Posts

You Have to be More Than Nice. You Have to be Christ!

aceChristianity is not just loving your neighbor and giving to the poor. That’s the easy part. Anybody can smile and write a check. The real challenge is loving God. That’s the first and greatest commandment and it’s the way in which you love God that will shape the way you love others (Matt 22:37-39; 1 Cor 13:2).

For example, God says that if you love someone, you’re going to be willing to stand between them and a bad decision they’re getting to make (Eph 5:11). In other words, you’re going to try and improve their situation by showing them how their current decision making process is going to lead to a dead end based on, not your opinion or experience, as much as it’s based on God’s take on the matter (Prov 27:6).

So, first of all, you have to be able to accurately determine that their mindset is flawed – that’s going to require a familiarity with God’s Perspective as to whether or not their approach is wrong (2 Tim 2:15). And knowing God’s Word is part of loving God (Josh 1:8; Jn 14:21; 2 Tim 3:16-17).

Secondly, you can’t just tell someone they’re wrong. You want to be wise in the way you phrase things so they can see the advantages represented by godly behavior (Prov 25:11). Otherwise, it can come across as a self serving / judgmental confrontation that can make a bad situation even worse (Matt 7:1; Jn 7:24).

Knowing how to say something and when to say it requires a willingness to take your cue from God rather than simply blurting out something that satisfies your particular set of criteria (Lk 12:12). Again, that flows from being committed to God and not just your sense of convention.

Yet, sometimes, it doesn’t matter how you say it. You can be reeking of God’s Manner, Motive and Mindset and still have to contend with a negative response (Lk 9:5).

But here’s the thing…

You don’t refuse to run the ball down the field and put some points on the board just because you’re afraid of getting tackled. And you’re not “loving” someone when you have the opportunity to help them avoid the inevitable consequences of driving on the wrong side of the road and you say nothing (Ez 3:18).

That’s not love.

In that moment, you might be nice, but you’re not Christ. And you have to be more than nice!

That’s a combination of cowardice and neglect and no matter how you want to position it either as a “Christian” or a “loving” response, you’re contributing to their demise. And if you’re doing that, “in the Name of Christ,” you’re casting God as Someone Who’s indifferent to rebellion and the pain that goes along with it which is not only misleading, it’s toxic (Jer 23:16).

So, be careful when you’re hearing someone attempt to reduce God and the command to be like Christ to a situation where you’re like a firefighter who yells encouraging words to those inside a burning house, yet makes no attempt to put out the blaze.

In that moment, you might be nice, but you’re not Christ. And you have to be more than “nice.”

That’s what “love” is when you refuse to help the one you care about by telling them that what they’re doing is wrong – be it a situation where they’re oblivious to what they’re doing or they’re fully aware of they’re being off target and they’re just not considering the consequences.

That’s not love. That’s not being like Jesus, it certainly doesn’t happen when you’re loving and obeying God as you should…

…and that’s not Christianity.

Christianity – It Cannot be Believed by a Thinking Person

hitchensBut in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15)

I) Intro

There are a number of very vocal and very articulate people out there who sneer at Christianity, as though it were a preposterous notion to subscribe to something so ridiculous. Christopher Hitchens is one of those people. In this installment of MC, we’re going to take a look at some of what he says and offer a rebuttal that reveals his platform as flawed, limited and nonsensical.

Let’s take a look…

II) Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens was born in 1939 and recently passed away in 2011. He was an English writer who spent a great deal of time in the US and eventually became a citizen. A gifted speaker, he was a forceful orator, especially when it came to the issue of religion. At one point, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct”, but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion”.1 Richard Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist and an avowed atheist, said of Hitchens, “I think he was one of the greatest orators of all time. He was a polymath, a wit, immensely knowledgeable, and a valiant fighter against all tyrants, including imaginary supernatural ones.”2

Today we’re looking at one example of Hitchens’ commentaries on Christianity which you can find on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw. Here’s a brief summary of some of what he had to say: hitchens_comments III) Privacy

Privacy, in this instance, is an issue only if you’re interested in hiding something from God. And the only reason you would be interested in hiding something is if you had something you were hesitant to divulge before Him. In other words, you, like Cain, are trying to slip by unnoticed in order to preserve the illusion that you are blameless (Gen 4:9; Ps 51:5). No one is. But that is not an occasion to resent God’s Omniscience, rather it’s something to celebrate as far as being completely known and yet completely loved.

