Power over others: Control and Manipulation.

"If with dung I am embattled, win or lose I am bespattered"- Martin Luther

In New Zealand’s recent political history one of the main maxims of strategy to win the elections, was simply “Don’t frighten the horses”. This simple statement tells us a great deal about the psychological control being exercised. Horses, as beasts of burden, work best when they are unaware of their own strength. They must be kept constantly in an orderly fashion pulling together, working as a team, and they are encouraged to do so. They are not encouraged either to exercise their individual will in any contrary direction but their will must be at the direction of the master. If horses became frightened enough there are at least two possibilities:

1/.They might start making decisions based on their own inclinations instead of the direction of the master, and realize that they don’t have to be in the harness assigned to them pulling in the same direction as the others.

2/.The work they are set to do may not be accomplished because only as horses pull together, concentrating and compounding their energy in a uniform direction are they able to accomplish the outcome the master desires.

Well, fair enough I suppose… for horses, but what are we to think when this sort of language is used by a political leader about the voters? Or what if people we trust start using these sorts of tactics?

This is about power, power over others, whether political or social, power between organizations, individuals, husband and wife, parents and children or ministers over congregations.

Many philosophers have pondered this question and have come up with the idea that in human terms all of life is a struggle for power. What are the common methods of gaining and holding power over others?

In the political sphere, one of the first things that happens when a regime takes political control they ensure they have control over communication. Radio and television, newspapers and telecommunications are the next most important thing to control on the agenda. Whoever controls the media controls the popular mind. Whoever controls what is being said in public will, to a large extent, control the public perception of the regime.

Does this happen in other spheres?

In the book of Acts Peter and John were involved in a miraculous healing which upset the powers that be, the religious authorities. They were obviously upset because this “Jesus” was a threat to their hold and authority over the people. So they were motivated by fear and jealousy. Their power-base was under threat.

Peter wisely used the miracle as a platform for the gospel as public interest in the miracle peaked-

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.  Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.   And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.   But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,   Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.  But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.  And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.   But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.   For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. (Acts 4:13-21)

What happens when those who see themselves as the rightful authority and leaders feel threatened but don’t have a “reasonable” reason” for stopping an activity? It is evident they admitted amongst themselves there was no good reason to prevent the Apostles from preaching about Jesus by the words-

“they could say nothing against it.” And also: “ a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.” 

So what did they do? They attempted to misconstrue the motives of the others through misinformation and shut down communication- and in a threatening manner- “commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.” It is indicated that they would have used force and punished them if they could get away with it, and this would have been possible had the disciples not been held in such favour by the people for the miracle.

It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth. Why is this? The truth is what douses and calms a situation, whereas lies and propaganda have the opposite effect, that of inflaming circumstances. The truth has a tendency to peace, but lies tend to escalate a bad situation to a worse one. Lies and hyperbole (exaggeration) therefore are what people enlist in order to further their own hidden agendas.

One of the most potent arguments for how much God holds and values human sovereignty dear to his heart is indicated through Christ’s relationships with others. What do I mean by “human sovereignty”? By that I mean the privilege we as humans share of being able to be self aware, responsible moral beings. Many see the word “responsible” and fail to see that it entails the idea of being able to respond correctly to reason, to what is fair and good and reasonable.  This is one of the chief characteristics that distinguish us from animals. Suppose one were to look at a modern day livestock farm with multiple paddocks neatly fenced off and cattle grazing contentedly on pasture. Without knowing, the uninitiated may ask, “Why aren’t there cattle in all the paddocks? Why do you fence it so that your land cannot be grazed at will by the animals?  The short answer is that animals, unlike humans cannot be persuaded to practice self control, to exercise restraint. Delayed gratification is philosophically fundamental to human nature, not so with cows! If the farm hadn’t all those individual paddocks the livestock would ingest the pasture at an uncontrolled rate and consequently the animals would starve themselves when winter grass growth rates weren’t able to keep up with demand. 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

This call of God to his creatures gives a clear and cogent example of his willingness to enlist our will by the use of reason and persuasion rather than brute force or “lording it over us”, or by conniving and coercion, giving us no way to exercise our wills. His desire is that we are willing followers, he doesn’t call us servants and slaves, but friends. How does He demonstrate this relation with us?

