Are My Beliefs True or Convenient?

---

An insightful friend of mine, Fr. Robert, said, “Being able to change is simply part of being a Christian!”

True, and too bad the vast majority of “Christians” don’t see it that way. They simply believe either what they are taught or what naturally fits their personal predisposition; no questions asked, no putting their beliefs on the shelf until scripture either proves or disproves their most closely held belief, no bowing prostrate before God and crying out, “LORD teach my mind and my heart what is True so that I may throw away these erroneous beliefs that contradict you.”

Why, in the name of Christ, do we not learn from Jesus’ summary rebuke of the Pharisees and say, “Teach me LORD. Send your Holy Spirit to teach me what I need to know, what I need to believe; empower me to revile even these subtle beliefs that contradict the Truth of You, the Truth of Your plan for me! I am your created human and you are my God. Teach me what You want me to believe.”

Why? Because we don’t want to.

We love the familiar and hate what is not. If Truth does not change your mind on a regular basis, God is not your God. Your god is the convenience of belief.

Todd Beal

See also: What Makes My Belief True?

Stop Staying Busy

Some people sit around all day. Some people run around all day and accomplish just as much.

♦

Staying busy does not mean you have accomplished anything. If you need to stare at a wall for the next hour planning your next move, then do it. You’ll accomplish more once you act than by staying busy for the next 18 hours with no direction.

Stop staying busy – be productive.

Todd Beal

Truth – The Final Word

We humans think we have it all figured out until, when we die, Truth meets us at the door of eternity and says, “You should have listened to me.”

Todd Beal

Arguing Against Amillennialism

Introduction

I really enjoy Q&A sessions, as they are not meant to become a debate. When someone asks an honest and open question, my first and prevailing thought is to give the most accurate and concise, streamlined answer, given my current abilities and understanding.

In 2011 a fellow blogger asked me several questions about the timeline of events occurring between tribulation-climax and millennium-end. During seminary, his professor taught the amillennial interpretation of scripture and now he wanted to understand alternate views. I learned so much while researching the answers to his questions and I am grateful he allowed me that rare opportunity. This article captures that conversation.

The following Wikipedia excerpt gives a brief description of amillennialism for readers unfamiliar with this topic.

Wikipedia entry on amillennialism:  “Amillennialism is the mainstream Christian end-times theology, named for its rejection of the theory that Jesus Christ will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth. This is in opposition to premillennial and some postmillennial interpretations of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation.   

In contrast, the amillennial view holds that the thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20 is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age, (or more rarely, that it ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70—see Preterism). Amillennialism holds that while Christ’s reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature, at the end of the church age, Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent reign in the new heaven and new earth.”

For the record, I currently subscribe to the premillennial, mid-tribulation rapture view which is a slightly modified, but still premillennial, version of the stance I take in the following conversation. Based on my interpretation of scripture, I believe that Christ will literally return to earth after the great tribulation (his Second Coming) and rule, in person, for 1,000 years. After which, he will destroy the present universe and replace it with the New Heavens and New Earth.

I hope you receive good from the following conversation.

Todd

---

Talking With a Fellow Blogger

Andrew said:

Regarding Satan and Revelation 20, John wrote that he was bound in the sense that “he should not deceive the nations any longer” (Rev. 20:3, 8-9). In the context of the book of Revelation, what does that mean?

Correct me if I am wrong but prior to Satan being bound in Revelation 20 he is able to assemble the nations against the saints. Once bound, he is no longer able to do so. Thus when we see him loosed in Revelation 20:7, he begins to assemble the nations to attack the saints once again (Rev. 20:8-9).

With this interpretation, is it possible that we are living in that thousand year period, the period in which Satan cannot assemble the nations to attack the saints (Revelation 20:2)?

If we are not living under that period in which Satan is bound, why aren’t the saints being attacked by the nations (Like Revelation 20:8-9)? How is it possible that the saints in America openly meet together without persecution from the nations if Satan is not bound?

Again, I am no scholar when it comes to Revelation so I might be missing something obvious. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and insights.

Todd said:

Andrew,

First, we need to look at two different scripture sections that mention a climactic battle between the nations of the earth and Israel:

1.      Battle One:  Zechariah 14, Revelation 19:11-21, and Revelation 20:1-3

2.      Battle Two:  Revelation 20:7-10

Zechariah 14:1-5 says that God will gather all the nations in war against Israel. Notice in this passage that the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled. In other words, the invading armies actually penetrate the very core of Israel. This particular passage also has a unique aspect to it. The saints, or holy ones, are not present before Jesus stands on the Mount of Olives and destroys the nations – they come with him. The other unique aspect mentioned in this passage is that out of the nations destroyed in that battle, there will be a surviving remnant. The text says that this remnant will go up year after year to worship the Lord, and if they do not God will not allow rain to fall on their geographic region. There is something very interesting about this particular section of the prophecy: it is speaking of those who attacked Israel in the preceding battle against Israel; they are not the redeemed saints, and therefore at this point, sin still exists.

