There is No God

Michaelangelo's depiction of the creation of Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel circa 1512

There is no god.

That is a message we often hear. And another which is a bit more subtle, but which has the same effect, "All gods are the same." This last assertion, of the equivalency of all religions should be very familiar to those who have read C. S. Lewis' books, The Chronicles of Narnia, specifically the book The Last Battle.

In that book, the cat Ginger promotes the belief in Tashlan - an amalgamation of the evil diety Tash and the good diety Aslan.  Ginger teaches that Aslan and Tash are the same. Many characters in the book prefer to embrace this easier path and much mischief, destruction and unhappiness results.  It is the central conflict of the book, and in case you haven't read it, I won't spoil the ending for you.

But you and I are living in a different book. We are living in the Book of Life.  And, like our own lives, this book has a beginning, a middle, and most ominously, an end.  And, like any compelling story, our lives, individually and collectively involve an unavoidable conflict.

In Lewis' The Last Battle, the conflict was the choice between Tash and Aslan.  Ginger, by promoting the conflation of Tash and Aslan was presenting a false choice that appeared to be no choice.

Today, we hear three main voices on the topic of religion.  I will tackle each of these separately here, because each is an important argument that each person needs to confront as part of being a responsible adult human being.

1) God does not exist.  Religion is the opiate of the masses and guilty of causing most human suffering throughout history.

2) All religions are the same.  Whatever way you choose to worship god is fine.  The important thing is to live a life that reflects the religious values that are common to nearly all religions - caring for the poor, providing for your family, being kind to others.

3) There is only one true religion, and if you reject that one true religion, then there are unpleasant consequences which will eventually and unavoidably come to you.

I will address each of these in the order above.

1) God Does Not Exist 

- This argument is extremely prevalent, perhaps for the first time in human history.  It has gained ground steadily under two influences: 

A) Communism explicitly embraces the notion that God does not exist and that religion is used by the powers of the world to maintain their hold over the masses by conflating their eternal salvation with support for the government which holds them in thrall.  

B) Intellectualism - this is the conceit of the educated.  They get a bit more knowledge than the average person, be that through science or the arts, and they come to the conclusion that diety is a concept that was invented by humankind to  explain with superstitious stories the world around them which they, at the time, lacked the knowledge to explain and understand. 

Both Communism and Intellectualism reject the concept of the existence of intelligent beings whose powers, knowledge and abilities are incomprehensibly far beyond our own, and who are related to us and seeking to help us.  At best, they will lump this into the realms of science fiction and fantasy novels.  At worst, they utterly embrace the double conceit that humankind is the pinnacle of evolution, not only on this planet, but in the entire universe and that if humankind cannot attain something through their own powers, then it does not exist.

Here is the most pernicious outcome of the notion that god does not exist - it is that humankind is the sole arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil.  Whatever conclusions about those things humanity reaches, must be right, because we are collectively too smart to be all wrong together.

One symptom (and cause of this) is that today, we see an educational system in this country that is being perverted from one that teaches people how to use their powers of reasoning and experimentation to examine facts and come to their own conclusions, into a generation of people who are educated to see everything through the biased lenses of a set of socially acceptable opinions that are purveyed as facts.  

Unfortunately, when people cease to believe in diety, then they cease to believe that one day they will be held accountable for all their actions in this life.  All religions have this in common - the notion that after we leave this life, diety will judge us and reward us according to our obedience to the things we were taught that were right.  If god does not exist, then there is no final accountability where we are measured against an absolute and unyielding yardstick.

This denial of diety and the consequent judgement is extremely liberating to the minds of many.  It frees them up to be as fiendish as they desire while allowing them to utterly ignore either conventional notions of good and evil or the nagging voice of conscience that tries to dissuade them from their destructive and prideful path.  Eventually, they are able to utterly silence the voice of conscience, and they take this withdrawal of the voice of god in their lives as conclusive evidence that they were right in their notion that god does not exist and what is right is whatever they can get away with.

In a world without god, might makes right.  Whether that is the might of majority opinion, or the might of superior firepower.