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. (John 15:12-15)

The most notable way in which we know of his commitment towards us and of his friendship is in knowing he lays his life down for his friends. This “laying down” his life is not just (and I do not wish to minimize it at all) in the way he went to the cross on our behalf, that is the extreme expression of it; but also in countless other ways he showed his love. When his mother was watching him expire painfully on the cross he asked John to take care of her. This seems ordinary enough, given the situation, but the significance of it is only apparent when we revisit the circumstances of his statement- he was in agony. Such is the intensity of pain involved in dying on a cross a new word was invented for it, “excruciating” is a direct reference to the pain of crucifiction.   When you bang your finger with a hammer or jamb it in a door, when you are in pain- how much concern do you have for others right at that moment? In much the same way a mother will (at the expense of being unpopular) order her children to bed. And this may be the most legitimate spiritual expression (at that particular time) of her love for her child. She lays down her life (in terms of her popularity) for the love of her child, and that is just one of a myriad of ways in which her love is expressed. And it is the future happiness of the child that is firmly in her sight. Delayed gratification.

The writer of Hebrews urged us to follow the example of Christ and said:  

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. (Hebrews 12:2-3)

He endured his short and tumultuous life culminating in an ignominious death on the cross for the joy he knew and was fully persuaded of that lay ahead.  He practiced Delayed Gratification.

In addition to these things Jesus taught:

 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known.

Jesus shared openly what he knew, this is the basis on which he showed his commitment to his friends and family. People do not keep confidence with those who are not friends, they are not open with them. In particular, people who want to keep an advantage to themselves do not share personal things with others who they wish to keep in subjection, to those they wish to keep at a distance. They wish to keep them in ignorance of certain things, they wish to keep people in ignorance to keep the upper hand. To keep control. When people speak of " a need to know basis" what they are really saying is "I will keep key things to myself in order to keep the advantage". They cut the lines of communication. This is the very opposite of what Christ did for his own. Christ was often so forthright and straight with people even at the risk of offending them. It is indeed a strong test for a relationship to say something that is not pleasing to your friend, even sometimes to a family member:

            When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.  But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. (John 6:61-66)

 People in right relationship are not afraid to speak frankly and openly the truth even if it places some risk to the relationship as long as their motives are for the good of the other, even if their comments are misunderstood.

Another method people constantly use to gain and keep control is to play one lot of people against another, agitating strife- turning away people that previously were in good standing while keeping in favour with the people they wish to manipulate, poisoning relationships. This is evident here: The situation is that Pilate personally saw no evil in Christ, and rightly, no reason to detain him, and so wished to let him go:

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!) But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. .(John 19:12-16)

The people opposed to Christ raised opposition to him by claiming he was an enemy of Rome and therefore an enemy of Pilates authority, when this was not true. They took his Kingship out of context, it was not an earthly kingdom using the power of might and force. Didn’t he heal the centurion’s servant? A centurion was a soldier in the pay of Rome, in service and loyal to the Emperor of Rome- Caesar.

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,  And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. (Matthew 8:5-7)

And didn’t he guarantee the rights of Caesar over his own domain when he said (to the consternation of those who sought to trap him):  

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22:17-21)

People twist things to their own advantage and to the detriment of those relationships they wish to destroy.

   

In conversation with others Christ was frequently asked questions which were designed often to trap him into incriminating himself. People were waiting for an opportunity to make him appear bad before others. His response was not to call down fire and brimstone, or to use language as a character assassination, he responded in turn with a question that very often was calculated to make the hearer aware of their own character shortfalls and their own biased assumptions.

As a part of the strategy to disadvantage others and keep control, the medium of language and culture may be employed. This is illustrated by the practices of the Roman Catholic Church as in the days of Martin Luther. In those days the scriptures were written in Latin and the public were quite unable to access any of the Holy Scriptures for themselves. Not only was the language of the scriptures inaccessible to the people but the people were banned from trying to access and understand them on the pretext that only “ordained clergy” were authorized to interpret and teach the sense of scripture. All influence of the scriptures was mediated to the people through the “Church” which became an absolute authority. This remained a stranglehold for centuries. In this way the public or those kept ignorant are denied the “Love of the Father” and God was almost universally seen as a judgemental avenging God who couldn’t wait for his children to give him an opportunity to avenge his wrath upon them. So through communication lines cut by the misuse of language a false understanding is instilled in people who would be at the mercy of those who were in control. 