Another passage of scripture that mentions a climactic battle between the nations of the earth and Israel is Revelation 20:7-10. This particular battle follows Satan’s release from his 1000 year imprisonment in the abyss, not the Lake of Fire, at which time he deceives and incites the nations into attacking the camp of the saints and the beloved city (Jerusalem). This battle and the ensuing aftermath differs in four ways from the one that occurs in Zechariah 14, Revelation 19:11-21, and Revelation 20:1-3. See the following comparison:

 

	Battle of Zechariah 14; Revelation 19:11-21; Revelation 20:1-3	Battle of Revelation 20:7-10
1	The invading armies of the nations penetrate Israel: “the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled…”. Then Jesus returns with his holy ones (the Saints, or raptured Christians) and destroys the invaders.	The invading armies of the nations do not penetrate Israel, but are instead instantly destroyed by Heavenly fire as soon as they launch their attack.
2	The Saints return to earth with Christ for his Second Coming.	The Saints and Jesus are already here, having previously returned to rule over the earth 1,000 years prior to this battle.
3	The invading nations are destroyed, except a remnant to repopulate the earth for Christ’s New Millennium kingdom.	The invading nations are utterly destroyed – no remnant exists after the battle, only the immortal saints and mortal believers.
4	This battle ends the Tribulation and ushers in the New Millennium: 1.  The Beast and the False Prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire 2.  Satan is temporarily thrown into the abyss for 1,000 years 3.  Christ’s 1,000 year earthly reign begins	This battle ends this Creation and ushers in the New Heavens and New Earth: 1.  Satan is permanently thrown into the Lake of Fire 2.  The Great Throne Judgment takes place – the “one all do all” end of sin 3.  Death and Hell are thrown into the Lake of Fire 4.  God destroys present creation; the New Heavens and New Earth replace the old

So, to answer your first question – “Is it possible that we are living in that thousand year period, the period in which Satan cannot assemble the nations to attack the saints (Revelation 20:2)” – no it is not possible. Notice in Zechariah 14 that Jesus splits the Mount of Olives in half upon his physical arrival here on earth. That has yet to happen; the Mount of Olives is still fully intact. Secondly, there is no camp of the saints in Jerusalem today, as spoken of in Revelation 20:7-10. And thirdly, there is no annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem by the nations of the earth to worship the Lord, as also mentioned in Zechariah 14.

Regarding your second question – “If we are not living under that period in which Satan is bound why aren’t the saints being attacked by the nations (Like Revelation 20:8-9)? How is it possible that the saints in America openly meet together without persecution from the nations if Satan is not bound” – openly worshipping God in American churches is indeed permitted today. However, that is not the case in numerous countries around the world. Christian martyrs “watch groups” report that Christians are increasingly and more brutally persecuted and martyred everywhere around the globe. It is important to remember, though, that the only time Christians are persecuted across the board on a global basis is during the tribulation. Until that time, lawlessness and persecution gradually increases, and then reaches an ultimate climax with the arrival of the antichrist, signaling the removal of the restrainer. According to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, the spirit of lawlessness (or the spirit of the antichrist) was already present in Paul’s day. Paul said that even though lawlessness is prevalent, it does not have free reign until the restrainer is removed. After which time, the lawless one will be revealed and then slayed by the Holy breath of Christ in his Second Coming to earth – which happens only at the end of the tribulation.

If this were the 1,000 year period, the lawless one (the antichrist) would currently reside in his eternal home, the Lake of Fire, along with his false prophet. Furthermore, if this were the 1,000 year period, Jesus would already be physically present amongst the saints because of his Second Coming, and we would be enjoying glorified bodies here on earth.

I hope this helps.

 

Andrew said:

Todd,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and beliefs. I think I understand what they are but please allow me to ask a few questions so that I am clear on your convictions.

Do you believe that the prophecy found in Zechariah 14:1-5 will proceed the binding of Satan (Revelation 20:1-3)?

In order for Zechariah 14:1-5 to harmonize with the belief that Satan is currently bound (Rev. 20:1-3) then the prophecy in Zechariah 14:1-5 would have had to have already occurred?

When do these prophecies from Zechariah 14:1-5 occur according to your convictions? What do you consider yourself according to Sabio’s charts?

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/eschatology/

 

Todd said:

Andrew,

I hold to the position of pre-millennium, pre-tribulation rapture; not because I necessarily want to, or because I think I should, or because a governing church body insisted I believe it, but because that is what I conclude from my personal study of scripture. I know that sounds obvious, or maybe even a little arrogant, but please don’t misinterpret what I am saying. I studied several years to determine if what I was taught is true or untrue. I cannot stand borrowed beliefs; I simply cannot.

Regarding your following questions:

Do you believe that the prophecy found in Zechariah 14:1-5 will proceed the binding of Satan (Revelation 20:1-3)?

 

In order for Zechariah 14:1-5 to harmonize with the belief that Satan is currently bound (Rev. 20:1-3) then the prophecy in Zechariah 14:1-5 would have had to have already occurred?

 

When do these prophecies from Zechariah 14:1-5 occur according to your convictions?

I will address all three questions with one answer.