Psalm 139. He observes how God is completely aware of every nuance of his heart and mind. He revels in the freedom he has before God to be utterly transparent and, at the same time supremely confident that he is accepted by a Holy God.

What’s the difference between Moses and Christopher? The difference is that Christopher superimposes the flaws of humanity upon God’s holiness because the idea of Divine Perfection reside beyond the borders of his definition of what’s reasonable. Hence, God’s ability to know someone completely is processed as surveillance rather than omniscience. And in the same way, he processes omnipotence as arrogance.

It Can’t Be Believed by a Thinking Person
(Christianity) can’t be believed by a thinking person. Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. (Christopher Hitchens)

IV) Indifferent and Distant

He goes on to say that for the better part of 98,000 years God did nothing as man struggled and suffered. The Old Testament makes it obvious that God was very involved in the lives of His people, so to say that He was doing nothing is a gross understatement. Consider the Exodus, the enumerable military campaigns of the Israeli army, the time of the judges, as well as the way in which all of the Major and Minor Prophets describe God as being intimately aware of His people’s condition and completely committed to their welfare.

No doubt, Christopher questions God’s activity with the other people groups that aren’t mentioned in Scripture. What of those that didn’t have access to Christ? What of those who never heard of the Ten Commandments?

In Rev 5:9 that there will be people from every nation throughout history in Heaven. While the Bible doesn’t go into any kind of detail as to how that works, one can rest assured that the Message of God’s grace will have been communicated and his judgement will be fair (Acts 10:34-35; Rom 1:20; Jas 2:25). Click here for more reading on that subject.

V) In the Desert

Christopher’s also critical of God’s decision to announce His Solution to sin to a people “in the desert” who are not nearly as literate or as advanced as the Chinese. At the time of Christ, the Roman Empire was under the authority of Caesar Augustus. Never before had so many human beings acknowledged the authority of a single leader. His subjects formed more than one third of the entire global population.3 When you couple that with Rome’s educational system, which was heavily influenced by the Greeks, along with Rome’s engineering and technology, Hitchens comment is revealed as being less than credible. Rome was very well positioned to serve as a starting point for the gospel message (see Acts 25:12; 28:30).

VI) Christianity is Immoral

Hitchens then goes on to say that he regards the Christian message to be immoral. His conclusion is derived from a limited perspective on the consequences of any kind of wrongdoing. While it is both appropriate and biblical to take responsibility for the wrongful act that you’ve committed (Matt 5:23-26), the spiritual ramifications of sin are both eternal and lethal and cannot be offset by any kind of human effort (2 Sam 12:13 [see also http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-godcentered-understanding-of-sin.php]). In other words, being ethical may address the material debt incurred by your actions and it may even ease the tension felt as a result of your wrongdoing, but it accomplishes nothing as far as paying the debt that is owed to God.

That’s what makes grace so amazing. It’s not a question of the lengths you go to in order to compensate for your actions – that’s an expected response from a moral perspective. But neither you nor I can atone for our sin on our own (Heb 10:4). It requires a Divine Solution. And when you consider the price that God was willing to pay for said solution, to regard it as immoral is nonsensical. Rather, it’s a kind of love that is nothing short of outrageous in that it is entirely undeserved, yet freely given (1 Jn 3:1).

VII) No Win Scenario

Finally, Hitchens concludes that God has created a no win scenario by imposing expectations that are impossible to live up to. Coupled with the fact that He’s aware of, not only your outward behavior, but also the agendas within the hidden recesses of your mind, you are lost and condemned from the very start.

Paul refers to the same “no win” scenario that Hitchens observes in Romans 7. This is a man that was blameless, as far as keeping the law (Phil 3:6). But however pristine he may have looked on the outside, he knew that before God, all his righteous acts were like filthy rags and he was a slave to sin (Is 64:6; Rom 7:14). And it’s not that God has orchestrated this situation, rather it goes back to the fact that man chose this dynamic back in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15-17; 3 :16-19). But while man chose to live in the context of this sitting, God provided a Remedy that Paul builds up to in Romans 7:24-25 where he says, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

VIII) Conclusion

The fundamental flaw in Hitchens’ reasoning is that his philosophical starting point positions himself in the center of the universe as opposed to God. Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you make yourself the center of the universe, all your perspective is skewed. There is only one moral center of the universe, and that is God. If you get into right relation with Him, then you have your right perspective and your right relation and your right size.”4 Hitchens has determined that God cannot exist outside the parameters of his intellectual preferences. His limited knowledge of Scripture coupled with a resolve to process the whole of life and creation according to a personal paradigm that reduces the enormity of the cosmos and the intricacies of the human experience to something that fits within an academic shoebox, results in something that appears controlled and calculated, but is revealed as being pathetically inept when confronted with the world as it truly is.

