I've Been Here Before...Pivotal Moments in My Journey

This will serve as the hub and first entry for a new series, where anyone who wishes can follow along and encounter the major moments that impacted the way I think about reality, and what is true.

My Testimony: Era of Uncertainty

I took a philosophy class in 2009 and chose to do some independent reading in the book I had had to buy for it, covering two chapters that were not focused on in the course. These concerned Neuroscience and Determinism. Determinism is simply the view that everything that happens is directly attributable to the immediately preceding state of the universe, and so on and so on. Reality is a complex machine that runs on physical laws and that's it. Technically, that's materialistic determinism. Determinism that allows for a supernatural aspect to the universe would hold that spiritual beings control your destiny and so whereas it's not all mechanically produced, you nevertheless do not have much of a choice in how your future unfolds. And neuroscience, from an atheist perspective, is often presented as a scientific argument against the soul, i.e. that all of your thoughts, emotions, desires, will, decisions etc are produced by neurochemical electrical interactions between the cells of your brain.

Take these two thoughts together, and what do you get? The idea that I couldn't trust my thoughts to be accurate, because my beliefs might just be deterministic phenomena, artifacts of physical processes in the brain, with nothing to connect them to truth or to give them meaningful significance. What if I only believed what I did because I was organically predisposed to believe it, and chance life experiences influenced my thoughts to produce that result? That there was no choice involved, and no transcendent truth.

Once the thought was comprehended, I couldn't ignore it. I had to deal with it.

The Fallacy of Approaching Faith from a Purely Philosophical Angle

I'm trying something different with this post. This is a segment of a journal entry I wrote at home. In a short page, I managed to carve out a concise criticism of the "Philosophy Alone" approach to theology. Many modern atheists and other nonChristians tend to say they're open to the idea of a God but can't be sure. There's a reason they can't be sure, and it's because they've decided to keep God in a box--the box of philosophy. Philosophy can be a great tool, but the world is more than abstract concepts. It is a world of material objects, and a world with a history in time. Philosophy is important but an analysis of history and the material realm cannot be ignored if the truth is to be discovered. People are generally unwilling to consider that historical facts and scientific evidence could confirm Biblical Christianity. This is nothing but foolishness.

Did it make you think?

~ Rak Chazak

Always Worth Reposting: Charles Haddon Spurgeon on Calvinism

These are two quotations from different sermons (or parts of the same sermon, I can't recall for certain), separated by the ellipsis I inserted.

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again....... If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation."  What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor."—C. H. Spurgeon

~ Rak Chazak

Text Treatise: What God Taught Me About the Innate Sinfulness of Man Through My Experience of Being Cyber-Bullied At College

A follow-up of sorts to Pride, Lies and Murder

I don’t mean anything mystical by the title. God didn’t audibly speak to me and I didn’t see a hundred shooting starts immediately after thanking God for the wisdom I gained from my [traumatic] time as an internet pariah whom it was fair game to slander, harass and attack in a variety of ways, for the crime challenging other ‘academics’’ consensus views of what could be discussed and what couldn’t. The lesson is something I learned through reflection and study of Scripture, subsequent to personal experience that knocked any and all tendency to believe that “people are generally good” right out of my head. And it’s instruction from above simply in the sense that all truth is authored by God, and He is sovereignly in control of all circumstances that occur. He could have prevented what happened in a number of different ways, but He didn’t. In yet another series of texts to Hank the Homosexual, I explain why.

This began as a response to a question from Hank as to what my full name was.

**     **     **     **     ** 

I’m nervous about telling people that because of my college experience. It could be not-necessarily you, or not-necessarily the person you mention me to, but the person they ‘let slip’ some seemingly innocuous information (e.g. I work at [place]) to, who knows or is friends with one of my sworn enemies from that college, and funnels that information to them, to be used against me. Next thing you know, the store is flooded with customer complaints alleging that I made racial slurs, homophobic remarks, etc etc toward/in front of guests, and even if the GM knows it’s bogus, it will raise suspicion over why people would be so motivated to come after me, and I may be less likely to get that stellar work reference from my managers, much less rise in the [ranks] while I remain in employment there. I’ve had to really think hard after what could be innocent yet harmful information. I’ve resolved that people knowing things that DEFINE me are hardly embarrassing or shameful, but information that IDENTIFIES me puts me at risk of character assassination.