The prophecy events of Zechariah 14:1-5 will precede (come before) the prophecy events of Revelation 20: Satan is bound only after the battle of Zechariah 14 takes place. If Satan were bound, there would be peace on earth because according to both passages of scripture, Zechariah 14:9-21 and Revelation 20, Christ would be here in person reigning as king over all the earth, and the whole earth would be required without exception to worship Jesus Christ in person. That peace is clearly absent from the beginning to the latter half of Zechariah 14, and is also absent from the Millennium end to the conclusion of the Revelation 20 battle.

But you might say; is it not possible that the battles of Zechariah 14 and Revelation 20 are one and the same? No, they are not the same battle because in Zechariah 14 the invading nations penetrate to the core of Israel and murder scores of Israelis. In Revelation 20 Jesus destroys the invading nations outside the perimeter of Israel; they never get the chance to penetrate.

Then you might ask; is it possible that the armies do penetrate Israel and murder scores of its occupants in the battle of Revelation 20 (as they do in the battle of Zechariah 14), and that maybe the text for some reason just doesn’t mention it? No, that’s not possible because immortal beings cannot die, and only immortal beings can reign with Christ in the Camp of the Saints (immortals). The rapture occurs before the 1,000 year period – taking into account all interpretations of pre-millennium rapture timing. According to Paul, when we are gathered unto Christ at the end of the age, we will be instantly changed, shedding the mortal and taking on the immortal. And scripture explicitly says that when we are gathered unto Christ we will receive new bodies just like Jesus’ post resurrection, pre-ascension body and will therefore become immortal. By the time Revelation 20 comes along, we will have been immortal and reigning with Christ for 1,000 years.

So according to the previous argument, Satan is not bound during the battle of Zechariah 14; meaning, the following events occur in sequence:

1.  Battle of Zechariah 14 begins: invasion and capture of Jerusalem by the nations of the world.

2.  Second Coming of Christ accompanied by the Saints (holy ones); Christ destroys Israel’s attackers, putting an end to the battle of Zechariah 14

3.  Beast and false prophet thrown into the lake of fire; Satan bound in the abyss for 1,000 years

4.  Christ’s 1,000 year Millennial Reign on earth

5.  Satan’s release from the abyss to once again deceive the nations and gather them in war against Christ and his Camp of the Saints

6.  Battle of Revelation 20

7.  Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire

8.  The Great Throne Judgment

9.  New heavens and new earth

*Keep in mind, the battles of Zechariah 14 and Revelation 19:17-21 are one and the same battle.

*Zechariah 14:9-21 and Revelation 20 are one and the same time period.

 

20/20 Vision – Sometimes It Takes Time

Life isn’t always as it seems. Sometimes we must take a step back, and only then will we see what happened “back then” to understand it now.

Todd Beal

I’m Lonely

Where must I go to be accepted, and who must I become to want myself? Maybe others will want me too if, first, I want me more than they do.

Todd Beal

Truth Behind Reality 2013 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 11,000 times in 2013. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 4 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Morals – Absolute versus Relative

Truth Behind Reality readers: the following conversation took place in January 2011.

Within the ensuing conversation, I argue that Truth, and thereby Morality (the human design specification for all humans – past, present, and future), is necessarily both objective and subjective by nature.

My goal in this Truth Behind Reality post is to show that Truth is not only separately objective and subjective but also entirely both, their source and mutual reconciliation – Jesus is Truth. Truth is not merely objective or subjective but instead the living source and reconciliation of both back unto himself.

A Discussion on Prayson Daniel’s blog, “With All That I Am”

Post Title: “Facing the Challenge of Relativism”

Premise

• Prayson Daniel takes the stance of moral absolutist
  
• Brap Gronk takes the stance of moral relativist
  
• Todd Beal takes the stance of moral absolutist
  
• Lance Ponder takes the stance of moral absolutist
  

Introductory statement to Prayson Daniel by Brap Gronk:

“Thus, Homosexuality is wrong, and Homosexuality is not wrong can not be true at the same time and sense.”

I would agree that homosexuality cannot be objectively wrong and also objectively not wrong, but moral relativists don’t claim that so I’m not seeing how moral relativism fails the law of non-contradiction. You have to assume there is objective morality for homosexuality to be either right or wrong. Too bad we never finished our discussion on objective morality.

Introductory question to Brap Gronk by Todd Beal:

Would I be incorrect in saying, moral relativists claim that moral absolutists are wrong in saying absolute right and wrong exists?

Brap Gronk says:

“Would I be incorrect in saying, moral relativists claim that moral absolutists are wrong in saying absolute right and wrong exists?”

Yes, as I have been discussing with Prayson for quite awhile, I believe absolute right and wrong does not exist. (I don’t know for certain if that makes me a moral relativist, since I don’t generally care for labels, but it probably does.)

What does exist is opinions about right and wrong that are almost universally held among non-psychopaths, and similar intuitions about what is right or wrong, neither of which make something absolute or objective.

Todd Beal says:

Brap Gronk, that’s great, but you still didn’t answer my question.

Brap Gronk says:

If we limit “right and wrong” to “moral right and wrong” then I believe it is wrong (meaning incorrect, not morally wrong) to say absolute moral right and wrong exists. If we do not limit “right and wrong” to “moral right and wrong” then I believe it is right to say absolute right and wrong exists, because that includes “correct and incorrect.” Here are some examples of statements that are absolutely right or wrong (correct or incorrect):

– Two plus two equals four.

