Greek philosopher Aristotle is widely credited with being the first to define the five senses by which humanity perceives the world. The concept that the acquisition of knowledge is limited to sight, sound, odor, flavor, and touch is taught even today. This concept appears at first to be logical as each of these senses seem to correspond well to an obvious sensory organ: eyes provide vision, ears provides hearing, noses reveal odors, tongues detect flavors, and skin detects the many varieties of touch.
Unfortunately, this list is far from complete. Consider the sense of balance that most people possess. Tiny canals in the inner ear help us determine whether we are upright or upside down. These same canals also help provide humans with the ability to detect acceleration.
Additionally, pain is not only limited to things that touch our skin. Certainly anyone who has experienced a headache, stomachache, or other internal ache realizes that their body is capable of slowing them down dramatically when it detects some problem.
Consider the ability of humans to know when their bodies require more food or water through hunger or thirst. Anyone who has indulged at a buffet may also recognize the sensation of being full, particularly when they may have over-indulged. We also are able to detect when our bodies are reaching their use limits through the sense of fatigue. Additionally, expecting mothers are perhaps most familiar with food cravings that can help them obtain vitamins, minerals, and chemicals that they need.
Though no specific organ is associated with it, humans have the ability to determine the passage of time. Though it may seem longer when waiting for water to boil or during an uninteresting meeting, even closed away from the light of the sun, people can have a general sense of time passing.
Current scientific understanding will likely discover additional ways that human bodies are able to perceive information about their surroundings and circumstances. One sense that may not be detected so easily is the ability of humans to detect spiritual truth.
The sense that something is spiritually true is dismissed by some because there are diverse views on what is spiritually true. Also, falsehoods have in some cases been peddled as truth using appeals to this sense. That having been said, its use is well documented.
Consider the following conversation between Christ and his Apostles:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)
Certainly Peter had seen miracles and evidences that contributed to his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but Christ did not point to the use of his sight and observation as the source of his acquired knowledge. He clearly stated that "flesh and blood" had not been the cause of his revelation, but his Father in heaven. He further declared that the ability to obtain truth from our Father in heaven, or sense spiritual truth was the rock upon which his church would be built.
Consider the following from the disciples of Christ on the road to Emmaus:
" ¶And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:13-32)
The method by which these disciples recognized the identity of the man with whom they walked as the risen Lord was not sight, even though they saw him. They had sensed spiritual truth as he spoke, and noted this with one another as they described how their "heart[s] burn[ed] within" them.
The Apostle John declared at the beginning of his gospel how Christ was "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)
Additionally, Christ himself taught "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14) Of course, the only way that he could be "known" by others is if they had some mechanism for recognizing who he was, just as Peter did.
Just as any other sense, there are limitations on our ability to discern spiritual truth. Optical illusions trick our sense of sight into seeing something that may not be. Spiritual illusions can fool people into trusting incorrect sources, or withholding trust from accurate sources. The children of Israel famously decided it was in their best interest to create a golden calf while Moses communed with God on Sinai. (Exodus 32) True prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and John the Baptist were killed by people who should have had spiritual sense to recognize them for who they truly were.
It is also important to note that like other senses, spiritual perception can be dulled. A person that first encounters the odor of rotting flesh will be repulsed immediately, but if they spend long enough around it, the odor becomes far easier to tolerate to the point that it may not be noticeable. The same thing is true of moral questions. King David went from seeing a woman bathing to arranging the death of her husband to cover his sins over a period of time. Additionally, senses that are not properly used, or are abused, will not be as missed when they are gone. People who as youth listened to loud music too often may not be able to distinguish sounds when they are older. People who intentionally ignore their spiritual senses are most likely to conclude later that they never had any to begin with.
There are those who might say that because spiritual sensitivity can lead people to different conclusions, it cannot be trusted. Of course, if that is true, then the same should be true of all other senses, which also tend to lead people to different conclusions. What inspires one observer of modern art to call a piece "moving" and "skillful" while another observer calls it "a heap of crap" and "something my kid could do blindfolded"? What is it that inspires one listener to enjoy the rhythm of a song, and another to complain of its "repetitive noise"? What causes one person to relish the flavor of a sushi roll, and another to spit it out in disgust? What causes the masochist to enjoy pain while others perceive it so negatively?