But here’s the thing: Hitchens isn’t going to be swayed by mere reason alone. For him, this kind of debate is more along the lines of chess where people position their arguments like they would move their bishops and pawns on a chessboard. That isn’t to say that you don’t engage people like Christopher. Paul never shied away from debating the logic of the gospel. You see that in Acts 17 when he was in Athens and engaged the philosophers and the great thinkers in that city. But for people like Christopher, you want to challenge their logic with not only your rebuttal but with your life. It’s there where the Power of God is most compelling. Ideas are one thing, but the ideals that guide and empower the life that is worth imitating – that’s what makes the difference, that’s what silences the critics and that’s what points people to Christ.

1. “Christopher Hitchens”, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christopher_Hitchens, accessed June 19, 2015
2. Ibid
3. Bible Hub, “The Roman Empire at the Time of the Birth of Christ. Upwards of a Quarter of a Century Before the Birth of Christ”, William Dool Killen, http://biblehub.com/library/killen/the_ancient_church/chapter_i_the_roman_empire.htm, accessed June 19, 2015
4. “Wilson”, A. Scott Berg, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, N.Y., 2013, p37

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer – Part I

questionsPopping the Hood on Scripture

The critic bangs his hand on the desk and insists that unless he can break down the Word of God to the point where it can fit comfortably within the boundaries of his intellectual preferences, his skepticism will remain intact and the condescending tone he uses when he addresses believers in Christ will also remain decidedly sarcastic.

When confronted with a situation in Scripture that doesn’t make sense, the believer responds as a diligent student does when they are challenged by something in the classroom they don’t understand. They don’t accuse the professor as being flawed, nor do they doubt the integrity of the curriculum. Rather, they proceed as someone who needs to learn as opposed to someone who wants to critique.

It’s the philosophical starting point that distinguishes the cynic from his Christian counterpart. The atheist needs to keep the Reality of God at an arm’s distance and therefore keeps the curtains drawn in order to maintain the illusion that man’s ability to reason is subordinate to the One Who gave him that ability to begin with. The Christ-follower, on the other hand, recognizes the limitations of the human perspective and, in the face of something seemingly illogical, labors to understand in the light of God’s Identity and Authority.

Still, you can’t simply say “If the Bible says it, then I believe it” and not come across as academically anemic. The passages cited by critics as evidence that the Bible is less than credible, can be resolved, you just have to be willing to pop the hood on Scripture and do some digging.

The problems and questions dealt with in this volume have been directed to me during the past thirty years of teaching on the graduate seminary level in the field of biblical criticism. As an undergraduate at Harvard, I was fascinated by apologetics and biblical evidences; so I labored to obtain a knowledge of the languages and cultures that have any bearing on biblical scholarship. As a classics major in college, I received training in Latin and Greek, also in French and German. At seminary I majored in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years I became involved in Syriac and Akkadian, to the extent of teaching elective courses in each of these subjects. Earlier, during my final two years of high school, I had acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian studies, which was furthered as I later taught courses in this field. At the Oriental Institute in Chicago, I did specialized study in Eighteenth Dynasty historical records and also studied Coptic and Sumuerian. Combined with this work in ancient languages was a full course of training at law school, after which I was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1939. This gave me a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences. Additionally, I spent three years in Beruit, Lebanon, in specialized study of modern literary Arabic. This was followed by a month in the Holy Land, where I visited most of the important archaeological sites. 1

Dr. Gleason Archer (see call out to the right) says as much in the preface to his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information.2

And when it comes to one’s approach to apparent discrepancies in Scripture, he says:

Be fully prepared in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how a bumble bee can fly; yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its fine performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text.3

At the end of the day, it’s not just what the Bible says, it’s what the Bible is. That’s what makes this exchange both significant and distinctive. We’re not merely gauging the authenticity of an ancient text. The question on the table is whether or not God exists and is the Word of God, in fact, His Message to us? Or, is it merely a religious comic book without the pictures? The critic needs it to be the latter in order for their worldview to remain intact. But however fortified their defenses may be – regardless of the rapid abundance that characterizes their rhetoric – their stance needs to be countered with something compelling and in a way that points them to the Truth (Jn 14:6).

