ADBC: 42 – Mobile Issues And How Dare God Kill?

Here’s the premise of the conversation.

Previously in the conversation: I did it! Yeah, I did it. I knew if I trained hard, said my prayers and ate my vitamins that I’d be strong enough to accomplish it. And just like Hulk Hogan taught me, I did it! I beat him! Not Hulk Hogan, you understand. I beat Hesediah – I got him to type those immortal words – “I’m at a loss with this question”. We should all just end life here and now, you don’t reach greater heights than this. You’ll have to read what he wrote to discover what led him to this conclusion. It’s worthwhile reading too because the journey he takes to reach that place is sober and sombre in content and should cause pause for thought for all of us. My brother then explores the issue of eternal judgement and a mindset focused on that in an intriguing manner featuring a term I had never come across before, such a brilliant word as well that word is … found when you read his work. Once more with his writing – and I just don’t know how it happens this way – he saves the best for last. He elected to explore a matter of racial sensitivity and systematically deconstructed it to enable the reader to consider carefully elements of the matter that are essential to reach a considered conclusion. The way he does the deconstruction is stunning and it does demand that readers consider such matters in the light of the analysis he offers. It’s Hesediah at his best and it’s written work I cannot commend enough. Go ahead and do yourself a favour – read the piece by clicking here – and then afterwards read it again … and then after that share it with a few friends for them to do the same so you can converse about some things of significant worth in life.

Relentless and consistent in the standards he hits in answering questions, Hesediah does not mess about in offering some humdinger questions. Some are really tough this time, how will I do it?  Here goes:

Q – What do you see as the pros and cons of your possessing and using a mobile phone?

True story, even now I struggle with referring to it as a mobile phone. Unless the only function of the device is to make phone calls, that which is referred to as a mobile phone by many, I refer to as a mobile device. Also considering the various types of mobile devices available with so many functions, I’m endeavouring to be as general as I can when answering this question. So when I refer to a mobile device, I am referring to something that has core functions of communication via voice and text, but I’m also including a device which has the capacity to house applications that extend to activities including communications, administration and entertainment.

Pros:

Useful applications – The mobile device has a number of useful applications for day to day life such as the means to text via various applications that I use to remain in contact with people in various locations. There are reading applications on there that are useful to me including the Bible and an application that gathers updates from sites that I’d frequent to get news and views on matters of interest to me. The range of that information and gathered in the central location can make engaging and considering such information very useful indeed. Convenient functions such as banking online, checking correspondence and listening to good material are useful to have to hand.

The mobile benefit of useful applications – the electronic applications that I’ve mentioned could also be accessed on a tablet or a laptop, the mobile nature of the device is the big pro where this device is concerned. The handy nature of accessing these applications is something that I enjoy considerably.

Cons:

Over-dependence – it does not take much to develop an over-dependence on the device. Such can be its place as the main resource that it’s important to be aware of that tendency and steer clear of it from time to time. My life is not dependent on it and life is not to be defined by it. I am aware, however, that it can have that effect because of regular use.

System of updates and upgrades – I am thankful that a wise man pointed me to purchasing a mobile device outright and then getting a sim card for it. Not only that but the device in question did not cost a lot of money relatively. There is an underlying drive in the industry to keep up with the latest in terms of the applications and the devices that the applications can be used on. When I was in contracts for phones, there’d be a subtle pressure to update and upgrade the phone every time. Such things are really not essential. There’s got to be something about being content with what the device can function on.

Cost of possessing, using and maintaining the mobile device – linked to the previous point, when I think about how much things cost and what’s important in life the financial demands of a mobile device can be demanding. When I think about how much I used to spend on the monthly costs it doesn’t really make sense. In the larger scheme of things, a lot of that money could have gone to better causes.

