Posted on by Abe Austin

Striving Together vs Striving Against

I have noticed two different types of conversation that I have had with friends and loved ones who hold different perspectives and principles from my own. One type has been far more fruitful than the other. Let’s take a look at each.

Shared Foundation)

In some cases the conversation has seen us first speaking from our shared convictions, reinforcing the points that we agree on, and then from that shared foundation explaining the reasoning that has led us to the perspectives that are different from one another. Seeing the two different chains of logic that led us to different places allowed us to question the process that one other took and offer alternative reasoning.

In my experience, this approach worked very well. It felt that we were working together to figure something out that we both wanted to understand. Seeing the motivations behind the conclusions, we each had understanding of where the other was coming from. I and the other person had multiple instances where we each said something along the lines of, “That’s a good point. I’d never thought of that before.” We actually seemed to be changing one another’s mind!

Split Foundation)

The alternative, of course, is when I have had conversations where I and the other person established no shared foundation between us at all. The two of us started by focusing on the differences between us. We didn’t explain the logic that led to our conclusions, except when doing so worked into our critique of the other person’s position.

The result, of course, was far more divisive. The conversation was more prone to devolve into an actual argument, and moments where either of us thought the other person had something insightful to offer were rare.

I think this difference of outcome is very telling. Furthermore, I know that the difference isn’t simply based on the person that I was having each conversation with, because I have had both types of conversation with the same person! In some cases, people might just be belligerent, but at other times it may be the structure of the conversation that invokes one outcome over the other.

Conclusion)

If one only ever experiences the more confrontational form of conversation, he may very well come to assume that the entire enterprise is pointless, and that he should give up trying to seeing eye-to-eye and divorce himself from the other. This would be a very tragic conclusion, particularly since it doesn’t have to be that way.

It is only natural that when we want to encounter a difference of opinion that we would go straight to the matter of contention, but that is the most likely to have us at loggerheads, accomplishing nothing. Though it feels counterintuitive, spending the majority of our conversation on what is shared, building up connection, and only then venturing out into the fringes certainly yields much better results. When two people focus primarily on what they share, they will gravitate to a unified opinion much faster than if they focus on the differences. When we have our shared perspectives as common foundation, securing greater truth becomes the goal of all participants, and we are partners in its discovery. Then, and only then, will that greater revelation be given to us, for then, and only then, will we be ready for it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:18-20

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

We now shift back to a series of rapid-fire laws, which feel more akin in tone to the ten commandments. In fact, in tomorrow’s verses we will hear the Lord speak in the first person, making promises of divine punishment for transgressors of certain laws.

All of the crimes mentioned in today’s verses carry a death penalty. Two of them have to do directly with forms of idolatry. The witches mentioned in verse 18 were female mystics who would use strange mutterings and sell enchantments as an alternative to relying upon the Lord, and obviously anyone sacrificing to a god other than the Lord was abandoning the true faith to pursue false deities. The other commandment that warrants a death penalty, having sexual relations with a creature, might have also been related to pagan rituals.

But why do these commandments warrant the law’s ultimate punishment? Why the death penalty as opposed to a fine or expulsion? We have already seen some death penalties, but they were reserved for the most extreme transgressions against other people. In every one of today’s laws, however, they are transgressions against God and nature. The target of the offense, I believe, is the reason for the harsh penalty.

Of course, there are those who choose to interpret the Old Testament’s strong punishments upon the heretics as evidence that God is insecure and narcissistic. If God is the Supreme Being of the universe, then why does He get so bent out of shape when we mock him? I think that these arguments are erring on the side of making God too personified. Not to say that it is wrong to think of God in a personified way, but that shouldn’t be the only way we conceive of our creator.

God is also synonymous with truth and right and good. Perhaps it becomes easier to understand the harsh penalties given in today’s commandments when we think of God in these more abstract terms. The people being described in these verses are acting in defiance of truth itself. They are trying to destroy the truth, to pervert it, to replace it with a lie, and it is hard to imagine a faster way to bring suffering and destruction to a people than declaring war directly on the truth itself. The laying of lies and idolatry at our foundation corrupts things at such a fundamental level that it can claim far more lives and souls than any other crime, hence the strong motivation to cut that trend off immediately.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Basis for Judgment: Summary

I’ve spent the last week-and-a-half exploring this concept of why we believe the things that we do, and which justifications for our moral alignment are reasonable and which ones are not. Today I’ll wrap things up by reviewing all of the things that I’ve covered.

Our Basis for Right and Wrong)

After contemplating the different foundations people set their judgment of right and wrong upon, I concluded that there were three main bases. A person judges what is right and wrong based on what God has said, or what society has said, or what he, himself has said.