It’s not intuitive for me to think that way. And that’s how I got hurt in the first place. If my name was not attached to my posts on my university forum, I couldn’t have been targeted for mobbing. Based on my experience I’m a firm believer in the right to be anonymous. For a debate that is contextualized by the individuals involved in it, in private, it is not right for antagonists to take one of the private names of the individuals involved, and publicly shame them by making accusations that cannot be defended against. Truth is, most of the world isn’t Christian. And that’s how people are. Truth doesn’t matter, so the way to win an argument isn’t through reason, it’s through demoralizing your foe so they stop telling you the truth, or through tarnishing their name so no one else listens to them. I was young and naïve in my 20s-22s. Now I am no longer, but the damage is done. Was it because of something I said? Or was it because of how others chose to behave in response? I refuse to accept the blame for any damage to my reputation.

[Hank responded that I didn’t deserve to be treated cruelly etc]

I have two ways of approaching that. One is, that I absolutely don’t deserve better, because what I deserve from God is nothing but the blackest hell for what I’ve done to scorn Him, and continue to do. Two, is that I absolutely don’t deserve this from other people, because they are on the exact same plane as me. Unlike God, who is utterly perfect and has every right to deal calamity after calamity on our heads for our evilness, no human has the right to usurp the role of Judge of another and to proceed to Punish them for their perceived sins. What the Cross shows us is that any time a Christian is punished by another person with human wrath, whether the punisher is Christian or not, they are denying that their punishment was already dealt with—that Jesus took ALL their punishment for sin; not just eternal but any and all punishment. [note: this is adapted from bonus material on the The Biggest Question DVD] For any human to inflict suffering on another as a rationalized retribution and “what they deserve” in the minds of the inflictor is nothing more than a sin that denies the very heart of the Christian faith—the Cross.

In other words, social ostracism on the basis that “I deserve it” is double jeopardy and is a sin against God. I say this with particular irony aimed at one person who did the most early on to make me a pariah; a self-absorbed Orthodox “Christian” male of about the same age. He has alternately justified his behavior, and refusal to remove his thread(s) attacking me, on the basis that:

Texting Treatise: Pride, Lies and Murder

I sent the following to Hank the Homosexual (altered name), after it became apparent that he was receptive to at least reading lengthy theological pontifications from me, about a month or so ago. For background on how I met Hank the Homosexual, see this blog post: http://singlechristian1.blogspot.com/2014/03/ive-finally-arrived.html

Text Treatise: Pride, Lies and Murder

There is a passage that starts, “these six things the Lord hates, yea, seven are an abomination to Him,” and it singles out 7 particular sins. While I could get the interpretation off on 2-ish of them, I can easily understand the rest, which are basically pride, lies and murder. There is no mention of sexual sins of any kind in the list, nor is there a mention of gluttony, greed, jealousy or anger. In short, there’s a list of sins God hates in particular but they aren’t = “the 7 deadly sins,” which though they are sins, are not the worst. That list is actually an invention of the first Pope.

To wit, all sins are equally sinful, in the sense that all result in separation from God and merit His righteous judgment. But 3 x infinity is still infinity, and God does hate some sins more than others, which is further justified by the passage (I forget the location) that says that there are degrees of punishment in hell.

Justifying that not all sins are equally evil is Jesus Himself, who said to Pilate, “he who delivered Me over to you has the greater sin.” Seems pretty clear cut.

Why these more than others?

