Tag: philosophy

ALTERNATIVES

Gary Pollard

I love ancient history. The events of the New Testament were the most important in all of history, so I do not mean to cheapen their significance in any way. The period of time that interests me the most is from roughly ancient Egypt’s Middle Kingdom and before (all of the world, too, not just Egypt). A lot of writers have many and varying opinions about these eras, but I’ve come to the conclusion that we simply know very, very little about the life and times of the ancient world. The further back we go, the more interesting it gets. This is probably because mystery is fascinating! 

When it comes to the Antediluvian period (a catch-all term for anything that happened prior to the first destruction of the previous age), it’s most fascinating of all. It seems to me there are four main camps of interpretation concerning deep antiquity: 

  1. The Mainstream
  2. The Alternative (West, Hancock, etc.)
  3. The Really Alternative (Talbot, Cochrane, Velikovsky, etc.)
  4. The Weird Alternative (ancient alien crowd)

One does not have to buy their theories hook, line, and sinker to gain some kind of value from each major camp (well, except for that last one). I know faithful, devout Christians who find themselves more or less in at least one of these camps. I’ve read as much of the first three camps’ work as I could get my hands on over the last several years — and the primary sources they base their work on. I’m fallible and subject to bias in ways I may well be blind to, so this is a subjective judgment: none of them can conclusively prove their assertions. 

So I’ll give you my opinion in a few sentences — and I can’t stress enough that opinion is all it is. No one asked for it, and it isn’t worth much. But I can see the writing on the wall, and know that the mainstream’s days are numbered, and that vacuum will be filled by one of the other three major alternatives. 

Mainstream

To be transparent, this is my least favorite category. At least the ancient alien types, as far-fetched as their ideas are, are intellectually honest about what remains unknown or inadequately accounted for. The mainstream camp posits a linear model of civilization’s development, is rigidly uniformitarian (and openly hostile to the possibility of global cataclysms in recent millennia), and resorts to censorship and dirty tricks when it comes to their opponents. I have no love for gatekeepers or bullies. Despite the glaring mysteries surrounding ancient architecture and some ancient writings, the mainstream camp presents themselves as having figured it all out, with just some tweaks and a couple extra archaeological finds needed to wrap it all up with a bow. One can achieve machine-age precision in megalithic architecture with sand, trying hard, and dolerite pounding stones, apparently. Since the views of the mainstream are readily available and monopolize educational materials, I have merely highlighted two or three of the major flaws in this model. 

Alternative

Since the 1980s or so, this camp has been most influenced by John Anthony West, Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, and other writers like them. This camp believes that a great, technologically advanced civilization lived before and during the last ice age (dated in their materials to about 12,000 years ago), and was brought to the brink of extinction after a catastrophe (probably a comet or meteor in their view) reset and remodeled the earth. This is an oversimplification of their views, but is generally correct. They believe that our cultural memory of a Golden Age, the great megalithic architecture that defies explanation, and global cataclysm myths come from the survivors of this Golden Age and cataclysm. To the hunter-gatherers who also survived the cataclysm (usually referred to as the Younger Dryas catastrophe), these people were remembered as “sages” who gave them the marks of civilization (agriculture, architecture, laws, language, etc.) in exchange for food and other survival necessities. 

For dating, they often point to prominent constructions that appear to be aligned to certain constellations, but only as they would have appeared in the time they posit. Precession of the equinoxes plays a major role in this view. All of these writers use Hamlet’s Mill (de Santillana and von Deschend) as their starting point, especially where archaeoastronomy is concerned. It seems to be from this one prior that all subsequent theories come. 

So here are the problems: these researchers reject uniformitarianism in favor of catastrophism (while still seemingly accepting an evolutionary model), but still assume that a) the earth has maintained its current inclination (minus obliquity modification) for all of human history, b) that dating methods, which rely on uniformitarian assumptions, are mostly reliable, c) that the rate of precession has never deviated in any meaningful way, d) that archetypal figures were exclusively human, despite their profound astronomical or celestial tone, e) that monotheism was a much later development, and a few others we don’t have the space for. 

This camp does a very good job of highlighting the holes in mainstream dogmatism, but don’t necessarily shrug off all of the baggage of modern scientific dogma. They have contributed greatly to archaeological work outside the mainstream and are totally opposed to the practice of classifying or covering up finds. But I do not find their theories convincing. 

Really Alternative

This one is too complicated to adequately summarize, but I will do my best. Most of these writers got their inspiration from Immanuel Velikovsky, whose work likely needs no introduction. The field as it exists today pays homage to Velikovsky, but does not accept his theory. The field is one part plasma physics to one part comparative mythology. Most seem to agree with David Talbot’s theory as put forward in The Saturn Myth and in Thunderbolts of the Gods. So as to not misrepresent their work, I’ll give a stratospheric overview: 

The present solar system arrangement is not the same one our ancient predecessors saw. They point to archetypes in all ancient mythologies, ancient rock art, and even major holes in modern gravity-dominant/General Relativity cosmologies (which they replace with a complete, alternative cosmology known as Plasma Cosmology or EU). Their work is difficult to get through for someone like me, but is certainly compelling in many points. I will say, as subjective as this is, that some of their points resolved a couple of nagging questions I’ve had for some years, which no one else seemed to be asking. Beyond this, I cannot go into further detail without misrepresenting their views. Some of their major premises are so different from what we’ve always been taught that I find them very difficult to accept. My official view is to file the relevant data away and consider it possible-but-radical. 

