Warming the Cold Shoulder and Mending the Mass Media

To a degree, I have a cold shoulder towards a number of detective shows and the daily press, or, I could say, the "inflated" daily press. The reason is simple - they frequently portray quiet individuals as crime suspects, as though introversion is a negative connotation, the drive behind a sinister agenda. In an extroverted society, the difference between an introvert and an extrovert is that an introvert is often unconsciously deemed guilty until proven innocent. Not to ramble, but here is a word from Kierkegaard on the daily press, "On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is. But all moral elevation consists first and foremost in being weaned from the momentary. There has never been a power so diametrically opposed to Christianity as the daily press." My mind is more stimulated watching children's shows than political news. The former brings back all the basic, undeniable truths that may then be built upon; the latter is flooded with biased drivel thus giving me this strange feeling that I did my mind a huge disservice. While a person should most definitely feel free to indulge in such, as entertaining or important as it may be, as well as inevitable to assimilate in most cultures, one must maintain a sound foundation.

One must keep in mind that an over-indulgence of anything, even something as pure as water, can intoxicate, and in this case, in a way which develops unhealthy thinking habits since the mind seems to be only truly affected when slowly penetrated. Seemingly minor yet persistent things penetrate the mind over time making it difficult to ever realize the impact; hence, though quite unfortunate, the most dangerous forms of corruption are those that are subtle and below the radar. I find technology in general to be a strong force in this assertion. In the age of technology, there is constant access to vast amounts of information. The basket overflows; people get overwhelmed: The eye of the storm is not so much what goes on in the world; it is the confusion of how to think, feel, digest, and react to what goes on.

To get to the central points, it is evident that normal introverts of today, who are genuinely virtuous yet show the affections in a different manner, cannot even take a dump without being accused of dropping a bomb (pun intended). It is paradoxical that, when confined to nothing more than human judgment, the majority of people fear and doubt the unknown, thereupon an emotion by way of ignorance. Now, I am aware that everything at some point has been declared the root of all evil. But if ignorance is not the root of all evil, as Plato is often credited for saying, then explicitly so, it is very much the water to the roots. Ephesians 4:18, "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." The result of ignorance is false and potentially malicious judgment. For instance, when it comes to judging individuals, I do not like remarks such as "too good to be true." They speak as though one is rewarding the nature of evil. Yet, ironically, we still wonder where all the good people have gone. Oftentimes such cognitive habits leave little beauty to be seen in the individual, therefore isolating his very essence: If a man cannot understand the beauty of life, it is probably because life never understood the beauty in him.

It seems as though some cultures have evolved in ways which convince one that he is mentally unstable if he is naturally more productive when flying alone. In turn, it steers him into a hole; he feels bullied for personality traits which are very difficult to steer. In result, he begins to feel and think as an enemy to other people; he is filled with a cultural guilt (which is not necessarily a moral guilt). This is why it is understandable that one can sympathize with villains and underdogs - they are obviously wrong, but it continues because, by the holiest standards, good people are not as good as they think they are. But, of course, giving or finding sympathy is not the answer - an obsession with sympathy expands, and I often say that, like crying wolf, if you keep looking for sympathy as a justification for your actions, you will someday be left standing alone when you really need help.

Now some of the most common arguments against this particular area of non-prejudgment may (inadvertently) influence a detachment - the greater solutions from the problems. You get hit the hardest when trying to run or hide from a problem. Like the defense on a football field, putting all focus on evading only one defender is asking to be blindsided. One's own functionality begins when pinpointing the lethargic solutions that influence him to remain lethargic, as these are the most brutal of human oppositions, for example, "That's the reality of it. Deal with it. Mysterious people are more likely to commit crimes." Yes, the assertion can be made, but assuredly, is not that way of thinking also what separates genius from mediocrity? As Einstein said, "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." In recent years, the problem is not so much the individuals behind the atrocities, those further made infamous in a stereotypical caricature, rather it is the reaction of the general public towards those being negatively caricatured. When it comes to world news, attitude is what marks the distinction between justice and vengeance. Justice is pure, but vengeance brings more ruin. In Mere Christianity (pg. 118), C.S. Lewis wrote: "The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Denying safety and precaution is asinine; albeit, such conceptions, in their rights, do not veritably come from man. In times of doubt, God should be sought when among the alleged perilous. If one is meant to know, as it is written, proper judgment will swiftly come and the true securities of the individual will be of solid assurance for having faith in God, James 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."