 Evil is not the domain of any particular culture since in all cultures it is present. Evil is a result of fallen human nature and it is expressed in different ways through different cultures. It is not for nothing that “In the beginning was the Word…”

In this context of parents struggling to do right by their child and not knowingly meaning to be manipulative; it is informative to ask another question. Where do God's children grow up? It was the mistaken belief of the Jews that all of God's children came from Jewish parents. (That is not to say of course that this is an exclusively Jewish thing!) They jealously guarded and manipulated events to maintain their culture, their traditions, and their family lineage. This was the Jewish mindset, and God used some extraordinary circumstances to change the views of the Apostles, who, being Jewish- were all steeped in those traditions. While Peter was sleeping he was repeatedly given a vision about God's ability to "cleanse" what had previously been understood as unclean. And from this Peter was eventually able to understand that the Gospel was for all who believe irrespective of their ethnicity or other distinguishing characteristics. The idea of the "goyim' a word often disparagingly used by the Jews was to distinguish the Jewish people from all others, a blanket statement based on their perceived special relationship with God through being the physical descendants of Abraham. In one respect they were right, that God's children do enjoy a special relationship with Him. What was wrong was how that was worked out in their lives believing that this relationship came to be through being born in Jewish homes. Being "born again" was not understood.

 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.(Galatians 3:28,29)

God's children grow up in Muslim homes. They grow up in atheistic Communist homes, in Jewish homes and Palestinian homes. They grow up in the homes of secular naturalism, Hindu and Buddhist homes. They grow up in the homes of headhunters and cannibals. I'm not saying these homes are without evil, but the world is evil, everywhere. But know this: 

 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.(Ephesians 1:4-6)

If God has successfully chosen his children from before the world began, to come into time, into existence and into families, into cultures, into a geographical area, into adoption into Christ  and into glory, do we need to fear what the world can do?

Another strategy to gain and maintain control is the misuse of special relationships. This was especially evidenced in the Second World War. Many God-fearing people in Germany were opposed to the government of the day, knowing deep down that things were morally wrong with government directives and policies. By leveraging off loyalty to the scriptures the politicians and leaders of the country used religious language and authority for their own advantage- and so people continued to be loyal to the government when they should have been opposing it. The loyalty of people to the scriptures where citizens are urged to obey civil authorities in no way relieves the people of their responsibility to obey God first. (Go to this post for social experiments conducted as a result of the Nuremburg trials to see how strongly people are influenced by authority at the expense of morality)

            Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. (Romans 13:1-4)

This is a general rule for life- obey those that have legitimate authority over you, remembering that God is over both them and you. The limitation of authority is always conditional on whether the authority is used lawfully and for good. The limiting factor is seen in the words “rulers are not a terror to good works” When one knows that the authority of a leader becomes unlawful and ceases to be for good one is relieved of the obligation to be under it. We see in Acts that the Apostles were in direct opposition to the civil and religious authorities because they had exceeded and violated the God- given mandate to rule. What was their response when questioned ? They reasoned this way-  

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than  unto God, judge ye.) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19,20)

It is clear when leaders exceed the authority given them by God, and it becomes evil, subjects (those under that authority) no longer are bound to obey that authority. This is just as applicable when a parent abuses the God-given authority over children as it is for a man over his wife or pastor over his congregation or government or any other institution over its subjects. God cannot be usurped of his final and ultimate authority. So God gives authority to special relationships to protect and help those relationships flourish in peace and harmony. They start with a husband and wife and then with parents and family, family and community, pastors and congregations and  government relationship with its subjects and of course supremely with God and his creation.  

Toxic relationships are those in which the one in authority demands absolute and unquestioned authority. One ploy is to use guilt over loyalty to that relationship at the expense of others. It is well known that cult leaders demand all of their subjects attention and loyalty especially in the indoctrinating phase. They are to focus intensely on that relationship above all others, relationships with family members are cut off, obstructed or discouraged, they are persuaded that family do not have their best interest at heart.
  

If A Man Speaks In A Forest And There Is No Woman There To Hear Him, Is He Still Wrong?