2) All Religions Are The Same 

- I won't spend a whole lot of time in this space, because of one important reason, the bottom line of this notion is this:  If all relgions are the same, then they are the same as no religion.  Which means that whatever path you decide is right, is right.  This, in the end, is the same as saying There is No God.

The most vile aspect of this notion is the moral equivalency it makes between groups like ISIS who are killing and torturing all who they define as sinners and every other religious organization in the world, including the Dalai Lama, the Pope, and your local priest or minister.  So, whether the religion teaches tolerance and peace, or violent destruction of dissenters, they are all morally the same.

When President Obama makes public arguments equating the Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages with  ISIS, his argument does not highlight the horror of savage intolerance, rather it seeks to undermine any moral argument that Christianity is different than Islam.  His argument promotes the notion of moral equivalency and instead of increasing the strength or moral and religious arguments against the likes of ISIS, it destroys the foundation for outrage against any outrageous conduct by any person or group.

The Lion Monument or Löwendenkmal, a striking rock sculpture dedicated to the fallen Swiss mercenaries who served under France's notorious King Louis XVI. Narnia fans might find it familiar as it evokes the dying Aslan on the stone table.

3) There is Only One True Religion 

- When I hit on this topic, I know, without question, that I will offend many.  Unfortunately for them, many of those who will be offended, if they critically examine their beliefs will find that they have been lulled into the moral equivalency camp and they have replaced their belief in God with a belief that all ways are right.  

Fortunately for me, I am on very firm ground when I assert that there is only one true religion.  I am on firm ground because Jesus Christ said it long before I did.  He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life.  No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6).  Jesus did not leave room for ambiguity in his assertion.  And, he was teaching obedience to the god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.

Image courtesy of GivingPraise.com

Contrary to what Islam preaches, he did proclaim himself as the Son of God, numerous times and placed himself above Abraham.  When he did this in Nazareth, they immediately tried to kill him for speaking what they thought was blasphemy (see John 8:58).

In case I am not being clear enough here, I will state it so plainly that it cannot be misunderstood: Christianity is the only religion on earth that is true.  All other religions have some pieces of the truth and have some value, but they are not pointing people toward the one god that actually exists.

And, before anyone can mock this assertion because of the proliferation of Christian churches, let me stat clearly that there is only one Christian church which is true, in that it possess both the correct teachings and the authority from God to carry out ordinances on earth, such as baptism, that are as binding on God as they are on man.

There is truly, as was stated by Paul, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5). And one religion.  And, it is not one from many, as most Protestant Christian churches preach. Rather, there is only one that contains the binding authority that Christ gave to the Apostle Peter when he told him, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18)

God does exist. And, we know of His existence, not as the intellectualist says because we made it up, rather, we know of His existence, his attributes, his purposes, and our relationship to Him because He revealed Himself, again and again.  He did not leave us here to fend for ourselves and to labor in ignorance.

He showed himself to Adam and Eve and taught them. And He did not leave it at that. He revealed Himself to Enoch and to Noah. And later to Abraham and Jacob.  Then to Moses and Joshua.  And when God sent His own Son to teach His children, they killed him as they did the prophets before him.

But even after the death of Jesus Christ, God revealed himself to the Apostles and many others.  But those witnesses too were killed by those who didn't want to accept the idea that there was only one true religion, one true church, and it wasn't theirs. 

In our days, God again revealed Himself and immediately dispelled the many mistaken notions that had arisen around His nature, purposes, and ways.  And, like those messengers who were rejected in times past, this messenger too was attacked and eventually killed when the message he preached said, again, that there is one true religion, one true church, and it wasn't one of those in power at the time.

I know that my statements here will anger or offend many, but again, let me say that I am only repeating what God Himself has said:

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually--"

Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 (emphasis added)

God said it. I cannot argue against it or ameliorate it without turning away from what He has said.  That being said, I also know that under God's plan, no one who lives to any degree in accordance with His doctrines will be shorted in their reward when life is done, whether or not they knew they were His doctrines and principles.  So, it behooves all humankind to live with the sure knowledge that when life is over we will be held accountable for all our deeds in this life by a power far greater than we can comprehend.

