Like trying to walk on a cloud.

Psychologists Julia Shaw and Stephen Porter have succeeded in implanting false memories in about 70% of subjects in an experiment. These were not minor detail alteration false memories nor were the subjects infirm and senile. Rather, the subjects, averaging 20 years of age, confessed to crimes they never actually committed. Most people assume that human memory functions like a camera recording video, which is played back accurately. Not so, according to Elizabeth Loftus, a cognitive psychologist at University of California, who has been researching memory for decades. “Remembering is more of a creative process: We shape our impressions from a wide variety of times and places into something that ‘feels’ like a memory.”

“Feels like” is the operant phrase, not only in memory experiments but, more unfortunately, the driving force re-shaping “post modern” reality. According to memory researchers, both imagined and real experiences are stored within the same region of the brain. Therefore we are unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality based solely on the content of a story we remember. All we can do is gauge our memories for plausibility and coherence. In fact Julia Shaw, the aforementioned psychologist, said that “each time you tell a story you change the memory of it. Every memory we have is chock-full of errors. I would even go as far as saying that memory is largely an illusion.”

Unfortunate examples include what are called “false confessions” in criminology. In the United States false confessions play a role in 1 out of 4 wrongful convictions that are overturned by DNA evidence. One very sad example is a man named Damon Thibodeaux. He confessed to a raping and murdering his cousin after being subjected to 9 hours of interrogation and 35 hours without sleep. In truth, he had not committed that crime, yet he really thought that he was confessing to something he did. He ended up spending 16 years on death row in solitary confinement for being released on new DNA evidence. If you find this whole idea fascinating, you can read more here. false memory

My emphasis in this post is on a much larger context. Just as we see those thick cloud formations while flying and they look solid enough to walk on, we function from the assumption that what we remember, and therefore what we feel (since feelings are generated by memories), is real and substantial. This is the basis of all “post-modern” theories and constructs. The post-modern (strictly material and relativistic) worldview is that feelings are superior to facts, especially in the realm of biology! The most pernicious example in my humble opinion is the current fad of “gender identification” (“the heck with X and Y chromosomes, today I feel like a girl”) and the dubious new psychological malady “gender dysphoria.” In post-modern parlance, if you accept your biological sex, you are not normal (there’s no such thing), you are “cis-gender” (??)!

There’s a bit of a problem though. Like trying to walk on a cloud, all this theorizing is based on false impressions–memories and feelings that are as often as not illusory. But the consequences of this foolishness are real. Removal of healthy organs, metabolism-destroying hormones (“puberty blockers” for instance), depression and suicide are some of the tragic effects of the “cloud-walking” feelings-worship. Where will it end? Hatred of your nature is really hatred of the Creator, and worshipping at the altar of your feelings is the worst kind of slavery. Human beings WILL worship….something. The ancient pagans worshipped the sun, the moon, idols of wood and stone, the modern pagans worship their feelings. At least sun, moon, wood and stone have substance. What do feelings have?



Our President is a high school stereotype!

Some people loved high school, some people hated high school, but most of us were high school stereotypes of some sort. My stereotype was the quiet loner who everybody tries to take advantage of–once. With that stereotype, do you think I was in the group that long high school school or hated it? I truly did hate high school, I didn’t fit in with any particular group, and was constantly taking unpopular stands. But love it or hate it, we all had to deal with the high school stereotypes.  There was the bully in two forms–the guy in class who was the biggest,  dumbest, and meanest, who therefore expressed his frustrations by  pushing others around. The second kind of bully was the gym teacher, who was usually also the football coach, who blustered around and made gym class miserable for the rest of us. Those bullies were easy to pick out, but there was another kind that was much more subtle.  There is a kind of bully that we see everyday,  and don’t realize that they are indeed a bully until we look back and see how our behavior was manipulated by them. I’m talking about the prissy High School librarian stereotype.

Our gym teacher/football coach was Ed Veith–the only teacher I had in those 4 years whose name I remember. He was a big and blocky ex-Marine, hair so short it looked shaved (he could have been losing his hair, but eschewed the comb over), his voice was gruff–he was really “rockin” (as they say today) the tough guy stereotype. This was in 1960-1964. The prissy librarian was also rockin’ her stereotype–always shushing people, or glaring when she got hoarse, full of “lessons” and platitudes, knowing everything about books and subjects, less about life (I guess, I really didn’t know her that well). In her own way, she was a bully in her domain, just with a different style than Mr. Veith.

Fast forward to 2018, the U.S. has a President who acts out the stereotype of the high school bully, but more like the class bully than the gym teacher bully. I really recommend he lose the comb over and cut his hair Marine Corps short. Our neighbor to the North, Canada, has a Premier who is more like the prissy librarian, a different kind of bully, laying down platitudes and guilt trips rather than threats and bluster. While it isn’t necessary to be any kind of bully in order to be chief executive of a country, I know which kind I prefer.