As a side note, the theistic philosopher has a tendency to devalue insufficient worldviews, ideologies, and quite often common sense for the greater good, and in such cases, one should not be discouraged when seen as a bad guy. When good people consider you the bad guy, you develop a heart to help the bad ones. You actually understand them. To some, this is a calling. Luke 6:26 says, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets." If he stresses over man's perception of a righteous heart, then he has given his heart to man. But know that, for positive results, if you have to say or do something controversial, aim so that people will hate that they love it and not love that they hate it. It is never ridicule, but a compliment, that knocks a philosopher off his feet. He is already positioned for every possible counter-attack, counter-argument, and retort...only to find a big bear hug coming his way. Many great and memorable philosophers, scientists, theologians, poets, artists, writers, and musicians were at odds with the majority during their times - not simply because they sought to be rebels or revolutionaries - but because they utilized a gift; and for this they are now highly respected.

For instance, one of my great philosophical influences, Søren Kierkegaard, in some way related to such according to selected writings in his journal, "People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me." From personal experience, as a child, introversion is generally considered, as a natural trait, cute, but as one ages into young adulthood, the introversion starts to become a burden to the introvert. Others will at times judge him, label him incompetent or untrustworthy. In attaining job promotions, as well as finding a mate, a natural introvert must work twice as hard as a natural extrovert must work: In an extroverted society, most people seem to have empty restaurant syndrome, "There must be some kind of an issue there, so let's move on to the next one." In an extroverted society, one's outgoing tendencies are more desired than one's skills.

Albert Camus, yet another influential philosopher, similarly stated, "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." As an introvert, I am actually rather appreciative of this. At times, what I lacked socially, I would compensate for it by perfecting my talents. I like solitude. It is when you truly hear and speak your natural, unadulterated mind, and out comes your most stupid self as well as your most intelligent self. It is when you realize who you are and the extents of the good and the evils which you are capable of. Einstein puts into perspective an introvert's purpose in an extroverted society, "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value." For some people, quite frankly, life is not always about trying to be different when understanding that that is actually a burden. Life can go from living to survival looking for where one belongs, therefore my dominant reminder in this case is that, as long as one allows them to, personal difficulties, in result, accentuate an individual's ingenuity; therefore, the weakness is the cause of the strength.

An Important Quotation at the Christian Book Expo 2009

When you say something mild yet people get heated, it means there is power in your words. When that continues to happen you eventually realize that others inherently value your message whether they like it or not. However anti-theistic author Christopher Hitchens, special guest at the Christian Book Expo 2009, made a relevant point, so I feel the need to address it.

"Those that say 'I have a meek and mild Savior for you, and if you don't like it you can burn forever...be tortured infinitely'...is the same whether they keep it to themselves or try to pass it on to someone else. A person who believes that is a wicked and delusional idiot...I decline to be spoken to in that tone of voice. I will not be told 'I have a supernatural offer for you, you can be redeemed if you believe just in me and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever'. I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship. It's comforting to know that it is completely mythical..."