– Object A has more mass than object B.

– The distance between objects A and B is less than the distance between objects C and D.

– There are two stars in the Milky Way Galaxy that currently are exactly 20,462.54 light-years apart.

Todd Beal says:

Brap, you clearly believe in absolute right and wrong, but only within a physically based measurable context. In other words, if you cannot perceive the absoluteness of moral right and wrong, then it is ultimately incorrect in your point of view. However, your inability to perceive the validity of something only testifies to your inability to perceive that something, and in no way invalidates the existence of that something.

“The ability to perceive is non-existent if something cannot be what it is separate from perceiving it.” – Todd Beal

Truth is not about believing what is most comfortable to believe. Truth is what it is whether we perceive it as such or not. We discover truth, not construct it. If we discover truth then truth does not belong to us. If it does not belong to us then it is not naturally in us. If it is not in us then we are ultimately incorrect in proclaiming this absolute, “Absolute moral right and wrong does not exist”. But if truth is in us, then it is truth that says, “Absolute moral right and wrong exists”, not us.

So, ultimately, the question is not about whether absolute moral right and wrong exists, but whether one absolutely accepts absolute truth.

Brap Gronk says:

Todd wrote: “However, your inability to perceive the validity of something only testifies to your inability to perceive that something, and in no way invalidates the existence of that something.”

Agreed. Nobody’s inability to perceive the validity of unicorns, gravity, the Loch Ness monster, evolution, Bigfoot, a flat earth, or the Big Bang Theory has any bearing on the existence of those things.

“Truth is not about believing what is most comfortable to believe. Truth is what it is whether we perceive it as such or not. We discover truth, not construct it. If we discover truth then truth does not belong to us. If it does not belong to us then it is not naturally in us.”

Agreed.

“If it is not in us then we are ultimately incorrect in proclaiming this absolute, “Absolute moral right and wrong does not exist”. But if truth is in us, then it is truth that says “absolute moral right and wrong exists”, not us.”

Until someone can counter my arguments against the existence of objective morality, I don’t think I’ll be agreeing with those sentences.

“So, ultimately, the question is not about whether absolute moral right and wrong exists, but whether one absolutely accepts absolute truth.”

Sure, I absolutely accept absolute truth. I agree that my beliefs have no bearing on any absolute truths outside of my brain. I accept that not everyone has the same beliefs regarding what is true and what is false, and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

Todd Beal says:

Brap,

Objective morality, no such thing exists. Morality is foremost intrinsic to the integrity of human design, and is secondarily intrinsic to the integrity of each individual’s unique personal design.

At some crucial point, objectivity necessarily becomes subjective. Otherwise, we fall into the age-old trap of human-based religious law. You do what “We” say, regardless of how God designed you. We can hold an “objective” truth out in front of us for a lifetime, but until we subjectively make it our own, according to our unique personal design, that truth is mere concept and consequently delivers no truth. Truth is what it is, but to make it personal, we necessarily make it our own, subjectively.

We westerners have been brainwashed into thinking that subjectivity and objectivity are mortal enemies, that objectivity allows us to see things the way they really are and that subjectivity introduces irreparable personal blindness to reality.

Objectivity allows us to see something out and away from our self, but subjectivity allows us to understand that something in a uniquely personal way. However, truth is what it is and does not depend on our agreement – whether objectively or subjectively – to exist. Truth exists; we simply find it and personally accept it as is, or not at all.

So how do we accept something we don’t initially fully understand? How do we know that what we are accepting is irrefutably true? Understanding morality, both universally and personally, is directly dependant on the same premise as understanding real and unselfish love. One cannot understand an all-consuming marital or parental love before first experiencing it. Yet one cannot experience that selfless love without first opening his or her heart to embody that love. But how do we know that we are opening our heart to something that is truly real, truly authentic, and not a gross facsimile?

Until we know for certain which foods nourish our body, we must rely on our complimentary senses of smell and taste. Once we swallow the food, our body inevitably informs us if we are eating the wrong foods according to our unique body type. However, we can override what our body tells us – and shows us – continually eating only those things that initially taste great to our preconditioned palate, but wish as we might, our body demands certain nutrients specific to its unique personal design. The same goes for truth. Truth always reveals itself as good and nourishing food, but if according to our preconditioned palate we accept only what initially smells good and tastes good, we become malnourished and begin to waste away.

Truth may initially taste bad, as in accidentally drinking a glass of water while expecting a glass of coke. The water isn’t bad; it just tastes bad according to our expectation of good. In the same way, truth isn’t bad; it just tastes bad according to our pre-conditioned expectation of truth. However, once our heart rejoices at finally ingesting real personal truth, we begin to love it, need it, and become willing to die for it, just as we would for our child or spouse.

As much as we each desire to understand truth first and accept it second, we cannot because truth doesn’t work that way. Intellectual thought only points toward or away from truth, but inevitably, only experiencing it provides personal understanding, both objectively and subjectively, according to your unique and personal design. So how do we experience it? We do so only by expecting something other than the incompleteness of what we already expect. Truth will do the rest.