Ultimately, everyone embraces an incorrect view or perspective from time to time. The point of life is not to shut off your perception... A person is wiser when using all their senses to perceive the world around them. It is also wise to question the motivation of individuals that would have others disregard or avoid perceptions of any particular sense or group of senses.
If you are new to exercising spiritual senses, or if you have not used them in some time, do not let discouragement prevent you from persisting. Prayer and scripture study have aided people in developing their spiritual senses for thousands of years. Humility, diligence, faith, and penitence are as vital to recognizing spiritual truths as opening the eyelids or unstopping the ears are to improving vision and hearing.
In the end, whatever conflicts or discrepancies may arise with various perceptions will be overcome, and we will all understand the truth. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) Ultimately, we will all know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that his gospel offers solutions to every problem humanity faces. The sooner we use our perceptions to see him, the sooner his power will help to save us all.
Showing posts with label #philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness
I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Why Mormons Say Their Church Is 'True'
A friend of mine recently described his dislike of a practice among many Mormons: the practice of describing their church as 'true'. It seems an odd term for describing a church. It seems equally confusing for describing many other things. Can a stone be 'true'? Or perhaps it can only be 'true' if it is a literal stone and not a figurative one? The term can be confusing.
The most common time when hearing the affirmation "I know this church is true" in an LDS meeting is during a testimony. On the first Sunday of each month (with some exceptions for conferences or other special occasions), in place of calling upon members to speak (which can be its own problem), members of the congregation are invited to come to the pulpit and share a brief testimony of what they know to be true regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. While there are people that do not follow this council, many people stand and declare that they know that Jesus is real, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that God answers prayers, and a variety of other topics. Almost without exception, individuals include in their testimony that they 'know this church is true'.
The phrase is so often used that it seems more a cultural practice than a statement of actual testimony. In many cases, "I know this church is true" amounts to vain repetition. (see Matthew 6:7)
For those that do not operate under the assumptions that Jesus Christ is real and the Bible is correct, the concept can be even more confusing. This is probably due to the inclusion of the term "know." An agnostic or atheist would point out that knowledge when used by a Christian is not actual knowledge. A Mormon might mean that they have strong faith, or they have been convinced of the reality of something rather than actually knowing it.
This is not entirely inaccurate, but only when accepting that humanity is not capable of knowledge.
Even in a scientific sense, proof relies on trusting tangible sources of information. A secularist trusts the information they see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, and assume that their senses are giving them the truth. More complicated scientific evidence is generally accepted if the tools used in gathering the evidence are trusted. Even mathematical formulae are based fundamentally on assumptions. Trust is often placed in instruments and senses when experiments are able to be duplicated, although in truth, duplication can only be shown to be precise. Accuracy involves either knowing the truth, or showing respect to established assumptions.
With this understanding, a person cannot know that the earth is round. A person can however trust that satellites, airplanes, ships, explorers, and the evidence collected by them via measurements, photographs, logs, or other sources enough to be convinced that the earth is round.
For those that do not trust the Bible or spiritual sources of information, it is not likely that the rest of this post will be fulfilling. I do trust the Bible and prophets as sources of correct information. I can only emphasize that if these sources are correct, then the knowledge derived from these sources is more important than any other knowledge. They should be carefully and seriously considered by everyone.
For those that do trust the Bible and spiritual sources of information, the term true can still be confusing, particularly with its use among Mormons. Its use did not begin as vain repetition. In the introductory section of the Doctrine and Covenants, Jesus Christ declares "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased..." (D&C 1:30)
This reveals an important implication of the term 'true'. It implies that other churches are not 'true'. While is is bold, and may even seem presumptuous, it is consistent with the origin of the church.
Before Joseph Smith became a prophet, he lived in an area and in a time of great religious revival. Different churches competed one with another for membership, and many people were concerned what church God would want them to join. Joseph searched the Holy Bible for answers when he came across a verse that represented the key to finding the truth. The verse is in James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Joseph Smith went to a quiet grove of trees and prayed to God that he might know what church was right. Our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ appeared in answer to his prayer. Joseph explains what Jesus said by saying "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong" (JSH 1:19)
While this may seem harsh to call all other churches wrong in the age of modern political correctness, churches traditionally have been very exclusive. Protestants were not only excommunicated from the Catholic church, but in many cases were labeled heretics and killed. Protestants could be equally cruel in their treatment of others.
