Category: objective truth

Sorry, Chase! (Part 3)

Gary Pollard

At long last, we’re going to look at the five pillars — the main observations of Hughes in his video The ancients decoded reality. In case this is the first article you’re reading in the series, a brief explanation is in order. This content creator clearly spent a great deal of time and effort in studying all of these ancient texts and looking for similarities between them (over 180 sources spanning multiple cultures, epochs, languages, and religions). Most of his observations are excellent and intellectually stimulating! Some of his conclusions, where Christianity is concerned at least, are erroneous. Because (reference the first article) he posits cross-compatibility between all religions, this would make Christianity just another in an ocean of faiths. Jesus, in this framework, would be just another wise man, no different from Siddhartha Gautama or Lao Tze or Solon. The problem, from a Christian’s perspective, is that this denies Jesus’s status as God-man. No message is from God if it doesn’t acknowledge Jesus as coming from God. It comes from the enemies of Christ, the ones you heard were coming and are in the world right now (I Jn 4.1-3). 

I don’t for a second believe that Mr. Hughes is intentionally leading the Christians in his audience away from truth. He seems to be wholly genuine and has provided helpful (even life-changing) material for millions of people. But if the foundation isn’t solid, the message will be flawed. Whether with intent or as a result of ignorance, the potential for damage to a Christian’s faith is the same. Ironically, he quotes a passage from I John in the video in the same short chapter as the verse quoted above. 

Anyway, the first main observation is this: “You are not separate. You never were, you never could be.” He cites: 

  1. Upanishads: “You are that” (not connected to it, not loved by it, you are the thing itself.  Jesus said, “The entire kingdom of God is within you, not in a building or a book, in you”)
  2. Sufi texts: “You are not a drop in the ocean, you are the entire ocean in a drop.” 
  3. Hermetic texts: “All is one” 
  4. Taoism: “Everything is the Dao, expressing itself in ten thousand forms” 
  5. Popul Vuh: “Heart of sky, heart of earth” 
  6. Buddhism: “There is no separate self” 
  7. Kabbala: “Creation is one emanation divided only in appearance” 

On the face of things, this argument is not a bad one — and it certainly contains elements of truth. Jesus very often quoted from the ancient texts of the Jews, and used the ίερα γράμματα to establish eternal principles. Yes, the kingdom of God isn’t in any building or exclusively contained within any book. But his kingdom is also not comprised of all people allowing reality to experience itself through their eyes. Multiple times in the gospels he clearly taught that some will inherit that kingdom, and some will not. He told one teacher of the law, “You are close to God’s kingdom” (Mk 12.34). 

According to Mt 3.2 and 4.17, personal changes have to be made to be accepted in God’s kingdom. 

In Mt 5.3, that kingdom belongs to certain people (poor in spirit, persecuted because of faith). 

In 5.20, anyone who isn’t morally better than the Pharisees is barred from God’s kingdom. 

In 7.21, not everyone who claims to serve him will enter the kingdom. 

Multiple times, he says that God’s kingdom is “almost here” (3.2, 4.17, 10.7), and instructed his followers to pray that God’s kingdom would come (6.10, 33). If it existed exclusively within them (and/or within all people), how would some be excluded and some not? Why pray for and anticipate its arrival if it was already within them? We know it was something tangible because he said, “Some of you will still be alive when they see the Son of Man come with his kingdom” (Mt 16.28). 

God’s kingdom ≠ The Universe expressing itself in ten thousand forms. It is the new, someday-perfected, ideal form of personal and cultural identity. This is an identity that won’t be realized fully until Jesus returns (and is today made up of his followers). It transcends national borders, cultures, languages, and any other barrier that historically has prevented people separated by these things from playing nice with each other. It’s a return to the relationship we had with each other and with him before humanity fell. 

Besides this (critical!) aspect, the rest is good general advice — isolation is not fundamentally real, obsession with self leads to unethical behavior, etc. We are not, however, one field of consciousness expressing itself through billions of different viewpoints. The extreme emphasis in the New Testament on others-above-self calls for more concrete distinction between individuals than this worldview allows. We are truly, though, one. Not by our very nature, but because Jesus made it possible for everyone to be unified through his name, by his power. This means that there are, unfortunately, people who will not be one with him. Our hope is that by doing for others what we want them to do for us, we can lead them to the Source who is Truth and who will unify all of creation in himself when earth’s number is up. 