Brap Gronk says:

“Objective morality, no such thing exists.”

So you wouldn’t consider William Lane Craig’s moral argument for the existence of God a very strong argument?

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3) Therefore God exists.

Todd Beal says:

Brap,

When I say objective morality, I mean it as existing strictly external to self as an ideal or concept. This is not to say that conceptually understanding the intrinsic nature of morality is impossible, but rather that by nature, morality does not exist as an ideal or concept. Morality is the human equivalent of the operational design specifications for an automobile engine, robot, bolt torque setting, etc. Unless one adheres to these operational specifications, one will damage or break the object. Morality is simply the operational design specification for human beings.

We were designed with a set of operational specs specific to the human species as a whole, and we are also designed with a set of specs specific to each unique individual. God personally designed the human race, but he also personally designed each individual as unique within that human race. Therefore, the operational design specification (morality) of each individual is unique to that individual but at the same it must harmonize with the overall operational design specification (morality) of the human race.

So yes, we can think about and understand morality objectively, but until we also make it subjective by internalizing that morality and infusing it into our unique personal life, it will at best, always remain within the realm of conjecture and opinion where one person’s version is no better or worse than another’s.

If we don’t understand how something is designed to operate, we inevitably damage it and eventually break it, including our self.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:30 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Hey Lance,

I am participating in an interesting conversation with Brap Gronk on Prayson

Daniel’s blog, “With All I Am”. I would be most grateful to hear your take by email.

Todd

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:05 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: I solicit your thoughts

First of all, I do believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I’m not so sure about gravity.

In one of Brap’s comments he says: and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

The retort I would offer is: why? Why be driven to correct error – be it moral or philosophical or logical (etc)? The answer is natural law. There are moral (good/right and evil/wrong) absolutes and one part of our nature naturally is aware (one might say instinctively?) of this. This is why when we perceive error, particularly outside ourselves, we strive to correct the error. We know good from evil because they exist. Until our conscience is seared away (turned over to a reprobate mind), we will gravitate toward good. Unfortunately we also have a sin-nature which repels against this gravity when our thoughts come into conflict with our desires. This is the flesh/spirit war.

It seems to me the only real conflict is over the word “objective”. Is good/evil or right/wrong (moral context) universal? Of course I’m going to say because that’s how I roll. But to explain why ultimately depends belief in the existence of a morally perfect eternal God. Allowing for moral relativity assuages the guilty soul. All are guilty, so all of us seek excuses. The relativist will not give up his relativistic argument until confronted with Truth he or she is personally unable to deny. Does that mean objective morality does not exist until it is perceived? Of course not, as you’ve already argued quite nicely.

Shall I post these thought to stir the pot, or were you simply doing a little sanity check?

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:29 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Hold off on your comment until I see his response. This guy is different from the others. Something tells me he is truly searching, hence my lengthy and comprehensive reply to his comment. If he responds with a careless and flippant reply, then put the hammer down, but make Jesus proud in doing so.

Thanks Lance,

Todd

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:37 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Lance,

I posted my comment reply to Brap Gronk on Prayson Daniel’s blog, Feb. 4th. He has not responded. What are your thoughts regarding this last comment?

Todd

Lance Ponder says as blog comment:

First of all, I do believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I’m not so sure about gravity.

In one of Brap’s comments he says: and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

The retort I would offer is: why? Why be driven to correct error – be it moral or philosophical or logical (etc)? The answer is natural law. There are moral (good/right and evil/wrong) absolutes and one part of our nature naturally is aware (one might say instinctively?) of this. This is why when we perceive error, particularly outside ourselves, we strive to correct the error. We know good from evil because they exist. Until our conscience is seared away (turned over to a reprobate mind), we will gravitate toward good. Unfortunately we also have a sin-nature which repels against this gravity when our thoughts come into conflict with our desires. This is the flesh/spirit war.

It seems to me the only real conflict is over the word “objective”. Is good/evil or right/wrong (moral context) universal? Of course I’m going to say yes because that’s how I roll. But to explain why ultimately depends on belief in the existence of a morally perfect eternal God. Allowing for moral relativity assuages the guilty soul. All are guilty, so all of us seek excuses. The relativist will not give up his relativistic argument until confronted with Truth he or she is personally unable to deny. Does that mean objective morality does not exist until it is perceived? Of course not, as Todd already argued quite nicely.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:48 AM

Subject: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Okay, that works.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:52 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Thanks. That’s the same answer I replied to your email a couple of days ago, aside from fixing a couple of typos. LOL.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:57 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

I see that. I was wondering what you thought about that particular comment. It’s not a big deal, I just wanted to hear your thoughts.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:15 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Sorry, I guess I’m confused. You mean my thoughts on your last answer to him, or his last answer to you? His was pretty short and you went at some length to respond to him. If the latter then I see what you’re saying. I think objective absolutes remain such regardless of whether or how we internalize (subject) them. But that’s not the point you were making and that’s fine.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 3:24 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

As I told my father, my last comment is the first I have (in my view) successfully explained morality with a practical answer. My question to you: If you were on the receiving end of my comment, would it help you to better understand that morality is not relative, but absolute and simultaneously uniquely personal?

