The empty self and loss of thinking

What psychologists call ‘the empty self’ continues to emerge in epidemic proportions in western societies. The empty self is constituted by a set of values and behavioural patterns that eliminates the life of the mind and makes maturation almost impossible. I think most people would agree that adolescent personality traits are staying with people longer today than in earlier generations. In some cases, well into the thirties and forties. The empty self is controlled by infantile cravings and constantly seeks to be filled up and made whole by food, entertainment and consumer goods. Such a person is often materialistic, preoccupied with sex, physical appearance and body image. Hard work, delayed gratification, endurance and sacrifice are all enemies. For the empty self, pleasure is all that matters and it had better be available at the press of a button! Television has a lot to do with this (and I do not think this is one of those cases where someone mindlessly uses the media or the American government as a scapegoat). Studies indicate that widespread television viewing induces mental passivity, retards motivation, negatively affects reading skills, weakens the ability to stay focused and encourages an overall passive withdrawal from life. This has lead to a loss of thinking in the wider society. People do not persuade others of their views (religious or otherwise) on the basis of argument and reason, but rather, by expressing emotional rhetoric and politically correct words. Reason has given way to rhetoric, evidence to emotion and substance to slogan. Now granted, we don’t all have to read to the point of Paul of whom it was said, “As he continued to make his defense, Festus shouted, “You’re out of your mind, Paul! Too much education is driving you crazy!” (Acts 26:24). But remember this, you will be the same person you are five years from now, save two things – the books you read and the people you meet. Let’s grab a book more often instead of that remote…shall we?

Jesus’ teaching and Islam

In his essay Jesus in Islam, Principal of the Muslim College in London, Zaki Badwi begins, “Muslims do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God.” He goes on, “The Qur’an argues, however, that having no father is not proof of divinity – in the case of Jesus – any more than having no parents at all is evidence of Adam’s divinity. The rigorous monotheism enshrined within Islam has no place whatever for any Trinitarian doctrine.” But listen to Jesus teaching Nicodemus in (John 3:16-18), “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” It says, “only begotten Son” for a very important reason. When you beget, you make something of the same kind as yourself. Humans beget humans. Birds beget birds. What God begets is God. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. God created Adam, so of course Adam has no divine nature. Jesus was not created but begotten of God and therefore is divine in nature. Muslims say they regard Jesus as ‘a great teacher and one of the prophets’. But Jesus taught, “You must be born again”. How can you regard someone as a great teacher and not accept the most important thing in their teaching? Just a question.

After the recent bombings in London, most people will understandably have questions about Islam on their minds. The best thing I can do is to point interested persons to the online Christian/Muslim dialogue, Answering Islam. This article is particularly interesting. Persons can decide for themselves.

Same-sex marriage and liberalism

Western states seem to be under assault from the supporters of same-sex “marriage”. This assault though has to do with much more than “a piece of paper”. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby writes, “They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else.” Same-sex “marriage” is a radical attempt to bully Western states into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature and socially destructive.

Ironically, many Western liberal states now seem to be pinned in by their own logic. The champions of “tolerance” and “human rights”, are not so sure about this issue. Edward Skidelsky in the January 2002 issue of the British left-liberal magazine Prospect, painted a pretty grim picture concerning modern liberalism. He wrote, “Classical liberalism, as exemplified by Tocqueville, Mill and Isaiah Berlin, was discursive and philosophical. It tried to engage its opponents, to appeal to their reason and humanity. It could afford the luxury of argument, because it rested securely on an idea of human nature as benevolent and reasonable. Modern liberalism does not rest on any such conception. What is left is a set of legal claims, advanced in peremptory fashion, with no appeal to common reason. In the absence of any positive ideal to support it, the liberal proclamation of individual freedom looks increasingly like a mere license to selfishness.”

Modern liberalism, having severed itself from its Christian roots, is now up the proverbial creek, without a paddle. With non-Christian minorities living within their borders, Western states will now find it increasingly difficult to return to the Christian confession. At least without remaining true to their “liberal” and “tolerant” doctrine. Skidelsky follows this logic, “It [liberalism] must sever itself from its historic roots in Christianity, yet in doing so it severs itself from the source of its own life. Liberalism must follow a course that leads directly to its own atrophy. It must extirpate itself.”

Upon reflection, the same-sex “marriage” debate might actually be a blessing in disguise. It was said once that you should never argue with a fool, for they will first drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Let the liberal “marriage radicals” follow their logic to its bitter end. If we ask, “What will they think of next?” The answer is probably, “If it is ok to marry individuals of the same sex, why not animals…who is to say sex and maybe even a union between the species is wrong?”. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. With the underlying naturalistic assumption being, we Homo Sapiens are just animals; people are already arguing for the acceptance of sex between species. If you disagree with them, you are accused of speciesism; which they consider to be in the same category as racism and sexism. Maybe only when we reach that stage, will we at last realize that the teaching of Genesis about humanity is as realistic and sensible as it always has been. Only time will tell I suppose.

The inherent flaw in dualism

Dualism is a belief in two supreme gods or powers, both existing independently and ad infinitum, which are in opposition to each other. Depending on the specific dualistic philosophy these two powers are called different things, for example, “Anabolic/Catabolic”, as one writer put it. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis when he said, “Next to Christianity, Dualism is probably the most sensible and manliest creed on the market”. Christianity goes closer to Dualism than most people think. The New Testament often talks about a dark power in the universe who is behind death, disease and sin. The difference is, that Christianity thinks this dark power was created by God. It was originally created good, but rebelled and turned evil. Christianity agrees with Dualism that the universe is at war. But we do not think it is a war between two independent powers. It is more of a civil war, a rebellion. Dualism is sensible to a point, but there is a catch. To be effective, this dark power or force, must still have attributes which are good. Therefore, the question arises, “From whence did this dark power get these good attributes?” The powers which enable evil to carry on, are powers borrowed or stolen from his opponent. This is why Christians believe the devil is a fallen angel. This is not merely a childish fable. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. Everything which enables a bad man to be really good at being bad, are in themselves good things – intelligence, free will, good looks, charm and so on. Therefore, this dark power could not have existed ad infinitum independent of God. That is why no dualistic philosophy makes sense. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasoning faculties and leads us to a knowledge of God; confirming our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful. While pleasing men’s fancies, it hinders their faith. The Lord reminds you, we are all “sheep” in a sense. The wise ones, choose the care of the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).