Mr. Veith also taught sex education to the men–a common vocation of male gym teachers in those days. His advice was simple and direct, just like my father’s, and as I got older I had a few occasions to see his and my dad’s faces and hear their voices when I was tempted to pressure young ladies into sex. “Men, and I call you that because I expect you to live up to a man’s responsibility, honor women. That means you never force yourself on them, and you make sure never to get a woman pregnant out of wedlock. I don’t mean use condoms, I mean self discipline. Wait until marriage. We’re all starting to hear this idea thrown about–“pro choice”–and you should be pro-choice. Just choose not have sex until you can support your woman. But if you ever get a woman pregnant, make the right choice–marriage. You’ll grow into your responsibility, and that will turn to love.”

I never forgot his advice–I was intimidated by Mr. Veith when in high school but grew to respect his opinion once I was making my own choices. I’m sure the librarian must have had advice too–I just don’t remember a word of it.

Face your enemy.

James 3:14. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. James 4:1. What causes quarrels and fights among you? Is it not that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.

Your enemy is speaking to you every waking moment, just as mine speaking to me. You know that voice in your head that is incessantly whispering,  sometimes shouting, vile unpleasantness. That’s the voice that drives some people to suicide. It whispers to the jumper, “jump off that bridge, there is no hope for your life to improve.”  If he listens to it, and jumps, the very next thing it always says (when the poor jumper is on the way down) is “you fool, there are plenty of things you could have done to make your life better but now it’s too late.” Jumpers who have survived have reported this.

Jesus said “it isn’t what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, it’s what comes out of the mouth.” Matthew 15:17. “Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?  But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” You can’t get rid of this enemy–it lodges in your “heart”, which is a metaphor for your mind. You can’t avoid hearing it’s whispers and insinuations, but you can avoid listeningThe enemy tries to show you pictures of what it wants you to do, but you can blur them or gray them out in your mind’s eye. The enemy is incessantly running the movies of your failures, but who is in control of the movie projector? You are! All of which raises the questions:

  • Who is this enemy, and what or who gives the enemy the power over your life?
  • Who are you?
  • Who is in charge of your life?

James referenced the “wisdom from above” and the “earthly, unscriptural, demonic ‘wisdom'”. God rules in heaven, metaphorically “above.” Satan and his demons rules this world–they are your enemy. You don’t believe in Satan and demons? Perhaps you don’t believe in a sovereign God? Who plants the good thoughts and the bad in your heart and mind? You have some decisions to make. Decide to believe God or believe the enemy, or if you insist on a strictly material view of reality, take control of the movie projector of your past. Either way, living in the thrall of depression, grievances, and hatred is mostly a choice of what you are listening to and watching internally.



Why some people can’t accept being forgiven by God.

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.” 1 Timothy 1:15. 

So said the apostle Paul, calling himself “foremost” among sinners, even though most of his outward life was a seeking after and suffering for righteousness. Almost no one, reading of Paul’s experiences and exhortations, would consider him even a baby sinner, let alone the worst. What did he understand about himself and about God’s mercy, that the rest of us need to understand?

When I use the word “sinner” in this context, I am not referring to the hurtful words and actions we use against each other. Our transgressions only appear to be against other people, but Paul, and King David, understood that all transgressions are ultimately against…whom? David was a “hero of the faith”, a “man after God’s own heart”, yet he sinned grievously. I am not going to tell the story, but if you want a really juicy tale of adultery and murder, read it here.David and Bathsheba

God sent a prophet to David to confront him about his sins. It would be rare indeed if a king listened to a prophet, but David was not any old king. (The following story will make a lot more sense if you read the account at the link, above). 2 Samuel 12: 1-7. And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”  Nathan went on to describe the various punishments that the Lord would levy against David and his family, including the death of his son about to be born, and the rebellion within his own household. What was David’s response to this accusation, and the prophecy of the disasters that would be fall him? He responded “I have sinned against the Lord.” But even then, he knew that God would forgive his grievous sins. If you are reading this and can’t accept that your sins can be totally forgiven, you may fall into one of these two categories.

1. I don’t need to be forgiven, because there is no God to forgive me, or sin doesn’t exist, it’s just illusion or fear or ignorance, or there is nothing but the material world.

2. I don’t deserve to be forgiven, because what I did was too terrible, or I am too bad a person for God to love, or I haven’t repented or done enough to be forgiven.


Sometimes yellow lines save your life……. Other times they are just paint.