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:17 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Well, since you asked…

I really liked the first, second, and fourth paragraphs. The third paragraph, however, left me having to think a little too hard. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not so sure about the details…

//So yes, we can think about and understand morality objectively, but until we also make it subjective by internalizing that morality and infusing it into our unique personal life, it will at best, always remain within the realm of conjecture and opinion where one person’s version is no better or worse than another’s. //

I don’t much care for the way you said we have to make the objective into the subjective. Like I said, I understand what you’re getting at, but the word choice leaves me cringing because I don’t really think that’s how you want to say it. Objective morality is not in the realm of conjecture and opinion. Not ever. If so it ceases to be objective. Once it is no longer objective it cannot again become objective. Consider the lesson of the leavening. A little does the trick, and once its in there it ain’t coming out. What is in that realm [of conjecture and opinion] is our corrupt, imperfect, and/or incomplete (subjective) understanding. The specs on a machine must define construction, and in this sense it is internalized, but the objective specification remains separate just as the builder of the house remains separate from the house.

It seems to me that perhaps what you’re really trying to get at is purpose and application. Of what use is morality until it is internalized? Perhaps that’s more along the lines of what you meant? Ah…. then…. Purpose goes to justice, and from there we enter another realm. Not so easy to compartmentalize, now is it? LOL.

Have a great morning and be blessed.

Lance

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:50 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Lance,

Truth exists as neither exclusively objective nor subjective but entirely the source of both, with each serving to complete the other, separate in essence yet unified within truth. Truth is alive – he is a person – apart from which the object and subject are not merely separate but entirely nonexistent. Therefore, we understand truth both objectively and subjectively – one in terms of the other – or entirely not at all. If indeed truth is the source and reconciliation of all things, and if indeed truth is within and without all that it reconciles, then “truth” remains in the realm of conjecture and opinion if one does not both objectively and subjectively understand it as truth to the exclusion of what it is not.

If then morality – the operational design specification for the ongoing integrity of human construction – is understandable only as exclusive to objectivity, an external law only unto itself, then it is true only in and of itself and remains impersonal, as personally unknowable. If on the other hand morality is exclusively subjective, a law only unto oneself, then it exists as true only in and of the unique person, remaining impersonal and personally untrue for all others. If however, morality transcends both the objective and subjective – wherein both are unified within truth, the source of everything – then morality is understandable and adhered to only by subjectively internalizing one’s objective understanding of morality, and, simultaneously, objectively externalizing one’s subjective understanding of morality; understanding both in terms of truth, and, necessarily then, each in terms of each other.

So, to address your concern regarding the inability to re-objectify morality once it becomes personally subjective: truth is both in and through everything including itself, both objectively and subjectively, apart from which neither objectivity nor subjectivity exists. Therefore, truth is completely known – including his provision of morality – only when understood objectively, as concept, and subjectively, as incorporated personal essence, and both in terms of each other as reconciled back unto truth.

Lance, I know this is extremely abstract, but this is the bare-bones essence of how I reason through everything. I employ this method only when nothing else will suffice.

Your friend,

Todd

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:11 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Wow. Okay. That makes sense. Now I get it. Thanks for your patience. You’ve given me a new way of seeing all this. Thanks so much. Sorry for being such a scoffer – LOL.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:35 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Thanks for giving an honest listen.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:40 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

You’re welcome. I really enjoy the sensation of my cranium expanding. LOL. Its not easy fitting new ideas into this old skull. ~_*

How Will People Remember Me?

It is not what we do that holds value all by itself, but who we are and how that affects what we do. The spirit in which we do what we do, by this alone others remember us.

Todd Beal

♦

I think sometimes that when talking to someone else, we get so focused on the “what’s in it for me” in the monologue/dialogue – the self-interest factor of the conversation – we forget we are talking to ‘someone else’ who is a person.

Two Kinds of ‘Tongues’: Angelic language (Spiritual) and Human Language (Earthly)

I have never spoken in tongues and so do not present here a predisposed agenda.

It might repulse you, the reader, to even think of receiving the gift of speaking in spiritual tongues, but whether you agree or disagree with Paul’s letters to the Churches – Paul’s Spirit-led outlining of the proper conduct for speaking in spiritual tongues (a Spiritual prayer language, not just God’s gift of speaking other human languages, as what happened at Pentecost) – your personal stance does not change the fact that Paul himself said HE spoke in Spiritual tongues more than any other person within the Church entity under his charge.

Do not confuse your disdain for ‘anything out of the ordinary’ (what you were taught by humans) with what scripture teaches. Scripture teaches, through Paul, the spiritual gift of two types of tongues – two types of linguistic-based Spiritual utterance and understanding: Holy Spirit-compelled linguistic communication with God (where, even as we pray, we do not naturally understand the words we are saying); and the Spiritual gift of speaking and understanding a non-native earthly human language (that is, spontaneously speaking, with no foreknowledge, some other non-learned human language so that others will, in their native tongue, understand God’s truth to them through you/me).

Please Pray for My Friend!

To All Truth Behind Reality Readers:

I ask you to please pray for my close personal friend. This is an urgent ongoing request for those of you who have faith in Jesus Christ. Thank you in advance!

