“Living Life Mired in ‘Freedom’”

“Living Life Mired in ‘Freedom’”

The notion under discussion is the veracity and benefit of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in general and in particular do they give or restrict freedom?

The matter of Christianity hangs upon one question and one question alone.  Are the Judeo-Christian Scriptures reliable?  Consider but one existential, well subjective response.

The reality is that no book has undergone such criticism and scrutiny as has the Bible.  Yet over and over again, the critic who seeks to destroy the reliability of the Scriptures in fact ends up disproving his own supposition.  Perhaps the best known is C. S. Lewis.

What most honest inquirers discover is that when one passes through the barriers of culture, language, and time and thus travels back through history to the time of the writing of the Scriptures, many of the objections as to the reliability of the Bible are set to rest.  Archeology has contributed and daily contributes significantly more to these studies.  The miraculous beauty of the Book is that its truths transcend such barriers as mentioned.

The problem lies not in the reliability of the text but in the attitude brought to the results of such inquiry as is made. The underlying issue prevalent in Western culture has nothing to do with the reliability of the Bible and everything to do with the notion that one can construct one’s own truth paradigm without the benefit of any outside agency.  The attendant mantra goes something like, “I am free to believe as I will and I will believe as I choose.”

In terms of the Gospels, Augustine observed the outcome for such a person who claims that freedom is this.  “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Said in another fashion, one becomes a law unto oneself and in doing so seeks to throw off the shackles of authority.  Such a “throw off” does not have a terminus point but extends ever concentrically outward encompassing other divinely established authorities.  Ironically such a person perceives himself as living outside of restrictions when in fact he is bound by the very freedom he proclaims. 

Hobart Mauer, Harvard Professor of Psychology, observed, “In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity.  And with neurotics themselves, now find ourselves asking, "Who am I? What is my deepest destiny? And what does living really mean?"

One might expect such a comment from a Christian or at least a person of faith but this is from an atheist and a skeptic.  As the individual and as western culture has become inculcated with such “Me-isms” it searches for more and more freedom only to finds itself mired deeper and deeper in such questions as Professor Mauer asked.  The self become the religion of choice but in reality is a strong and insatiable master demanding ever more. 

The outcome evident today is as the English music journalist, biographer and poet Steve Turner said when he wrote and following is but a part of his observaiton,

“We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

“We believe in the rejection of creeds, And the flowering of individual thought.

“If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

The individual proclaiming freedom from the Word of God and the God of the Word can only plunge ever deeper and deeper into the very bondage the mentioned, "...there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth."  In such a plunge he becomes ensnared in the very bondage he decries.  Yet those who embrace and plunge ever deeper into the Word of God and the God of the Word though perceived by the skeptic to be in bondage in reality find ever more freedom.  

Where there to be no other evidence, existential and even subjective, that demonstrates the veracity of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures--the genuine freedom found in Christ, amply demonstrates such to be worth considering.  In fact, it is the skeptic who is profoundly mired in his "Me-ism" that refuses to see how very bound is his view and life.  It is he who fails to see how very free is the one who names Jesus as Lord.

"Truth or Consequences"

There is no safety in truth that is not genuine!  However, falsehood in its very degrees leads to destruction.  Beware of that which is not genuine truth.

We do well to remember that "genuine truth" does not change! No matter how ones spins it, rejects it, seeks to destroy it, and/or compromise it, genuine truth will in the end be there when the false has failed.  Genuine truth is not at the mercy of polls, opinions, the media, nor is it at the mercy of academia.

Not so with man's unproven opinions.  Take for example the matter Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the whole notion of "global warming."  It was not too long ago that the climatologist were proposing "global cooling" and a coming ice age.  Then came "global warming."  Now we have "climate change."  The only inconvenient truth here is that the whole notion of man caused climate change is "junk science" to be sure.  How can I say that?  Consider the following.

Science--true science is built upon the idea that a discovery is characterized by at least two basic qualities.

First, it is stable, that is the scientific discovery does not change.  It can be a gateway to deeper understandings and truths but the basic theorem is stable and thus does not change.  

Second, the outcome can be validated by any scientist or laymen who cares to replicate the conditions of the original experiment.  