This question was posted on internet forums, below are some responses:

Referendums

Who is Making a Leap of Faith?

 The Following is part of a discussion that can be found at: Cosmic Fingerprints

Jon you said:

“And I know you are a Christian so I can only assume you will give me a Christian answer to these problems. But since you are a big proponent of logic and reason, please try and answer these using those tools, instead of faith.” and also here: “I know you keep going back to the entire “Communication and Information” argument for the existence of God. You use real world references like DNA and computer code. But again, these are not leaps of scientific proof, these are leaps of FAITH.”

Your assumption that you would get a“faith based answer” is not your only assumption. It seems to me that you want everything to conform to the rules of logic and reason, fair enough, but have you ever done work to validate the rules of logic? Where do they come from? Why do you accept them and them alone for the basis of your “knowledge”? Wouldn't it be fair to say that your confidence in the rules of logic is faith based? How do you account for reason and logic? Whoever claims these are the only tools we must use in our deliberations ought to be prepared to offer an account for those rules. And when you do offer an account of them guess what tools you will be using? Yes you guessed it, reason and logic. No matter how you slice it, you must use logic and reason to justify logic and reason. The point I am making is that every worldview starts with assumptions. Your worldview assumes the laws of logic are the only valid assumption from which to determine and validate truth claims.

The Christian unashamedly makes assumptions too (that the word of God is true) and then uses reason and logic to make his or her claims. Both worldviews involve assumptions and circular reasoning. The Bible is true because God told me so. Where did he tell me? In the Bible. Yeah very circular. But don’t forget that first principles are basic assumptions that are also circular in that it takes reason and logic to justify reason and logic.

When you ask Perry to refrain from faith based comments why do you then violate that edict yourself? You posit other life forms of the universe as being necessary to validate the conclusions Perry makes about life on earth. That is a step of faith on your part isn’t it? 
This is what you said:

“Now, if you have traveled the Cosmos and seen all the other ways life is made...”

Say what! There is not one shred of evidence for -another way life is made- let alone “other ways” and you want Perry to stick to the facts and not make faith based assumptions!
You also appear not to appreciate that the Christian faith is not a leap in the dark but is substantiated to a much deeper degree than that which is often appreciated.

Perry has made statements regarding the nature of information; scientists who specialize in the nature of information formulate these statements. These are scientists whose affiliations may be religious or non-religious, and there is general consensus among them. There are recognized universal laws concerning information. If these laws are agreed to by scientists of all philosophical persuasions then people interested in truth are obligated to account for these laws according to their own worldview. That is Perrys point, information as agreed to by scientists of various ilk, universally recognize that intelligence is a corollary of information; that is- that intelligence is a necessary cause of information in any form. Information does not exist apart from a mind that caused it. Now you seem to have completely ignored his point that you must account for the information in the genetic code. To assume that he has not been logical or reasonable when he accounts for it by according the cause of it to God is irrational on your part. You may give other explanations for that information such as Venusian life-seed planters or whatever but you must give an account for it and you violate your own rules of reason if you do not acknowledge Perrys elucidation as being entirely logical and reasonable.

In fact your oversight in this regard causes me to question your openness to the logic of it. In fact I could even posit that your reason for objecting to this explanation is not so much based on a love for truth or good science, logic, reason, and openness; but deep in your heart, whether you are conscious of it or not you are absolutely opposed to the theistic view of reality irrespective of the truth, logic and reasoning involved because there are deep moral implications in the acceptance of it for you as an individual if Perry is correct.

Perry said:

                                                                                                                                      “Thus truth exists and an intentional super intelligence exists, because communication exists.”

To which you replied Jon: 

“There is a flaw in the logic because if a “super intelligence” existed that created all the codes in the language of life, then there must an even greater super intelligence to create the information in the first one. Wouldn’t it be logical that this first “God” had in him codes and information in him as well? Because the only way “information and codes” can be created is with a super intelligence, right? Then there can not be a super intelligence by itself that wasn’t created, unless it came from the mind of an even greater being….INFINITE REGRESS.”