Todd Beal

Gospel-Centered Expectations

by Timmy Brister

Source: timmybrister.com (Gospel-Centered Expectations)

I received this article in my email and wanted to pass it along to all of you. Mr. Brister’s insight here means a lot to me personally. God is more than the very best I could possibly expect. His personal word to us, the Bible, has every thing one could imagine to keep anyone, from any walk of life, personally and spiritually challenged and growing for an entire lifetime. That is the essence of what Mr. Brister explains in his following article:  Gospel-Centered Expectations.

Job 40:6-8 Translation Comparisons

I grew up with the KJV, submitted myself to God in 2004, and bought my first carefully chosen Bible (ESV) in 2007. I often joke that there is more ‘black’ in that Bible from my personal notes than there is ink from the publishers. I literally devoured that Bible.

In 2011, I heard my pastor reading from a translation that was unfamiliar to me. I looked up the wording on Biblos.com’s parallel Bible and discovered she was using the NASB. After doing a ton of research and comparing passage after passage with the ESV, I bought the NASB Study Bible. Hands down, it is my translation of choice – overall. I say ‘overall’ because, for the majority of the time, it most accurately reproduces the underlying intended meaning of the original Biblical language. But for those rare instances in which the NASB fails to reveal the full naked meaning I seek other translations to fill in the gap.

A good example of when I turn to other translations:  I love the Book of Job, and my favorite part is chapter 40 to book-end because it holds tremendous personal meaning for me. The NASB fails to capture the personal/spiritual significance of the original, idiomatic cultural meaning of the phrase, ‘gird up your loins’ (Job 40:6-8). The idiomatic cultural meaning of the phrase ‘Gird up your loins’ means ‘Put your big boy pants on’, and in this particular case the ESV simply nails the translation with ‘Dress for action like a man’.

I compared Job 40:6-8 between the translations Gary Zimmerli mentioned in his most excellent post, “The NKJV and the ESV”, and then highlighted each key phrase with a different color to show how it uniquely differs from translation to translation.

Thank you, Gary, for giving an honest look at this translation topic, perfectly marrying your subjective take with true objectivity – a most rare find these days.

My translation of choice by highlight color:

Yellow:  ESV

Green:   NASB

Purple:  NASB; NKJV

Grey:     NONE:  I think the better translation/interpretation would be, “Will you condemn me to justify yourself as righteous”.

 

 

ESV:  Job 40:6-8

The LORD Challenges Job

6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

7 “Dress for action^a like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
8 Will you even put me in the wrong?
Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?

 

NASB:  Job 40:6-8

God Questions Job

6 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,

7 “Now gird up your loins like a man;
         I will ask you, and you instruct Me.

8 “Will you really annul My judgment?
         Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?

 

NKJV:  Job 40: 6-8

6 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 7 “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me: 8 “Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?

 

NIV 1984: Job 40: 6-8

6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;

I will question you,

and you shall answer me.

8 “Would you discredit my justice?

Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

Elizabeth’s Quest for Truth

My constant mission for Truth Behind Reality is to deep dive behind what we normally accept as reality.

Most of us too readily accept the people and events in our lives at face value. We are satisfied with skimming the surface without ever going deeper than our presumptuous conclusions. Sure, we may dive deep into someone or something, but we do so based only on our initial presumption that what we want to believe is true and everything else is false. That makes us closed-minded. Something is either true or not true whether we believe it or not, even if we believe it with our whole heart.

This past week I have had the privilege of talking to Elizabeth Carter here on Truth Behind Reality. She is a 71 year old lady whose lifelong passion for discovering and understanding truth – not presumptiously but authentically and deeply – is unusually similar to what I have described in My Story.

Please read her story below (originally a comment on the Truth Behind Reality post, “Does Truth Exist?”).

Thank you Elizabeth.

Todd Beal

Elizabeth’s Quest for Truth

I have dedicated my life to seeking truth. I have no idea why it has been the most important thing in my life, all of my life. I often seemed to be the only person I knew who actually believed there was such a thing as absolute truth and made the effort to find it.

The search was as important to me as breathing. It was not something I decided to do. It was something I had to do. Actually it has been more important to me than breathing, because when I find some truth, I am willing to die for it rather than compromise such a pearl of great price.

My life has been spent on the quest and I am 71 now. It has been a frustrating and richly rewarding journey. I would not have missed it for this world; I have found a better world.

When I was very young and started the search, I started in church. The churches compromised the truth and I could not understand how a group of people who claimed to believe in Christ did not believe what the Bible said about Him. They did not believe in miracles. They were very “educated and scientific” in the 1950’s and looked for rational and scientific means to explain away the miracles. By the time I was 19, I knew for certain that they did not believe what they were professing to believe and I looked elsewhere.

I would find something that seemed good and true, but as I studied it and considered it I would find deep flaws. The New Age is all about Magick and Miracles but no one tries to explain them away. As long as God and the Bible are omitted, it seems a person can believe anything without repercussion. Absolute Truth stands the test; it does not fall apart on closer inspection.