I observed that people in our society have adopted a principle that they must listen to their own heart, determining their own right and wrong to live by. I also noted that usually what we think comes from our own self, has actually come from the society we live in. We tend to absorb the ideas we are surrounded by osmosis and then have those ideas come out of us word-for-word the same as we heard in the public square. Thus, most people end up basing their morals on what society has said, but they think they have based it upon themselves.

But neither individual whim or society’s favor are reliable bases for determining what is right or wrong. Both of them have too much variance and transformation to reflect any sort of objective, universal truth. What is “right” in society today was wrong yesterday, and likely will be wrong again in the future. A cursory glance at history shows us that it’s not as if society only improves, either. Sometimes it gets better, but sometimes it gets worse. Things have been brighter since the dark ages, but things were also brighter before them. Who is to say whether society today is at a local maxima or minima? We might think we know, but some future generation somewhere will surely disagree.

Sooner or later, any who believes that truth is defined by the individual or the society and pursues that logic to its end must come to the only possible conclusion: there actually is no absolute truth, no ideal, no sacred or unchanging standard by which our actions can be judged. Morality is transient and subjective, and any attempt to censure another person as being “wrong” is both hypocritical and vain.

The Proper Basis)

The only logical and consistent basis for moral judgment is God. Only a being that exists outside of the individual or society, one that is constant through all ages, one that is greater than the created world could lay down a law and a morality and a truth that would be consistent and objectively right.

Of course, the identity and exact opinion of that God would still be up for debate, but at least we would accept that truth could only come from some sort of theology. Of course, it would be important to acknowledge that whatever god was the true God, our knowledge of His universal law must transcend from heaven itself. It cannot simply be the idea of some man that this is what God must want, God Himself needs to have dictated it to some persons, and those persons need to have written it down as directed. Again, if such a thing were to occur, it would still be a matter of opinion as to which sacred book actually represents the mind of God, but at least we would accept that the truth could only be read out of the scripture He had given us.

And then, once we felt that we had identified that true scripture, from that true God, describing that universal truth that we are all beholden to, then all competing ideas and philosophies would have to be discarded. Never mind if your loved ones thought you were crazy, or your friends reviled you, or society persecuted you, or the great enemy destroyed you. Because, as we have established, none of those other voices have any foundation to stand upon as they oppose you. Let them think, say, and do what they will, their logic and methods are self-defeating, and all of them will crumble in time.

You, however, will have made yourself an acolyte of genuine truth, and having laid hold of it, you will be united with the only thing that is permanent, the only thing that can stay with you through all of life, and even into the world that lies beyond. Whether you be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, or any other believer of divinely-inspired words, hold to that inspired truth above all others, and your existence will surely work out better for you than chasing the ever-changing goalposts of society’s latest fad.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Basis for Judgment: The Foundation

We All Discriminate)

I’ve seen a trend where people are incredulous that those who hold traditional, Christian values could follow and believe the principles that were common in our society until just recently. “How could you believe that outdated doctrine? It’s sexist, it’s homophobic, it’s discriminatory, it’s shaming!”

But people who say such things seem to be oblivious to the fact that we all consider one social behavior or another to be reprehensible. If we list out every controversial behavior, we will all find many things that we discriminate against. Child marriage, eating disorders, slavery, incestuous relationships, bestiality, animal sacrifice, cannibalism, the use of hallucinogenic drugs, polygamy, asceticism, and many, many more. Are there not at least some of these practices that you are staunchly opposed to?

Thus, to some extent, we all discriminate and judge between what is right and what is wrong. The only question, then, is on what basis do we judge the way that we do?

The Religious Basis for Judgment)

For the traditionally religious, the answer is simple. Our basis for moral judgment is that God is our creator. He made us according to a fashion and order that is consistent with His own principles of right and wrong, and He educates as to what morality we must live by to fulfill our design and purpose.

And, if these assertions are true, then what coherent argument could be brought against those who strive to live by the principles given by that creator God? Frankly, it wouldn’t matter what God asked of us, simply the fact that He did ask it would be justification to follow it. Our understanding isn’t necessary, compliance with the modern trends of the world isn’t necessary, and a public vote of approval isn’t necessary. As I have heard others state, if God were to tell me that the way for me to fulfill my design and purpose in life was to stand on my head from this moment on, then that would be what I needed to do. As a creation, living in a greater universe that I do not perfectly understand, I have no basis to disagree. What He says I must follow.

So if God pronounces certain behaviors evil, and other behaviors good, and asks me to live by these principles and testify of them, then that is what I need to do. No matter of social rejection should dissuade me, for society did not fashion my innermost being, nor know the core purpose for which I was made.

The World’s Basis for Judgment)

But what basis does modern society have for the things it condones and the things it condemns? What justification does it have for judging certain behaviors as worthy and others as unacceptable? If we have rejected the belief that we are creations of God, living according to His revealed precepts, then our basis for judgment must be derived from either the individual or the society.