So if you aren’t familiar with their work, you’ll have to trust me when I point out the major problem: God is nowhere in their theories. Many of them are scientists and secular mythologists, so they seem to universally reject a Sovereign. This is ironic, considering their cosmology fits, in my opinion, more perfectly with scripture and descriptions of God than any other cosmology today. But they attempt to explain away all of the supernatural events in the Bible (and in other writings considered sacred by the peoples who read them) as merely extreme celestial phenomena. As far as I know, none of them has attempted to account for consciousness, and they — despite rejecting gradualism — still speak of cosmic timescales in terms of billions of years. I’m not opposed to an older earth or universe (and I don’t agree with Bishop Usher’s view that creation took place in 4004 BC at 9:00 in the morning, either), but have yet to see evidence not based on assumptions to support it. The typical arguments against this group are irrelevant to this discussion because those are based on an a priori fealty to the standard model. 

Conclusion

We don’t know for certain what exactly happened in the ancient world. Neither the Standard Model nor any of the alternative theories have a monopoly on truth. My approach has been to read as much as I can, and not outright reject anything unless it is wholly incompatible with what the Bible has revealed about God. At this point, I find so little value in the mainstream models of history and cosmology that I use them exclusively for reference or to steel man something else I’m researching. No model that allows for gatekeeping or concealing discoveries is worth anything. 

So we should read as much as we can, always using the text of scripture (not peoples’ opinions about the text, but the text itself) as a standard. Be open to everything, but very slow to fully accept anything. This may be useful to remember when the Standard Models collapse, and that vacuum is filled with one of these alternatives. No one has a monopoly on the truth, except the Father — and Christ himself is Truth. When we see him just as he is, and when what is seen only partially is revealed, we will finally Know. 

Seneca’s Search

Gary Pollard

The following passage was written by Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 4 BC — AD 65) in Book I of Naturales quaestiones. There’s a decent chance that he was born the same year as Jesus of Nazareth. These seven books are certainly an interesting read, but I found his Preface to Book I especially fascinating. Reading this brings to mind, “God wanted people to look for him, and perhaps in searching all around for him, they would find him. But he is not far from any of us” (Acts 17.27). And, “There are things about God that people cannot see — his eternal power and all that makes him God. But since the beginning of the world, those things have been easy for people to understand. They are made clear in what God has made. So people have no excuse for the evil they do” (Rom 1.20). Seneca (and many of his predecessors, contemporaries, and spiritual descendants) looked for meaning and goodness in that aspect of reality that cannot be seen. Christ did come “at just the right time”! We’re reading an excerpt from a pagan historian and naturalist today because it gives valuable insight into aspects of the culture, worldviews, and concepts of the transcendent (as well as a refined understanding of words and concepts used in the first century) held by many when Christ and his followers operated on earth. 

Lucilius, my much esteemed friend — While a great gulf separates philosophy from the other learned arts, there is to my mind an equally wide gulf in philosophy itself between the portion which relates to human conduct and that which deals with the nature and the power of heaven. The latter is more exalted and more speculative, it allows itself wide liberty. It is not satisfied with mere observation, it surmises that there is a greater and fairer realm placed by nature beyond human sight. Between these two divisions of philosophy, in short, there is as wide a gulf as between their subjects, God and man. 

The one teaches us what should be done on earth; the other, what is done in heaven. The one dispels our errors and flashes a light by which to thread the mazes of life; the other far transcends this gloom in which we grope, rescues us from the darkness, and leads us to the very source of light itself. For myself, I am grateful to nature, not so much when I see her on the side that is open to the world, as when I am permitted to enter her shrine. Then one may seek to know of what stuff the universe is made, who is its Author or Guardian, what is the nature of God. Is He wholly absorbed in Himself, or does He sometimes regard us? does He do something daily, or has He done once for all? is He a portion of the world, or the whole world? may He issue new decrees even to-day and thus modify the laws of fate, or is it an infringement of His majesty and an acknowledgment of error to alter what has once been made? for surely the same must always please Him who can be pleased only with what is best. Nor yet withal is His freedom or power diminished, for He is a law unto Himself. 