Why should God hate pride, lies and murder more than other sins? I think it’s of interest to note that these sins strike at God’s character more than others. Pride is literally having a higher opinion of yourself than you ought and thereby a lower opinion of God than you ought. Pride is a lack of acknowledgement of how great God is. If a person understands God’s greatness, they can’t logically believe that they deserve anythng from Him, so thinking that you deserve what you don’t is basically saying that God owes you something, and that He is subservient to you and that you can require Him to obey you. How offensive this must be to a holy God, since it’s so obviously offensive even to us, if someone behaved that way toward us without warrant.

Lies.

Then you get to lies, which attack God’s character as being Truth—not just truthful, but Truth itself and the source and foundation for all truth. Further there’s the fact that lies deceive people and by the very nature of causing them to make wrong decisions, hurt people. Lies are fundamentally tied to murder because lies that prevent a person from repenting and seeking Christ lead people to damnation. Lies are also connected to pride because it’s pride that fuels lies. If you think you’re above or beyond the rules, you can do what you want with impunity. Since pride is itself a lie (I am greater than I am, God owes me life and happiness etc), it’s clear why pride leads to more lies. It’s a snowball effect. Once you lie, you have to keep telling more lies to protect your central lie. The only alternative is telling the truth, which would require giving up your pride. See how it hangs together?

Murder.

And then you get to murder, which is offensive to God because man is made in His image—therefore a murder is literally an attack on God’s image. It’s as if by killing a person, you are vicariously attempting to symbolically kill God. There’s also the sense in which a person’s death deprives God of that which He deserves (not to say that God’s impotent—this is in the context of Him sovereignly allowing events to come to pass through personal choices). Whereas a person is prideful by thinking he deserves what he does not, God actually does deserve everything, so the refusal to submit in faith to Christ and the act of murder are both essentially the wrongful refusal to allow God to be given that which is due Him. Hence how murder is also fundamentally a lie. God deserves a man’s life’s work in life and a man’s life in death, but to cut his life short on earth or to send him to hell by killing him before he’s repented and thereby depriving God of his soul in death, the lie is the prideful assertion, implicitly, that God does not deserve what belongs to Him. As you can see, this is outrageously offensive, all these things. They are unfair denials and refusals of the truth.

And it’s essentially then to wrongfully treat God, treat Him unfairly. To act unjustly toward the just Judge of the universe. See how backwards it is? SO in short, Pride and Lies and Murder are among the most hated sins of God because of how directly they attack Him and how Offensive they are to His character.

Wrap-up

Sex before marriage, homosexuality, pedophilia, rape, pornography, sex with multiple people, cheating etc are all sexual sins that are very offensive to God, too, and I didn’t name all (oh no. That list is nearly endless). But they are less direct in their perversion of truth (though they still symbolize/represent lies about God) and less direct in their assault on God’s character (though still they attack it). It is fundamentally, I think, sins of an intellectual sort, the kind that make people consciously choose damnation over reconciliation, that are the worst of them all. I think that’s the distinction.

~ Rak Chazak

Dogmatically Held Preferences v. Preferentially Held Dogmas

I'm very unashamed of expressing what I'm confident is the truth. But, there are categories of truth--not regarding the epistemic value of a concept (in other words, there is not a gradient from falsehood to truth; they are binary poles that contrast with each other and don't overlap), but regarding the way in which the knowledge of the truth is applied.

Explaining Liberty

There's a concept of Christian liberty, which is demonstrated in Romans chapter 14. It's in the context of observing dietary restrictions, but has a wider application. The verse in Romans 14:14 does the best to give a succinct explanation of this concept:

14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

In other words, suppose that something is not a sin to do. If you realize this, and do that thing (suppose as an example the drinking of alcohol), then you are not sinning. But suppose that someone does think that imbibing alcohol is a sin; then if they were to do that act, even if drinking it were not a sin, the act of going against one's conscience and doing what one believes to be a sin against God makes it a sin. It's a matter of the heart, as Matthew 5:21-30 explains. Sin begins in the heart, and that's why it's possible that for two people doing the same thing, one is committing sin and one's conscience is clear. 