In counter to the three points at the start of this article, to conclude this article let me offer three counterpoints:

1) God is real.

2) Moral equivalence is not just wrong, it is evil and destructive.

3) There is one true religion which has been revealed and which can be verified using only the means and methods God has revealed.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Lafayette Theater Shooting and 4 Dead Marines in Chattanooga - Fear and Anger, An Obama Master Stroke?

At breakfast, my wife and I were talking about the recent killing of four Marines and one Sailor in Chatannooga Tennessee and the shooting last night in a theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.  She mentioned that with Obama's directives that our military aren't allowed to carry firearms on base, that he was making our military into soft targets for terrorists.  She speculated that he is trying to arrange things to create a culture of fear and anger.

That got us talking and thinking.  What is to be gained by inciting the average American to fear and anger?

The fear part seems clear to me.  

Obama's former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is credited with giving voice to the horrifyingly crass idea that politicians should, "never let a serious crisis go to waste."  This remark is so notorious that it has now been labeled "Rahms Rule."  And it means that

"Major crises can provide cover for distributing benefits to targeted special interest groups. The greater the magnitude of a given crisis and the shorter the interval for forming legislation to deal with it, the larger the spread of pork that can be packed into the final legislation." 

It is a very short step from using crises for political gain to creating crises in order to leverage them for political gain.  Of course, creating crises means that the one taking advantage of the crises must appear blameless in causing the crises.  Which is one of the reasons why plausible deniability is so important to politicians.

Getting the American people whipped up into a state of fear makes them more willing to accept tighter limits on their freedoms "to keep them safe."  Don't believe me?

Consider the fact that when you want to fly these days, you willingly submit to x-ray scans and body searches that are more universal and intrusive than the targeted "stop and frisk" program that caused such outrage over invasions of privacy and public humiliation in New York City.

Glen Beck wrote a novel that explained this principle of using crisis to change our view of what is acceptable in fairly large increments.  His book, The Overton Window, was a fun read, but I am afraid too many readers may have enjoyed the story so much that they missed the prime point he was making.  I hope I am wrong on that last point.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd has relentlessly used crises such as the Sandy Hook school shooting, the SC Church shooting and now the Lafayette Theater shooting as rallying cries for greater restrictions on gun ownership.  They certainly won't let any crisis go to waste in their unrelenting campaign to transform us from citizens into subjects by disarming us first piecemeal and then wholesale.

The angry part is less clear to me, and much more dangerous to all concerned.  

I guess the most logical way to use an angry American people is to get them to take the streets in violent protests.  Such widespread violence, regardless of its direct cause, would provide an excuse to implement martial law and immediately suspend nearly all civil rights.  Then, we could, almost in an instant be transformed from a Representative Republic into a dictatorship.  After all, with widespread unrest, we couldn't be expected to be able to hold elections, right?  So, we would have to continue with the crowd we have until things are settled enough (by the standards of those in power) to hold elections again.

And what would have to occur before things are "settled" enough?  Likely that would entail the suppression and elimination of those elements in society deemed as destabilizing.  In other words, all those opposed to the current power elite.

Under this state of fear and anger, troops would be authorized and used to actively attack groups and individuals all over the country until everyone finally got the message that you better toe the party line, or risk being named an enemy of the state and either killed or imprisoned.

By the time the majority of the people realized they had been hoodwinked, it would be too late to do anything about it unless they were willing to see lots of people die to change things.  All your guns would, at the least be registered, and the worst they would already be confiscated.  And peaceful and passive forms of resistance and opposition would be handled with the same level of ferocity and violence accorded those "subversive" actors who the military had been called in to put down.

It is instructive to note that "the shot heard 'round the world" at Concord and Lexington was fired when the "federal" government of England moved to confiscate the guns and ammunition of the civilly authorized militia.  The English Generals and Governors recognized that if their subjects retained their arms and ammunition, they could not be easily forced into compliance with laws dictated by a monarch and his parliament that were increasingly arbitrary and hostile to the best interests of the people.

I mentioned that the anger part is much more dangerous to all concerned.  

