What Are the 4 Myths of the Modern Age - Essay Example

Arpit Waghmare Academia Bible 17 January 2006 The power of a world view What are the 4 Myths of the Modern Age Charles Colson describes the four myths of the Modern Age. The first myth is the goodness of man. This myth makes people think that they are essentially good and absolves men of the responsibility of sin by substituting the term sickness for sin. The second myth is the promise of the coming Utopia which proposes that that good governance and the tools of politics can produce perfect men. The third myth is the relativity of moral values where good and bad is a matter of personal beliefs and choices and tolerance substitutes for truth. The fourth myth is the myth of radical individualism dismissing the importance of community elevating individual rights and pleasures as the ultimate social value What are the 4 Horsemen of the coming apocalypse The 4 horsemen are the same as the four myths as described above. Colson explains how the first horseman rails against heaven with the presumptuous question: why do bad things happen to good people He multiplies evil by denying its existence. The second horseman comes with sword and slaughter in the false hope of creating the perfect man. The third horseman sows chaos and confusion by questioning absolute morality. The fourth horseman brings excess and isolation by putting the individual over the society. How has the Gospel of Jesus Christ transformed lives in examples that Colson addresses Give 2 examples The Gospel of Jesus Christ has transformed lives in ways which are beyond what can be experimentally evaluated. Only those impacted can truly understand the change in their lives. Third parties only get an external glimpse, and yet even this glimpse is glorious. Following are examples of this transformation which come out of the address of Charles Colson. Eg 1: Charles Colson's own life. Colson claims to be one who is himself transformed by Jesus Christ, this transformation being evident in his life over a period of twenty years. Jesus is credited by Colson as the reason for the excellence in his work as well as the award itself. Eg 2: The spiritual awakening at the time of the industrial revolution causing a decline in crime in America. Colson quotes the study of social scientist James Q Wilson who searched for a correlation between crime and social forces According to him, when America was rapidly industrializing in the late nineteenth century, conditions should have caused crime to increase, but it actually declined. He explained this phenomenon by crediting it to a powerful spiritual awakening that was sweeping the nation, inspiring moral revival and social renewal. This could be compared to the 1920s when affluence should have curbed crime, but it actually increased. The explanation was the wake of the theories of Darwin and Freud in this period when religion was no longer accepted universally as a good thing. Eg 3: The fall of the iron curtain. Colson describes a symbolic moment in May 1990 when a bearded monk thrust a huge crucifix into the air in the Red square and shouted above the crowd under the reviewing stand where Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders stood, "Mikhail Sergeyevich! Christ is risen!" Gorbachev turned and walked off the platform. The signal went across the continent and ultimately led to the collapse of communism. Eg 4: The Humaita prison in San Jose dos Campos Brazil. The prison mentioned above was turned over to two Christian laymen twenty years before Colson visited it. These men planned to run it on Christian principles. This they did. When Colson visited the prison he was greeted by a smiling murderer who was trusted with the keys to the prison and let Colson in. Inside Colson noted men at peace, clean living areas, inmates involved in industrious output, and walls decorated with Bible verses. Humaita's recidivism rate was 4% as compared to 75% in the rest of Brazil and the US. Colson says the reason was the realization among the inmates that Jesus died for their sins and crimes - this was symbolized by a crucifix beautifully carved by the inmates. This crucifix was the only 'inmate' of an isolation torture cell in the prison which had otherwise outlived its purpose. The cross had changed their lives for good, something the prison itself could not have done. What are your personal thoughts about the word "revolution" Revolution in a social context is a word used to describe change ushered in more often than not through violent means, the emotional weapon being hate. It implies a struggle against the establishment which is the enemy, and a show of strength resulting in victory for the revolutionaries against the enemy. There are other contexts in which are described by the word 'revolution' but we are focusing here on the human and social context. Jesus authored a revolution which in itself is a revolution in the understanding of the term. Rather than violence, Jesus used peace. Rather than a struggle against the enemy (mankind), He struggled for them. Rather than a show of strength His was a submission and capitulation in seeming weakness to the cross even though a legion of angels were at His command, a privilege and option that He shunned for the sake of greater things. Rather than hate, He used love as His weapon. His own life and subsequently death was an example in how to apply His own revolutionary moral teachings which commanded the loving of enemies, treating others as we would want them to treat us, going the extra mile for others, and forgiving endlessly among other such unspeakably divine teachings. Colson rightly points out that the cross