I believe in evolution in the sense that a short-tempered man is the successor of a crybaby. As cowardly as the passage sounds (i.e. "I do not like the sound of that. It is scary and unfair, so not only will I deny it, I will also be intolerant of those who believe it."), it is an important argument that should not be shamefully discarded by apologists. I want to make it clear that although God is not limited to or from any way of spiritual conviction, generally, gone astray is prudence through ways of "in-your-face" evangelism as Hitchens so passionately despises. There is a potential degradation one feels having an absolute stranger propose various credenda. Though inadvertently, given is the implication that the listener is an ignorant heathen thus further influencing psychological bitterness - a more intense rejection of the actual message due to anger with the messenger (however, that most definitely depends on the listener and the context of the situation). On the contrary it is possible to speak a painful truth without that truth causing more pain than it must. In many cases such encounters are viable, but on the other hand there is considerable evidence of the harm done; for example, it is the formation of the severely anti-theistic hardened heart, which extends beyond mere atheism or agnosticism such as those like Hitchens himself.

Many people in a rather reckless context claim to "just tell it like it is". In actuality, nobody really stresses what one says so much as the motive behind what one says; hence, he is merely blowing hot air and detracting from "what is". I am aware that many are familiar with the frequented quotation by author Brennan Manning, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians..." In a social sense rather than spiritual sense, the Manning quotation is indeed rather valuable due to a certain tendency of "holy condescension" and, equally important, irresponsible Christianity. Lamentably have theists attempted to justify reckless misrepresentation of God and the collective body of believers while further ignoring such a sincere observation; yet the separations within the Christian community that are birthed from a plethora of causes, ranging from moral and theological disagreements to social and political wars, are ways in which the atheist will contest the validity of theism. While disagreements are inevitable, would not the representation of a unified body of Christ prevail when as consistent as possible? John 15:20 must remain in the heart of the believer, "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also," but secondly one must also remember the great distinction between luxuriating in destruction and adjusting for construction. It is written that there is a number of individuals ready to yield just as there are hardened hearts, and the preservation of the good is certainly worth one's effort.

Is this truly "humanistic theology" that I am speaking of, in the sense of making an appeal to man before an appeal to God, or merely open arms for a brother's ambiguous pleas of bewilderment? First, let me explain. The simple notion that faith is the divine, objective truth makes it inherently far from humanistic theology regardless of the means in which the message is communicated. However, this is not an indication that it cannot be improperly communicated (e.g. violent extremism). Is one not given ears to hear his brother's responses in order to effectively communicate with him? "He who has ears, let him ear" (Matthew 11:15): The passage is frequently projected onto the non-believer, yet it equally applies to the believer. As social beings, one is designed to learn by acknowledgment of countless sources including perspectives of the non-believer. If otherwise, would not God be inhibited from using other media to speak to those that faithfully perceive his full presence? He is quite unpredictable and has once used something as illogical as a burning bush on Mount Sinai to send a message (Exodus 3). One's holiness is neither a component of stubborn arrogance nor a form of communicative rejection. Instead, great components of communicating the divine truth are the fruits of the Spirit.

It is actually quite simple, as simplicity is often highly underestimated and complexity is not always necessary. In the appropriate context, and to perform sincerely and without boast, the vitality of faith in Christ is manifested through a lifestyle of understanding. Sometimes the sharing of faith is as simple as allowing one's fruits to invigorate a sense of natural intrigue by the recipient. Inherently, one is longing to adhere to the individual he has great affection for; likewise, contemporary apologist Ravi Zacharias stated, "Yes, if truth is not under-girded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the truth repulsive."

I cannot think of very many things more despicable than befriending one merely to try and change him. In such cases the fruits are displaced from a Christ-like walk to a disingenuous business - a deviation from the faithful man's love without agenda. A truth that is both fully manifested and radiant provides direction, and the individual bound to be drawn by its fruits from within the bearer will be drawn. I understand that this raises the question: Does time, ultimately, tick away for the salvation of an individual initially secured in the foreknowledge of a timeless God? One cannot be absolutely certain either way - we find that tomorrow is promised to no man, but merely in the eyes of man; hence, this is where faith in the fruits, as manifested through Christ, come into effect. Moreover, one's design is much like a lasting beginning (thus remaining consistent with Einstein's theory regarding the relativity of time).