While the efforts of individuals to purify the religion of their fellow men are easily labeled as simplistic and barbaric today, these efforts were in some cases honest and based on a pattern laid by God himself. Consider the example of Korah in the Old Testament. He gathered several men of renown and peacefully came to Moses telling him he should share his power and not lift himself over the congregation of Israel. In modern times, this might have seemed a sensible and legitimate request, but God disagreed. He caused the earth to open up and swallow up these men and their families and their belongings. (Numbers 16)
Even in New Testament times, God recognized only those that legitimately had power given of him, not those that claimed it of themselves. Consider the story of the seven sons of Sceva who tried to emulate the Apostle Paul. Paul had cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ. These sons of Sceva found a man possessed of an evil spirit and said "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." (Acts 19:13) The evil spirit was not compelled by them, and answered saying "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" (Acts 19:15) They were then stripped and beaten by the possessed man.
Jesus himself warned of false prophets. (Matthew 7:15, 24:11) Those that follow his true Apostles and prophets follow him. (Matthew 28:19-20)
This forms the basis for calling a church 'true'. The concept might more clearly be expressed. Instead of saying "I know this church is true," perhaps Mormons should say what they actually believe. We are saying that Jesus Christ himself leads the church. We are saying that his true priesthood is in the church. We are saying that his true prophets and apostles guide the church.
It is bold statement, but it should not be so strange to Christians. If Jesus Christ is real, and the Bible is true, would he be accepting of a conglomeration of bickering sects that doctrinally contradict one another? Or would it be as his Apostle Paul taught, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5) If a person believes that he is the way, the truth, and the life, would it not be prudent to find out what he wants and if he has a church? (John 14:6)
Ultimately, everyone ought to be on a quest to find the truth. Everyone ought to be searching for trustworthy sources of information. I truly believe that all truth will eventually lead to an accepting of Jesus Christ, and his true church.
The most common time when hearing the affirmation "I know this church is true" in an LDS meeting is during a testimony. On the first Sunday of each month (with some exceptions for conferences or other special occasions), in place of calling upon members to speak (which can be its own problem), members of the congregation are invited to come to the pulpit and share a brief testimony of what they know to be true regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. While there are people that do not follow this council, many people stand and declare that they know that Jesus is real, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that God answers prayers, and a variety of other topics. Almost without exception, individuals include in their testimony that they 'know this church is true'.
The phrase is so often used that it seems more a cultural practice than a statement of actual testimony. In many cases, "I know this church is true" amounts to vain repetition. (see Matthew 6:7)
For those that do not operate under the assumptions that Jesus Christ is real and the Bible is correct, the concept can be even more confusing. This is probably due to the inclusion of the term "know." An agnostic or atheist would point out that knowledge when used by a Christian is not actual knowledge. A Mormon might mean that they have strong faith, or they have been convinced of the reality of something rather than actually knowing it.
This is not entirely inaccurate, but only when accepting that humanity is not capable of knowledge.
Even in a scientific sense, proof relies on trusting tangible sources of information. A secularist trusts the information they see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, and assume that their senses are giving them the truth. More complicated scientific evidence is generally accepted if the tools used in gathering the evidence are trusted. Even mathematical formulae are based fundamentally on assumptions. Trust is often placed in instruments and senses when experiments are able to be duplicated, although in truth, duplication can only be shown to be precise. Accuracy involves either knowing the truth, or showing respect to established assumptions.
With this understanding, a person cannot know that the earth is round. A person can however trust that satellites, airplanes, ships, explorers, and the evidence collected by them via measurements, photographs, logs, or other sources enough to be convinced that the earth is round.
For those that do not trust the Bible or spiritual sources of information, it is not likely that the rest of this post will be fulfilling. I do trust the Bible and prophets as sources of correct information. I can only emphasize that if these sources are correct, then the knowledge derived from these sources is more important than any other knowledge. They should be carefully and seriously considered by everyone.
For those that do trust the Bible and spiritual sources of information, the term true can still be confusing, particularly with its use among Mormons. Its use did not begin as vain repetition. In the introductory section of the Doctrine and Covenants, Jesus Christ declares "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased..." (D&C 1:30)
This reveals an important implication of the term 'true'. It implies that other churches are not 'true'. While is is bold, and may even seem presumptuous, it is consistent with the origin of the church.