Here Jon you make a logical error yourself. There is no logical reason why a necessary being need be subject to the laws of contingent being. The law of causality requires that everything (including codes in the language of life) that comes to be must have a cause; a being that necessarily exists does not need a cause since by definition it exists necessarily. From the proposition of necessary existence comes the property of eternal existence such as we describe with the term God. Either the universe (and all in it) is eternal and is necessary being or the universe is contingent and there exists a necessary being that caused it and sustains it. Now if you say that the universe is eternal and necessarily exists as has been stated in outdated cosmology it would appear that you fly in the face of substantial scientific evidence to the contrary via the big bang theory and logically you must substantiate why you believe it is necessarily in existence rather than contingent. You must also explain how- in the light of entropy and the heat death principle- it can be termed as necessarily existing if the Universe is destined to go out of existence, since a necessary existence entails that it never fails to exist. So we take up Perry’s position that is logical and coherent- that a necessary being has instilled the laws of causality, which universally apply to all contingent existences (including genetic code). In short there is no logical reason why God should need a creator or something that wired him up.To add further to the reasoning behind Perry’s affirmation of God behind and responsible for the information in DNA is the Principle of Analogy. As Norman Geisler puts it in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:

“The principle of analogy states that an effect must be similar to its cause. Like produces like. An effect cannot be totally different from its cause.”                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                      The effect we are discussing is an encoded language by which cell replication takes place. In a nutshell- cells are created through linguistic instructions. Does God work like this? Scripture says:

In the beginning was the Word, … and the Word was God… All things were made (by the Word) and nothing was made without the Word. (John 1:1-3 abridged and paraphrased)

Jon you said:

“How does this line of reasoning explain pain, suffering and natural disasters?Why design a world that is constantly cooling and erupting with violent events that kill millions of innocent people?What about our fear of pain and death? If God was real, then he has no fear of death or pain and yet he created beings that must suffer this fate. What does that say about him?Also, the problem of evil. Where did that come from?”

C.S. Lewis wrote about pain, he said something like “Why spell pain that way?” In other words why is it that whenever people raise this issue, why is it immediately put in a moral context? Before we deal directly with the question of evil in the world in relation to an all-good God we must address your presupposition in framing the question the way you have.
If you are a strict materialist then you have no valid basis from which to ask moral questions, why are you concerned with evil and good if there is for you (the materialist) no valid reason for a moral framework upon which to hang this question? The moment you invoke a good versus evil question you are assuming a moral universe and you must answer why you believe it to be a moral universe?So you must be clear in your own mind- if you think along the same lines as the anti-theist Dawkins who said: 

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” 

If you agree in principal with that statement then by your own definition you invalidate the question of pain and evil. You cannot have it both ways- either your worldview precludes the question of evil altogether or you must agree with the theist and conclude it is indeed a moral universe and get serious with the difficult question of evil. Now if you believe the question of evil does require an answer you must explain where morality comes from and what is the source of your standard by which to differentiate evil from good. Here you may see the irony in Dawkins worldwide campaign to eradicate “the evil religion” which is basically a fundamentalist moral crusade, which has no foundation, according to the terms of his self-defined worldview.
At this point in our discussion of evil I would like to point out that the Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient and on the basis of that and his other perfections God has given a reality which includes the possibility and actuality of evil, but we trust in his perfect goodness and benevolence that this has happened for his ultimate good purpose. 

Suppose a native came across a clearing in the jungle and saw his best friend with strange people obviously from an unknown country. His best friend was lying on a table and in an unconscious state; the stranger was poised over him with a knife. There was blood, strong lights, there was strange music, other people were gathered around in strange costumes, they wore masks, they were intensely occupied with the opening they had made in his stomach. There seemed to be articles of torture and strange machinery all around. I’m sure you would recognize a Vietnam style emergency operating theatre, but that would not at all be likely what was going on in the mind of the one whose friend lay on the table. What is all-important and makes all the difference to our attitude is whether or not we know the intention, and, that we do not have at our disposal the complete picture.

Consider this:
Without evil there can be no concept of Justice.
Without evil, mercy becomes an empty term, redundant.
Without evil, forgiveness is impossible.

Without evil, love -defined as unselfish, loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another- could be experienced, but not consciously known by mankind.

Is Truth Relative or Not?