of Christ is a holy subversion heralding change more radical than mankind's most fevered dreams. This is the Enduring Revolution of the cross of Christ expanding the boundaries of a kingdom that can never fail. Define the meaning of the term "RELATIVISM" Gregory Koukl defined relativism in a talk based on the book he coauthored with Frank Beckwith, "Relativism: Feet firmly planted in midair". Relativism can be defined as the view that when it comes to questions of morality there are no external rules, since they are not a function of knowledge but belief. The view also implicitly implies that everybody's belief is equally legitimate. David Gordon did a review of the book by Beckwith and Koukl throws and throws more light on this - "Subjective truths are based on internal references and change according to our whims. Objective truths, in contrast, are realities in the external world that we discover and cannot be changed by our internal feelings"[] Moral relativism holds that ethical truth is subjective in this sense. "Ethical truths depend on the individuals or groups who hold them" Compare and Contrast ABSOLUTE TRUTH with RELATIVISM. 'Absolute truth' assumes an external reference to a moral value. According to this view issues of right and wrong are already well defined by a moral lawgiver who is God and hence there is no need for debate. At most the debate could be on issues that are not clearly defined; however even here there is the underlying belief even for such cases is that there is a right way, even though we still search for it. In either case there is the recognition of an absolute standard which is the yardstick by which all actions and beliefs must be measured with. The recognition of a higher standard results in a yearning and striving towards that standard for those who subscribe to the 'absolute truth' position. Consequently the result of this position when followed to its logical end is a person who upholds those standards in his/her life and becomes a boon to society because of the positive consequences of his actions.1 On the other hand 'relativism' denies any external reference for evaluating moral values. Since there is no external law-giver, the frame of reference is within the evaluator and hence will differ from person to person. It depends on the whims of each individual arising out of various parameters like personal background, family, cultural context, era of existence (modern or ancient) etc. Since the values are individual there is no scope for debate and the 'imposing' of one's views on anyone else. The differences between people since they are relative to each person's situation and beliefs are resolved through the concept of 'tolerance'. Tolerance implies respect and non-judgmental attitude towards the other person and his/her views since there is no absolute standard. To evaluate the functionality of the 'relativity' position we must consider the result of this viewpoint when carried out to its logical end. When we remove the external standard in morally evaluating our actions, we can justify any action we take (to ourselves, since in such a world no one else will ask any questions anyway). Consequently the actions of such a person which are devoid of external references will be directed only for the satisfaction of his/her own desires without cognizance of a responsibility towards others. The logical end of such a belief is a sociopath. It is in this functional evaluation itself that the position of 'absolute truth' scores heavily over the position of 'relativism'. Base on your breadth of Biblical knowledge, Provide 7 reasons why the Scriptures are unable to co-exist with the modern idea of Relativism (cite verses and Bible passages) 1. Relativism denies the existence of absolute moral truth. But Jesus said, 'I am the truth.' Jesus makes this claim while speaking to His disciples, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me" (GOD'S WORD, John 14.6). If the truth was relative Jesus would have said, "the truth is inside of you". But by claiming to be the truth Jesus pointed to Himself as the external reference point for evaluation. 2. Relativism negates judgment, but the Bible says there will be judgment. Moral relativists deny accountability to an outside entity, but the Bible speaks very clearly about the judgment of a holy God. "Everyone will stand in front of God to be judged" (GOD'S WORD, Romans 14.10). While there may be some credence to the fact that it is difficult for one person to take a moral high ground over another since everyone is a sinner, it is still possible to evaluate a position objectively using the parameters set by God and the intellect and thinking ability that men have been given. Thus one can judge through the eyes of God. 3. Relativism encourages tolerance, but the Bible says the wages of sin is death. Since there is judgment, there will be consequences. There is no place for tolerance of poor values in God's eyes. The only way we can be safe is if someone else pays this price on our behalf. "The payment for sin is death, but the gift that God freely gives is everlasting life found in Christ Jesus our Lord" (GOD'S WORD, Romans 6:23). Men do not have the prerogative to tolerate or not to tolerate since the primary person offended is God Himself. It is He who can forgive or punish, based on the offenders' acceptance or rejection of his guilt and sin. When man is right in his horizontal relationship with God, he will automatically become right in his relationship with other men. Instead of tolerance men can together strive to be perfect and holy the way God intended them to be. 4. Relativism encourages individualism, but the Bible promotes sacrificial giving. 