Life would have been a useless gift, were I not admitted to the study of such themes. What cause for joy would it be to be set merely in the number of those who live? In order to digest food and drink? To repair a diseased, enfeebled body, that would perish unless it were continually refilled, and thus lead the life of a sick man’s attendant? To fear death, to which our very birth destines us? Away with the priceless boon! Life is not worth the heat and the sweat. How despicable a creature is man, unless he rise above the earth! What great thing can we do as long as we have to wrestle with our passions? Even if we prevail, we but conquer monsters. What cause have we to esteem ourselves because we are not quite so bad as the very worst? I can see no great reason for self-satisfaction because one’s strength is rather above the average of those in the same hospital. You are still very far from good health and vigour. Or, again, you have escaped vices of soul, the hypocrite’s brow, the flatterer’s speech fashioned to serve another’s will, the dissembler’s heart, the miser’s spirit, which robs all, but yet mortifies itself. You are a prey neither to luxury, which loses basely and repairs its losses still more basely; nor to ambition, which leads to place of worth only by unworthy means. But yet you have accomplished nothing. You have escaped many perils, but not yet that of self. 

The virtue we aim at raises to a splendid eminence; not so much because escape from vice is in itself a blessed thing, but rather because the soul is emancipated, prepared for the knowledge of heavenly things, and rendered worthy of entering into communion with God. 

Clarke, J. (1910). Physical science in the time of Nero, being a translation of the Quaestiones Naturales of Seneca. Macmillan & Co., London. pp 54-55

Sorry, Chase (Part 5)!

Gary Pollard

This week’s article will be the last in the series. It seemed good to me to do one pillar a week for this series, but this one makes five articles. That’s a bit much for one video, and takes on the spirit of something I cannot stand: debunking. That’s not my intent with this series. As has hopefully been clear, my goal is not to debunk the video (The ancients decoded reality) in its entirety, but to correct the observations where Christianity is concerned, and the implication that Christianity is no better or worse than any other world religion. I’ve stated (ad nauseam) that the overall content is excellent, there is much to be gained from his observations. But without a sound framework, it would be very easy for a believer or seeker to conclude that Christianity is just one entree on the menu. We briefly looked at the problem of Christianity’s historical approach to the symbolism and esoterism in scripture, and the need for a framework that doesn’t merely reduce the symbolism to a prosaic or literalist or unidimensional interpretation. Today we will look at the remaining pillars in Mr. Hughes’ video. 

The third universal observation is: Your mind is not a camera, it is a projector. To support this, he cites many of the same ancient texts. 

  1. What you think, you become (Dhammapada) 
  2. The all is mind (Hermetic texts)
  3. The world you perceive is shaped by the mind’s illusions (Hindu Vedanta) 
  4. The universe arises from consciousness (Upanishads)
  5. Reality is the moving image of eternity (Plato)

He looks to quantum physics, relying on the assumptions we’ve made concerning this poorly-understood field. He notes that observation changes the behavior of physical particles. The essence of his argument is that “two people can look at the exact same moment and come away with something different.” And, “We think they’re interpretations, but what they are is filters that reshape reality before reality reaches you.” He has some good observations here — “…the moment we stop letting fear hijack the projector, we start seeing reality pretty clearly for the first time.” His point being that fear robs us of our peace and willingness to surrender control. The problem is that there’s not really any way to confirm or deny this one, so it must be placed in the category of speculation. In my personal opinion, evidence seems to point to consciousness as being non-local. God gives each person the level of consciousness he deems appropriate, that consciousness returns to him at death, and will be “installed” in whatever kind of body we’ll enjoy at the resurrection. But this is difficult to definitively prove, and I defer again to John: Loved ones, we are children of God now, but what we will be has not yet been made clear to us. We know that when he is revealed we will be just like him, and that we will see him just as he is now. Even the inspired writers didn’t exactly understand the nature of the new body, only that our new bodies would necessarily have expanded consciousness. We cannot see him now, but we will see him when he is revealed to the world. 

The fourth observation is one we will partially disagree with: The enemy is not the world, the enemy is the ego. He says, “The only real enemy is the ego. Not demons, not bad luck, not other people, not the world.” This conclusion is a false dichotomy, and does not require much refutation for most Christians. “Friendship with the world is enmity towards God.” “Our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers and powers of darkness.” To support one aspect of his point, though, we can point to James. He says that our tendency to sin comes from within ourselves — we fall prey to our own desires and become trapped in sin. So yes, our ego is an enemy, but not to the exclusion of the world and its influence or the unseen powers and their influences. The rest of his point is a discussion of the ego and its role in the psychological and social pathologies we deal with, and seems to be helpful overall.

The fifth and final observation: Everything is connected. “We see this in ancient temples and modern physics laboratories. Everything’s connected, everything’s one system, everything influences everything, that’s how everything it gets.” 

He points to the famous observation from the Hermetic texts, “As above, so below.” The Kabbalah, “All creation emerges from a single tree of life.” Again, quantum physics, “No particle is truly separate, every particle has some entanglement,” and many others. His point seems to be summarized by the following: “Nothing stands alone, so every action ripples, every emotion radiates, every intention vibrates through the whole. You are not some separate node in the universe, you’re a node in the cosmic brain firing inside of infinity. And your life is not happening to you, it is happening with you, through you, and as you.” 