We were heading to Nova Scotia, a long drive from Connecticut. My passenger, though in college, had almost no driving experience, but I was getting tired, and she kept begging me to let her drive my car. I finally relented when we reached Maine. An hour later, I was dozing, but some sense of danger must have penetrated the fog of my mind. Seconds later, I was wide awake, as a huge semi was crowding into us from the passenger side and she was doggedly trying to stay in her lane, which was shrinking fast. “Veer left, he’s going to hit us” I yelled. She screamed “I can’t go over the yellow line!” I grabbed the wheel from her, and steered out of our lane into the center lane. “What’s wrong with you, it’s just paint? You could have gotten us killed,” I replied after I managed to stop the car. That was practically the last time I let her drive on this trip.

This happened in 1973, and I still think of the lesson. The yellow lines mark your lane, and help keep you safe–until someone encroaches into the lane. Then the yellow line is just paint. But not to some people. My passenger was just someone who responded to my ad on a ride board. She fancied herself a rebel, cursed like one and dressed like one, but when our lives were in danger, she couldn’t even bring herself to drive over the paint. What did the painted lines mean to her, and what did  her response to them say about the nature of her rebellion? The lesson I referred to above is really multiple lessons.

What “lines that should not be crossed” have you drawn in your own life? The alternative to drawing your lines in advance (of difficult moral decisions) is decision-by-expediency, i.e. reacting emotionally to circumstances rather than living by your principles. Expediency is driven by the “twin towers” of bad decisions–fear and anger. Fear of ridicule or looking stupid, fear of missing out on pleasure, anger over a perceived slight or insult, or even a real injury. No matter, decision-by-expediency = regret. If you haven’t drawn those “lines that should not be crossed”, what are you waiting for? What do you really believe in?

Once you decide to live within the “yellow lines” that either you have drawn, or which have been taught to you, how do you deal with someone crossing into your lane? In the case of my driving example, it was a simple decision–move over or be crushed. The issue was “how do we stay alive here”, not “who has right of way” or “what is his problem” or “doesn’t he see us?” Too often, we let emotions or extraneous questions (see my post of the Jack Reacher mind) or a “Pharisee” attitude get in the way of the real issue, which is “how then should I live/behave?”

With that in mind, let’s examine the obfuscations and confusions that get in the way of effective living with your lines:

1. I don’t even know what my yellow lines are. Then it’s time you found out what was taught to you and what you decided for yourself, so you can live according to what you really believe in.

2. I follow the rules! Sometimes you’re not even sure where these rules came from. Following rules because you think it makes you good, or simply because they are “rules”, is what I was calling the Pharisee mindset. That is “I want to look good on the outside regardless of what I stand for on the inside.” Matthew 23:25. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.”

3. I question other people’s motivations before I can act on my own beliefs. “Why did that person just do that?” “What does he mean by that?” Who cares? You’re getting caught up in the wrong things. Don’t let somebody else’s actions or words throw you off. Be like a gyroscope–don’t let anyone else or your own speculations throw you off, keep coming back to the balance point of what you stand for.

My main personal experience is this: In 1969 I was getting ready to be sent to Vietnam as an infantryman. The year before the massacre of unarmed villagers by U.S. troops at My Lai had been in the news, and I knew there were going to be some very morally ambiguous situations over there. I decided ahead of time if I don’t draw some lines I’m going to probably do something I will regret my whole life. One of the lines I drew was “I will not willingly kill or injure any noncombatants, no matter what pressures or emotions I am experiencing.” Sure enough, I was in a situation where I was tempted to fire on noncombatants, and it was probably the solid yellow, “uncrossable line” that I had established ahead of time that kept me from yielding to temptation.

Of provocation and persuasion!

I was inspired to write this post by seeing an ad for that shirt today. I will not be wearing that T-shirt above, even though I definitely favor those positions. When I was in college, I used to enjoy  provoking friends and enemies with inflammatory and outrageous statements. My purpose was, ultimately, to learn how and what others believed and were emotionally attached to. When I would make such statements face to face (always), I could usually look forward to the following reactions from friends and antagonists, in order:

  1. Involuntary guffaws (“right, he’s making a joke”), followed quickly by…
  2. Tentative, conflicted smile, fading as they surveyed my unsmiling face (“can he really be serious”)…
  3. Raised brows with “darkening” countenance, smile turning to sneer, as they interpret my attitude as arrogance (“I think he really means it, the jerk”)….
  4. Outraged and vociferous shouting of disagreement (“I’ll show him”)…
  5. Complete shock and silence, after I admitted I could be wrong…
  6. Mostly rational, though grudging debate, as we discussed the relative merits of each other’s position. Sometimes I would concede the superior validity of their position, other times they were persuaded by my points.

