The Tradition Series: Identity According To Ideas
 |
| To some the man Rasputin was a blessing, for others a curse. For everyone else who never met the man, they'll find out soon enough. Yet what has been written about him, men choose sides while aiming for the truth. In the age of internet information, ideas are floating around like molecules in the air. Many 'rasputins' exist and have existed... praised and vilified, depending on who you ask. |
This article is not about Rasputin.
Rasputin is used an example to show how people, by default, usually choose a side before all things are considered.
The sides we choose are believed to be from our decision making process.
Often times our choices have already been determined.
They are determined largely by what others have decided or thought about.
Ideas.
Man has an inherent inability, it seems, to recognize simple truth.
Maybe it is the abundance of ideas floating around.
Mankind seems to be swimming around in a world flooded with oceans of things incorrect proclaimed as very correct.
A world saturated with half-truths baked to near-perfection as fully wholesome truth.
But there is still blood in the meat of this world's history books.
There is still sacrilege in the renditions of religion.
There is still theory cloaked in things scientific deemed to be accurate and irrefutable.
Outright lies are touted as 'true' and 'factual' or 'from the best minds of men'.
Where we find many things are argued as 'true', they are usually claims made from subjectivism's prison.
Subjectivity should not be evident in journalism, but it is.
Subjectivity should not be found in historical records, but there we find it.
Subjectivity should not be found in academia, but there too it is hiding.
Subjectivity should not be found in religious institutions, yet there it abounds.
We shouldn't be surprised, then, to find poor arguments from popular spigots of information.
So many ideas are widely believed as true because they've been popularized.
So many of these popular notions are actually outright lies or, in kinder terms, simply wrong.
This is the appeal religious writings have.
Realize that political ideologies are religious writings.
People are religiously beholden to political ideals.
There are many other forms of religion, especially scientific and things pertaining to man's identity.
These draw attention and beckon acceptance because they are claimed to be sacred, or true, and popularly repeated.
What has God truly spoken into man's heart and through a man's mouth?
Can we trust in writings that are considered the oldest in existence?
How about those made popular?
Maybe... maybe not.
Something true shouldn't need to be cited in some ancient text for it to be true.
Truth is self-evident, or at least it should be perceived as such.
There is a place where the first to speak and stake a claim may seem to be speaking the truth:
In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right,
until someone comes forward and cross-examines.
- Proverbs 18: 17
Although mankind has the best he can do when considering courts of men, God's heavenly court will be without reproof or suspicion.
There, no conspiracy or controversy is possible.
Although we have been given an accurate account of what is most important to know while in the flesh, that testimony is largely ignored in the public sector.
It is easily dismissed because men have their own plans.
It is often interpreted in ways to benefit the interpreter.
Such manners, when looked at closely, reveal a slanted motivation.
Motivation not for or in support of the Truth, but to push man's idea of the truth.
There is a testimony that surely was first to have been declared from Above.
In what human language it sounded like, is unknown.
But we have the message very clear despite the manner and choice of words used in messaging it.
The testimony has been shown to have varied slightly as it traversed the centuries and places men have journeyed.
A slight variance doesn't negate a message's validity.
Much how transcribing and translating English to Spanish (or Spanish to English) contains the addition (or subtraction) of some words, such variance does not change the message.
This is how Truth has been conveyed despite man's ideas of what is true... or his search for evidence.
Quite simply, the testimony of a flood wiping out a previous time, people, and their histories has been spread the earth over.
It was purposed, and that purpose has been fulfilled and clearly acknowledged.
But since some minds consider there is little to no physical evidence of a flood, it is labeled a 'myth'.
Thus the evidence of a universal testimony is dismissed.
Dismissed by minds claiming to be learned, yet their logic showing cracks of the irrational.
They seek to speak one language while using another.
Like solving a math problem, for example basic arithmetic, using an entirely different language (not using the language of math).
Instead of using and speaking with the language of math, ideas are argued through the language of words.
Like trying to say 2+2=4 by using the letters k d r.
Even if adding portions of math's language (symbols denoting what actions to take), basic arithmetic is not possible (k+d=r).
Remember, this is not algebra or anything beyond basic arithmetic.
Only in defining what the letters mean (algebra) is it at least possible to come close to speaking the language.