The Following is part of a discussion that can be found at: Cosmic Fingerprints 
Abdullah says:

Well although I’m not an atheist I would like to “hear ” your thoughts on this.In the recent past I heard a conversation with a preacher from the US about TRUTH.He strongly argued that truth is just like a coin hence always has two sides.My problem with that view is this:What if I view truth as a cube? It would have mmm,six sides? Now the big question is:Is truth relative or not? I thought truth is just that :truth!

How can one extrapolate this statement made by somebody? :”Although it seems easier to exclude all but one possibility, and thus resolve all uncertainty, often more than one thing is true at the same time. Indeed, most Bible doctrines have two apparently opposing ‘faces’. For example, God is love, but also He hates evil; God is One but has three persons; we are saved by God’s grace alone, but also we must exercise faith to believe in what Christ has done for us on the cross; we live in a corrupted world, but this is not our home; one day we will die, but those who are in Christ will live forever; we are saved by God’s grace through faith and no good works can contribute to our salvation, but faith without works is dead. And there are many other examples. Attempting to resolve each tension will produce a heresy either by excluding one of the truths or by merging them together in a way which removes the potency of each truth.”


Pontius Pilate once asked Jesus: "What is truth?" The trouble was that he never stuck around for the answer. You are correct-Truth by nature is exclusive. One can readily see this by a word experiment: Suppose someone makes the proposition: "There is no such thing as absolute truth" If that was taken as true then that statement is contradicting itself because in saying "there is no such thing" it is itself an absolute statement, therefore it self-destructs. This proves truth exists, and that it is exclusive. Truth can be simply expressed as "that which corresponds to reality" Truth claims or propositions can be tested with the laws of logic or rational thought. The most widely used being the laws of non-contradiction. Simply stated they go like this:
1. the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A),
2.the law of identity (A is A),and
3.the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A) 

To relate to the metaphors of truth as a coin or as a cube, truth is not determined by majority vote. People today think in relativistic terms saying what is true for you is your personal truth but isn't necessarily true for me. An easy way to settle this is to ask: "Ok if I sell you goods worth $20 and you pay with a $50 note, is it okay to give you $5 change? After all this is true for me, too bad if it isn't for you, we both have different realities, tough!" No, when it comes to mathematical realities we soon see the exclusive nature of truth, why should we see philosophical or religious truth any differently? Go here for further discussion on Relativism.

What we have to be careful about is the difference between contradiction and contrariety. Many things appear as contradictions when in fact they are merely contrarieties. In scientific terms, light is seen as a wave, and experiments can verify this as empirically true, trouble is light can also be experimentally proven as a particle, it appears they cannot be both (a contradiction- violating the law of logic), so what has happened is that a new view of light has encompassed the truth of both views which is how we get "photons". 

Many views in philosophy and religion are treated as contradictions when in fact they can be reconciled. Opposing views held dogmatically tend to polarize people into either or camps. This fact alone is evidence of the exclusive nature of truth. People cling to what they believe to be true. However some things must be held in tension, or in balance. Observe a long straight railway line, according to our eyesight the two metal tracks converge to form a point in the distance. Our eyes tell us this, but our knowledge and experience of perspective knows that any idea of convergence wouldn't just derail our thinking it would also derail the train! Jesus said not to judge by appearances. In Bible doctrines there is often what appears to be opposing views, or what look like contradictions when in fact they are merely contrarieties. To cite your examples:

 "God is love, but also He hates evil" 

But when "love" is properly defined, not according to human sentimentality but according to and in reference to the holiness of God, we see it would be evil not to hate evil. Hating certain things then becomes a function of love rather than the antipathy of love. A creed which defines "love" as the ultimate criterion for life but does not adequately define love, ends up tolerant of every evil; but virtue- as the compliment hypocrisy honours it with shows- is rejected, for it is jealously exclusive. And thus as David Hume once said, the corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst.

"God is one, but has three persons". 

The doctrine of the trinity is not a contradiction in terms, God is one- in one sense and three in another sense. This is not a contradiction in terms. God is one in terms of essence, but not in terms of personality. 