There are certain things that are unequivocal in Christian doctrine, and these doctrines are called essential doctrines. Then there are foundational doctrines, ones that have massive importance to the faith but which it is in theory possible for someone to be mistaken about and still be saved. Then there are areas of practical daily lived-out faith that fall under Christian liberty, where it's fine for one person to forbid something and fine for someone else to allow it. Paul explains it this way in 1 Corinthians 10:23

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful; all things are permitted, but not all things edify.

This is the basis for allowing Christians to variously persuade themselves to take specific positions on subjects not explicitly condemned or required in Scripture. The idea is that by the proper application of Biblical exegesis, believers will reach the right conclusions. Allowing them liberty in what conclusion to draw ensures the greater positive benefit that they reach their personal conclusion for the right reasons, i.e. that their thought process is reasonable. It would be far worse if, as in Islamic tradition, every minor aspect of life is rigidly controlled, but those adhering to it benefit little because they generally don't understand what the overarching spiritual purpose of those restrictions are.

Liberty to Adhere to a thing Preferentially or Dogmatically

A dogma is an authoritative doctrine that sets forth truth and morality in absolute terms. 
A preference is a choice we make as to what we'd rather do based on personal feelings or opinions.

A preferential dogma is a religious rule that is held, not because it is true and ought to be followed, but because the person judges that it is relevant to his or her interests, essentially that it is useful for them. Dogma then becomes no longer absolute but is harnessed and subjugated by the absolutism of the person's vain preferences. Vast bulks of religion around the world is of this nature. Men who make God a mere tool to serve their ambition have a preferential approach to dogma. They hold to what they feel like because it suits them.

A dogmatic preference is a rule of conduct that is recognized as not-binding on others, but which the person who adopts it is convinced that it follows soundly from consistent application of spiritual truths that are unalterable and may not be dealt with preferentially. Therefore, in his opinion, it is not really a preference, only inasmuch as it is simply the best or better alternative--and if the premise is that we should do what is best, then it is no question but that this thing must be done. But it is recognized as a preference in the sense that others may not be convinced of its necessary association with fundamental doctrines, and that the adherent won't attempt to force his preference on others as an across-the-board rule for all to follow.

Preferential dogmas result in people being forced to follow the opinions of others.
Dogmatic preferences result in people being free to do what they think best and to learn from the experience.

Examples of dogmas held by preference (preferentially held dogmas):

• KJV only true translation
• Anyone who thinks you’re sinning by celebrating holidays or wearing pants of a certain length, etc.
• Making a preference into an article of faith in a church, such as forbidding alcohol
• Frowning upon "interracial" dating or marriage
• The idea that a 10% tithe on income is required to be paid by the faithful to their church

In fact, I'd go farther and say that while you may have personal preferences for a given Bible translation, dress code or fashion, alcohol, beauty, etc, when you go and tell others that they are wrong for not being as strict as you, that may very well be a sin itself! It's not the preference that's wrong, it's when you start to forget that it is just that -- a preference, not the only hold on the truth, nor something that everyone needs to follow lest they be in error -- that you cross the line into religious (do this do this do this don't do this) fanaticism.

Examples of preferences held dogmatically (dogmatically held preferences):

• Making a personal choice to not participate in a celebration because of its association with pagan ideals
• Man asks woman on date, drives, and pays for dinner.
• Individual churches' decisions on how frequently (every week, monthly, biannually) to hold Communion
• Refusal to patronize stores that serve halal meat products
• Lifelong celibacy v. marriage. 
• Whether you are in favor of jewelry piercings

These lists could be enormous in length if I sat long enough and thought about examples I've come across in daily life. But suffice it to say, in general, dogmatically promoting a preference is not wrong, and it's even admirable (so long as your preference isn't totally made up but actually a reasonable induction from Scripture!!), but choosing to promote dogmas merely because you prefer them to others is a dangerous path where you place yourself as the highest authority on Scripture and morality. Since that is not your rightful place, you are bound to become a tyrant, sooner or later, and find yourself deposed from your throne.

