Blog Archives

THE TRUTH DIALOGUES: Episode 2

Blog Pic 120117

“At the end of our last segment you stated that majority opinion means absolutely nothing as an arbiter of truth. Perhaps you can take up today’s discussion based on that belief.”

.

“To begin, the Community of the Lord Jesus is not a democracy. It is not about majority rule and never has been. It could never operate effectively that way. But on the other hand it is certainly not a so-called benevolent dictatorship, as I have heard it referred to, since such is fundamentally a contradiction in terms. Actual dictatorships always operate, and this should be obvious, according to no respect whatsoever for individual rights or freedom. The Lord has never operated that way and never will.”

“But God is in charge, right?”

“Well, of course He’s in charge but He never violates free will.”

“How can one have an actual organization under such guidelines? And does not the existence of God’s overall authority mean He is in charge anyway regardless of semantic professions to the contrary?”

“God is always in charge. He created the universe. But He also created human beings with a free will. He did this because he wants us to excel.”

“Please explain.”

“Let me start by saying we know very well what happens when one person takes control over other persons in non-voluntary situations. The controller gains power by siphoning the liberty of those he controls. In most cases the one in control always operates according to purely selfish interests and will eventually do anything to maintain control once he has it. It is the control over others that gives him his power. He uses his power for personal gain. Even in so-called enlightened societies this is true. It is why people in power must have their power checked by law.”

“And this brings us to the fact that a nation of laws is a much better place to live within than a nation ruled by people, correct?”

“Yes. Laws are put in place, agreed to by the majority, that even the leaders must abide by, and this keeps leaders from becoming lawless tyrants, because the law inhibits the leaders ability to wrest control and thus violate individual rights.”

“Okay, we agree in general, but we still have the means with which laws are created that we must deal with, since you stated that potential laws must first be agreed to by a majority. Does not the same problem develop when laws must be established in this way?”

“Is there any other way to do it? The majority decides but with full respect for individual rights. Otherwise the voters vote against their own liberty. In the beginning God only had one law and that one law was designed for no other reason than to protect the first humans and their progeny.”

“From what?”

“From evil.”

“What evil?”

“The evil arising from an invisible sinister force that had taken residence on the planet before the creation of human beings.”

“Do you really believe that, the idea of an aboriginal sinister devil or serpent or whatever, that predated man? This flies in the face somewhat of scientific advances regarding the evolution of our species and appears as a scapegoat celestial bogeyman upon which we fix blame.”

“Instead of blaming ourselves?”

“Yes, but not in the way I think you mean it. The Genesis story created a bad guy on which to fix blame instead of addressing the actual guilty party.”

“So you believe guilt was involved.”

“Of course guilt was involved and it still is. Humans must find a way to blame someone other than themselves because the alternative implication is far too dark to deal with.”

“Meaning that human beings are actually very well aware of their propensity for evil.”

“We have many centuries and even millennia telling us all we need to know in that regard.”

“In that human beings are evil?”

“As a species we certainly have proven this over and again regardless of time or place. The record is there.”

“Yes, and it doesn’t matter if we are referring to common individuals with little or no control over others or not.”

“In that human beings have proven themselves to be evil because they perpetrate evil acts.”

“The Bible calls it sin. Non-Christians make fun of the concept. But sin is obviously real, as is evil.

“These are merely different terminologies for the same problem and the same potential darkness in people that people feel greatly uncomfortable acknowledging.”

“From a Biblical perspective, sin is defined as missing the mark. Philosophy calls it the problem of evil. Without going into great detail or falling into the trap of endless posturing and casuistry, let us simply acknowledge that evil exists and must have had a point of origin. From a purely amoral scientific perspective in which there is no God and everything exists as the byproduct of billion-year geologic and biological processes, evil still exists. It could be that we have affixed a label to undesirable actions but the undesirable actions still exist, and it is we humans who label such actions as undesirable. Most of us don’t like them. We say they are wrong. We get convicted when we do them, most of us anyway, and wish we had not. So regardless of terminology or belief systems, all human beings the world over have this exact conviction. We know evil exists and we wish it didn’t but we don’t know how to eliminate it.”

“But Christianity does, correct?”

“Before I answer that I want to address the idea that human beings became aware of their sin from the beginning and tried to do whatever they could to eliminate it. At first they tried very hard to simply stop doing bad things. That didn’t work so well but it did slow it down somewhat by those who put forth the effort by simply not obeying the ever-present seemingly natural impulses or giving in to bad desires. Then they tried using ultra-discipline techniques which as a byproduct created like-minded groups, some of which grew into ancient philosophical schools, predating Greece by multiple centuries, of course, and also man-made religions. These did not work so well either. Then we entered into the advent of Law. Law did nothing about the presence of evil. All it did was define it specifically and attach penalties, some very severe, to practices deemed bad or evil which the majority labeled as such. Thus, the fear of violating the law and facing stiff penalties, which would grossly violate personal liberty, kept many people from breaking the law.”