The following ten questions are posed in a video on youtube entitled “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” The questions are not the sort that break new ground as far as Bible difficulties are concerned and like the objections that have been raised in the past, there are rebuttals and explanations, it’s just a matter of referencing books like Dr Gleason’s “Encyclopedia” or any one of a number of other similar resources, not to mention Scripture itself.

The final frame of the video states that the “silence is deafening.” We want to make sure we can break that silence with something that not only addresses the questions, but more importantly provides an approach to God and the Message of that gospel that’s intellectually sound – unobstructed by questions that seemingly have no answer. In that way, it’s not only their intellect that’s satisfied, it’s their soul as well.

Here we go…

1) When Noah’s ark landed, how did the Kangaroos make it back to Australia?

There’s an article you can access by clicking here that elaborates on a time when the continents as we know them today were actually one solid land mass. That would give both animals and people the ability to migrate without having to contend with the insurmountable obstacle of an ocean between them and where they would ultimately make their home.

2) If the ark was covered in pitch, it also made it air tight. How did they survive for 40 days and 40 nights since Noah couldn’t open the window?

Probably because the areas that were covered in pitch were those that came in direct contact with the water as opposed to the airtight coffin you interpret the ark to be.

3) Why were Adam and Eve punished for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when they didn’t / couldn’t understand what they were doing?

They did understand what they were doing in that they had been told not to eat from that particular tree (Gen 2:17).

4) Why would God place the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil so close to His innocent creation, then allow Satan to tempt them and all the while stand back and do nothing?

Love and obedience go hand in hand (Jn 14:21) and love isn’t love unless its voluntary. In the absence of a choice, you don’t have love as much as you have a calculated reaction.

Dr Ravi Zacharias explains it this way:

What would it take to create a loving world void of evil? A world in which love is capable of meaningful expression and experience would also imply a world in which there is choice. If someone tells you that they love you, those words mean something because they are freely given. If you learned that someone had told you they loved you but that they had been forced to say it, their words would not mean very much. Thus, if we want to speak of a loving world, we must also speak of a world in which choices are exercised. And in such a world, there is also the possibility of choosing a course of action that is not loving, i.e. evil.

5) When the women went to Jesus’ empty tomb, was the stone already rolled away, or did an angel roll it away after the women got there?

When looking at the four gospel accounts, Matthew 28:2 is worded in a way that’s distinct from Mark 16:1-5, Luke 24:1-2 and John 20:1. Matthew reports the scene of the empty tomb in a mannerthat makes it sound as though the stone was rolled away upon the arrival of the women that had come to care for Jesus’ body as opposed to it happening prior to their arrival. The NIV Text Note elaborates on the Greek verbiage used in the text as being past tense so there’s no inconsistency between the four accounts, even though there might appear to be.4 See also James 1:13.

To continue on to Part II, click here.

1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p11
2. Ibid, p12
3. Ibid, p14
4 .There was. The sense is “Now there had been.” It is clear from the parallel accounts (Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1) that the events of vv. 2-4 occurred before the women actually arrived at the tomb (NIV Text Note on Matthew 28:2) NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1985. p1489

Christianity vs Islam: A Facebook Conversation

muslim_christianRecently a buddy of mine was comparing the Bible to the Koran in the context of commenting on some of the atrocities being committed by Isalmic terrorists. A couple of specific quotes fired me up and I wrote the following.

Bear in mind, he and I sit on different sides of the aisle when it comes to Christianity in general, but there are people who sit in a pew every Sunday who can’t tell you what they believe and why. It’s their casual regard for their creed and their lack of basic knowledge when it comes to Scripture that can lead to a less than informed perspective when it comes to processing Islam, especially the way some will assert that the same kind of terrorist actions have been commited under the heading of Christ. When you take the time to pop the hood on what’s being said, while it may not be a call to arms, it is certainly an admonishment to be wise.

Bring it!

If you’re going to going to compare my creed and my King to Mohammed and Islam, let me help you out with a couple of specifics that you need to be aware of.