The only aspect of this that we can confidently correct is the phrase, “You are not some separate node in the universe…” Scripture does teach that all things (and all consciousness) come from one Source. But this point is incompatible with Christianity in that each person faces their own judgment. Since he points to the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, we must point out that they also believed in individual judgment. Yes, we all come from one source and exist within one framework sustained by one All-Father. But this does not diminish the individuality each person has — why else would murder be considered wrong? If we’re all just “nodes in a cosmic brain”, what makes individual life special if consciousness is not anchored to unique identities within individual bodies? I would also point out that “as above so below” and other similar sentiments have more to do with the fact that things happening in the heavens have their counterparts on the earth. This does not necessarily support his supposition. 

In summary, most of his observations and conclusions are excellent overall, and would be beneficial to implement for anyone looking self-improvement in this life. However, many of his conclusions where Christianity is concerned are flawed. If this is implemented as a self-improvement tool, excellent. But to be adopted as an overall worldview or system of religion (which is functionally what this becomes) is not something a Christian can do and still be called “Christian.”

Books and bookish items from the Pollards

Subscribe to Kathy’s “A Tiny Spark” snail mail club

What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Neal Pollard

Big question! Apparently, it is at the top of all questions people ask around the world every month, gauging from internet search engine queries. According to dailysearchvolume.com, it spikes “with cultural moments…annual reflection periods…academic calendars…and headline- driven uncertainty.” It “is timeless, cross-cultural, and frequently resurfaced by media references, classroom assignments, life transitions, and news cycles that provoke reflection.” Whether or not we use those exact words, all of us spend a lifetime with that question at the heart of everything we are and all we do. 

What does the question imply?

EXISTENCE. We are alive and aware. We exist, and because we exist we want to know why. We can observe much about “life.” It is brief. It has joy and sorrow. It is not always what we want it to be and thought it would be, and we may have to overcome unexpected and adverse things. But there is no way around it. We exist. We are here.

EXPLANATION. Was it random chance? Was it an accident from a cause that did not have me in mind? An unlimited number of “what” questions drive the original question. It is consummately unsatisfying to believe or conclude that there is no answer. The result of such aimless existence is despair, depression, apathy, and a certain fatalistic emptiness, if we accept the consequences of purposeless position. 

EXCLUSIVENESS. At the very least, by asking what “is” life’s meaning, we are saying that while there may be many responsibilities and lesser pursuits something is premier and preeminent. There is an ultimate meaning. Discovering and pursuing that should take center stage and demand our highest attention and investment of our basic resources (time, money, and energy). It leads us to ask, could money, pleasure, fame, or education be the answer? Yet, countless people have made that their “why” only to experience utter emptiness at the end of life.

EXPECTATION. We want an answer or we would not ask. Nobody wants to hear, “I don’t know” or “it does not matter.” Life coaches, self-help organizations, mentors, support groups, community, and endless other entities exist to fill the hole induced by our question. We believe we can find it, we want to know, and then we want to do what we can to accomplish our quest with success. We wake up each day wanting to live with significance.

What if there was a resource that seriously, meaningfully, and logically explained an exclusive purpose for our existence and shaped our expectation? It would have to be internally coherent, consistent, and consequential. What if I were to tell you that a single source fully answered the most frequently asked question people ask every day? Would you want to know more about it? 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 6)

How do you explain the mind and intelligence of God. Origen masterfully illustrates such from nature itself in a powerful explanation….

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Note: I am now using an LLM to modernize the language of the text. This allows me to focus solely on editing and restoring as much of the original narrative as possible. The LLM’s accuracy so far has been astounding — I was on the fence about AI before, but at least for these kinds of projects they are extremely useful. I will still edit the material and compare the modernized text to primary sources. Using this tool, however, frees up a huge amount of time and mental energy. Modernization alone accounts for the bulk of my work, which leaves a lot less time and energy for restoring an original narrative. Now I can un-Rufinus Peri archon in less time and with less potential for human error. 

It might help to use another example to explain this idea more clearly. Our eyes can’t always look directly at the sun itself because its light is too intense. But when we see its rays shining through a window or a small opening, we can understand how powerful and vast the sun’s light really is.

In the same way, the things we see in the world—nature, the universe, and everything around us—are like rays of God’s presence. They give us a glimpse of his greatness, even though we can’t fully comprehend his true nature. Just as our eyes can’t directly see the sun, our minds can’t fully grasp God as he truly is. However, we can understand something about him by looking at the beauty and order of his creation.

God is not a physical being; He doesn’t exist within a body or have any physical form. He is pure intellect1, without any parts or divisions. He doesn’t have a “greater” or “lesser” side—he is completely unified2, the ultimate source of all intelligence. Unlike physical things, which need space and shape to exist, the mind doesn’t require size, color, or form to function.

Because of this, God’s nature is not limited or slowed down by anything. If he were made of multiple parts, that would mean something existed before him, which contradicts the idea of him being the absolute beginning of everything. His mind isn’t like a human mind, which depends on the body.

We can see proof of this by looking at our own thoughts. Our minds don’t need to move from place to place in order to think. For example, if someone is at sea, tossed by waves, they might have trouble thinking clearly—not because their mind needs land to function, but because their body is unsettled. The same thing happens when someone is sick; their mind struggles not because of where they are, but because their body is weakened. Since we are made of both body and intellect3, our mental abilities are affected by our physical state.