'Give to everyone who asks you for something. Don't turn anyone away who wants to borrow something from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you this: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you' (GOD'S WORD, Matthew 5:42-44). Man is a social being and cannot exist in isolation. But relativism denies this fact and moves towards isolation of individuals. There cannot be true joy in the satisfaction of one's own desires and wants. We are created to give and receive love. And true love is unselfish. It is in the giving of it that we can experience wholeness. It is indeed more blessed to give than to receive. 5. Relativism says that values change with time, but the Bible says that God's law is eternal. "God is always honest and fair, and his laws can be trusted. They are true and right and will stand forever" (Contemporary English Version, Psalms 111.7-8). There is much debate over whether values change with time or for that matter any other parameter. The Bible is very clear that God's laws do not change - they will stand forever. His standards remain the same. 6. Relativism says 'let them be', but the Bible says, 'help them out' "When people sin, you should forgive and comfort them, so they won't give up in despair" (Contemporary English Version, 2 Corinthians 2.7). As mentioned earlier there is much fulfillment in being of use to someone apart from oneself. Much more so in the benevolent actions of forgiving a wrong doer and thence seeing him respond and improve as a person. For this there needs to be recognition of the wrong both by the offender and the offended. Relativism does not permit any place for such an interaction. 7. Relativism promotes freedom without boundaries; the Bible says true freedom is within boundaries. "All things continue to stand today because of your regulations, since they are all your servants. If your teachings had not made me happy, then I would have died in my misery. I will never forget your guiding principles, because you gave me a new life through them" (God's Word, Psalms 119.91-93). The urge to cross boundaries out of curiosity will always be there among men. And yet God have made the boundaries. These are not to curb our freedom but rather to improve its quality. Relativism knows no boundaries. To understand this one can take the analogy of a football game. The player will be free to enjoy the game much more when they play within the rules. In the absence of rules, there will be no game to enjoy. Similarly in the absence of rules in life, there is no life to enjoy. In what specific ways are today's youth being influenced by "the Merchants of cool" The Frontline program called 'The Merchants of Cool' gives us the data: for teenagers today a walk in the park is like a walk in the mall. Each day teenagers process 3000 discrete ads and 10 million by the time they are 18. 75% of teens have a TV in their room and 1/3rd have a computer. They spend an average of 2 hours a day online. They are the most marketed to group of teens and young adults ever in the history of the world. What is "cool hunter" The documentary informs us that teens do not respond to brands and traditional marketing methods. But they respond to cool. This elusive 'cool' has been recognized as something that is constantly evolving and changing. The search for cool is called cool hunting. In fact when the 'cool' is discovered, it ceases to be cool and the new cool has then to be researched again, thus making the cool hunter necessary at every point. The cool hunting is something corporations don't trust themselves with but hire experts to do for them. These are cool hunters. A cool hunter is a research agent whose job is to discover what teenagers consider 'cool'. These are typically former school kids and young themselves who understand the language of the teenagers. They search for a certain kind of personality, a certain kind of player in a given social network. These are those that have the respect, trust and admiration of their friends. If you know where the money is, where the power is and where the big houses are then you know what is going to happen next. They look for the 20% who will influence the other 80%, the trendsetter or the early adopter, who is forward in thinking and looks outside his own backyard for inspiration. This way companies get in on a trend or a subculture while it is still underground, they can be the first ones to bring it to market. The mass consumer then picks up on it. Eventually when the cool becomes mass, it stops being cool and the cycle starts again. How much money is spent on American teenagers today How much do you spend as a teenager in America (Assuming a lot) The teen population in the US is 32 million strong - the largest generation of teens ever in America. In 2001 teens spent more than a 100 billion dollars themselves and pushed their parents to spend another 50 billion dollars. Reflecting on idea of "the mook" or "the midriff", how do you view yourself in comparison to these portrayals of males and females. The mook is the sexually driven, animal like, crass male character, crude, loud, obnoxious and in your face, created by the MTV brand of media to appeal to the teenage boy as his role model. The midriff is the female equivalent of the mook, where the girl character is proud of her sexuality and uses it to impress and control, considering her status as a sex object as an advantage rather than a violation. To what extent do you trust the media The media is the most ubiquitous source of information and by instinct I turn to it in case there are things I need to know. However I have learnt over a period of time