 "Climate change" meets neither criterion as when you remove "interpretation and opinion" from the discussion, there is little factual data.  Oh, I know, drilling through the strata of Antarctic ice, looking at tree rings etc. gives data, however such data is open to interpretation and thus is not purely factual.  Therefore it is not "genuine science" and in fact qualifies as "junk science."

Well, you might ask, "How is it that you are qualified to render this conclusion?"  The answer is quite simple.  When you look at the scientists that signed on to "climate change," you will notice that not many of them are any more qualified that I am since this is not their area of expertise.  Said another way, I am as qualified as they to discuss the veracity of this theory and I with as much expertise as they say that this is an illegitimate theory!

There is an underlying issue as well.  Consider the first part of the term, "man made."  Does it not speak to an arrogant view of man and his influence upon God's creation?  Does it not tacitly say that man's actions are greater in power than God's capacity to keep and maintain creation?

Well, you respond, I am an evolutionary atheist.  Then consider this.  The basic notions of evolutionary science (again "junk science") should encourage "climate change" since it creates an environment in which only the fit survive and thus progress further up the theorized evolutionary ladder.  Makes no sense to me why the evolutionist would not want this supposed "climate change."

"Climate change does make a difference.  There is an economic effect upon the individual and upon the economy in general.  Sure we should all be for clean air and clean water but this has gone way too far.  That brings us to this final point!

There is safety in genuine truth! Maybe that is the Genuine Inconvenient Truth!  When man individually and as a nation turns from God, there is a price to be paid and that price is that the view of God becomes distorted or all together absent.  Without the "God view" all truth becomes subjective and subject to the influences of prejudice, societal mores, bias, and results in chaos.

"The Foundation of Reality/Truth"

Reality and thus truth is found in one of two places.  It is either external to the individual and culture or it is internal to the individual and culture.

When truth is external it then becomes an ethical truth or a truth that is not dependent upon the individual or the social situation in which the individual finds himself.  On the other hand when truth is thought to be internal to and thus dependent upon the individual or the social situation it is a more or moral truth.

One is as fragile as the individual while the other has the durability that comes because of its demonstrated veracity over time and culture.  One is subjective and open to one's own interpretation, thus is the basis for conflict and even hostility.  The objective truth may provide for discussion in its nuances but overall tends to unite as it is not dependent upon the whims of the individual.

The outcome of subjective truth is that it is more a reflection than anything else.  It is a reflection of the mores of the culture, the moral opinion of the individual, or some combination of the two.  It results in such things as, moral truth which reflect culture; exclusive private truth, truth that belongs to a subset of the culture but not to the whole; or self truth, that which has a very egocentric focus.

All of these are fraught with problems.  For example the truth that is a reflection of the culture is a moving truth and thus the security of knowing what is right and correct is not afforded to the one who embraces such.  Exclusive and private truth can result in the notion that because of that special truth one can behave on a different level.  Then the one with self truth has a truth that is a reflection of his morality and that morality is often no higher than his personal desires.  This is the one who give himself permission to behave as he  chooses even if it is at the expense of another.

So, what then is one's choice in this matter of reality/truth?  One choice is to build on the internal which as it turns out is ever changing--ever shifting, as the tides of personal desire and opinion ebb and flow.  The other choice is to build on that which is external to the individual and the culture, that which as noted has stood the test of time and circumstance.

As upsetting as the circumstances detailed above might be, those referenced can at the very least, agree that though different and conflicted there is some form of truth.  However, there is a greater concern that should disturb all no matter one's internal/external truth position.  It is titled the Post Modern Movement which reject all of the above!

Why should this be of concern?  The concern is that without some sense of truth, there is not sense of right and wrong--the basis of conscience.  Without conscience, there is no restraint.  Without restrain there is relational and cultural danger.

As actions grow out of the notion of no restraint, there comes the idea that anything which possession organization (organization requires some form of restraint and thus truth standard), is not just expendable but a threat to be dealt with.  In the extreme of the Post Modern cause there is the Anarchist Movement.

Again without universal truth there no restraint.  Without restraint there is a rapid decline--a downward spiral into chaos.