Effects on social interactions – I take responsibility for my actions. I don’t blame anyone or anything. I notice what I do and how I do it. What I noticed at one point was that I’d prefer to interact with people via a mobile device than face-to-face. That is massively unhealthy to reach such a stage. I do consider it bad manners to be in the physical company of someone else but spend the majority of my time on my mobile device. (I hasten to add that in group settings with … less than a fascinating and engaging company, the content on the mobile device might be justification for dipping out). On the whole, it’s good manners to use the device and love people rather than love the device and use people.

Sometimes I think I’m blessed by growing up in a time before the prevalence of the mobile device. It’s such a pervasive part of the culture it’s almost as unimaginable that someone would have a mobile device as if it’s a human right as if it’s as essential as food, drink and clothing. I applaud those settings that carry one with things only using a mobile device as a luxury item that they use on their own terms, rather than feeling as though they’re chained to it.

Q – There are actions in the Bible that some theists and atheists find to be challenging. An example that is used to challenge the divine origins of the Bible is the times when God commands Israel to kill all of a city, its men, women and children. One of the charges is that it is unjust to kill children. Why do you believe those who hold the Bible to be true find these actions to be challenging? Do you find them challenging? Do you have an answer to the challenge? If so, please summarise what it is.

Fascinating question and one that I could go gung-ho into and establish my view and drop the mic and expect people to accept as that would be the bottom line cos Stone Cold wrote so.

On this occasion, however, I want to make an effort to explore the concerns and thoughts of the theists and atheists who are not keen on those areas of the Bible that involve God commanding the death of others. History is replete with a lot of bloodsheds that was done in the name of God. History is full of incidents of people going about on conquests and campaigns of bloodshed that they repute to be in the name of God where that claim could be questioned to say the least. Even today there are some who believe they’re doing the will of God when they go on a murderous spate. It might be all well and good saying that such incidents could be challenged, but what is the difference between those inklings and the actions commanded in scripture?

To explore further, there is also the sentiment about how God does things that suggest that He is more about peace than He is about war and death. There’s a depiction of Jesus that lends itself to someone who would not endorse such bloodshed and with commands such as, love your enemies, apparently establishes a firm full stop against aggressive actions aggravating antagonists.

Have I done right by those who have those concerns? Have I reflected their views fairly? Maybe. Maybe not. It establishes, however, for me some sort of understanding of those concerns and reservations.

True story I never found those areas of the Bible, challenging. Growing up and reading those stories I accepted it as something that God can do … because He’s God. As the authority in the whole piece, I felt He was in the best position to command and instruct things as He saw fit. I got the impression that as God it’s His prerogative to do that which is right in His sight. It wasn’t really for me to look to “help Him out” by justifying His actions to me – as though He’s responsible and accountable to me for His actions. Indeed, I always thought it was a bit arrogant of anyone to go and challenge God on why He does what He does..

It sounds bad though – women and children wiped out. Slain. Put to the slaughter. As ordered by God. How could He do such a thing? To children? What did they ever do? They’re innocent. How could God do that? He’s such a nasty and vile creature if He would do that. (Says some of the same people who have no problem with abortion.)

When I hear such rebukes to God, though, I’m somewhat baffled and stymied. I can question the actions of another human being. I can question it on a basis of righteousness and justice that was established by God. The same God whose idea of judgement will often mean removing people from life for their transgressions and will often mean taking necessary actions for justice, harmony and purity. If it’s His judgement, who am I to question it? On what basis? For what purpose? For what desired outcome? So I can prove to be in a position to judge God? Me? That very idea just sounds so foolish.

OK, I understand, so we want to get our head around that emotive and sensitive thought about the children and the infants and all of that. We want to make sense of all of that so we can sleep well at night and not have an idea of God in our head who will rain down fury and vengeance on entire people groups. That really doesn’t work for me in the sense that this is the same God whose initial idea of sorting out the problem of violence and corruption was to wipe out the entire thing in a flood – a flood that didn’t discriminate to “save the children”

I don’t have a vision of a capricious deity in my head who delights in having people wiped out. That’s not the picture I have. I perceive of a God of great righteousness and mercy who operates in that righteousness and justice as He sees is right. And what He sees as right will tend to be right because He is the author of what is right. If that includes commanding His people to conduct His actions as He directs, I trust Him to do what’s right. It’s not for me to get God to fit into my construct of what He can or cannot do. It’s for me to accept that as God, I have to accept that He will do what is right. I can accept that or I can do what the uncomfortable theists and the strident atheists do – and reject God as He expresses Himself.