It is this attempt some people make in trying to speak a language they have not cared to learn.
The language of Truth.
“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Yeshua answered, “You say that I Am a king.
In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the Truth.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me.”
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate…
- John 18: 37-38a
Many people retort like Pilate.
Thus the public realm of cross-examination attempts to confound what has been clearly and simply declared.
When it comes to matters of God and what He has determined, these matters have been very clearly messaged to mankind.
Truth speaks to our hearts.
Only in our hearts can something be determined to be true or false.
Some men cannot put into words what they understand to be true in their heart.
When men do try, they come close... and yet can fail miserably.
Like using letters where numbers are asked (the previous example).
It is as if human language has been tainted somehow.
But Truth is conveyed despite the language used.
Men argue with words and perceive with their minds the things of God, even arguing about Truth... but their hearts betray them.
Betrayal in revealing the condition of their hearts despite their learning, their knowledge, and their arguments.
It is when men act in ways contrary to their words that reveals a man's heart.
When acting contrary to love is when such men are shown to not know God, but only the ideas of men.
Thus, if a man feels it necessary to cause harm to another man over religious matters, realize that man is deceived.
If Truth brings freedom and peace, then only those lacking such peace bring restraint onto those who disagree.
Those lacking freedom inside demand others are caged in attempting to quell opposition.
Truth cannot be caged as something physical can.
In this way those who welcome questions are shown to have an ability to handle the Word of Truth.
Those who repel questions, or mock questioners, or respond with hostility rather than simply work with the questioner and their questions... show their hearts are vacant of love.
Their hearts contain many ideas and words of men, but likely little to no space for God's Word.
The Word who became flesh.
Much how an idea cannot be removed from a mind, neither can Truth be removed from a heart.
What about religious ideologies mainstreamed onto the public psyche?
Those ideologies that have never been substantiated, only religiously repeated through hostility?
What if refusal to believe an ideology peddled about as 'true' and 'peaceful', brings the consequence of harm to your person?
You'd likely think that the ideology is false... or perhaps that it is true and accept due punishment for denying it.
Sadly some people have been fully convinced of the latter because they've never been free to consider the former.
Of course, if you already agree or align with hostile religious ideologies, it isn't subjective to you.
You likely find it mostly agreeable and in line with your current thought process.
Consider I speak not only of religious ideas that incorporate a theistic (God) point of view.
I also speak of all things secular and temporal, those other religions and gods and idols men make for themselves.
The realm of science, political state-sided attitudes, concepts attributed to skin color or tribal affiliation of sorts.
What can be accused to one man as his 'subjective bias' is the mention of unadulterated Truth for another man.
Thus Truth is not conceivable, or tolerable, to all hearts.
This is why hostilities arise when one idea confronts another.
Thus why Truth is largely unknown, or enigmatic in the public spaces of this world.
For Truth to be outwardly evident brings contempt by those instruments whose sole purpose is to obfuscate Truth.
Yet, when some minds praise and honor these very instruments, such minds cannot perceive their folly nor the Truth.
These instruments are political in nature, charismatic in delivery, entertaining in manner, beguiling with intrigue, and largely physical in manifestation.
The instruments are humans themselves.
Not every person made popular by others is problematic.
Not every single person publicly honored is actually honored by God.
Truth is subtle, while lies are loud and often repeated.
Realize I am not criticizing all histories of people or the manner narratives have been disseminated.
But there is a time to consider the manner information is packaged as 'news' or 'history' or 'religion'.
There must be consideration because often times these packages are expressed without objectivity.
There are fictions sadly portrayed as facts in the public spheres.. and this in the aim at objectivity.
People are harmed. (spiritually, physically, mentally)
The harm can be immediately understood, but often times clearly seen as years pass.
Simple example: regardless of how the man Rasputin was perceived, it was wrong for men to conspire and kill him.
Even if a 'court' of men decided for an execution, that decision is still wrong.
When men make religious (or political) arguments for the killing of a human being, realize such men are blinded by their ideas and the arguments of this world.
When men make political arguments for killing someone, realize such arguments are 'true' only for the blind, just only for the vacant of Truth.
Part One: Identity According To Clothing.
Part One: Identity According To Clothing.
Comments