Take the picture of the Morpho Rhetenor at the top of this post. It is a beautiful metallic blue color, is it not? Well actually it is not. What?! While it is perfectly true in one sense it is blue, in another sense it is not blue, there is in fact, no blue pigment in the surface scales of the moth. We know that ordinary white light is actually made up of the colors of the rainbow. blue being a part of the spectrum. Here again we must not judge according to appearances. The butterfly appears blue as a result of an effect known as interference, this filtering of the light that is hitting its scales results in light that is not blue being absorbed and blue light reflectivity is enhanced. In this way we see that there is no contradiction (blue, and not blue)depending on whether by "blue" we are referring to actual blue pigmentation or the appearance of blue due to reflectivity. To speak in plainer terms- would you call a mirror blue because it was giving you a reflection of a clear blue sky- obviously not! So the difference is qualified by whether we are speaking in general terms or in more scientific terms. Interestingly, this was brought to my attention in a book by Werner Gitt, called: In the Beginning was Information. In this book the results of information science makes clear the idea of intelligence as a prerequisite for information whether in computer code or in DNA, just as Perry has stated in Cosmic Fingerprints. It is the intelligence behind DNA that engineered the moth scales to a 

"pattern ...repeated so accurately that the maximum deviation is only 0.00002mm."  

As with the problem of Love and hate with God, so too, with the trinity. If we measure love in human terms then we will have difficulty reconciling God hating, for example, Esau. But who has a right to determine the meaning of love? God or humanity? When it comes to the trinity we can say that according to mathematical certainty one cannot be three. But we are not speaking in terms of maths, God is one, in one sense, and three in another. To say that God cannot be one and yet three persons is to measure God according to a human ruler.  

C.S. Lewis wrote: 

“[T]he mysterious something which is behind all things must be more than a person…something superpersonal…The whole purpose for which we exist is to be taken into the life of God.”“As you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you don't leave behind the things you found on simpler levels; you still have them, but combined in new ways—in ways you couldn't imagine if you knew only the simpler levels…On the Divine level, you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being…Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that: just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube.”When thinking about the Trinity, we should not think it is an impossible contradiction or bad math (1+1+1=1).    The idea is that there are three distinct persons, so tightly knit together that the three are united as one being.  "Being" is something different than "person."  We do not know exactly how, and these words are no more than imperfect analogies to our human experience.  All we can say is that the life of God is both more complicated and simpler than the human experience.  There is both unity and diversity in the being of God; God is "the One who lives as three."  And to a large extent, we must be content with not knowing how this works.  After all, we are talking about God; we cannot expect our minds to be capable of fully grasping the infinite.

Ravi Zacharias postulates: 

The only way to explain unity and diversity in the effect is if you've got unity and diversity in the first cause. And Only in the trinity is there unity and diversity in the community of the Trinity.

Isaiah 40:18 says:

"To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?"

and Isaiah 46.5:

"To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?"

If we measure God in human terms then we "create" a god in our image. Man, then, is the measure of all things including God! This is the nature of humanism. In all our posturings about God we must guard against the danger of anthropomorphisms. The purpose of C.S. Lewis's book "God In The Dock" (as the title shows) is the ultimate temerity of humanism- when God is brought before the bar of human understanding.
The trinity may be beyond our grasp of logic but isn't necessarily antithetical to it. We merely concede that the trinity may be beyond our grasp as finite humans but not necessarily contradictory of logic.

Abdullah says:

"Attempting to resolve each tension will produce a heresy either by excluding one of the truths or by merging them together in a way which removes the potency of each truth.”

 When we allow contrarieties to polarize us it may indeed as you say end in heresy, but as followers of truth we ought to make the effort to resolve these, but where there is definite paradox which does not contradict logic but goes beyond our ability to describe it we have to submit to the infinite knowledge of the most high God and acknowledge our own limitations. One of the most difficult anomalies is the tension between the human will and the sovereignty of God. Human freedom is guaranteed by the fact that "We love God" Intrinsic to the definition of love is that it cannot be forced or compelled. And yet God is ultimate being, therefore His plans cannot be hindered or his will thwarted. The only way to understand this is to see that one is absolute the other contingent.

 For those who wish to further understand the difference between a contrariety and a contradiction in terms of theology listen to Ravi Zacharias in a two part series entitled: 
The Coalescence of Contrarieties (Part One)
The Coalescence of Contrarieties (Part Two)

For further reading see the post:http://struth-his-or-yours.blogspot.com/2011/04/moral-relativism.html