If it is derived from the individual, then there can be no universal truth, for no one believes all the same things as another person. Every conviction that you hold, somewhere there is another person that feels just the opposite, and their “truth” would be just as valid as yours. Or, if you deem their disagreement to not be valid, then there must be something greater that your “truth” is anchored in that theirs is not, in which case what would that be? This line of logic quickly falls apart.

Correct judgment must be based in society then. Whatever the current society has decided is right, then for today that must be what is right. Truth is therefore a matter of popular vote, and no one who lives against the popular consensus can be right. Activists who seek to change society are in the wrong, until they are able to convince a majority of the people to agree with them, and then they are right.

Past generations must have been right in their time, but they have no vote today, so today we judge them to have been wrong. In the past, homosexual marriage was considered reprehensible, but today we are ready to accept it, so now the past generations were wrong in their views. So, too, we will be in the wrong once a future generation votes against the values that we hold today. Thus, if the future societies are willing to accept pedophilia, self-mutilation, or the killing of undesirables, then they will be right to do so, and we will then be wrong to have ever stood against such things.

Are you willing to accept this view? If not, what outer principle can you point to that would still make these behaviors and lifestyles wrong, and would condemn an entire future society that feels otherwise?

A Sandy Foundation)

If we reject the notion that God is our creator, that we are made according to a particular design, and that the principles or right and wrong come from a universal truth which is interwoven through our beings, then what better foundation could we tie our principles to? What universal anchor does the man who denies he is a creation of God have for decrying any of the practices he considers abominable?

None. Once we let go of the fundamental truths of who we are and what we have come from, then all morality is transient. Our principles are not set in stone, but in sand, an obscure outlier in the greater scheme of things.

Christ saw this very conundrum two thousand years ago. We will finish today with his famous illustration in Matthew 7:

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Basis for Judgment: A Creation of God

I finished yesterday’s post by pointing out that if man tries to make himself the final power and authority in the universe—which would be to make himself god—then he must supplant his connection to actual divinity. If he would exalt himself, he must pave a ceiling between himself and heaven.

The Inner Voice)

But let’s look back even further than yesterday’s post. I mentioned at the start of this series that our society has developed a strong emphasis on everyone needing to “listen to their own heart,” and be “true to themselves.” Once I might have agreed with this notion wholeheartedly, but the words inside of these phrases have gradually changed their meaning. We used to mean that people needed to listen to the conscience as their heart, that they needed to be true to their divine selves. But today we’ve taken away the notion of an external voice that whispers within us, and now when we tell people to look inward, they think we mean narcissistic navel-gazing.

The fact is, there have always been two voices inside of us: the divine influence and the selfish desire. “Listen to your heart” was only useful advice when it pointed towards the first of those two inner voices. It becomes a great misguidance when attributed to the second. This misguidance is pernicious in that it so closely resembles what actually would have been good advice.

Spiritual Without God)

This subtle shift can perhaps be seen most clearly in society’s shift away from organized religion. “I’m spiritual, not religious,” we hear parroted over and over, but what does that really mean? From what I see, it appears to mean that the person still has a sense that she has a spiritual element, but she does not accept that she is a creation of God.

Yet each of us is a creation of God. This is the fundamental belief that we have lost, and that is very concerning, for it is the fundamental belief. The most fundamental, core principle of our identity must be where we are from. If we are from God, then it absolutely behooves us to understand who God is, what He is like, and what He created us for. And if He has told us these things, and if His voice is one of the influences that lives inside of us, then we must assume that following His instructions would bring us, His creations, the greatest fulfillment and purpose that we are capable of. If we truly are from God, then there can be no coherent argument to abandon Him just because society has decided something else.

To say that you are spiritual, but not religious, to say that you believe in the divine self, but not the divine creator, is to appreciate the beauty of the tree while cutting it off at the roots. It is to lay hold of something that is true and good, but to sever it from its sustenance, and before long it will wither and lose what originally attracted us to it. We can live without the belief that we are a creation of God, and we can even convince ourselves that it is so, but none of that will change our soul from still needing Him.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Basis for Judgment: Assuming the Divine

Yesterday I started to speak about the difference between humanity and machines. It makes no difference to a machine whether they are used for their intended purpose or an adulterated one. Machines do not even care if they are used in such a way that destroys themselves. Machines do not have any objective truth ingrained within them.

Humanity, on the other hand, possesses all these things. It matters that we function as designed, that we do not destroy ourselves, that we are in alignment with the truth that we are built from. Misalignment in any of these categories causes frustration, depression, and culminates in real tragedy. Real hearts become broken, real potential becomes lost, real tears are shed.