However, God, as the source of everything, is not made of different parts like we are. If he were, that would mean something else came before Him to create those parts, which isn’t possible. Unlike our physical bodies, which grow in size, the mind grows through learning and experience. A person doesn’t become wiser just because their body gets older; instead, their intellect develops through study and practice. But this growth doesn’t happen immediately. A child’s mind can’t handle complex thoughts right away because their body—specifically, their brain—is still developing. Over time, as they learn and strengthen their abilities, they can take on more complex ideas.

 1 Translator’s footnote: simplex intellectualis natura
 2 Originally μονας and ένας
 3 Originally “soul”, but context suggests “intellect” or “consciousness” is more appropriate. 

The Original Shadow-Caster

Dale Pollard

Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is a metaphor that uses the image of prisoners in a dark cavern to illustrate the relationship between reality and our interpretation of it. The allegory is a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, and it’s arguably a key passage in his work, The Republic. It’s been used as a metaphor by philosophers for thousands of years in order to explain a truth that’s been known in the subconscious human mind since the inception of man.

Cultures with different backgrounds perceive reality and their own histories in a variety of ways but they seem to only have fragments of the truth. Hundreds of ancient mythologies have been preserved on mediums like clay, stone, papyrus, and oral tradition and they perfectly illustrate the shadows on the wall in Plato’s allegory. 

The question is, what’s casting the shadow that many myths exemplify? A thoughtful study will produce an undeniable reality which the hardened skeptic shouldn’t ignore. The truth is that the Bible is the original shadow-caster. 

By piecing together the myths and the legends of floods, serpents, and heavenly battles one further elucidates a singular, supernatural, and immortal narrative. God’s Word is the only book written through His direct influence— what other work commands that level of Authority? 

“Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

   2 Peter 1.20-21 

What Standard Are We Following?

Gary Pollard

My truck overheated today. A couple of hours and $100 later, it was back on the road. Whoever worked on it last had put the thermostat in backwards, and had failed to bleed the system after a coolant flush. 

Dad pointed out at lunch that we use objective standards for everything. How I feel about the orientation of a thermostat — or whether I believe its orientations makes a difference — is irrelevant. The engine will overheat if it’s not correctly installed, because that’s how it works. 

We have standards in almost every field we rely on. We don’t want bankers changing their standards on us while handling our assets. We don’t want automotive or aircraft manufacturers going solely by what feels right to them. We don’t want surgeons to just wing it while we’re under the knife. 

Standards keep chaos at bay, and allow for reliable, consistent, effective results. On what basis would we throw standards away in the field of morality? If everything else in life requires some kind of standard to make it functional (ie. not chaotic), why wouldn’t the same apply to ethics and morality? 

There is mostly order, not mostly chaos. Good standards bring order, no standards have only ever produced chaos. When postmodern or any other progressive ideals attack your faith, find out what their standards are. There most likely are none, or they are arbitrary and reliably chaotic.  

How we feel about most things could not matter less. Our feelings do not magically bend reality! Always ask, “By what standard do we believe this to be true/false?” If that standard is subjective, it’s probably safe to throw it away. 

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?”

Building With Your Brain

What Your Brain Can Do

Dale Pollard

TBI – 75% of those with traumatic brain injury reported feeling like a different person

The mind of man (and woman) is the most complicated organ that God ever created.

  1. The brain can transform you (Rom. 12.2) 
  2. The brain can be set like a clock (Col. 3.2) 
  3. The brain can think in similar ways to God (Phil. 2.5)
  4. The brain can be fortified (Prov. 4.23)
  5. The brain can be controlled (2 Cor. 10.5) 

How Powerful Is The Brain?q

100 billion nerve cells and many more contact points between them provide our brain with capabilities that no supercomputer can match to this day. One of its most important characteristics is its ability to learn. Equally impressive, is the brains ability to create and dictate the direction of our lives through imagination. 

Let’s take a look at the rest of the natural world and find out what creatures come in second to our human intellect. 

Several life forms have brains that share some similarities with the human brain— 

  1. chimpanzees, 
  2. bonobos, 
  3. dolphins, 
  4. and elephants 

all have brains that show similarities in terms of complexity, structure, and certain cognitive abilities. Compared to the human mind, these animals don’t even come close.

You give what you focus on

When God said that we are created in His image, He meant (in context) that He’s endowed us with the unique ability to create. The man was to create a life for himself through conquest and dominion (Gen. 1.26-28). The woman was to create life itself (Jn. 16.21). Clearly God blessed humans in a special way not given to other animals. 

Create A Better Life Through Imagination 

Here’s what one doctor had to say about the our power to create a life through visualization. 

“Visualizing yourself to become the person that you want to be, is a powerful tool to stay focused. When you focus on something, you actually give your mind a command (whether you are aware of it or not). So your mind is looking forways to extract that command that you gave it. Why? Because your brain doesn’t know the difference, it will drive you to focus on creating it to happen. So understand that every time you tell yourself that things will go wrong, it’s actually going to happen. Your mind will look for the things that you tend to look for. If you think negatively, your mind will look for negative.”