Before Joseph Smith became a prophet, he lived in an area and in a time of great religious revival. Different churches competed one with another for membership, and many people were concerned what church God would want them to join. Joseph searched the Holy Bible for answers when he came across a verse that represented the key to finding the truth. The verse is in James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Joseph Smith went to a quiet grove of trees and prayed to God that he might know what church was right. Our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ appeared in answer to his prayer. Joseph explains what Jesus said by saying "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong" (JSH 1:19)
While this may seem harsh to call all other churches wrong in the age of modern political correctness, churches traditionally have been very exclusive. Protestants were not only excommunicated from the Catholic church, but in many cases were labeled heretics and killed. Protestants could be equally cruel in their treatment of others.
While the efforts of individuals to purify the religion of their fellow men are easily labeled as simplistic and barbaric today, these efforts were in some cases honest and based on a pattern laid by God himself. Consider the example of Korah in the Old Testament. He gathered several men of renown and peacefully came to Moses telling him he should share his power and not lift himself over the congregation of Israel. In modern times, this might have seemed a sensible and legitimate request, but God disagreed. He caused the earth to open up and swallow up these men and their families and their belongings. (Numbers 16)
Even in New Testament times, God recognized only those that legitimately had power given of him, not those that claimed it of themselves. Consider the story of the seven sons of Sceva who tried to emulate the Apostle Paul. Paul had cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ. These sons of Sceva found a man possessed of an evil spirit and said "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." (Acts 19:13) The evil spirit was not compelled by them, and answered saying "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" (Acts 19:15) They were then stripped and beaten by the possessed man.
Jesus himself warned of false prophets. (Matthew 7:15, 24:11) Those that follow his true Apostles and prophets follow him. (Matthew 28:19-20)
This forms the basis for calling a church 'true'. The concept might more clearly be expressed. Instead of saying "I know this church is true," perhaps Mormons should say what they actually believe. We are saying that Jesus Christ himself leads the church. We are saying that his true priesthood is in the church. We are saying that his true prophets and apostles guide the church.
It is bold statement, but it should not be so strange to Christians. If Jesus Christ is real, and the Bible is true, would he be accepting of a conglomeration of bickering sects that doctrinally contradict one another? Or would it be as his Apostle Paul taught, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5) If a person believes that he is the way, the truth, and the life, would it not be prudent to find out what he wants and if he has a church? (John 14:6)
Ultimately, everyone ought to be on a quest to find the truth. Everyone ought to be searching for trustworthy sources of information. I truly believe that all truth will eventually lead to an accepting of Jesus Christ, and his true church.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?
A prominent atheist, Todd Steifel responded to questions from people of faith recently. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-prominent-atheist-activist-answers-your-most-burning-questions-about-faith-secularism/) One of the questions he was asked was "If atheists have no faith, what is your reason for life?"
He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:
“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”
The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them? If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone? Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?
Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them. I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.
The purpose of life is not to get to heaven. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth. It began in heaven.
Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations. The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days. The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind. After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7) After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-15) After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20) Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24) This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order. Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5)
These passages highlight an important point. Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created. It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth. The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.
Life challenges us to become something greater. Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless. It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete. This is perfect tense.)
This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter. He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12) Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.
There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith. Faith is a catalyst for improvement. God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently. Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater. The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.
God provides universal and general guiding principals. Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness. Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good. If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.
The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice. If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain? If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder? If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie? Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good? That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.
God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions. In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.
Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies. If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose? If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable? If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life? Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?
In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become. Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose. Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy. Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end. He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.
He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:
“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”
The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them? If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone? Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?
Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them. I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.
The purpose of life is not to get to heaven. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth. It began in heaven.
Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations. The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days. The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind. After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7) After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-15) After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20) Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24) This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order. Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5)
These passages highlight an important point. Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created. It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth. The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.
Life challenges us to become something greater. Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless. It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete. This is perfect tense.)
This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter. He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12) Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.
There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith. Faith is a catalyst for improvement. God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently. Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater. The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.
God provides universal and general guiding principals. Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness. Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good. If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.
The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice. If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain? If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder? If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie? Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good? That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.
God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions. In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.
Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies. If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose? If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable? If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life? Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?
In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become. Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose. Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy. Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end. He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Christianity is not an occupation
I work for a software company where I have gained a bit of experience working with different Microsoft Windows Server operating systems. One of the required components of my company's software is Microsoft .NET Framework. On newer operating systems, it is a Windows feature that can be turned on or off. On servers, there is an added complication. Since servers typically do not perform the same application tasks that clients do, Windows assumes the reason for adding this feature is to assume the role of a web server. In other words, it assumes the server will be handling a website.
