- Exploring Difficult Commands -
A Letter to Dr. Laura
by Brad Scott
I would like to begin addressing Dr. Laura's critic with a couple of quotes from well known atheists.
Aldous Huxley from Brave New World
I had motives for wanting the world to have no meaning and assumed that it had none, and was able with no difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with anything metaphysical (that which is beyond our physical realm), but is concerned with proving that there is no valid reason why he shouldn't do what he wants to do and why his friends should not seize political power and do what they wish or what is advantageous to themselves ... meaninglessness is essentially liberation, sexual and political."
Margaret Sangar, Founder of Planned Parenthood
No Gods....No masters.
I do not wish to suggest that every evolutionist or atheist is driven by the same motivation, at least not consciously. I do believe that this fundamental idea lies behind their religious agenda. Yes, I do mean religious. For those who run to the absurd to avoid the obvious, it is so easy and convenient to pray on the general public's perspective of religion being confined to organized recognition of a metaphysical deity. Atheists consistently taut their propaganda that they are without religious bias and approach life with an open, unprejudiced, rational, scientific mind. At least Huxley and Sangar have the where with all to openly proclaim their motivation. It is this writer's opinion that the rejection of someone greater and smarter than yourself is generally masking some personal, deep seated, self realized depravity that is easily reconciled by simple denial. I remember watching an episode of a program called "Cops" a few years ago. During this reality drama of police officers chasing criminals, a car thief was being chased through the back yards of several neighorhoods. At one point the thief suddenly disappears in the clutter of the back yard of one of the houses. The cameras are searching for him as one of their flashlights captures two long legs sticking out from under a small plastic swimming pool. It appeared that the thief figured that if he could not see them, then they could not see him. I believe it is human nature that motivates many people to conclude that if you can deceive yourself into believing that there is no ruler, well then, there are no rules. Religious and non-religious people alike can be easily convinced that freedom means no restraints or moral compasses. All right, let's cut to our chase here with Jim's first registered complaint to God.
"When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?"
This is a good example to start with because much of the reasoning I wish to use here will be repeated with the other complaints he makes to management. Let me also add that I am under no delusion that my comments will lead to Jim's sudden conversion. I simply wish for Jim to understand that the Creator of the universe is not reclining on pillows of clouds sticking pins in dolls and demanding senseless rituals of His people. He is not, nor has He ever, required the sacrifice of an innocent animal from His people just to see if they will actually go through with it to verify some cruel act of loyalty. Jim does not understand, nor wants to understand, the whole concept of sacrifices. Neither does most of the rest of our so-called civilized society. There is an underlying reason for denying the obvious. No God, no master. Jim reveals much of the same thought patterns that religious men use to render the Old Testament obsolete. It may be obvious that he uses no quotes from the New Testament. Most religious people in western cultures would sympathize with Jim. The polemic technique is that if one can find a commandment in the Torah that we do not obey or practice, then by inductive reasoning, we have the precedent for not obeying or following any of them. Whether consciously or unconsciously, that is concealed behind most questions. Jim was repulsed at the idea that the standard for homosexuality today was justified by Dr. Laura by going back to the Torah some 3500 years ago. In a pavlovian response, he immediately finds a verse that he knows Dr. Laura does not practice today. Conclusion? We throw out the standards and morals for human behavior, as well.
Let's begin with some of the more obvious comments and then move to a deeper explanation. There is no commandment from YHVH concerning the smiting of a neighbor who does not care for the odor of a sacrifice. As I said in my introduction, the comment is funny and good sarcasm, but simply not true. This is much the same way that Bill Maher addresses biblical subjects, as well. Secondly, there is no standing temple today, so the priestly responsiblity that is an intimate part of this cannot be applied. Thirdly, we all live in a culture in which we are subject to the laws of the nation in which we reside. This is why we are called "Ambassadors" in the Scriptures (Yesha’yahu (Isaiah) 18:2, Ephesians 6:20). We are residents of another country, another land. We are only sojourners in a strange land respresenting the land of which we are true citizens. As Ambassadors we are to obey the laws of the land we find ourselves assigned. Although we all yearn to someday be planted in the soil that produces the abundant fruit we so desire, the reality is that we can only produce from the soil in which we are currently planted. Jim's first choice to slam dunk the twisted logic of Dr. Laura is quite a stretch from whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. His logic, however, is that if we do not sacrifice bulls on an altar today, then by the laws of sound reasoning, we should not use any biblical standard to discern man's behavior with his fellow man. Uhhhh. I remember when I was eight, a kid across the sandbox saying something very similar.