NOTE: 

It’s important to understand that the same effect that your mind has on a negative thought, will be as powerful as on a positive thought. 

Try Thinking About This Instead 

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”

Phil. 4.8 

Following The Will Of God

Thursday’s Column: Captain’s Blog

Carl Pollard

Romans 12:1-2, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

As we enter chapter 12 the point is, “what are the practical implications of 1-11?” It is the start of a five chapter section on how we can put what Paul has said into action. In the first section of the book we learn that we all have sinned, but through faith we have received justification. This gift of justification should motivate us to faithful service. 

Paul begins 12:1 by saying “I urge,” which is the powerful petition verb (parakaleo). It is always used by Paul to indicate a significant point. 

Here it represents a transition from the doctrinal discussion to the practical. It also represents a key thought, that we must present ourselves to God as a “living sacrifice.” This is in contrast to the dead sacrifices of the Old Testament (slaying of innocent animals that wasn’t enough). 

We must give to God while we are young, alive, and capable of service.

We must present ourselves to God as a living sacrifice that is Holy and acceptable. Holy means we are free from moral filth. Holy means that we are devoted to serving God. Holy means that we are an instrument of righteousness. 

Then we come to verse 2 where Paul says, “Do not be conformed.” As Christians that are wanting to build our character we cannot let the world be our standard when it comes to: 

  • Our morals (the way we act) 
  • Philosophy (the way we think)
  • In context the way we dress and the way we worship. 

Rather than being conformed to the world, we must “renew our minds.” 

  • In intellect (change the way we reason, and think about things) 
  • In emotion (Renew our state of mind, the way we respond to different circumstances)
  • In will power (have the strength to restrain our human impulses) 

Have we found ourselves living without righteous thinking? We must renew our minds. When our gym membership runs out, we renew it. When our car insurance policy period is over, we renew it. When our thinking isn’t in line with God’s, we renew our minds. 

Why do we sacrifice, and renew our minds? To prove/discern: 

  • What the good will of God is
  • What the acceptable will of God is 
  • What the perfect will of God is

And by discerning these things, we can be known as Christians who think righteously.

via Bible Study Tools

Test His Truth

Tuesday Column: Dale Mail

image-e1601983688162

Dale Pollard

(now the pulpit minister of the Tompkinsville church of Christ, Tompkinsville, KY)

   With countless opinions and information out there, God is just another “option” and the Bible is just “good advice to follow.” Dave Mustaine summed up how many people feel when he said, “The Bible and several other self help or enlightenment books cite the Seven Deadly Sins. They are: pride, greed, lust, envy, wrath, sloth, and gluttony. That pretty much covers everything that we do, that is sinful… or fun for that matter.”

Is the Bible just an ancient “self-help” book that tells us not to do anything fun? Questioning God is not something new. Even Epicurus said, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?” I truly believe that you can understand who God is just based on scripture. When He gave that book to man, He gave us a piece of Himself.

God wants a relationship with us (I Peter 5:6-7). This is why He has purposefully informed us about Himself. People need God whether they know it or not. I’d encourage you, as an individual,  to put the Bible on trial. Put the accuracy of its pages to the test. It has withstood hundreds of years of accusations and doubt. Often we are able to grow in our faith and belief as a result of seeking and searching. As His church, we have a responsibility to proclaim the excellence of our creator. We do it by our love for others, exposing the evidence of His existence, and introducing Jesus every opportunity we have. 

 

Why I Am Not a Buddhist

Friday’s Column: Supplemental Strength

B

Brent Pollard

There is one teaching of Buddhism that I have looked upon favorably, that our problems stem from earthly attachment and desire. I cannot argue with principles I also find recorded in the pages of the Bible, after all. Yet, despite the growing popularity of Buddhism in the West, I find Buddhism wholly deficient in addressing the spiritual needs I have. In a nutshell, Buddhism lacks two essential things I believe are needed to save.  

First, it does not embrace the only name given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4.12). I recognize this is not an insurmountable obstacle for a nonbeliever. The nonbeliever secularizes the Christ and strips Him of His Divinity. Or he or she might declare Jesus of Nazareth to be a mere fabrication of men. Interestingly enough, though, since I am considering Buddhism, there are those co-opting Jesus as One influenced by the teachings of the Buddha. The theory is that Jesus was in India, learning Buddhism somewhere between the ages of 12 and 30. (That would be a fantastic departure for One Who proved His knowledge of Scripture on par with rabbis many years His senior at the age of 12, wouldn’t it? –Luke 2.46-47. This supposed abandonment of Moses’ Law also ignores His stated purpose of being the living embodiment of the same –Matthew 5.17.) 