“And this is still the case today. One wonders then, how many people would revert to evil actions characterized as ‘breaking the law’ indiscriminately if there was no longer any law.”

“We already know the answer to this from what happened before law and by the actions of those who refuse to obey the law now. Many such people today are imprisoned because they are a constant unrepentant threat to the law-abiders who wish to live morally in peace.”

“Meaning evil can be checked by disciplined personal choice.”

“Yes. This is what the majority is left with. Not a complete elimination of bad behavior but the choice to try one’s best to be an agent of good. Yet there are still people on the planet who engage in whatever bad behavior they want, including great evil, in that they unofficially violate the law as a matter of course and never have to pay for their crimes.”

“Because they are above the law?”

“No. But because they are beyond the reach of the law.”

© 2017 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved.  


THE TRUTH DIALOGUES: Episode 1  

 

Advertisements

THE TRUTH DIALOGUES: Episode 1

Blog Pic 120117

 `

“Sir, you are on record of saying that one cannot be a good American and a good Christian, and that one must choose one or the other. Is that true?”

.

“Well, I never said that. I said something some may think is related to your incorrect characterization, but not according to those terms.”

“What did you say?”

“I said there are times when a Christian must choose their Christianity over the desires of their ruling authorities.”

“But what does that mean exactly?”

“It means the same thing that Peter and John meant when they said real believers must choose the Lord’s will and preach the real Gospel instead of obeying opposing authorities.”

But when they had ordered them to leave the Council, they began to confer with one another, saying, “What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.” And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.

But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

When they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which to punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened… [Acts 4:15-21] [1]

“Why would you use that passage? I don’t understand your reasoning or the application of that case in this discussion. We have complete freedom of religion in this country. How does Peter and John’s quote apply here?”

“Do we really have complete freedom of religion in this country?”

“According to the Constitution of the United States we do.”

“But is the Constitution actually being applied to uphold the beliefs and values of Christians? And for that matter, is the Bill of Rights actually allowed expression in churches? If Constitutional rights are not allowed in churches and if governments can bypass the Constitution as well, then where is legally-granted spiritual liberty actually allowed? Don’t we have reams of recent data in the political realm over the last few decades in which it is obvious that Christian beliefs are being attacked or at least not being supported as they should be, and that Constitutional support for freedom of religion is only being applied selectively, usually against Christianity but in favor of other religions and beliefs?”

“I am not sure what you are referring to unless you mean segments of far right Christianity or even forms of Christianity which the majority of Christians are against.”

“So, by characterizing those forms of Christianity under attack in America you agree that it is okay to violate the Constitutional rights of those particular Christians?”

“No, I do not mean that. I mean that some forms of Christianity are not supported by Scripture.”

“But who makes that decision? Where is the grand tribunal that decides such things? Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes the actual correct interpretation of Christianity? And who gets to decide which Christians have no rights and which Christians do? Should not all Christian individuals and groups have the same exact right to freely believe in and practice what the members thereof believe to be correct? Isn’t that what freedom of religion actually entails?”

“Although there is no great Christian Law Court which decides which form of Christianity is correct, I think that Christians themselves usually decide who is right by the sheer numbers believing in particular interpretations.”

“You mean the bigger the denomination or church the more likely it is right?”

“Not exactly, but it would appear that, if all Christians read the same Bible, that majority groups would appear to have the best grasp of what the Bible actually states.”

“So you are saying that one of the true tests of correct interpretation is that a majority must prevail and that Christian minority opinions and interpretations do not hold as much weight regarding their beliefs and should therefore not be granted the same degree of rights to protect their beliefs and practices?”

“Technically, the Constitution protects all Christian individuals and groups, even minorities. But when the large majority Christian bodies reject such minorities, it must mean something significant.”

“Is the something significant fair? Is it just? Is it legal? Is it supported by the Lord? Is the coming together of large bodies against the smaller bodies proof that the larger bodies are more correct in their beliefs? Or is it simply the case that the larger bodies are more powerful, influential, and therefore prejudicial?”

“How is it even possible that the larger bodies could be more prejudicial? Isn’t it obvious that the larger the Christian body the more likely such a body is scripturally correct? And doesn’t this then justify any partiality or bias it may possess against smaller Christian offshoots?”

“Do you hear what you are saying? You are stating that might makes right. I am not here defending non-Scriptural Christian beliefs though I will always side with the truth regardless of church or denomination size. Not only that, but freedom of religion is most directly applied to individuals, and must be. Your original query involved the question of whether or not a Christian must sometimes make a choice between his or her beliefs and authority figures who oppose his or her beliefs, and whether such authority figures, either religious or secular, including one’s prevailing government, can be allowed to censor and hinder the beliefs and practices of Christians. I never said a Christian must choose between his beliefs and his country, as you have implied.”

