Wednesday, December 28, 2011

You lied to me by telling me the truth?

In the movie Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides there is an amazingly perverse but true to life conversation. I quote it below but it can also be read here or heard at POTC: Angelica lies to Jack by telling him the truth.

Angelica: I need years, Jack. Not for me. For my father. I am truly the daughter of Blackbeard.
Jack Sparrow: You've fallen for your own con, love.
Angelica: No. He is my father. The lies I told you were not lies.
Jack Sparrow: You lied to me by telling me the truth?
Angelica: Yes.
Jack Sparrow: That's very good. May I use that?
Angelica: I'm sure you will anyway.
Jack Sparrow: Mmm, of course I will.

Another quote reflecting perverse reality is when Jack says: “The Black Pearl in a bottle? Why is the Black Pearl in a bottle?”

If one desires it can be heard at: POTC: Ship's in the bottle .

It is astounding to realize how often the truth is misused in the manner that Jack discovers through Angelica’s use of the truth to deceive him. When the truth is spoken apart from its context it misleads and deceives. When the truth is spoken in connection with people’s false presuppositions so as to allow them to form their own conclusions regarding the statement based upon their false presuppositions, deception is the result. This is true also when a false presupposition is first stated or alluded as truth and then the true statement is made.

The devil boldly attempted this with the Lord Jesus. It worked on other humans with great success. But Jesus is the Truth. The Truth cannot be deceived or overcome by misuse of true statements. The Truth is more than the sum of the many and various articles and particular true statements. And so, Jesus did not argue with the devil. He did not try to prove the truth. He simply countered the misuse of a true statement with another true statement that showed the false and wrong use of the first statement. (Matthew 4:1-11)

If the first Adam had done this, his wife would not have been deceived. Instead, he stood by and allowed her to defend the truth with her own reason. He listened as she added to the Word that he had taught her and did not interject with a loving and gentle corrective. Good intentioned people have added their own presumptive reasoning to the Word ever since. Once this occurs, the Truth is lost to them and they move ever farther from it in their own deluded perception.

The woman, whom her husband later in the loving response produced by the Gospel renamed Eve, or Life, imagined that she had to overcome the misuse of God’s Word with additional requirements or restrictions. The devil spoke the truth deceptively. God did say not to eat of every tree of the garden, but He did not say it in this way. Moreover, by presenting it as a question, the devil craftily inferred that it was something to question. He challenged the woman’s understanding, to which she responded defensively rather than simply responding in faith. She could have simply responded saying: “Yes. That is correct. He told us not to eat of every tree. The one tree is not for us to eat.” But instead, she decided to add an additional restriction, she added that God said that they neither could touch it. Once she made this false addition, she was no longer protected by the Word of God. Now she had begun to rely upon her own self and her own reason.

Notice that the devil did not come to tempt the Man, but the woman who heard the Word through the Man. Moreover, the devil did not present his temptation directly as an mighty angel, but through a lesser creature, a very beautiful creature, one that would not have caused alarm. This was one of the creatures that Adam named, one that had been placed under Adam’s province. Through it the devil could speak without being obvious. A simple question coming from a lower creature would not seem out of place., especially since this command was not given to the lower creatures but only to Adam and all who were generated through him and of him.

In the movie Jack Sparrow says: “The Black Pearl in a bottle? Why is the Black Pearl in a bottle?” If Adam had known who was in the serpent, he would have asked what an angel was doing in the serpent. Jack is a wicked man who surrounds himself with deception and acts deceptively and wickedly. It is no surprise that he would encounter a deceptive use of the truth and then want to use make use of that himself. Adam was innocent and naive to such things, yet once he became a son of the deceiver, he, too, turned to more deception, trying to hide his nakedness, that is, his openly manifested sinfulness, with inventions of his own, namely, fig leaves sewn together.

The Truth, spoken honestly and forthrightly, ends the facade. It shows God for who He really is, and in contrast, sinners for who they have become. The Truth shows the depths of God’s love, how far it reaches, how far it moves Him on our behalf. His sunshine does not shine only for believers, but for all. His rain falls upon both as well. He came to the world, born as a man, to give Himself to us and for us, taking our sin and our consequences. He rose again with the same humanity still as His own, so that the renewed relationship or communion would be absolute. He established His Church so that this Truth would be proclaimed and received. Through His means of grace administered in this Church people continue to be called out of the darkness into His light of forgiveness and restoration and healing and peace.