Second, it foolishly looks within oneself to find salvation. Buddha claimed to be an ordinary man. Thus, Buddha implied anyone could achieve “enlightenment” as he had done. Buddha said that you find salvation looking within yourself. Perhaps it sounds like an oversimplification of a system of faith, but that is a distinct difference. Within Buddhism, one does not need even the existence of gods, let alone the True and Living God, since he or she attains enlightenment all alone. Meanwhile, the great monotheistic religions acknowledge that man is incapable of saving himself. Those traditions maintain that despite being created innocent and pure, we utilized our free moral agency to serve the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life (1 John 2.15-17). 

Which of these ideas are more consistent with observation? Outside of the innocence of youth, do people tend to be motivated by selfishness or altruism? There has been a long-standing debate as to whether humans are born inherently good or bad. Few are those attributing good as the default position of the mature heart. Indeed, a child left to his or her own devices, without proper guidance, will become subject to the corrupting influence of those three avenues to sin previously identified above. Thus, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all encourage parents to guide children properly regarding morality, to mold them into the servants of principle.  

In contrast, the Holy Bible teaches that there are ways seeming right to us, leading to our destruction (Proverbs 16.25). Jeremiah, the prophet, confesses to God that man cannot even order his steps (Jeremiah 10.23). These two truths ensure as Jesus taught that the vast majority of people are traveling the broad, highway to hell (Matthew 7.13-14).  

To allow for such blind groping in the dark, Buddhism has to allow for a continuous system of rebirth. In other words, few, if any, are they who manage to attain enlightenment on their first try through life. He or she will more likely fail only to be reborn and try again and again. And that is the greatest tragedy of the belief that you can look within yourself to find salvation. You get stuck on this Ferris wheel of rebirth. Paul tells the Athenians that even those who are groping can easily discover God since He is not far from us (Acts 17.22-30).  

Though I do not wish to be unfair to those embracing the Buddhist belief system, I have to wonder if the attraction of the Western mind to Buddha’s religion has more to do with the mindset implanted by the liberty afforded to citizens of Western democracies.  In other words, do Westerners instead prefer the idea of independence from God, telling him or her what to do to be righteous?  I am inclined to believe the latter.  

I can speak to my own heart. I know its evil. So, I find myself caught up in that same war with my members, as experienced by the apostle Paul (Romans 7.14ff). Like Paul, I ask who can save me from this body of death (Romans 7.24). And like Paul, I find my Savior to be Jesus Christ (Romans 7.25;8.1-2). For that reason, when presented with the choice, I believe in the Son of Man rather than Siddhartha Gautama. My righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64.6). A wretch like me can only be saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2.8-10). 

What Does “Mean” Mean?

Neal Pollard

Does that question seem strange to you? Mean is a verb defined as “intend to convey, indicate, or refer to” (Apple Dictionary, Version 2.2.2). Postmodernism claims that there is no purely objective knowledge, truth, or norms. Therefore, meaning is what you make it mean. Several years ago, James Sire gave the framework for what we see in ever-increasing, ever-encroaching ways in our society when he wrote that the postmodernist believes “human beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves” (181). He continues, “In postmodernism the self is indeed a slippery concept” (182). How does this play out? Science is what scientists say it is. History is what historians say it is. But, morality, law, and so many other pillars of society are influenced by this approach to truth and reality. Abortion, euthanasia, sexual ethics, gender issues, and the like are subject to what institutions and individuals determine about them. Even religion, down to New Testament Christianity, has felt the pervasive tentacles of this worldview. Where does this philosophical mindset end? What’s out of bounds, if truth is whatever you and I each say it is for ourselves? Ultimately, there can be no values, standards, or absolutes. And no one wants to live in a society where those are the “rules,” if you can call them that.  And no one can for long. It’s a system destined to collapse.

Winfried Corduan worse, “Relativism plays the role of Zorro in the world of knowledge. It stays in concealment for long periods of time only to suddenly appear at crucial moments, conquer the day, and go back into hiding” (37). In other words, we don’t want relativism on the operating table, when it’s a choice of saline or strychnine in the I.V. (i.e., “What’s ‘saline’ to you is ‘strychnine’ to me”). We don’t want it at our banking institution, when it’s a choice of debit or credit. We believe in absolutes…until we don’t. What’s right or wrong? Again, Corduan helps by defining truth as what corresponds to reality (39). We may have to explore, investigate, evaluate, and test, but we can ascertain it!

We don’t want to live in a world without a transcendent way to determine truth and meaning. We cannot. Meaning is meaningful! Amidst all the wild experimentation of our postmodern world, there is a trustworthy source of truth. It in internally cohesive and universally applicable. It has been successfully tried for thousands of years. But it makes expectations of us. It asks commitments of us. It involves sacrifice, self-denial, and submission. But it is right and it works! It is Divine Revelation. The Bible. May we have the courage to follow it and share it.

Works cited:

Corduan, Winfried. No Doubt About It: The Case For Christianity (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997).
Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1997).

creativity-as-a-search-for-meaning

PINPOINTING THE PROBLEM

Neal Pollard

Terrorist madmen shoot up a school in Pakistan and kill over 100 people, mostly children.  A politically correct society is close to forbidding biblical teaching on matters that violates its bombastic code.  Pluralism (all religious paths are equally valid) and syncretism (blending two or more religious belief systems into a new system) seem to grow more popular in the religious philosophy of a great many.  An erosion of morality and ethics seems to daily redefine acceptable norms and boundaries so that things not long ago thought outrageous are now not just tolerated but celebrated.  The culture of unbelief and agnosticism spreads while the spirit of humble dependency upon God seems to shrink.  When we pause to consider all of this, our head can spin and we can begin to question how this happened and so quickly.