Sorry, Chase

Gary Pollard

This week’s article is an introductory one, maybe the first of two or three. About a week ago, Chase Hughes (a popular YouTuber) posted a video that already has almost 2,000,000 views (The ancients decoded reality). He makes a lot of good points and is, understandably, skeptical of the mainstream historical narrative. But he makes some leaps that I think need to be addressed, since the topics he covers are becoming more and more accepted. In many ways this is awesome! The mainstream view of history is one of linear progression: primitive people become more advanced over time, and no ancient civilization was truly advanced in any way (despite all of the insanely precise megalithic structures, the math and astronomy encoded in them, and the sheer logistical impossibility of their construction). Anyway, this linear-evolution view of history is full of holes, and most people interested in the mysteries of our past have rejected it. 

What fills the vacuum? If a person’s ability to spit out the bones is tuned properly, there’s some excellent modern material out there: West, Hancock, Seyfzadeh, Velikovsky, de Santillana, de Lubicz, and many other heretics like them. What’s missing from this topic is a balanced Christian viewpoint that isn’t married to the mainstream historical (or even a traditionalist religious) narrative. That vacuum is filled by universalists, pantheists, self-professed pagans, and others who are hostile to Christianity (or who feel that it is just one of many paths to God). Even the eminent Graham Hancock once said on JRE (NP: Joe Rogan Experience), “I have little patience for the mainstream monotheistic religions…so much of the evil in this world came from them.” 

People are tired of a materialistic worldview, of capitalism-gone-wrong, of narrow-minded dogmatism, and, most of all, censoring or classifying the mysterious. There is so much potential here for good! People are searching for existential meaning and genuine truth. We need to produce some open-minded, grounded, honest alternative historians to bring balance to the decidedly-pagan framework dominating the conversation. 

Back to Chase Hughes’ video: his premise is that all ancients made observations about the nature of reality at the most fundamental level. These observations were filtered through the woefully inadequate lens of human language, so symbolism was employed. In the 190+ ancient writings he surveyed (Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Gnostic, Egyptian, Mayan, Hermetic, Confucian, Sumerian, and Indigenous), he noticed significant overlap in their major themes. This despite them being “thousands of miles apart…with no way to communicate or influence each other…all whispering the same message” (01:35). 

Many of his observations are spot-on! I’ve seen the overlaps and similarities with my own eyes, especially in Egyptian and Sumerian and Jewish literature. The problems, which we will address in greater detail in a future article, come from his conclusions. A .22LR bullet has almost exactly the same base diameter as .223 Remington, but that similarity doesn’t make them compatible in the other’s platform. They’re both excellent varmint rounds. They’re both extremely popular and widely used. They’re both inexpensive. They’re both “.22” rounds — but they aren’t the same thing. Essentially, as we’ll hopefully see in a future article, Mr. Hughes sees the same level of Truth in all world religions because of the many similarities in their observations. Those similarities are absolutely there! His research is valuable for that reason, don’t misread me. But to conclude that one is just as true as another is like saying you can run a .223 Remington in your factory Ruger 10/22. It’s the differences between them that matter, and the same principle is relevant to this discussion. God-willing, we will use the structure and premises of Mr. Hughes’ video to address the topic as a whole and hopefully bring a balanced, Christian perspective to Truth and our pursuit of God. 

What Is Truth?

Gary Pollard

Introductory Explanation:

[This is an excerpt from some research I’m doing on first principles. A dangerous, neatly-organized method of destroying faith has developed in recent years, and I’m trying to wrap my tiny brain around it. The conclusion I’ve come to is that addressing each and every issue would take years, but that each one could be satisfied with a return to first principles. This section addresses the notion that truth is fluid and subject to the influence of time, language, and culture, and that no reliable, universal constants exist.] 

In Platonic thought, there is a concept known as Forms. These are things that exist outside of our physical perception but are universally accepted as Real. For example, no one has ever seen a “perfect” circle or a perfectly straight line. But we all recognize a circle or a straight line when we see one. 

There are universal constants. These are easily observed in the growth spirals of a Nautilus shell, which expresses mathematical constants like Fibonacci Numbers or Φ. We use these (and countless other reliable constants) every day to properly orient ourselves in our environment. Everything must have some kind of reference point to give it definition and meaning. Every zero has a one as its counterpart. Night has day. Life has death. Love has hate. Violence has peace. Happiness has grief. Sickness has health. 