Our society is taking apart its own foundation under the logic that there is no such thing as objective truth, that no principle is sacred, that every belief can be discarded without consequence. But if this is true, then by that same logic, all of the new philosophies being championed today also have no objective truth, are not sacred, and can be discarded without consequence. If you argue that Christianity has to go to make a better world, then you are conceding that there is such a thing as better, which is also to concede that there is an ideal, which would bethe end result of following every “better.” And what would the ideal be based on if not objective truth? What would the ideal be if not sacred? What would the ideal be if not undiscardable? To claim that there is a better, is to claim that there is an ultimate destination, and that must be sacred.

Of course, this isn’t to say that all traditions must be sacred, or all traditions must be superfluous. To be sure, the world does at all times and in numerous ways need to change. There really are traditions that are not aligned to truth, that are not sacred, that can be discarded. Sometimes massive overhauls have been necessary to bring mankind closer to objective truth and the ideal. All of this is true, but then these changes ought to be grounded in universal truth and the ideal. Historically, our greatest reformers understood that the only reasonable justification for change was to show that it was tied to the divinity that encompasses us all. Just look at a few key examples here in America: the founding of our nation with its basic freedoms, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. These were all based on the notion that some tradition or status quo needed to change to bring humanity closer to the universal truth that it was created from. Most of the main figures in these movements justified the new principles by showing how they were based in scripture or theology, that they were principles given by God Himself, thus showing that the change was bringing us closer to what was universally right.

Sadly, this is not the mindset that much of the social change in the western world takes today. The 1960s represent a turning point in how we have justified change and social “improvement.” Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the last of a dying breed, a spiritual man who sought changes based on a reasonable understanding of universal truth. He is deservedly revered today, but we do not follow his example well. Even during his lifetime, a more base template for effecting change was emerging, coming into full swing as the sexual revolution. Here was a fundamental upset to the established order, based not on alignment with God, but with the self.

Things have only continued in that deplorable strain. Our society has since championed all forms of promiscuity, infidelity, sexual perversion, identity confusion, and self-worship. To accomplish this, society has cast down principles of self-control, public decency, innocence of the youth, the life of the preborn, religious tradition, responsibility and duty, and love of country. Society has not made these changes in the name of alignment to some higher power or greater truth, but by claiming that the self is the highest power and greatest truth. Man has become his own god, and in so doing, denied his connection to true divinity.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Joy is Internal

We can make it our life goal to make things pleasant for ourselves, getting things more stable, more fun, and more luxurious, but all the while not feeling any joy. Or we can be obsessed with our troubles, constantly focused on all that is wrong and unfair, convinced that we will never feel peaceful so long as we are so burdened. But joy is a metric of an internal state, not an external one. It has nothing to do with either our comforts or our discomforts. Rather, it is directly proportional to our alignment with what is right and true.

When I am guilty of wrong, when I am hiding the gifts God gave me, when I am giving less than I know I could, then I will never feel joy, no matter the life that surrounds me.

On the other hand, when I have a clean conscience, when I am shining the light God gave me to shine, when I know that I gave it my genuine best, then I will always feel joy, no matter the life that surround me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Two Ways to Live Falsely

There are two ways to live falsely. The first is to take a false principle and insist that it is actually the truth. No amount of stubbornly insisting that our way is right will ever make it so, and we will grind our souls against the wheel of truth until we relent, or until it breaks us.

The second way to live a falsehood is to believe the actual, genuine truth, but to be insincere in our following of it. This might be due to being well-taught in our youth, but never gaining the fire and conviction of true conversion. We act in the manner of truth, but it comes out forced and unnatural.

Both sorts of false living require true conversion. Each person in these ways must become aligned to the truth at their core. At that point they will flow with the power of life instead of trudging upstream against it or floundering broadside to it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What Wisdom is

What makes a saying wise is simply that it gives voice to the secret truths we already knew inside

Posted on by Abe Austin

Victims of Our Own Lies

Our own self is the primary victim when we lie. First, we do something against our conscience, then we lie about what we did, which gives the message that our fake, external image is of greater value than the true self. This wounds us. We cannot be so dismissive of a part of ourselves without that part hitting us back later on. A war begins within.

Heavy waves of guilt come from one side, telling us that we must tell the truth and stop denying who we truly are, but from the other side comes stifling and suffocation, applying greater and greater pressure on the conscience to deny the truth and accept the fiction. And with all the guilt and the suffocating, we are only hurting our own self in between.

We cannot have peace if we are at war, we cannot have wholeness if we are broken in two. If we are ever to stop beating ourselves the war must end, which means that one side or the other must surrender. And when we come to realize this fact, then we must come to realize another: the conscience cannot surrender. The true, authentic voice will never be killed because it is simply our natural, resting state. It exists because we did what we did, and made of ourselves what we made of ourselves, and there is no way to undo those facts. To live a lie without frustrating and twisting ourselves is fundamentally impossible, because part of ourselves is inseparably tied to unchangeable reality. The only surrender that we really can make is to surrender the lie. Surrender the phony public image. Surrender to the truth.