The devil hid himself in a creature in order to deceive. The Lord manifested Himself in Jesus to make the Truth known. The devil continues to deceive through convincing mankind that the truth can be found through a microscope and through conjecture. The Lord comes to us visibly as a man and openly declares the Truth, leaving no room for conjecture. And to those who hear Him and are moved to believe His Word again, they find that things really are just as they have been told.

      And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

+ + +


Canadian Atheist said...

Another interesting post. I'm a fan! I find the Adam and Eve story disturbing. It has caused the pain of billions of women who were blamed for the apple eating. It's also been scientifically disproved, since two people would not have had enough DNA diversity to keep a species alive. It also discounts the fact of evolution and how we have junk DNA from when we were not human at all.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

Dear Canadian Atheist,

I know very little of your history or studies. My undergraduate studies were Animal Science/Pre-veterinary medicine. Two classes gave me some challenge. Organic Chemistry was fascinating to me, but I did not do my memory work sufficiently for the classroom exams, so I ended up with a 2.0 average. But in the lab work, which required all of the same knowledge and application, there I did very well. The point is that I understood the workings of the chemistry, but I did not put for the effort to memorize the isotopes and such to be able to regurgitate them on an exam. In my second level Psychics I had a prof who reportedly was brilliant, but his explanations confused me so that I was failing. I finally stopped going to the lectures, studied on my own and in the work groups and brought it up to a B. Genetics was a breeze and very fascinating.

My point is that I have a well rounded background in the biological sciences. My studies drive me to the opposite conclusion. This is a very complicated discussion, but I will try to give a few small points.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

First, regarding the account of Adam and Eve, the abusive misapplication of this by wicked people does not discredit the account. I presume that the pain of which you speak is the ungodly ways of the Mohammedans, false Christians, and others of that ilk. The account in Genesis declares an entire opposite view of women. Adam, as one who had chosen death for the world through turning from God’s gracious will and decrees, when faced with his guilt, immediately blamed his wife, who blamed the serpent. But with the promise of the Seed of Woman, that was overturned so that blaming and cursing was turned to forgiving and blessing. The promise of redemption and salvation and reconciliation restored them in God’s love.

The Bible teaches facts while people delude themselves with twisted reasoning. The notion that men and women are equal is ludicrous, except from the biblical perspective that they are equal before God. Men and women are not constructed the same. They don’t even have the same number of muscles. Men and women think differently. They express emotions differently. They produce different haploid cells for reproduction. Their reproductive organs are entirely different, but perfectly matching. They are constructed for differing but complementary vocations. A man is equipped to be a husband and father. A woman is equipped to be a wife and mother. When they subject themselves to one another in the fear of God, honoring one another in their respective vocations, they enjoy a life of blessedness, peace, and harmony.

The headship of the family with the father as over wife and wife over children is verified by “science.” In studies where the parents do not agree in what is taught and practiced in the family, somewhere around 30% of the children will do according to Mom’s ways when mature and around 70% will do as Dad. But the greater point is that families cannot function properly when this order of loving responsibility is broken. Children cannot be allowed to usurp the place of head of the family, nor the place of nurturer. Neither can the father abandon his place and insist on being nurtured or protected. The wife’s role is indispensable, too. Each place has its own particular honor and glory. The greatest burden rests on the husband. If he does not carry it, the family is off balance.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

Regarding genetic diversity and the “fact” of evolution, this is a very uninformed statement.

First, on what single factor is the THEORY of evolution ABSOLUTELY dependent? It is based upon the presumption of mutation that advances in genetic order to more advanced organisms. Has such a mutation ever been documented? Even one?

According to the forced assumption of evolution to occur, these would have to be occurring in vast numbers regularly. Yet every known mutation is a degeneration of the genetic order. Most are deleterious.

And this is the most likely explanation for the so-called “junk DNA,” too. If it is indeed junk. Our knowledge of these things is infinitesimal. We have no idea what role these things may play.