to make my own judgments on the ideas and products promoted by the media and to do my own research on them before I take decisions. Evaluate one weeks' worth of TV and Radio news reporting, online or printed journalism The book BIAS written by Bernard Goldberg is written as its name suggests exposing the bias that exists within the media. This bias is towards the left of centre. The underlying assumption is that a majority of readers support the liberal view on issues such as gay rights, abortion, same sex marriages, creationism v/s evolution etc. The media presents viewpoints in their reporting which present liberal or leftist views as though they are mainstream views, while conservative views are presented as though they are the views of 'the other side'. I went through reporting of the last week or so for four news companies - The New York Times, CBS News, Fox news and CNN. While Goldbergs book alleges that the bias is left of centre, there are strong opinions that indicate that some companies are decidedly right biased. Robert Greenwald has produced a 77 minute documentary called 'Outfoxed' that claims to expose the rightist leanings of Rupert Murdoch's Fox news. Goldberg has also mentioned the correspondents on CBS news like Andy Rooney and Dan Rathers as among those who confess to being liberal in their outlook. While an analysis of the last weeks reporting did not bring up any left bias (probably because there were no issues discussed which could betray such a bias), it is interesting to note that CBS news published an article by Michael Novak who is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion called 'A Party lying and dying' which is a scathing attack on the Democratic party for supporting being pro choice on the issue of abortion. It is interesting to note subtle possible bias in the way the execution of Clarence Ray Allen a 76 year old convicted killer was reported. Fox news showed very little sympathy for the criminal and ended the story with a statement by the judge who denied consideration for the convict's physical infirmities saying they were a result of his abuse of the system delaying his execution CNN presented the facets of the story that would elicit sympathy first and then presented the views of the establishment that executed him. The New York Times had exactly the same story as CNN. The difference was the subtle bias shown through the picture accompanying the story of a group of demonstrators protesting the death penalty outside the prison. CBS added a more sympathetic touch to the story including within it a line that described how Allen's family mouthed 'I love you back' to him when he expressed his love to all. An artist drawing shows the convict strapped in during his execution. A more overt bias could be seen from the New York Times article on "Intelligent design". This paper I have by now concluded is the perfect illustration of the bias that Goldberg is talking about. "California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course" by LAURIE GOODSTEIN is the news article and it proceeds to present a viewpoint of primarily the anti intelligent design lobby and gives very little coverage to the conservatives. The article subtly presents the religious affiliations of the school teachers who proposed the course which was being offered as a philosophy course, as evidence against them. Equally interesting is an editorial fished out from the archives of the NYT entitled "Teach, don't preach the Bible" The writer of this editorial BRUCE FEILER quotes the Bible completely out of context using Bible incidents that seem to support his viewpoint that religion should be kept out of the mainstream. Particularly interesting is his reference to David as the ruthless king who was 'rebuked' by God for wanting to build a temple. According to him, the Bible makes a stirring appeal through this for a separation of church and state. He conveniently left out the fact that David's son Solomon was actually chosen by God to build the temple, not to mention that the nation of Israel was a theocratic state with its laws written in the Bible. References Colson, Charles. "The Enduring Revolution." Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. 1993. 14 Jan 2006. Beckwith, Frank and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1998. Koukl, Gregory. "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air". University of California. 8 Nov 2004. Gordon, David. "The Mises Review." Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 1998. 14 Jan 2006 Holy Bible: GOD'S WORD. GOD'S WORD to the Nations Bible society, 1995. Holy Bible: Contemporary English Version. American Bible Society, 1995. The Merchants of cool. Dir. Barak Goodman. Narr. Douglas Rushkof. PBS. 2001 Goldberg, Bernard. BIAS. Washington D.C.:Medium Cool. 2002. Goldberg, Bernard. Interview with Matthew W Sheffield. 30 Oct 2003. Ratherbiased.com. 14 Jan 2006 Greenwald, Robert, Outfoxed:Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism,15 Jan 2006, 17 Jan 2006, Novak, Micheal, A Party lying and dying, 13 Jan 2006, CBS News, 17 Jan 2006 Associated Press, "Ageing California Inmate to be executed", 16 Jan 2006, FOXnews.com, 17 Jan 2006 Quentin, San, "It's a good day to die", 17 Jan 2006, CNN.com, 17 Jan 2006 The Associated Press, "California executes oldest inmate", 17 Jan 2006, The New York Times, 17 Jan 2006 Quentin, San, "76 year old inmate executed", 17 Jan 2006, CBSNews, 17 Jan 2006 Goodstein, Laurie, "California Parents file suit over Origins of Life Course, 11 Jan 2006, The New York Times, 17 Jan 2006 Feiler, Bruce, "Teach, Don't preach, The Bible", 21 Dec 2005, The New York Times, 17 Jan 2006 Read More