Words [in the New Age teachings] were deliberately changed and used to confuse us. God was not the God of the Bible, but whoever they decided God was. They believe that man is God and man creates God in his own image. I spent a lot of my study time finding out how they were defining words that seemed familiar but had entirely different meanings than I had supposed. I have read thousands of books in my search.

After many years of searching I came back to the Bible, the One Book that matters, and found that I saw Scripture very differently at 50. I told God that I would read the Bible and accept it as true; if I did not understand it, then I would assume it was my immaturity and not His need to do things my way. It changed my life. He began to show me things in Scripture that I had never been able to understand before. It is a very supernatural book. I know now that miracles really do happen and I am willing to admit that the fact that I cannot explain how God does things does not make God unable to do them. I just have more to learn and further to go on my journey. I enjoy the journey now.

The most difficult part was realizing how much we have been lied to and how often and by so many. We have been born into a world filled with lies, taught them in our homes, schools, churches and governments and coerced into agreeing with them if we want to succeed at high levels. I was horrified. I literally felt sickened and disgusted by what I discovered. For a while, I thought it might destroy me because everything in my belief system was being taken apart and found to be based on these lies. I was overwhelmed.

I held on to Scripture and learned to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me through it all. Truth would replace the lie as each was discovered. Fear receded as love and life flowed into me.

After many years of delving into this, I can deal with it better now. We really do live in a fallen world and I accept it now instead of thinking that evil could not exist; I know it can and does exist. The Bible says how evil this world is and I finally had to accept the fact that God knows what He is talking about.

Learning the truth and standing up for truth is a demanding quest and has been the best possible use of my life. I happily anticipate my future and love to see what He has planned for me today and forever.

– Elizabeth Carter

I Wish I Could Change My Past

You cannot fix your past. Yesterday will never change! Only you can change, and along with you, so does your future.

Todd Beal

Live Without Regret

Tomorrow is not today, today is not yesterday. So why think this moment the same as your next, as if it cannot change? We do, because our days are interconnected. Make the most of them – live life without regrets, so long as you Live Life to avoid them.

Learn, Change, Live.

Todd Beal

Hyper-Regulation

Wherever truth is regulated, wherever truth is denied full uncensored access, whenever ‘the select few’ hijack truth to purport a singular ideology as “The New Truth”, you can rest assured their agenda is to limit your access to truth itself.

Todd Beal

My Grandma Kirkingburg Died Tonight

I have some great news. My grandma Kirkingburg, born February 04, 1925, went home tonight, May 09, 2012, at 11:16 PM. She is with Jesus now, along with her mother, her two babies that died as infants, Paul the apostle, King David, Moses and Joshua; oh man, what a time she is having. Yes, we are sad because we will miss her until our great reunion, but I feel like jumping straight out of this chair and praising God for staying true to his promise, “I will never leave you or forsake you.” Jesus took Grandma home! I am so thankful for that.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, Grandpa and Grandma served as missionaries to the Turks and Caicos Islands. In fact, Grandma wrote a book about the whole experience, called “Seeing the Need”.

One thing that stands out to me in her book is that she overcame her crippling fear of flying to serve the island people. A single engine plane was Grandpa and Grandma’s only vehicle to and from the islands. They had a concrete cistern for collecting rain water, which they used for showers, cooking, and drinking; they had no electricity and no generator; and received a poverty-level income.

Grandma was a prayer warrior. For Grandma’s entire adult life, she has prayed daily, by name, for each member of her family: Grandpa (her husband), her brother, her sons and daughter (including her adopted daughter from the islands), her grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren. She has read the Bible, cover to cover, more than sixty times and has filled up several Bibles with her personal study notes; some of which she has given to her family. She told me, “Todd, I promised the LORD I would read the Bible all the way through, each year, for the rest of my life. I kept my promise.” God saved her at Salvation Camp, Hillsdale County, MI, in her early twenties and she stayed true ever since. She told me that during that service, the evangelist was preaching on rebellion and she felt he was speaking directly to her. She immediately asked Jesus into her heart and never turned back.

Mom told me she will miss Grandma’s prayers the most. When Grandma was in the hospital on Easter Sunday, I was privileged to once again hear her pray. It was the last time I saw her, and it is comforting for me to remember that voice: Grandma, speaking with her personal Saviour. Just before she died, my grandfather knelt down beside his ‘darling pudding pie’ (that’s what he calls her) and earnestly prayed while holding her hand. He told God that she was a good wife and a good mother. He deeply loves her. I love to hear my Grandpa pray – it moves me.

I do not say this lightly: if ever there was a Christian to emulate, it is Grandma, and I am so thankful to receive that rare spiritual heritage. What an honor to know her. And now, she is praising God, fully transformed and shining like the sun in our Saviour’s AWESOME presence. She is home, at last!

Til I see you again, Grandma, I love you.

God is so good!

Todd

Why Do I Hate God?

We hate; therefore we hate God.

Todd Beal

♦

But we won’t accept this about our self. We try to remake God in our own image, giving him the same broken attributes we call ‘being human’. We are conniving, so we think God is ‘out to get us’.

God – The Source of Equality

God is a God of both order and freedom. Can both be equally true in one being? They can, and are, because in him all things are equal – equally balanced, equally separated, equally joined. God is complete.