If meaning were not fixed in language and narrative, how could civilization flourish? How would we, on an individual level, communicate with each other? How would such a thing as definable culture — which is in part the natural outgrowth of a collection of common narratives expressed as stories — even exist? What would be the purpose of linguistics? How is it that we are able to communicate with people who speak another language if the words of their language do not correspond in an adequately analogous fashion to the words of our own language? It would not be possible if meaning could not be fixed in language. 

So, some kind of objective, universal standard must exist, because order exists. This order keeps chaos at bay, as much as we are able to in this world. Chaos — like warfare, crime, civil unrest, disease — certainly exists, but we use objective standards to bring order from this chaos. These standards place boundaries around chaos, defines the undefined, and creates a narrative of propriety that allows billions of people with differing immediate contexts to somewhat peacefully coexist on the same planet. There is war and there always has been — but we are still here. Every functional civilization has laws that keep chaos at bay, which are nearly universally followed, and the breach of which introduces a chaos that is usually self-corrected by its culture or legal system. 

This is the primary first principle issue which we should adopt — there are universal constants that remain unchanged by time, language, or culture. The question every human must answer for themselves is, “Which system is most effective at keeping chaos in check?”

“Speak Your Truth”?

Monday’s Column: Neal At The Cross

pollard

Neal Pollard

“Speaking your truth means that you stay true to who you are, whether it’s your feelings, opinions, or morals. Don’t hide what you feel for the sake of someone else’s approval of you, it shouldn’t work that way (sic). Rather, you should stay true to your own opinion and voices, no matter what anyone else may think. While it’s easier said than done, you won’t ever regret speaking your truth” (source). Look at website after blog post, philosopher after supposed pundit, and you get further definitions of what people mean to convey by the phrase, “Speak your truth.” How did the phrase originate? 

Huffington Post credits Oprah Winfrey in a speech at The Golden Globes in 2018. She advocated creating positive change by “speaking your truth.” The article’s writer, Claire Fallon, seemed shocked and aghast at backlash to the phrase. Like Byron Tau of The Wall Street Journal, who tweeted, “Oprah employed a phrase that I’ve noticed a lot of other celebrity (sic) using these days: ‘your truth’ instead of ‘the truth.’ Why that phrasing? ‘Your truth’ undermines the idea of a shared set of common facts'” (1/8/18). She quoted Joseph A. Wulfsohn, who objected, “When we rely on ‘our truths,’ we get to choose what to believe.” Fallon defended the phrase as an exhortation for the less powerful to find their own voices and credited a 1927 poem as the genesis of the phrase, in a Max Ehrmann poem entitled “Desiderata” (source). 

So while there can be great merit and value to one respecting the feelings and opinions of others or advocating for those without power, there is inherent danger in the very idea of individual, subjective truth. In her excellent book, Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey quotes Udo Middelmann, who said we learn about objective truth from the time we are born. She then writes, “When a baby crawls to the edge of the crib and bumps his head against the wooden bars, he learns in a painful way that reality is objective. When a toddler tilts his high chair back until it falls to the floor, he learns that there is an objective structure to the universe. Reality does not bend itself to our subjective desires–a lesson that can be painful to learn even for adults. Thus we can confidently reject any philosophical position that leads to subjectivism. Why? Because it fails to account for what ordinary experience teaches us day by day. It is in tension with the data of experience” (395). 

Our calling is much higher than being true to self, following our own feelings, opinions, and morals. So much can distort and deform these things–selfishness, fleshly desires, improper and immoral guides and guidance, etc. (cf. Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19). Truth is transcendent (existing apart from and not subject to the material universe) and immutable (unchanging over time or unable to be changed). 

  • It can be practiced (John 3:21)
  • It can be known and it emancipates (John 8:32)
  • It is exclusive (John 14:6)
  • It is something we can be guided into, and it is exhaustive (John 16:13)

Men try to suppress it (Rom. 1:18), exchange it for a lie (Rom. 1:25), and disobey it (Rom. 2:8). But, philosophy defeats the idea of subjective truth (“your truth” and “my truth”) and Scripture makes clear that there is only one truth. You don’t have your truth and neither do I. God reveals the truth to us, and He holds us accountable to follow it.