“But are not those two the same? Is not the government of a country essentially and effectively the same as one’s country?”

“Okay. I know you’re playing dumb here for the sake of argument or whatever, and you are trying to get me to say something in such a way that you can twist for your own purposes.”

“I’m not saying that at all. I understand perfectly well the difference between one’s country and one’s current government, but one’s current government in free countries who vote for their leaders is placed in power by the people who vote which means the government reflects the will of the people, which means one’s current government is essentially the same as one’s country at any given time, right?”

“No. Wrong. You could not be more wrong and I don’t believe you are shooting straight with me at all because that’s an asinine argument. One’s country is one’s country. It has in many cases existed a long time, often centuries, and is an entity completely separate from any government of that country which exists at any given time in its history. Also, people change. People become corrupt. Sometimes, if not most times, the corruption begins very small and escapes detection. The corrupt, through inside influence based on money and power, get away with things and continue in their corruption. When no one notices the corruption or no one successfully rises up to stop the corruption in its early stages it metastasizes and eventually grows to a place in which it cannot be stopped. But the corruption does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the hearts of people. If the corruption, the evil, is not dealt with by the good, then the corruption prevails. We have seen this happen in many countries, in that a small cabal of corrupt ones masquerading as good guys deceives the people into believing in them and supporting them. Entire countries have thus become corrupted merely by deceiving the majority. The same thing happens in churches and denominations. So no, majority opinion means absolutely nothing as an arbiter of truth.”

“Though I don’t necessarily agree with all you are saying, you have brought up some very interesting points about how Christians must live out their faith in this changing world. Would you care to continue this dialogue in another segment soon?”

“Sure.”

“Okay. Thank you.”

© 2017 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved. 


[1] Unless otherwise noted all Scriptures are taken from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

THE TRUTH DIALOGUES: Episode 2

The Deceived Majority (Part 1)

         On January 7 of this year, I posted an article entitled, You’re Being Scammed. I highly recommend you check it out, both for content and the clear prediction made three and a half months ago. You can read it here.

         I also wrote a three part series called, Duping the Majority: A Foolproof Method of Success. These were posted on January 26, 27, and 29: Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

         The following are related articles:

         Fight the Good Fight of Faith

         When You Gonna Wake Up?

         WE’RE WINNING (Quit Listening to Liars)

         The point of these articles in part was to prove that the majority of people are somewhat lazy and willingly uninformed. In the case of what has happened to America, it’s because the majority of American voters are often lazy and stupid. At least, this is exactly what political pundit and former Clinton campaign manager James Carville once stated about Democrats. You can find his long quote regarding this in the fourth of the seven preceding articles.

         It always amazes me how shallow, forgetful, and deceived people are when selecting their President. We go through this every four years. And every four years, the campaign managers and major financial backers almost always succeed in duping the electorate.

         It’s pretty much the same every election. The big boys plan it all years in advance, groom their candidate boys for a decade or two, and then spring ‘em on us like a fresh new wind, all tidy and clean with bright shining smiles and full of inspiring rhetoric.

         And almost every single one of them is lying through his teeth.

         Nixon was a case in point. He was one of the greatest politicians that ever lived, and craftily played both sides of the street with ease. He would think one thing and say another in such a way that America was pretty much fooled every time, going way back to his Vice President days with Eisenhower. He was generally conservative in his early political career in the late 1940’s and early 50’s, but became the left’s point man within the Eisenhower Administration. He acted the anti-Communist but was actually double dealing. The history is there if you want to research it.

         Then the country unbelievably elected him President twice, the second time by trouncing the Democrat McGovern in 1972. What the majority has never figured out was that Nixon was a liberal wearing conservative clothing. His rhetoric and his record were two different things. (Sound familiar?) The majority of voters, however, never bother trying to match the two, being interested only in speechifying and promises.

         Thus, presidential elections rarely matter. The majority never pays attention to a politician’s real record. The majority is only concerned with the shallowest of surface perspectives. Continually electing the people we keep electing borders on insanity. But it never stops.

         There have always been chosen ones. But on the other hand, the big boys have controlled both parties and both major party candidates for the better part of the last 100 years. If one does not believe this, then one simply does not have the knowledge. What one probably has instead is the residue of lies and deceit stuck fast in one’s brain, and the propaganda masters smile and grin and laugh and even cackle at how easy it is to fool the public.

         And it is. It is very easy. All one has to do to be successful is deceive the majority.

         Parts 2 and 3 will delve further into this topic and also bring the pivotal 2012 election into play. Stay tuned.

         © 2012 by RJ Dawson. All Rights Reserved. [Part 1 of 3]