Paul often writes that we are engaged in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10-13; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; 1 Tim. 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:12). While we will witness violence, hatred, gross immorality, an anything goes mentality, and the like, lost sinners are not the enemy.  They embrace the thinking and values of the enemy, but Paul says such people are ensnared and held captive by the enemy (1 Tim. 6:9; 2 Tim. 2:26), “caught” (Gal. 6:1), and “subject to slavery” (Heb. 2:15).  New Testament writers pinpoint the source of this enormous problem as:

  • The ruler of this world (John 12:31; 16:11).
  • The god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4).
  • The prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2).
  • World forces and spiritual forces (Eph. 6:12).
  • The whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1 Jn. 5:19).

Peter simply calls him our adversary (1 Pet. 5:8).  In the gospel, Jesus often alludes to him as the enemy.  From Christ’s temptations in Matthew 4, we learn that he has been given the power over “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (8).  They are his to dispense and disperse (9).  New Testament writers pinpoint this domain with its unrighteous thinking simply as “the world” (Jas. 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17).  All who submit to living according to the thinking and values of this world are submitting to this ruler, god, prince, force, and evil one. They are pledging allegiance to his way and being guided by his leadership.

We can see the devastating effect this is having on the peace and the practice of the masses.  Yet, we must resist it in our individual lives.  Perhaps Paul said it most concisely when he wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). Many of the spiritual problems in our lives can be pinpointed to our following the wrong leader.  May God give us the wisdom and discernment to see through his destructive schemes!

“No Doubt You Are The People, And Wisdom Will Die With You!”

know-it-all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neal Pollard

This is, in my estimation, the most withering of Job’s comebacks to those miserable comforters introduced to us as his friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar (2:11).  The statement is made by Job in Job 12:2 at the end of the first cycle of speeches by these friends, in all of which are accusations and insinuations that Job was suffering due to sins he had committed.  They were wrong, but they were certain they were right.

Aren’t there more than a few Eliphazes, Bildads, and Zophars today?  There are those who act as though they believe civilization has been holding its collective, bated breath in great anticipation of their arrival.  So many complexities, mysteries, and intellectual quagmires have sat stubbornly, mystifying their forebears, but pliably come forward as mere child’s play for them.  Or perhaps they purport themselves to be experts, demonstrating academic or professional credentials in support of such.  They may even move or speak with the air of unmistakeable confidence.  It might be that they have substantial followings and impressive venues to spout their philosophical triumphs.  

But, as the case was for Job, the proof is in the pudding.  God’s Word proved these men wrong.  Job 42 shows that their claims and theories, however confidently asserted, were at odds with His mind.  They spoke words of man’s wisdom.  It may have sounded right on the surface, but it wasn’t right.  

Consider Paul’s message to Corinth.  He speaks of preaching, the foolishness of God, coming in the wake of men’s inability to grasp His wisdom.  Then he writes, “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,  so that no man may boast before God” (1 Cor. 1:25-29).

Humility, teachability, and submission are three indispensable quality traits we must possess when it comes to the Bible.  Our theology must be formed by the latter (the Bible) and our character is formed by the former (the quality traits).  Let us forever be less concerned with being judged right by others and be consumed with a desire to be right with God.

 

THE UTTER INSUFFICIENCY OF THEORIES AND QUESTIONS AS THE “ANSWER”

Neal Pollard

As a teenager I once had a Bible class teacher who found it appealing, as a teaching style, to raise questions but give no answers. Some students thought it was cool to keep things theoretical.  It is interesting that his class never really arrived at absolute truth but stayed hypothetical.  I remember feeling frustrated that he raised doubt and uncertainty for some of my peers who might have entered the classroom sure and certain.  Who knew that his sort of “style” would become more popular here in the post-postmodern and emergent age?

It seems that some want in the realm of theology what no one would want in the worlds of auto mechanic-ing, accounting, real estate or medicine—theories and questions in lieu of ironclad, definitive answers. Yet, the realm of theology deals with something more important than automobiles, money, land, or physical health.  When it comes to God and the Bible, eternity is at stake depending on the answers given and the practice encouraged.

Before we allow some smug, condescending professor, preacher, or pundit to conclude that there are no conclusions or absolutely tout the non-existence of absolute truth, let us humbly ask, “On what basis should we reject the Bible’s authoritative position or exchange it for the point of view of the theorist or inquirer?”  Some religious leaders would like us to join them in “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).  When the Bible contains a significant number of statements clearly defining right and wrong, we should be wary of those who seem intent to put question marks where God put periods and exclamation points.  That is not to say that there are not “some things hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16), but let us be careful not to toss into that category what God has already explained.