But let's get down to what is really behind Jim's thought process. He is not interested in hearing theological apologetics. I could go on and on into this issue, drawing the book of Hebrew into the discussion and pursuing an endless diatribe on why we do not practice this today. I know exactly what Jim's fundamental disgust is all about. Why does this Old Testament barbaric God of yours require innocent animals to die? First of all, I would be willing to risk all the capital I have in a bet that Jim believes in evolution. Man came about through extremely slow natural forces taking place over billions of years. He denies that like kind produces like kind because that conflicts with his premise for doing whatever he wants to do. A Creator implies design and purpose. Evolution implies randomness and constant change. People like Jim know that the only way they can justify doing what ever they wish now, is to destroy what was done then. People like Jim are not interested in the ramifications of sin or evil. In atheistic thinking, we are all alone here in the universe watching the parade of personal experience go past us day after day. Wrong is only wrong if we all collectively decide that it is wrong. Mankind rarely gets a glimpse into the ultimate results of sin and evil. If the results do not manifest themselves within hours of the act, we quietly move on, blind to the effects of our actions. What is this business of shedding the blood of an animal? This is what the Jim's of the world cannot wrap their mind around.
I would like to begin with an appeal to Isaac Newton and the laws of motion. A relationship that most atheists and evolutionists would not make. Why? Because what in the world do the laws of science have to do with Bible stuff? What does Isaac Newton have to do with religious rituals? Every effect has a cause, and every cause is equal to or greater than the effect. Every effect or just some effects? Is it possible that God is aware of Newtonian mechanics? Is it possible that He knows that there are effects to disobedience? Do children in a traditional family atmosphere suffer the effects of disobeying their parents? Is their disobedient behavior actually self destructive and do the parents who love them know that? Could the Father of lights be responding to His children the same way that an earthly father responds to his children? Could this clear parallel provide the motivation for most atheist organizations through Supreme Court rulings to repudiate the traditional family as well? Why is it that most people who do not believe in God are also involved in tearing down the traditional family? It could be that the parallel is just too close to home.
When a child rebels against his parents and is grounded for two weeks, is the act of being grounded the parents goal? Ask most parents. The goal is to teach the child to obey so there are no negative effects. This is the loving movitation of a parent who loves his/her children. I know this is rocket science Jim, but try to follow along. If the result of sin and/or evil is the repugnant death of an innocent animal, then perhaps one might draw the brilliant conclusion that they would cease from sinning. That is if you really care about the animal. Did the animal deserve to die? No, you do Jim. You assume that the cause has no effect because you rarely experience the effects. Like medical companies that issue drugs to fight the symptoms, you spend most of your time fighting and protesting the effects while ignoring the cause. If the effect of my sin is revealed in the slaughter of an animal, then why would I solve the problem by continuing to thumb my nose at sin? Like a snot-nosed kid you do not agree with the morality, ethics and rules of your parents. This is one reason why the Scriptures teach us that our Father would rather have obedience than sacrifice. His goal is not the sacrifice, but rather children that listen to their father. The bottom line for the Jim's of the world is that just like the Huxley's and their friends, they want to do what they want to do. Their lives and morals are in stark contrast to their Creator so they solve the problem by hiding underneath the plastic swimming pool.
The truth is that God hates burnt sacrifices more than the brains of atheists can imagine. When that odor reaches His nostrils it tells him that someone has chosen to repent and not do whatever it was that initiated the sacrifice in the first place. Our Father wants repentance and obedience. Why? Because He created the laws of motion and He knows the sure effects of doing what is right and what is wrong. Man is only capable of reacting to whatever is in his face at the time. Are atheists aware of the laws of physics, the characteristics of sound or the dynamics of the energy of the universe? Have they had enough personal experience to know that a single act of love and kindness in one place can have an effect on someone else thousands of miles away? That the words we speak do not really disappear? Do they really think that a private act between two consenting males is their own business and effects no one else? The known laws of the universe do not operate that way.
Shalom Alecheim! ◊