This is how I learned to: evaluate information, listen for understanding, gain perspective, think for myself, and often, persuade others to my “cause”. But the most important lesson I learned is humility. Others sometimes turned out to be smarter than me, or better informed, or more accepting of other viewpoints. I was willing to say “I was wrong, you make more sense.” My main point here is, while provocation can be both a useful learning tool and a way to reveal what someone else is really thinking, it can also function to make enemies, divide people unnecessarily and make the provocateur look immature and foolish when they refuse to admit when they are wrong or to take responsibility for wrongdoing.

The shirt above may or may not have been specifically designed to provoke, and it does function to make it clear what “tribe” you identify with and to signal your virtue to your tribe, but the reason I will never wear it or anything close is that it probably cuts off the possibility of dialogue before it even starts, and thus impedes the learning and perspective of the wearer. In my youthful quest to learn through provocation, I was careful to keep my position and intentions hidden until face to face with a “worthy opponent”,  in a relatively quiet and neutral place, so we could really have a dialogue.

It’s still important to me to have a “worthy opponent”, someone as intelligent and informed as I am who differs on many issues, but with whom I can still conduct a civil discourse. I would recommend that to everyone–but so many people seem to prefer the “echo-chamber” of their own personal and their tribe’s opinions. I‘m not sure who even wants dialogue today, in 2018, or who has the skills and attitude to debate rationally. I invite all my readers who disagree with any of my posts to engage in reasoned debate.


What is our true purpose?

If you read my previous post objectively, without indulging in wishful thinking, it should be apparent that philosophies and religions that claim the absence of sin are at best fantasies, at worst hypocritical. In order to really understand foundational sin, you must understand what we were created by God to be and do. Much of the following perspective, and a lot of verbatim, comes from my friend and mentor Robert Andrews, and his blog post. God’s family business

God created mankind with a three-fold, eternal purpose for living in order for His eternal purpose to be accomplished. It would make sense that our best chance of living a fulfilling, satisfying life would involve discovering and pursuing, according to the Bible, our very reason for existing, would it not? We saw that purpose for mankind is to: 

1) Rule as vice-regent over the earth and all it contains, as God’s representatives; 

2) Reflect the image of God, their creator, i.e, ruling just like He would rule, including looking and acting like He looks and acts.

3) Reproduce and fill the earth with offspring,  perpetuating that rule with descendants who have a vision themselves to join Daddy in this family business (Genesis 1:26-28).

“In the Garden of Eden, Satan deceived man into straying from the purpose for which he was created, God’s endgame for him.  So, when God turns on the lights in our hearts, we begin to see what happened at the cross.” In contrast to the (futile) self-effort demanded by other religions to overcome sin, perfect yourself, attain true happiness and total satisfaction, Jesus Christ’s voluntary sacrifice on the cross did the work for us. “Sin was forever judged and put away, it is no longer an issue with God, and He is now completely satisfied with me, right now, just as I am. I am free to quit worrying about how God thinks I am doing (He says I am doing fine!), so I am now free to forget continually evaluating my performance and look at something besides myself for the first time, God’s purpose for me.”

This is the answer to those who accuse Christianity of being negative and judgmental, of consigning us poor sinners to a hopeless existence or an eternal torment!  Accepting Christ’s sacrifice for yourself makes you perfect in God’s sight! No, you won’t behave perfectly, but you will be progressing, inevitably, towards the perfection God has in store for you. For the believers in self-effort, including many (most?) Christians, THIS IS AN INSULT! Why? Because I am saying that you and I can contribute NOTHING towards our salvation or perfection. If you place your hopes on self-effort, you will fail and not be much of a partner in “God’s family business.”

The Bible tells us that God’s business of ruling over the earth through man began, of course, in the Garden of Eden. The start-up there had a very rocky beginning, as it was derailed almost immediately at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There Satan deceived Adam, God’s newly installed president in His fledgling business enterprise, into renouncing God’s leadership and following Satan’s. In doing so, he surrendered to Satan the authority to rule that God had given Adam when he was created. That authority to rule only came to Adam as a result of his child-like, dependent faith in God alone for everything. It is called “living (ruling) by faith” in the Bible. At the Tree, Adam rejected this life of faith and adopted Satan’s way to live instead—by determining for himself what he should or shouldn’t do, what we would call “living (ruling) by his own free-will.

With Adam, Satan’s temptation at the Tree had been to “be like God (even though you are not!).” “You don’t need God to do your job of ruling. You can make all the right decisions yourself, independently, apart from the Father, completely on your own.” Do you want a fuller understanding of these issues–God’s family business, the root sin, redemption, the unnecessary futility of self-effort? Read Robert’s entire post (link at the top), but read it with the proper spirit–that of accepting your total inability to obey God’s law.