In apologetics there are two sides to every argument (a formal term) and discussion. The definition for apologetics itself provides support to this idea. Its definition, “A rational defense of the faith” denotes this difference in positions. Some people have ‘the faith,’ whereas there is also a group who do not. Even the famous quote, “Can’t we all just get along,” made by Rodney King during the L.A. riots of 1972 depicts a two sided argument.
Some laws have been made to specifically deal with social differences and for getting along. Whether or not they are useful laws depends on the persons that write them. The same can be said for the various religious institutions. Today, those get along religious groups, are conning people into believing that all paths lead to heaven. The supporters of this movement are either disingenuous or duped. Again it depends upon the one who is advancing this position.
To understand the importance of knowing who is making the rules or making the unsupported claims, one must look toward “World View” discussions. Everyone has a world view, and lives it, even if they have never consciously articulated it. These elements have been discussed in previous Ambassadorships articles. A fuller discussion can also be found in the book titled, “A Conversaunt Existence” by yours truly. The questions to be answered in formulating a world view are: 1. Who is God? 2. Who is man? 3. What happens to man at death? 4. What is the significance of human history? 5. What is the basis of morality?
When any incorrect answer is given for any of these questions one will find inconsistencies and the conclusions drawn will also be wrong. This is extremely important while considering the final question, “What is the basis for morality.” It deals specifically with how one lives his life while interacting with other people. When anyone denies God’s existence and His involvement in their life, their world view eventually falls apart. Without God anyone can claim and do anything they think is right or good for them. The latest expression of this type of demagoguery is by a proclamation about “my truth.” Who can tell them differently and that what they say is wrong? By what or who’s authority is that based on?
Without God there is no way to establish what is right or what is wrong. The only thing man’s interactions have to go on in this new world view is a world where, “what is, is all there is.” The ‘law of the jungle’ would be the only clear cut factor for any decision making. It would be a world that either holds, ‘might makes right’ or ‘the survival of the fittest.’ No, the only way to know about truth is through having God establish what is truth, what is right and what should be.
The title of this article is “FROG TAMPERING” and now is where one finds out why it became the title. It can be shown that a frog has a faulty self-preservation component. Place a frog in a cool kettle of water and it is happy as a clam. Begin to slowly turn up the heat under that kettle of water and the frog won’t notice the change in temperature. Keep increasing the heat incrementally and eventually the frog will die by being cooked alive.
It appears that ‘the frog in the cook pot’ is a great analogy of human beings living in today’s world. In part, the problem of a slow regression in moral standards went unheeded. For the last one hundred plus years the incremental decline in how man interacts with one another has slowly become apparent. Since the end of WWII the pace has increased. It is now to the point where one can see the world’s spiraling out of control. It’s moving at nearly light speed.
This moral decline is self-evident. The main concern for this immoral majority can be summed up in the statement, “it’s all about me.” The song title, “I did it my way,” also speaks to the irreligious aspect permeating today’s society. These two simple quotes identify man’s rebellion against God. The first is the unbridled selfishness on display. The other is of modern mankind not wanting God to be telling him what to do. Indeed, the fifty year old, “God is dead” movement is just one of a myriad of telltale signs of how the rejection of the one true God, and His precepts, are rapidly destroying the world. The dysfunction one sees on the political and world stage is a result of the same rejection of God as it is at the personal level. Hearing a politician say they want to understand “your truth” is just another snub at the one true God of the universe.
Here in part one, man’s lostness has been described and his emphatically wrong decisions have only made it worse. So the new question becomes, “What does one do about it?” Hopefully part two will provide some answers to that question.