While there are customers of ours that host and manage their own websites, they are in the minority. Most of our customers let other services handle their website needs.
To the operating system, it does not matter. Installing that feature means that other features fundamental to being a web server will also be installed. It is a required role.
I have given some thought to the idea of how people may assume roles in order to get features or benefits they desire, even if they would not otherwise assume these roles.
Ambitious workers may be willing to do undesirable work to get their foot in the door of a workplace that offers potential advancement. Star Wars fans may endure long scenes of Jar Jar so they can get to the epic battle between Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Darth Maul. I have friends that have spent long amounts of time in games doing grinding tasks such as breeding chocobos, assembling minecraft materials, defeating prime evils repeatedly, or mastering dancing with Gorons in order to get coveted loot, achievements, or experience.
In most cases, assuming a role does not necessarily require dedication. It can be compartmentalized. A person can assume the role of a pleasant salesperson during business hours, and assume the role of an obnoxious drunk after hours. The wealthy philanthropist role can be assumed by mercilessly competitive men that are making "business decisions" in other roles. There are numerous types of roles that people can wear at different times.
While many of the roles people assume are temporary, some are not, and should not be. Most important is that of Christian.
A Christian should not stop being Christian because they are at work. A Christian must remain Christian while assuming the role of parent, child, coworker, or even automobile driver.
A Christian ought to hold to their faith in conversation with supportive believers and also in conversation with demeaning atheists.
The values of Christianity do not change when Christians are asked to be more tolerant of principles, products, or practices that are inconsistent with their faith. Likewise, Christianity's requirements to offer forgiveness, compassion, and assistance are not voided when confronted by those that may have embraced such principles, products, or practices.
Christianity is not simply a role that can be assumed and cast off for convenience. It is not a means to obtain a feature without actually fulfilling the required role. Christianity is not an occupation.
A Christian believes that Jesus has personally sacrificed and invested in mankind for a purpose. Salvation is not a cheap gift; the price that Jesus paid to redeem men is beyond comprehension... and there is no other who was, is, or will ever be capable of matching it.
It is wrong for any true Christian to believe that eligibility for the saving power of God himself might be obtained by acting Christian only when it is convenient, popular, or politically correct.
He said himself that the great commandment is to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37)
Nephi teaches in the Book of Mormon "Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life." (2 Nephi 31:20)
Christ did not come so we could have weekly meetings. He came to save us all.
While there are customers of ours that host and manage their own websites, they are in the minority. Most of our customers let other services handle their website needs.
To the operating system, it does not matter. Installing that feature means that other features fundamental to being a web server will also be installed. It is a required role.
I have given some thought to the idea of how people may assume roles in order to get features or benefits they desire, even if they would not otherwise assume these roles.
Ambitious workers may be willing to do undesirable work to get their foot in the door of a workplace that offers potential advancement. Star Wars fans may endure long scenes of Jar Jar so they can get to the epic battle between Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Darth Maul. I have friends that have spent long amounts of time in games doing grinding tasks such as breeding chocobos, assembling minecraft materials, defeating prime evils repeatedly, or mastering dancing with Gorons in order to get coveted loot, achievements, or experience.
In most cases, assuming a role does not necessarily require dedication. It can be compartmentalized. A person can assume the role of a pleasant salesperson during business hours, and assume the role of an obnoxious drunk after hours. The wealthy philanthropist role can be assumed by mercilessly competitive men that are making "business decisions" in other roles. There are numerous types of roles that people can wear at different times.
While many of the roles people assume are temporary, some are not, and should not be. Most important is that of Christian.
A Christian should not stop being Christian because they are at work. A Christian must remain Christian while assuming the role of parent, child, coworker, or even automobile driver.
A Christian ought to hold to their faith in conversation with supportive believers and also in conversation with demeaning atheists.
The values of Christianity do not change when Christians are asked to be more tolerant of principles, products, or practices that are inconsistent with their faith. Likewise, Christianity's requirements to offer forgiveness, compassion, and assistance are not voided when confronted by those that may have embraced such principles, products, or practices.
Christianity is not simply a role that can be assumed and cast off for convenience. It is not a means to obtain a feature without actually fulfilling the required role. Christianity is not an occupation.