What I am thinking of here is that while the people are angry, individuals and groups often do things that, in a more rational moment they would never consider.  As was seen in the "Rodney King Riots" in LA and the more recent riots is Ferguson Missouri and the Baltimore Riots of 2015, a rampaging mob of people protesting violence against blacks is as likely to destroy black-owned businesses as they are to destroy those of whites or asians.  The looters really don't care who owns what they are stealing.  They just want to take things without paying for them, and then sell them for a 100% profit.

Mobocracy is both violent and mindless.  Its creators aim it in the direction they want it to go, and then they work the edges to either take advantage of targets of opportunity, or to push the mob closer toward the ultimate target.  Just to be clear here, when I speak of the creators of mobocracy, I am not usually referring to the people who actually started a rally or a march.  Those folks are often innocent pawns of those who use the rally or march to start violence.

Blacks in this country historically should be most opposed to mobocracy.  Mobocracy is what the KKK relies upon to achieve its ends.  After all, two of the appealing aspects of being in a mob is strength in numbers and the anonymity of the crowd.  Covering your face with a mask and then roaming the streets with a bunch of similarly masked people is the essence of public Klan action.  It also marks the activities of many Anarchists.  And, it is what was used to faciliate the lynching of countless blacks in the South right up through the Civil Rights era.

The issue here, for ordinary Americans, is to not allow the anger and fear of the moment, or even of the moments, to be used to drive you into supporting action that will ultimately turn you and the rising generation from citizens into subjects.

The Crisis Users like Rahm Emmanuel and his former boss, Barak Obama, and their allies jump on a crisis with both feet.  They make public statements that are filled to the brim with emotion.  They decry the tragedy and call for laws that will prevent such tragedies in the future.  And the laws are never aimed at the root causes of the problem, rather, they are aimed at the leaves of the bush of evil and are calculated to reduce the freedoms of law-abiding citizens rather than actually punishing the wrong-doer.

What do I mean by leaves and roots?  Renowned US author Henry David Thoreau is credited with saying that, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."  When politicians call for stricter gun laws in the wake of a shooting, they are functionally blaming the car for the deaths caused by a drunken driver.

Why would they make such a silly and egregious error as to blame a car for the actions of a drunk driver?  Why would they blame guns for the actions of a deranged person?  Clearly, there are only two reasons any reasonably intelligent person would blame an inanimate object for the actions of a person.  Either 1) they believe that Stephen R King's horror story "Christine" about a car with a mind of its own was a true story rather than a novel and these inanimate objects are actually animated by some ancient spirit and we are about to be overrun by Killdozer. Or 2) they have a hidden agenda which involves restricting the access of law-abiding people to inanimate objects which they are lawfully entitled to have and use.

Why do I say they have a hidden agenda?  Quite simply because they are not being open and honest about their motives.  If they were, they would say things like, "there is no reason any person outside of the military or law enforcement need guns, so I want to take them away from everyone who is not using them for military or law enforcement as part of their job."

You won't find many (if any) politicians who will be this open about their objective, because they know that Obama was right when he said that Americans cling to their religion and their guns.  Although he was totally wrong when he ascribed that behavior solely to folks who are bitter, unemployed, or racist.  Americans cling to their religion because it has a proven track-record of keeping this country from becoming as self-serving as the nations of Europe.  And they cling to their guns because they know that responsibility for feeding the family and protecting the family ultimately rest with the family, not with the police or any other arm of the government.

So, now that another lunatic crashed a car into a store trying to kill people, don't let the politicians and mainstream media brainwash you into accepting the hare-brained notion that banning cars will keep lunatics from killing.  Oh, excuse me, rewrite the above and replace "crashed a car" with "used a gun" and replace "banning cars" with "banning guns."  Other than that, the arguments are the same.

Don't let fear and anger take over.  Instead, call, email, fax or write your elected officials in Washington, citing the news stories, and tell them to stand firm in defending the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against gun wielding lunatics by doing away with legalized "soft targets" in the US.

After all, what crazy killer is going to go into a theater to shoot people, if he knows that half the folks there are carrying concealed and for every one round he sends downrange, he will see four or five coming right back at him?

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.