Furthermore, genetic variance (as well as societal or sociological) is demonstrated in the biblical accounts. Adam and Eve are of course as varied as day and night. Regarding the first two recorded offspring, Cain was a grain farmer and Abel was a shepherd. Hardly a long progression from hunter/gatherer presumptions. Chapter 6 tells of variations in skin color, with fair skin being differentiated from the norm. Giants also are mentioned. This is all before Noah and the flood.

Later, when such men are extinct according to the evolutionists, we hear of Esau in Genesis 25:25, “And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment.” At the time that Rebekah prepared Jacob to pose as Esau in Gen. 27, it is revealed that Esau, Isaac’s favored son, was a hunter. Moreover, as Isaac’s vision was dim, to make Jacob feel like Esau, she covered Jacob’s hands with goat skins. Esau is red and hairy like a goat and lives as a hunter, and no one is surprised! Mom does not shriek but names him Red.

So, these things and others are part of the biblical account. Do with it what you choose. I believe that it fits perfectly, whereas the evolutionary theory is disjointed, inconsistent, and ever changing.

Canadian Atheist said...

Thanks for the explanation. However, since you're well grounded in science, I presume you know that a 'theory' in science is not the same as the term 'theory' we'd use in every day speech. Gravity is a theory, and you're willing to accept it and even if the mathematics of gravity were to change, you'll still be stuck to the ground.

Biologists are that certain about evolution. It's well grounded using genetics and fossils among other things.

Despite your beliefs, the Bible doesn't offer a good explanation for our origins. In fact, if we were truly created, God wasted a lot of time and made a lot of mistakes, since the human body is full of problems.

I know a lot of Christians now say it's not to be taken literally or that God used evolution to create man. However, evolution is not going away as a scientific theory.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

Dear Canadian Atheist,

After your last comment I wrote a lengthy response, which I have let set. Waiting is a very effective tool when responding to those who write in opposition. Moreover, this is a complicated subject. So in response:

. . .

Actually, a theory is a theory. A theory is a hypothesis or conjecture for which the results of trials can be duplicated. Such a theory is then taken as proven. But theories like gravity remain theories for the reason that they cannot be proven in fact. We can observe that with increases in what we call mass that the force between objects appears to increase. We can measure the average of the velocity but not the actual velocity. Then other conjectures are made regarding what we can observe. Because our explanations seem to fit, because they can be repeatedly applied and affirmed according to what we observe, we assume that they are true.

But there are actual facts that are observed as well. An apple tree produces apples and not oranges. Humans produce humans and not other species, even though terrible gestational abnormalities can occur. Yet the poor deformed baby is still human.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

The statement that “Biologists are that certain about evolution” is simply untrue. SOME biologists accept this outlandish theory. Those who do accept it, do so purely by conjecture while ignoring the facts that oppose it. I provided hard facts that you did not answer regarding the very foundation of the theory, and you completely avoided them in your answer. As a proponent of the theory of evolution you are obligated to show me a mutation that increases the genetic order of a cell, and then to show me that billions of these happen daily. Even then, for evolution actually to occur, the exact same mutation with very large amounts of genetic code alteration would have to occur within the same lifetime in the same species in the same locale of two of the opposite sex who were attracted to one another and able to reproduce. And the theory of evolution presumes that this has happened many times, producing each species on the planet! Moreover, evolutionists presume this happened in a mere 15 billion years! Do the math. How many species exist? And all of this conjecture is based upon a theory of mutation of which we don’t have a single documented example.

You say: “and even if the mathematics of gravity were to change, you'll still be stuck to the ground.” Yep! That is my point! But at least the tests of the theory of gravity can be duplicated. At least it has some actual support.

You say: “It's well grounded using genetics and fossils among other things.”

Where is the fossil evidence for ANY of the “in-between” species from which actual DNA has been examined?

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

You say: “Despite your beliefs, the Bible doesn't offer a good explanation for our origins. In fact, if we were truly created, God wasted a lot of time and made a lot of mistakes, since the human body is full of problems.”

The Bible does explain this, but you reject it. The Bible teaches that these bodily problems are the result of the separation that sin effected of the cosmos from its source. It teaches that God is the Creator AND Preserver of His creation and that apart from this union that everything dies/depletes/falls apart.

You reject this as being valid. That’s your choice. But it is not true that the Bible does not give an explanation. It is there, in black and white. It has been there for millennia. Moreover, it IS a GOOD explanation because it is consistent with its claim that all things depend upon the Creator. The explanations are limited because that is not the primary purpose of the account. Yet the information that is given is consistent from beginning to end.