That’s my current take on the matter as I understand it at this stage. I’m open to considering things if people have an alternative perspective they would encourage me to adopt. For the time being though – and it has been a few decades now – I’m somewhat content to maintain this position.

Q – “My mind exists inside my head and body.” Thoughts, personality, will, and even perception, these are not physical things. So can they only be limited to a certain place like “in a body?” How do you come to this conclusion? While you answer this, ponder the reports of spirit walks, the separation of perception and body during dreams, and reports, even from governments, of astral projection, the ability for some faculty of a person to “move” through both space and time to view things that the physical eye of the subject has never seen. There are even claims that the physical body is only a receiver of sorts and immaterial aspects of a person are elsewhere.

The question is an opportunity to open a door into a world of possibilities about what it is to be human and how those elements are defined.

Even the thought of what is going on “inside” me is one that I’ve always assumed to be a matter of what is happening in the cognitive elements of my brain. I hear people refer to other physical parts to engage with how we react to things – like the stomach and the bowels, etc. All of these, however, I assumed to be anatomical reactions to signals sent from the brain to those areas in response to what is felt.

Key to all of that, though, is the assumptions made. Is the brain the central human organ that houses thought, conscience and those other immaterial aspects? When I talk about spirit and spiritual things I make a reference to something immaterial that is an essential part of who I am, but I’m not sure if it is as simple as to state that the location of that is the cranial area.

My understanding of what the Bible says about these things is fairly limited. Once more operating off assumptions when I refer to what’s going on “inside” me, I’m referring to an aspect of what makes me who I am that is immaterial and intangible and is not something that can be simply pointed out to be actions and electronic pulses in my brain. The definition of who I am is based on the understanding of being someone whose conception of who they are is innately linked to the physical experience but is not necessarily limited to that sphere is reflected in encounters that the living has with those who have died.

How that connects with what you outline in terms of paraphysical experiences I cannot really give a comment on with any degree of certainty. The idea that the physical body is only a receiver, however, is not one I’ve entertained before and on considering it now, my initial response is a concern of what it does for the concept of identity. It opens things up to things such as reincarnation as a possible explanation for what happens to a person when they die. As well as that there is a question as to how these areas can be explained and categorised.

All of this is to say that this sphere is a mystery to me.

---

Lately, I was encouraged to consider the things to be thankful for – things not to take for granted but to value dearly. This conversation is something I am hugely grateful for – the opportunity to engage with these needed questions at this time, that you should benefit me with these is something I never want to take for granted. Many thanks for that, bro.

Here are some questions for you:

Q – Do you think your current family commitments make it difficult for you to cultivate and operate your own business? Is it something you’d consider or you don’t think it’s worth applying your mind to it? Would you consider being an associate of the business enterprise of your brother with his effort at a media and training company?

Q – “The Queen is to be revered and adored both for her position as the monarch as well as for the sterling example she has set to her subjects?” What are your reflections on this sentiment?

Optional Question – Choose one of the following – the others will be noted for future reference

PQ –“National identification (being British/American/Jamaican/Spanish/Uzbekistani) is a construct that goes too far from the concept of belonging to family and is unhelpful for the purpose of grounding an individual in their development.” What are your views on this thought and its underlying position of nationality

OR

PQ – “There is an unhealthy fixation on being healthy as seen in the multi-million-pound industry of gymnasiums and other health outlets.” What is your perspective on this statement?

Another day, another contribution to the conversation, another reason for thanks for this splendid opportunity, Hesediah. Thanks for your time.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden