians, but I will ask supply a "Muslim version" of the question too, afterwards.
Question: What would you say to someone who believed and had wholehearted faith in Jesus Christ, but who ignored God and was often disobedient to God? What if that person was you?
Question: What would you say to someone who believed and had wholehearted faith in the Prophet (PBUH), but who ignored God and was often disobedient to God? What if that person was you?
Just to be fair, here is the Jewish version of the question.
Question: What would you say to someone who believed and had wholehearted faith in Moses, but who ignored God and was often disobedient to God? What if that person was you?
This reflection is mostly targeted at Christians. I provided the equivalent question to Muslims and Jews so that they can follow along with the logic-and the peril of error-that I am pointing out among many who declare their faith (and have genuine belief and trust) in Jesus, but who feel that having done that, God himself can be ignored or selectively obeyed. What would you say to such a person, and what if that person is you?
Luke 18:28-29
And Peter said, "Behold, we have left all and followed thee." And he said to them, "Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife, or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting."
Notice that Peter affirms to Jesus that the Apostles have left all to follow him. Look carefully at what Jesus replied. Jesus affirms that as a result, anyone who has done so will receive more "in the present time" (now, while alive) and "life everlasting." In other words, Jesus affirms that people who follow him will have better lives, in addition to salvation. But here is my greater point. Did Jesus say that this is for his personal sake? No. Jesus said, "No one who has left house....for the sake of the kingdom of God." Jesus always, always, always points the attention of his followers to God, not himself.
With this in mind, look at this example of the important wording and distinction a few verses later.
Luke 18:42-43
And Jesus said to him, "Receive thy sight, thy faith has saved thee." And at once he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people upon seeing it gave praise to God.
You read this role modeling of how both Jesus and the recipients and witnesses of his miracles repeatedly. First, Jesus gives all glory to God (and applauds the person's faith) when he performs a miracle. Second, the recipient of the miracle realizes that the source is God himself through Jesus, and accordingly glorifies God while witnessing to Jesus. Read that again. The petitioner praises Jesus and witnesses to him, but glorifies God. Likewise do the people who witness the God given miracles of Jesus.
Luke 20:25
And he said to them, "Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Jesus did not say that because he, Jesus, is now present that all that is due to God is no longer required. There is a vast difference between updating, for lack of a better word, the Law, to reflect the Messiah's arrival and bringing of the New Covenant to replace the Old Covenant, but that does not mean that God is no longer due to him the things that are all along, and will be forever, due to him, since he is the source of all that humans have.
Luke 21:15
"For I myself will give you utterance and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist or gainsay."
What does Jesus tell the Apostles and disciples that he will give to them? "Utterance" and "wisdom." What kind of utterance and wisdom can withstand any enemy? There is only one answer, for there is nothing but one thing that can withstand any and all adversary of any type or sort, and that is knowledge of the truth about the one God.
It is thus entirely possible, and even alarmingly frequent, that people "stop," so to speak, at believing in Jesus, trusting in Jesus and having faith in Jesus, but do not accept that gift of Jesus as he offers it (not as some might wish or imagine that he offers it), which is knowledge that he, and the entire scriptures, have given about the truth, and what is due, to the one God.
John the Baptist explained:
John 3:34-6
For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for not by measure does God give the Spirit. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hands. He who believe in the Son has everlasting life; he who is unbelieving towards the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.
Ah ha! such people say. See? All we need to do for everlasting life is to believe in the Son, Jesus Christ. But wait a minute, because it's abundantly clear what John is saying as he is careful to explain to both sides (he is explaining when disciples of his were arguing with some Jews) the proper order and working of things. Yes, belief in Jesus yields everlasting life, and deniers of Jesus will receive the wrath of God. But John puts the relationship and "mechanics" in its proper context. Jesus "speaks the words of God." They are God's words, and Jesus speaks them with authority given to him by God, as is appropriate to the Son who represents the Father. So the "duh" moment for many moderns is that incredibly they have the notion that like God has popped out of heaven, into Jesus, rather than understanding that God is always everywhere, in totality, in control, with perfect constancy over all things and all times. Jesus is speaking the words of God, and is thus showing the face of God to humans, but God is still God and is where he always is, and is due all that he has always been and always will be due. John makes this very clear, most particularly to the Jews who are, understandably, confused and thus antagonistic.
What does John mean by "for not by measure does God give the Spirit." Again, understanding of this important statement has diminished with modern societies and scripture readers. Your agricultural great grandfathers well understood this statement. John is saying that God does not dispense the Holy Spirit through usage of a measuring cup or a liter container. In other words, God has not given Jesus a cupful of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is speaking the words of God, not some words of God, since Jesus is filled with the Holy Spirit from God, not dispensed an allocated amount of the Holy Spirit.
I marvel (in a bad way) how people miss the brilliance of John the Baptist, as he explains what is nearly impossible to understand, patiently (even under fire), and in a way that makes the relationship among God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit crystal clear. You can see also the structure of classic teaching and logic as John patiently and simply lays out the "physics" of how the Trinity works.
1. He whom God sent speaks the words of God.
You can deduce that God is still where God always is and always will be, but he has sent someone who is speaking his actual words.
2. God does not allocate fixed amounts or doses of Spirit to the Son.
You can deduce that the Holy Spirit cannot be understood as something that God gives or that humans can gain in a step by step, piecemeal dosage AND further, you can deduce that the Son does not receive a partial amount of the Holy Spirit, but is filled with the Holy Spirit.
Then John makes the third important point.
3. Why does this happen? Because God the Father loves the Son.
There are two things that you can deduce. One is that the purpose of what God does is love. The second is that there is a perfect Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus; God and Jesus are not "interchangeable."
4. Therefore, because of 1, 2 and 3, God "has given all things" into the Son's hands.
Jesus therefore is wielding the full authority of God in all that he says and does. [Again, that does not mean, of course, that the only things that God is "doing" are the things Jesus was doing. God is always God and busy, for lack of a better word, being God, even as he gives full authority over whatever Jesus is doing to Jesus.] Think of it this way: God gives to Jesus full authority to be Jesus, and to speak the words of God. Jesus is not "being God" in his totality while he is alive in his ministry. For example, it's not like Jesus, while walking the Holy Lands, was also listening to the prayers of all the people around the world. God is still, and is always, the one and only who is doing that. A person who believes in the one true God, and even those who prayed to the reflection and image of God in their culture, but who has not yet received knowledge of the true God, is not timesharing praying to Jesus! Obviously all that is due to God (such as prayer) to going to God, even as Jesus walked the earth. It's not like Jesus had a buzz in the back of his mind that some person in China was praying to God and it was being routed to Jesus! But surprisingly, many moderns, who just cannot understand the eternity and all presence of God, think of God as some "energy" that popped into and thus became Jesus. Yikes, I hate even typing this, but it must be said.
5. Because 1, 2, 3 yield 4, therefore God affirms that all who believe God's word (in this case spoken by Jesus) and his love (the authority of the Son and the utmost importance that God be understood as the source of all love, including earthly love) by believing "in the Son has everlasting life."
6. If 4 is denied and ignored, those disbelievers will not receive 5, and thus will "not see life" and have "the wrath of God" resting upon him (or her).
This is one reason that Jesus referred to John the Baptist as the greatest of men. Jesus knew that John understood and, of course, witnessed to, during the Baptism of Jesus, how the Trinity works, and the oneness of God the Father. It all comes back to and is due to God. God loves Jesus, and gives Jesus his words and authority, and God gives the Holy Spirit. God is the ope rant word and entity, as God is dispensing to humanity both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. To put it another way, it's not like the Holy Spirit can send God or Jesus on missions, nor can Jesus send God. Once Jesus died, resurrected and ascended into heaven, at the right hand of God the Father, then Jesus sends the Holy Spirit (Pentecost), in the fullness of God's presence. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit but not until he was ascended into heaven and has taken his place by God, who was always there.
I could keep citing scripture (loads of it about this topic) but I think you see the problem.
Many people think that if they believe in the existence of Jesus, trust that he will bail them out of anything, and even love and have faith in Jesus, that this is "enough" and they can ignore or at best be selective about rendering to God what is his due, what is God's. Incredibly they cite this scripture without understanding the laborious and patient context that John the Baptist offers it in the lines immediately before!
What does this mean to you? It's not theology or abstract thoughts: this is essential day to day giving the due to heeding and obeying the Lord God.
It is this type of misunderstanding that results in people committing incredible sins, sins that God has forbidden, yet because they genuinely belief in Jesus Christ, they think it's alright to sin! Another variation is that they think that the sins are no longer sins, because belief in Jesus Christ trumps all bad behavior. Further, they think that Jesus and God are interchangeable. To put it cynically, they think if they make Jesus happy because they believe in him, then God and all his needs are "covered" too. Nothing that Jesus ever said or did should give that impression. The Christians who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior when they were alive continued to praise and glorify God. The obvious example is as I cited, that as Jesus performed miracles people followed, praising God and witnessing to Jesus.
Here's a little bit of a silly way to demonstrate what I am saying. Imagine you are a disciple of Jesus during Biblical times when Jesus was in his public ministry. When you are away from Jesus, do you figure that God no longer exists, and your every action, both secular and faith, is guided by specific orders given by Jesus before the two of you parted? Imagine if Jesus had to be sure to tell each disciple, "Now, while we are apart, don't lie, don't steal, be kind to your family, wash your hands and feet, don't forget to give to the poor..." etc. Jesus would have to "program" each disciple "what to do" while they were apart because after all, if one believes in Jesus one no longer has to be obedient to what God has been saying all along, nor no longer give God his due attention, whether in prayer or in obedience! Wouldn't that be absurd, demented, in error, and extremely scary? Welcome to modern times.
I hope, and pray, that you have found this helpful and thought provoking for some self examination and also, well, think about those whose opinions you previously valued and wonder if God is truly pleased with their "belief" in Jesus, if it is a belief that is not at all reflective of the totality of what Jesus and the Apostles, John the Baptist, and God himself through the Holy Spirit teaches and requires.
Question: What would you say to someone who believed and had wholehearted faith in Jesus Christ, but who ignored God and was often disobedient to God? What if that person was you?
Question: What would you say to someone who believed and had wholehearted faith in the Prophet (PBUH), but who ignored God and was often disobedient to God? What if that person was you?
Just to be fair, here is the Jewish version of the question.
Question: What would you say to someone who believed and had wholehearted faith in Moses, but who ignored God and was often disobedient to God? What if that person was you?
This reflection is mostly targeted at Christians. I provided the equivalent question to Muslims and Jews so that they can follow along with the logic-and the peril of error-that I am pointing out among many who declare their faith (and have genuine belief and trust) in Jesus, but who feel that having done that, God himself can be ignored or selectively obeyed. What would you say to such a person, and what if that person is you?
Luke 18:28-29
And Peter said, "Behold, we have left all and followed thee." And he said to them, "Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife, or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting."
Notice that Peter affirms to Jesus that the Apostles have left all to follow him. Look carefully at what Jesus replied. Jesus affirms that as a result, anyone who has done so will receive more "in the present time" (now, while alive) and "life everlasting." In other words, Jesus affirms that people who follow him will have better lives, in addition to salvation. But here is my greater point. Did Jesus say that this is for his personal sake? No. Jesus said, "No one who has left house....for the sake of the kingdom of God." Jesus always, always, always points the attention of his followers to God, not himself.
With this in mind, look at this example of the important wording and distinction a few verses later.
Luke 18:42-43
And Jesus said to him, "Receive thy sight, thy faith has saved thee." And at once he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people upon seeing it gave praise to God.
You read this role modeling of how both Jesus and the recipients and witnesses of his miracles repeatedly. First, Jesus gives all glory to God (and applauds the person's faith) when he performs a miracle. Second, the recipient of the miracle realizes that the source is God himself through Jesus, and accordingly glorifies God while witnessing to Jesus. Read that again. The petitioner praises Jesus and witnesses to him, but glorifies God. Likewise do the people who witness the God given miracles of Jesus.
Luke 20:25
And he said to them, "Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Jesus did not say that because he, Jesus, is now present that all that is due to God is no longer required. There is a vast difference between updating, for lack of a better word, the Law, to reflect the Messiah's arrival and bringing of the New Covenant to replace the Old Covenant, but that does not mean that God is no longer due to him the things that are all along, and will be forever, due to him, since he is the source of all that humans have.
Luke 21:15
"For I myself will give you utterance and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist or gainsay."
What does Jesus tell the Apostles and disciples that he will give to them? "Utterance" and "wisdom." What kind of utterance and wisdom can withstand any enemy? There is only one answer, for there is nothing but one thing that can withstand any and all adversary of any type or sort, and that is knowledge of the truth about the one God.
It is thus entirely possible, and even alarmingly frequent, that people "stop," so to speak, at believing in Jesus, trusting in Jesus and having faith in Jesus, but do not accept that gift of Jesus as he offers it (not as some might wish or imagine that he offers it), which is knowledge that he, and the entire scriptures, have given about the truth, and what is due, to the one God.
John the Baptist explained:
John 3:34-6
For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for not by measure does God give the Spirit. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hands. He who believe in the Son has everlasting life; he who is unbelieving towards the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.
Ah ha! such people say. See? All we need to do for everlasting life is to believe in the Son, Jesus Christ. But wait a minute, because it's abundantly clear what John is saying as he is careful to explain to both sides (he is explaining when disciples of his were arguing with some Jews) the proper order and working of things. Yes, belief in Jesus yields everlasting life, and deniers of Jesus will receive the wrath of God. But John puts the relationship and "mechanics" in its proper context. Jesus "speaks the words of God." They are God's words, and Jesus speaks them with authority given to him by God, as is appropriate to the Son who represents the Father. So the "duh" moment for many moderns is that incredibly they have the notion that like God has popped out of heaven, into Jesus, rather than understanding that God is always everywhere, in totality, in control, with perfect constancy over all things and all times. Jesus is speaking the words of God, and is thus showing the face of God to humans, but God is still God and is where he always is, and is due all that he has always been and always will be due. John makes this very clear, most particularly to the Jews who are, understandably, confused and thus antagonistic.
What does John mean by "for not by measure does God give the Spirit." Again, understanding of this important statement has diminished with modern societies and scripture readers. Your agricultural great grandfathers well understood this statement. John is saying that God does not dispense the Holy Spirit through usage of a measuring cup or a liter container. In other words, God has not given Jesus a cupful of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is speaking the words of God, not some words of God, since Jesus is filled with the Holy Spirit from God, not dispensed an allocated amount of the Holy Spirit.
I marvel (in a bad way) how people miss the brilliance of John the Baptist, as he explains what is nearly impossible to understand, patiently (even under fire), and in a way that makes the relationship among God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit crystal clear. You can see also the structure of classic teaching and logic as John patiently and simply lays out the "physics" of how the Trinity works.
1. He whom God sent speaks the words of God.
You can deduce that God is still where God always is and always will be, but he has sent someone who is speaking his actual words.
2. God does not allocate fixed amounts or doses of Spirit to the Son.
You can deduce that the Holy Spirit cannot be understood as something that God gives or that humans can gain in a step by step, piecemeal dosage AND further, you can deduce that the Son does not receive a partial amount of the Holy Spirit, but is filled with the Holy Spirit.
Then John makes the third important point.
3. Why does this happen? Because God the Father loves the Son.
There are two things that you can deduce. One is that the purpose of what God does is love. The second is that there is a perfect Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus; God and Jesus are not "interchangeable."
4. Therefore, because of 1, 2 and 3, God "has given all things" into the Son's hands.
Jesus therefore is wielding the full authority of God in all that he says and does. [Again, that does not mean, of course, that the only things that God is "doing" are the things Jesus was doing. God is always God and busy, for lack of a better word, being God, even as he gives full authority over whatever Jesus is doing to Jesus.] Think of it this way: God gives to Jesus full authority to be Jesus, and to speak the words of God. Jesus is not "being God" in his totality while he is alive in his ministry. For example, it's not like Jesus, while walking the Holy Lands, was also listening to the prayers of all the people around the world. God is still, and is always, the one and only who is doing that. A person who believes in the one true God, and even those who prayed to the reflection and image of God in their culture, but who has not yet received knowledge of the true God, is not timesharing praying to Jesus! Obviously all that is due to God (such as prayer) to going to God, even as Jesus walked the earth. It's not like Jesus had a buzz in the back of his mind that some person in China was praying to God and it was being routed to Jesus! But surprisingly, many moderns, who just cannot understand the eternity and all presence of God, think of God as some "energy" that popped into and thus became Jesus. Yikes, I hate even typing this, but it must be said.