Surely all people self-proclaim some variation of truth, but how can one truly illuminate a vigor for that truth? Oftentimes as I walk the streets, I am either approached by or observing the modern evangelist - I further see that he would greater benefit from assimilating the outlook of a conqueror rather than that of a beggar (Romans 8:37). On one hand Christ was persecuted for speaking truth, yet on the other he was sought for his proficient wisdom and miracles. Now, there is power in truth, and any speaker will experience both hands no matter his approach. While we all have callings, I find that, in an era of overestimated intellectualism, a philosophically sound approach to the properties of God holds a great deal of strength, which according to my experiences is an intriguing perspective for those who initially do not favor alleged fairytales or implied condescension. More specifically, it is said to be "a breath of fresh air", and Christ in his true manifestation is most definitely a breath of fresh air to those who sincerely seek him. When we begin merely by fighting about our differences, and in this case, the theist versus the atheist, we leave no foundation to build any sort of ladder to understanding; with no understanding, there is nothing but a wall of denial.

In addition, I must make it clear that God is a skillful strategist. His followers are endowed with a plethora of personalities and strengths in order to fulfill the ultimate purpose. Therefore, they are capable of spreading his message in a variety of ways apart from those previously mentioned. No matter the approach, all should remember Titus 3:1-2 in their endeavors, "Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men."

Returning to Hitchens, even though he can be emotionally justified in his statement, he is simply misguided. If he does not believe there is a Hell and that theists are delusional (which is a point of view that he openly expresses), then there is no reason to take offense. There is a popular quotation within the atheist community by author Robert Pirsig, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."

There is no denying that the quotation is witty (and I want to note that depending on semantics I do not support "religion"; in some cases, it is only a distraction from the very God it supposedly serves), however, if the assertion is indeed valid, then for one to take offense in opposition of the delusional teachings of any form of theological fatalism is quite insane through and through. If one was to visit a psychiatric hospital, which is generally a discourse of a great deal of seemingly outrageous absurdity, he would choose not to hold it against the insane mainly due to the intuition in which he "knows" the inmates speak illogically. When he truly concludes an ideology to be intellectually absurd then there exists nothing to be offended by, otherwise neither individual is the sane individual. Hitchens did add that he is comforted to "know" that it is completely mythical; however, by the aforementioned words of Pirsig and his very own intolerance of any religious dogma, there is an inconsistency in the overall perspective towards theists who believe in a Hell.

Having said that, how does one remain offended by a purportedly nonexistent conception? He is offended when there is an inherent vestige, a state in which he still considers that this nonexistent conception exists. Deep in every individual's conscience rests the possibility of God no matter how passionately he denies it.

More importantly, I want to explain the mercy of God and how it is not in contradiction with the theoretical existence of Hell. Hitchens' statement raises the controversial and repetitiously used rhetoric yet again:

"If God loves everyone so much, then why would he send a person to eternal torture?"

Occasionally, one is coerced to avoid excessive biblical criteria according to the philosophies of those who do not directly accept the Bible as absolute truth. Although time after time do I fail in my own imperfect ways, this does not always have to be a problem. While the Bible is the infallible sword of believers, one's relationship with Christ, upon surrender, can provide the gift of reason. Should not the follower realize his direct relationship with and heart knowledge of Christ as much as his head knowledge of the word of God? Such a relationship distinguishes faith from mere religion; hence, a consciousness of both his nature and his word in biblical context can be attained. One can remember that God's word is the sword, and the mind which he has given is the sheath.