So be honest and admit that the explanation is stated, but that you choose to trust another explanation, a very recent explanation, an explanation that continually contradicts itself and is perpetually reinvented.

You say: “I know a lot of Christians now say it's not to be taken literally or that God used evolution to create man.”

Yep! False Christians who only pretend to believe the doctrine of the Bible will continue until the end of this world. That only affirms the doctrine. The Bible teaches this, too.

You say: “However, evolution is not going away as a scientific theory.”

It already has, multiple times. Each time it is recreated with more complex conjecture, only to be cast aside to be recreated with new conjecture.

Stupid Christians try to commingle this with the biblical doctrine because they don’t truly believe the biblical doctrine but don’t want to cast it aside entirely. This is lunacy. The two are diametrically opposed.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

Evolutionists begin with a core belief. That belief is that the cosmos was not (or may not have been) created by a supreme being and that all such doctrine is (or likely is) merely ignorant superstition. Darwin began as an Anglican who was strongly influenced by his mother’s Unitarianism. His approach to the Faith was one of trying to convince himself of the truth of the Creed, not one of actually hearing what it teaches and therefore believing it on account of what it teaches. That is not the Faith taught in the Bible. He despaired of his own efforts at faith and began seeking to explain for himself. His theory was primitive but alluring. Most people do not know the connections of this theory to the Kabbalah. But those connections may not be from Darwin but later. Darwin had become disillusioned with his attempts to prove the Faith. Since this is not how the faith is received, his god of human reason failed to manifest the God who comes through this faith. Then he set forth by the same frail god to produce the truth for himself. This approach begins with presumptions that one then seeks facts for validation, usually ignoring the facts that invalidate them.

People will continue to seek answers to the void that they sense within themselves. Many religions have developed from this very powerful desire. The Bible consistently gives the same answer from beginning to end. That answer is the promised Seed, the Christ, the Redeemer and Savior God. This is the entire purpose of the Scriptures, to proclaim this answer to mankind’s most urgent need. The creation account, which is proclaimed first from the perspective of order and secondly from the perspective of relationship or communion, is given to give brief accounting of this sense that man has. But the primary proclamation is the means of restoration to what was abandoned by Adam.

No other religion provides this, including the religion of self-reliance, of which evolution is one expression. But the doctrine of the Bible proclaims this from beginning to end, always with the same answer. It is recorded by multiple writers over thousands of years and the same answer is given without change.

You seem to be seeking more than you now have. There is nothing truly to be gained from arguing against the biblical doctrine, unless you are trying to convince yourself that rejecting it is right. Perhaps, you would be better served by studying the doctrine of the Bible for what it claims to be, the preaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified and learn what this doctrine really means. Then you will know what the Bible actually teaches so as to settle the matter for yourself. Books like the Quran and the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Buddha and Hinduism, as well as most versions of Christianity, these all really teach the same end as evolution, that man must rely upon his own efforts. The Bible teaches absolute grace and mercy through the self-sacrifice of the one who proclaims Himself to be God. It is the only doctrine of its kind. For those few who are actually regenerated to believe it, it always provides what it promises. And that is very real evidence for the validity of the Bible, a topic on which I hope to write a post soon.

+ + +

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

By the way, I sense that my statement: “Waiting is a very effective tool when responding to those who write in opposition,” could be misunderstood. I mean that it is an effective tool for keeping my own emotions in check and for allowing proper contemplation of the issues being discussed or debated.

+ + +

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

For those who are seriously interested in this matter, in addition to stating that “for evolution actually to occur, the exact same mutation with very large amounts of genetic code alteration would have to occur within the same lifetime in the same species in the same locale of two of the opposite sex who were attracted to one another and able to reproduce.” I should also have included that this mutation would not only have to occur in some random cell of the two individuals, but in the reproductive cells of both individuals, and that those particular haploid cells would be the ones to be joined in conception! It also means that at least two offspring of the opposite sex would have to survive and successfully mate and reproduce. This would have to continue until the new species was established.

If one is truly serious about examining this, it is even more complicated than this. But these are the obvious complications, and even with these, who can even calculate the odds? And this is for only one new species.