5. Because 1, 2, 3 yield 4, therefore God affirms that all who believe God's word (in this case spoken by Jesus) and his love (the authority of the Son and the utmost importance that God be understood as the source of all love, including earthly love) by believing "in the Son has everlasting life."
6. If 4 is denied and ignored, those disbelievers will not receive 5, and thus will "not see life" and have "the wrath of God" resting upon him (or her).
This is one reason that Jesus referred to John the Baptist as the greatest of men. Jesus knew that John understood and, of course, witnessed to, during the Baptism of Jesus, how the Trinity works, and the oneness of God the Father. It all comes back to and is due to God. God loves Jesus, and gives Jesus his words and authority, and God gives the Holy Spirit. God is the ope rant word and entity, as God is dispensing to humanity both Jesus and the Holy Spirit. To put it another way, it's not like the Holy Spirit can send God or Jesus on missions, nor can Jesus send God. Once Jesus died, resurrected and ascended into heaven, at the right hand of God the Father, then Jesus sends the Holy Spirit (Pentecost), in the fullness of God's presence. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit but not until he was ascended into heaven and has taken his place by God, who was always there.
I could keep citing scripture (loads of it about this topic) but I think you see the problem.
Many people think that if they believe in the existence of Jesus, trust that he will bail them out of anything, and even love and have faith in Jesus, that this is "enough" and they can ignore or at best be selective about rendering to God what is his due, what is God's. Incredibly they cite this scripture without understanding the laborious and patient context that John the Baptist offers it in the lines immediately before!
What does this mean to you? It's not theology or abstract thoughts: this is essential day to day giving the due to heeding and obeying the Lord God.
It is this type of misunderstanding that results in people committing incredible sins, sins that God has forbidden, yet because they genuinely belief in Jesus Christ, they think it's alright to sin! Another variation is that they think that the sins are no longer sins, because belief in Jesus Christ trumps all bad behavior. Further, they think that Jesus and God are interchangeable. To put it cynically, they think if they make Jesus happy because they believe in him, then God and all his needs are "covered" too. Nothing that Jesus ever said or did should give that impression. The Christians who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior when they were alive continued to praise and glorify God. The obvious example is as I cited, that as Jesus performed miracles people followed, praising God and witnessing to Jesus.
Here's a little bit of a silly way to demonstrate what I am saying. Imagine you are a disciple of Jesus during Biblical times when Jesus was in his public ministry. When you are away from Jesus, do you figure that God no longer exists, and your every action, both secular and faith, is guided by specific orders given by Jesus before the two of you parted? Imagine if Jesus had to be sure to tell each disciple, "Now, while we are apart, don't lie, don't steal, be kind to your family, wash your hands and feet, don't forget to give to the poor..." etc. Jesus would have to "program" each disciple "what to do" while they were apart because after all, if one believes in Jesus one no longer has to be obedient to what God has been saying all along, nor no longer give God his due attention, whether in prayer or in obedience! Wouldn't that be absurd, demented, in error, and extremely scary? Welcome to modern times.
I hope, and pray, that you have found this helpful and thought provoking for some self examination and also, well, think about those whose opinions you previously valued and wonder if God is truly pleased with their "belief" in Jesus, if it is a belief that is not at all reflective of the totality of what Jesus and the Apostles, John the Baptist, and God himself through the Holy Spirit teaches and requires.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Lots of unexpected deaths in the news
Many of them had nary a mention or thought of God during their entire, and now suddenly foreshortened, lives. Do you think that does not matter, what happens to their souls if they have denied or ignored God all their lives? Dying by surprise is not a get free pass to being saved. Oh no, it definitely is not. Everyone should keep an eye on obituaries and think about it. There is no "getting around to God later 'if he exists.'" w
When one dies suddenly, one really dies the same way as everyone else, losing one's only life, and being judged by God at that time.
When one dies suddenly, one really dies the same way as everyone else, losing one's only life, and being judged by God at that time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