Regarding the prior question, revealed are the basic qualities of God in which many are familiar with: he is merciful, loving, sovereign, and just; however, one must understand the wrath of God - one in which is to be feared above all else. Considering God according to the Bible, the lasting solace throughout all of existence is that of God, not from oneself nor any other external force(s). Eminently is humanity given the current existence for the glorification of God, hence an indication of the opportunity to either seek or reject the presence of God. Because he fortifies all that is loving and merciful, if one is to reject him, then equivalently one is rejecting such blessings of divine amity, as C.S. Lewis said, "God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing."

Often do I use the following analogy to support the prior explanation: Just as cold is the absence of heat rather than the opposite of heat and dark is the absence of light rather than the opposite of light, Hell is the "absence of God" (however, it is only safe to say "to a degree") rather than the opposite of Heaven. Should it remain puzzling to so many that one's very own denial of God and all divine fortifications, hence consequently being permitted such, is utterly contradictory to Epicurus' rhetoric of a malevolent God? The existence of Hell is substantially a representation of not only the wrath but also proportionately the love of God; ultimately, he forces himself onto no individual in rejection of him and his great blessings. This is an absolute consistency with all the revealed properties of God.

Physicalism's Hidden Exigency of Faith

Quite often does the radical physicalist postulate the "human perception = perception of all in existence" methodology, hence I wanted to focus on the phenomenal question, "Is there more than this life?" If one was to make this judgment according to his own dimensions, by the scientific method, he would have to go by what is known about this life in order to conclude another life, or lack thereof. Contrary to popular belief, the amount of strength for other existing realities or dimensions exceeds the amount of strength for this reality existing as the one and only reality.

Indeed it is faithful to merely assume multiple existences of such, however, assuming there is only one when the cause of one's own existence is not proven requires a great deal of faith and to an even higher degree. An orphan unaware of their biological parents would be very faithful to assume that they had no biological siblings when there is absolutely no declaration for the supposition. Conclusively, assuming whether or not this is the only reality is merely half the battle for both arguments, yet, as the orphan argument demonstrates, the opposing argument is the position founded upon ignorance.

Even if one did not believe in a creator, but rather any theoretical origin of the universe from either an accidental cause or absolutely nothing, there is nothing more to declare that the accident cannot happen in other instances into other universes apart from the current universe. The existence of the present reality, from either an accident or nothing, is a piece of evidence for the existence of other realities as there are no defined restrictions that determine such a chance singular. Apart from any chance-based theories, intelligent design is quite self-explanatory in one's considering of the potential existence of other dimensions.

Martin Heidegger's phenomenological assertion about death, or mortality, implies that "death does not come as an end"; however, if conclusively one is once nonexistent to this reality, yet he forms a state of being to this reality, how is it that he will someday become nonexistent to this reality as interpreted by biological science? Some might argue that imaginary pink unicorns are nonexistent to this reality, but provided is no evidence that they are existent in another. However, pink unicorns were not born into a conscious being of this known reality as humans were, hence those of being mysteriously cross this reality as unicorns do not. A tangibly existing thing, such as a conscious human, becomes a part of this reality, and passing through (from birth to death) is support for other realities. This is so because one does not have an immortal existence as defined by the properties of this life, yet one is indeed a being in itself that, apparently, moves into and from this life. Further provided is evidence that this universal reality is limited to and from specific properties that other local realities, such as humans, are capable of losing and/or gaining.

The only premise one has for the conclusion that the current reality is the one and only reality is based on the fact that one cannot consciously comprehend or perceive any other realities. For those who limit existence to perception, this is a contradiction because one cannot comprehend not existing in a reality of some sort. In other words, the human comprehension, in its incomprehension of not existing, inherently directs the mind to a future reality. Often used is the common notion, "Perceiving things is how we know they exist." In that case, and on the contrary, it is more so humanly logical to conclude that there are other realities by one's incomprehension of not being. Putting this idea to the test, one should try imagining not existing at all. It is impossible because there is a disposition thus imagining blindness, muteness, numbness, and deafness, which under such circumstances, would still be some form of existence no matter the combination. Human senses do not define existence; they merely detect certain properties of this universe. Because one cannot comprehend not existing beyond the current reality but will indeed move beyond it someday, by the common physicalist notion that human perception defines existence, one "perceives" that one can only move somewhere else rather than into nothingness.