A Christian believes that Jesus has personally sacrificed and invested in mankind for a purpose. Salvation is not a cheap gift; the price that Jesus paid to redeem men is beyond comprehension... and there is no other who was, is, or will ever be capable of matching it.
It is wrong for any true Christian to believe that eligibility for the saving power of God himself might be obtained by acting Christian only when it is convenient, popular, or politically correct.
He said himself that the great commandment is to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37)
Nephi teaches in the Book of Mormon "Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life." (2 Nephi 31:20)
Christ did not come so we could have weekly meetings. He came to save us all.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Truth Will Make You Free
"Then said Jesus to those Jews that believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)
I loved the scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indiana is teaching and tells his student that Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. He tells them if they want truth, Doctor Tyree's philosophy class is down the hall.
Truth is a philosophical concept. It cannot be defined by a collection of scientifically verifiable facts. People that believe that they should only consider that which can be seen, heard, touched, smelt, or tasted place far too much value in senses that can easily be fooled.
Consider how small the range of visible light is considering the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Consider how many animals are capable of hearing very high frequency or very low frequency sounds that we are incapable of hearing. Animals in many cases possess olfactory senses superior to those of humans as well. Simply because we cannot currently detect it, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is unable to affect us. God has wisdom beyond our perception, and greater than our accumulation of commonly accepted scientific facts.
Sterilization was not always practiced for medical instruments until people like Louis Pasteur convinced the public with his experiments showing that fermentation was caused by the growth of micro-organisms. Far before the acceptance of scientific evidence of micro-organisms, God gave to Moses laws regarding cleanliness and hygiene that also prevented the spread of diseases (Leviticus 15).
Highlighting the differences between fact and truth, fact is specific and frequently conditional. The truth is universal and general.
It is a fact that the teachings of Jesus dramatically changed western civilization. The truth is that he is the Son of God, and his importance transcends that of civilization on Earth all together.
It is a fact that mankind is the dominant race on the planet. The truth is that God created the Earth so that men might reach their potential.
Birth and death are also facts of life: these events affect us all. The truth is that we lived before we were born, and that death is not the end. There is no shortage of people that get worked up over all the pain, the suffering, and the injustice that occurs in life.... but the truth is that after this life there is no wrong that will not be made right. There is no wound that will not be healed and every wrong will be atoned either by the wrongdoer, or by Christ himself. All the doubt, fear, pain, loss, or other problems in life are swallowed up by the greater truth that Jesus Christ has power to save us all.
I loved the scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indiana is teaching and tells his student that Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. He tells them if they want truth, Doctor Tyree's philosophy class is down the hall.
Truth is a philosophical concept. It cannot be defined by a collection of scientifically verifiable facts. People that believe that they should only consider that which can be seen, heard, touched, smelt, or tasted place far too much value in senses that can easily be fooled.
Consider how small the range of visible light is considering the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Consider how many animals are capable of hearing very high frequency or very low frequency sounds that we are incapable of hearing. Animals in many cases possess olfactory senses superior to those of humans as well. Simply because we cannot currently detect it, does not mean it does not exist, or that it is unable to affect us. God has wisdom beyond our perception, and greater than our accumulation of commonly accepted scientific facts.
Sterilization was not always practiced for medical instruments until people like Louis Pasteur convinced the public with his experiments showing that fermentation was caused by the growth of micro-organisms. Far before the acceptance of scientific evidence of micro-organisms, God gave to Moses laws regarding cleanliness and hygiene that also prevented the spread of diseases (Leviticus 15).
Highlighting the differences between fact and truth, fact is specific and frequently conditional. The truth is universal and general.
It is a fact that the teachings of Jesus dramatically changed western civilization. The truth is that he is the Son of God, and his importance transcends that of civilization on Earth all together.
It is a fact that mankind is the dominant race on the planet. The truth is that God created the Earth so that men might reach their potential.
Birth and death are also facts of life: these events affect us all. The truth is that we lived before we were born, and that death is not the end. There is no shortage of people that get worked up over all the pain, the suffering, and the injustice that occurs in life.... but the truth is that after this life there is no wrong that will not be made right. There is no wound that will not be healed and every wrong will be atoned either by the wrongdoer, or by Christ himself. All the doubt, fear, pain, loss, or other problems in life are swallowed up by the greater truth that Jesus Christ has power to save us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)