First off, you mention how the Bible says to “stone your daughter and other barbaric acts too numerous to mention.” The passage you’re referring to is Deuteronomy 22:13-30. Jewish Law can be broken down into three sections: Judicial, Ceremonial and Moral. The passage you’re referring to is categorized under the “Judicial” heading. Adultery – having sex with someone other than your spouse – was a capital offense (Lev 20:10). In this instance you’ve got a young woman who’s engaged, and while the ceremony has yet to happen, she’s considered betrothed in light of her having accepted her fiancé’s proposal. Knowing the penalty and being fully aware of the shame she brings on herself, her family her husband to be and her God, she decides to accept and inflict all of that in exchange for a moment of pleasure. That’s not mere promiscuity, that’s a pathologically twisted and selfish perspective.

You’re right in saying the New Testament changed things in that the Ceremonial and Judicial Law were no longer binding and situations like what’s referred to above were not punished in the same way (see Jn 8:1-11). That doesn’t mean that daughter above was any less wrong. God puts up varying levels of boundaries in proportion to the damage that can be done should you cross that line. Lying and stealing required some kind of recompense (Lev 6:1-5; Dt 19:19). Adultery and Murder were handled differently in that you were put to death (Num 35:16). That’s not barbaric, that’s wisdom given the way those actions can ruin lives and it’s the severity of the punishment that we can look at now, not so much as a guide for how to administer justice as much as it’s an alert to the kind of behavior you want to stay clear of.

As far as the “Lords and Kings that murdered all non-believers in the name of the Pope and Jesus” consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3 This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of European soldiers.

In short, the “Kings and Lords” you refer to weren’t believers championing the gospel as much as they were leveraging the “look and feel” of the gospel in order to achieve their own ends.

As far as Islam being a “peaceful” religion, Bush wasn’t wrong when he said that the “face of terror is not the true faith of Islam” in that many Muslims will focus on passages in the Koran such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

The problem however, is that later passages were written that some interpret to be nullifications of the previous texts. Verses like:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

That’s the plight of Muslims in that while they can legitimately claim to be peaceful, the fact is they’re hard pressed to condemn those who are not because the militants will respond that they are merely being obedient to other sections of the Koran.

The fact is, Islam and Christianity are NOT the same. My God doesn’t expect people to get their act together before He’s willing to consider them. He sent His Son to bridge that gap while Allah simply expects you to pray and be pious. Unless you really want to win his favor – at that point you need to engage in the lesser jihad which is killing in the name of Allah. Should you have any question about that, feel free to peruse the Fawah authored by five Islamic caliphates on February 23, 1998 which includes the following statement:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

If you’re interested in reading the whole thing, head out to http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Bottom line: Mohammad’s last wife was six years old and the union was consummated when she was ten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha). Much of Islam’s growth has been promoted under the heading of “die for Allah” whereas my Savior lived a sinless life and died for me. However butchers and so called saints have abused Scripture in order to substantiate their actions, it was an abuse of Scripture, not an application of it.

Is this a call to arms? Not necessarily, but it is certainly an admonishment to be wise. George W. Bush did well to emphasize the peaceful tenets of Islam ,but at its core is a doctrine of terror and that needs to recognized for what it is.

There is Such a Thing as “Muscular Christianity”

new_logo_rgb_blogThink about this: Being fit spiritually needs to be approached with the same kind of resolve that one deploys in the context of being physically fit. Reason being is that I’m not going to triumph in life based on a fit appearance. It’s who I am and not how I look or perform that ultimately translates to true success.

Being fit is very, very cool. I don’t say that because I feel like I’ve arrived, rather I see it as something that goes beyond mere appearances and therefore worthy of more than a casual effort.

It is inevitably indicative of who you are: your sense of discipline, you capacity to meet certain challenges, your ability to do more than the bare minimum.

We live in a world of instant gratification and an acceptance of unhealthy excess. We don’t have a bowl of ice cream, we have a quart because it’s there and we tell ourselves we should be able to enjoy it. And I’m not just talking about a frozen dairy dessert; I’m talking about any kind of food or behavior that, while it may be fine in the context of healthy parameters, is positively lethal when engaged without boundaries that are Absolute.

People cringe when they hear that word because it represents a dynamic that is perceived as unnecessarily restrictive and no one likes to be told they shouldn’t or they can’t.

But behind that word is an approach that is as advantageous as it is common. No one who has been able to accomplish something extraordinary has been able to do so without denying themselves whatever might distract them from achieving their goal. Yet when we attempt to take that same concept and rightfully apply it to the whole of life, discipline and sacrifice are suddenly processed as antiquated and even judgmental because even the presence of limits can invoke feelings of resentment and indignation. Its one thing to be disciplined in the context of pursuing a goal, but it’s another when deployed as part of a holistic approach to our total existence. Read more