"Why won't God just show himself!?"

Both theists and atheists must face that scientifically the existence of God cannot be "proven" from one person to another (yes spiritually, but not scientifically). I often say that I am a scientific agnostic and a spiritual theist. That is so because anything that hypothetically exists beyond the universe cannot be proven using the properties of the universe. It is what we are bound by as well as what we are scientifically limited to when acquiring facts; however, there can be evidence. Having created the universe, the creator must exist outside the universe without being bound by its properties, otherwise he (illogically) created himself in the process of creating the universe. Figuratively, I often describe the universe as a massive sphere which includes all of its properties: natural laws, materials, organisms, atmosphere, and its sequence of events (i.e. time), yet God exists beyond its boundaries. Consequently, by existing outside of time where the laws of cause and effect do not apply, God does not need a cause, nor is he made up of such properties we use to detect "being".

Not only is it more probable (though probability is, on the contrary, not always the dominant factor for an absolute justification), but the physical undetectability of God is necessary. If he indeed showed himself in a more definitive manner, or according to our visual awareness (e.g. waving from the clouds on a golden sleigh, giant hands lifting mountains, etc.), a power so far beyond the universe suddenly interjecting the universe would demolish all in the vicinity [Richard Deem; God and Science]. This is justified by the very words of God, in Exodus 33:20, saying, "You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live."

Simple examples tend to put seemingly great complexities into perspective. Imagine the power of a star resting billions of miles away. The light shines so brightly, it can still be seen regardless of its distance, but it is days old by the time it reaches our eyes. We know that human vision is harmed when staring into the closest star of all, the sun. The creator of substances as powerful as these must have a natural light far beyond any of the creation, including the power of the stars, therefore it is for our own good that we cannot see God in full form.While physical intensity is an important factor, if made dominant a physical presence of God over spiritual presence, would not all reasoning behind human creation be rather futile? John 4:24 says, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Because the utmost authority is a spiritual being, our limited, physical perception is a symbol of our existential deficiency without that authority. This is so because, ultimately, we are formed for the glorification of God rather than merely forcing him to task in order to satisfy the human nature of self-delusion; God extends beyond secular conventionalism.

But why call it "the human nature of self-delusion"? Our senses rely on our own cognition, which is not always a detector of absolute truth. Rhetorically speaking, of what purpose is glorification through creation if it has all been given with no realization of his spiritual superiority? Because God is holy, he does not sin nor does he drive us to sin, therefore, he cannot fuel such a disorderly universe. In order to gain an understanding of God, a man should first humble himself before God (Daniel 10:12), which is entirely different than living with a derisive expectation for signs or evidence. A common mistake we make is that we look for God in places where we ourselves wish to find him, yet even in the physical reality this is a complete failure. For example, if you lost your car keys, you would not search where you want to search, you would search where you must in order to find them.

There are some arguments, influenced by Greek philosopher Epicurus, that suggest God's "insensibility" to our physical perception is evidence for either an apathetic God or a malevolent God. The following is a quotation by Epicurus that is quite popular among many skeptics, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" On the contrary, it more so signifies a God wanting closer, individual contact with the creation. According to the common analogy "man was created in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27), the validity of it is evident, in some cases, when one applies how a human would feel in a relationship as to how God would feel. We have better relationships with those who truly seek us rather than those sitting on the couch watching us move mountains trying to prove ourselves. It is fairly evident, however, by the biased human perspective, such as "make this cup of water float, then I will believe" or "give me a stack of money, then I will believe", we are routinely diverted from the supernatural perspective God has given us to perceive his existence. This is why our very own common sense can be our worst of enemies, or as stated by Albert Einstein, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."