Exercise liberty but do it with restraint. And respect the liberty of others.

~ Rak Chazak

Don't Say "I Don't Have A Problem With Gay People"

The people who say this are invariably those opposed to homosexual marriage, or homosexuality per se. Yet, since behavior and identity are closely intertwined among people in this part of society, it seems to them as if you really do have a problem with them, and are being a lying hypocrite.

                So, don’t say “I have no problem with gay people” because it makes you look like a hypocrite to them. They think that if you have no problem with them, you won’t have a problem with their homosexuality, because they personally identify with it, and don’t separate it like you do. So it’s unhelpful to allow them to conveniently write you off as a doublespeaking bigot. 

Let's put it the other way. There are some who will say that they have no problem with Christians, or that they value the First Amendment, but then turn and say that they don't think Christian faith and doctrine should influence government policy, and that "you can believe whatever you like, as long as you keep it to yourself." This is essentially the same experience that homosexuals have had with others telling them to "stay in the closet" and hide a part of who they are out of shame.

Why would we treat others the way we don't want to be treated? This is the opposite of the Golden Rule, which is that we should treat others the way we DO want to be treated, even if we are not treated that way. The fairness toward others is a witnessing tool. When people realize you're treating them kindly and that you're not obligated to (or even that they're not deserving of it), they are more apt to listen to you.

But saying that you don't have a problem with gay people is not a kindness. It is confusion. True kindness would be to say in unequivocal terms, "I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do not hate you for who you are. Instead, I love you in spite of who you are, because that was what Jesus Christ did for me." Then go on to say that because you believe it's wrong, it would be unloving to encourage someone to do or be proud of what is wrong and harmful for them. True love shows itself in correction. When you demonstrate that you love them to the point of being hated and harassed for pleadingly showing them the way to be saved, you give the Holy Spirit an avenue to open their hearts to the Gospel. They'll see that you're not motivated by love of self but that you sincerely care. And some will still reject you. But at least they will not do so because you were an offense, but because the Gospel is what offended them.

~ Rak Chazak

The Folly of Wisdom

I've learned a bit since beginning to comment on the online discussion forum at my university's web site.

When I began, I was thrilled to share what I had discovered about political, theological and scientific reality with everyone else in the online campus community. I love learning the truth and I seek it with all my might. SURELY, I thought to myself, surely everyone else must also want to know the truth, and be glad to hear it?

Right?

In retrospect, it was an extremely naive thing for me to suppose. In expecting others to be happy to hear the truth, I foolishly assumed that they would recognize it as truth upon hearing it. Furthermore, I've found that some people consciously resist the truth because they are unwilling to accept its implications for emotional reasons.

Strife ensued. I'm disappointed that so many people have sought to defame me in public and in secret, with vicious rumors, mostly false, all misleading. I was naive to not anticipate that people would go after me instead of wrestling with the truth I challenged them with. In retrospect, I imagine I am, after all, an easier target.

I find that this passage from Ecclesiastes 2 expresses my heart's cry:

13 Then I saw that wisdom excels folly
As light excels darkness.14
The wise man’s eyes are in his head,
But the fool walks in darkness.
Yet I myself perceived
That the same event happens to them all.15
So I said in my heart,
“As it happens to the fool,
It also happens to me,
And why was I then more wise?”
Then I said in my heart,
“This also is vanity.”16
For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever,
Since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come.
And how does a wise man die?
As the fool!
17 Therefore I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was distressing to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind.

This is likely to continue for as long as I remain in view. When I finally manage to pick up my feet and walk away, I won't do so announced. I will simply leave and let the chips fall where they may. I do not hate those who have spoken evil of me; I hate their deeds. I will refrain from judging and let God settle the account.

Psalm 28:4 May the Lord repay them according to their works.

I am at peace. God is in control. He will have the last word.

~ Rak Chazak