God is sovereign.
It should be just that easy, but most people need a little explanation to get the full impact of that truth. This is His Creation; it is not merely a static collection of various bits of matter. It has a soul, as it were, a distinct moral sense that derives from the character of our Creator. His revelation requires that we treat all Creation as living because it carries the divine spark of His eternal Presence.
We humans are also living entities within this immeasurable living bubble of time and space. God’s Presence is here, but is rooted somewhere else, outside of Creation. If He were to bring His true Presence to bear, Creation would dissolve, so He tends to work indirectly in our universe. That’s the business of angels and demons, themselves parabolic abstractions of things we cannot possibly understand.
Everything exists on multiple levels. You can connect directly to God through a faculty far above intelligence and sensory input; you can perceive the moral imprint of His character in Creation; you can watch stuff with your senses and try to process it with mere intellect; you can just go by mere appetites and emotions. More, there are various paths which connect one or more of those levels in ways no one can describe. We can discuss the various threads of human awareness only in theory, because in actual practice it works altogether simultaneously.
The bulk of our interaction with Him is through His revelation on one hand, and our complex connection through the Spirit on the other hand. His revelation should serve mostly to inform our minds, a means preparation to operate according to His divine character. That moral character is how the universe runs, so it should be obvious that we start first from seeking to understand that moral character. This allows the will to make sense of what the Spirit does in moving in our spirits. Most of this, in turn, depends on the structure provided by a sense of calling.
It’s supposed to be messy and shot through with multiple human failures. The fundamental issue is not the results of our actions, but our moral development. We are the battlefield, not the world around us. As noted previously, questions of being and doing are all the wrong question. It’s a matter of commitment and heart’s desire. Recall that I’ve said your heart is literally a sensory organ, too. It’s not even a matter of moral understanding, but commitment — your will is in your heart. You can do the wrong thing, but still be righteous because you were so intent on pleasing God as best you knew at the moment.
At the same time, we are supposed to maintain an awareness of the world at large, particularly in how most of our fellow humans have none of our moral discernment. They aren’t necessarily immoral, just morally confused. They don’t operate on our multi-level sense of commitment to One who made all things, controls all things, and exists externally to everything He made.
You would be a fool not to realize that people in positions of power are planning and executing some truly hideous, morally evil things. You’d also be a fool to imagine they are all on the same sheet of music. Every person involved in positions of power will tend to honor various conflicting commitments. Everyone is an agent of someone else, and sometimes double and triple agents, if not even more confused than that. There are a thousand contextual conspiracies that rage in the background all the time, and people who are making and dissolving alliances, and lying about them differently to different people, etc.
So if you were to visit that secretive biology lab owned by the US military in a certain West African country, you would find the handful of people working there representing all sorts of varying allegiances all at once, and shifting among them moment by moment. Could the current Ebola virus be a product of intentional evil from that lab? I’d say there’s a very good chance of it. Or maybe it was just an accident. Maybe it was something we can’t describe. Could it be some portion, or maybe all, of the mainstream news reports about Ebola cases in the US be lying? Again, there’s a good chance of that. None of this requires the full knowledge of those whose hands do the deeds.
What difference does it make? The answer to that depends on your calling and where God directs your attention. Just what else are the evil folks at the top planning for us? There’s nothing wrong with trying to keep track of the things that come to your attention. For example, at least a broad sample of elite rulers on this world do share a passion for reducing human population by about 90%. How they plan to go about reducing the population varies all over the map of possibilities. People in positions of direct power, and folks who influence them from the background, have all kinds of thuggery in mind.
There’s a sense in which every conspiracy you hear about is probably at least partly true. If one person can imagine it, someone else is probably hoping to do it. Whether or not their hopes have any bearing on world events is another thing. God steers a lot more things on more levels than you and I could possibly know. What those folks manage to do is really up to Him.
And those of us who consciously belong to Him have nothing to worry about. That is, the sum total of our conscious awareness rests not in the fear of what evil men plot, regardless of their competence and power to actually carry it out. What God permits is in our best interest, because we can rely on Him to watch over His best interest. And without fail, what’s good for His glory is good for us.
Again: God is sovereign. You be faithful.
Our culture is dominated by the illusion that reality can be objectively measured, as if the universe could exist without humans. God revealed that the universe would not exist were it not the proper setting for telling a story with humans at the center of things. Humanity before the Fall was the pinnacle, the climax of Creation, as far as He is going to explain anything at all.
His explanation and interaction with us is the whole purpose; that’s revelation. We need to see His glory. A critical element in the basic assumptions of revelation is human perception. Not just sensory data, nor the reason by which we process it, but revelation assumes a whole range of faculties our culture denies are even possible. Thus, the primary task of Christian faith in our day is to push the envelope and live in such a way as to question all our cultural assumptions about reality.
As the song by David Meece linked below correctly notes, we humans in our fallen state are the reason Jesus came, and why He suffered and died. That should humble us, not make us arrogant. It’s also why He rose again and now stands in Heaven watching over us. He came into this fallen realm to challenge all the false assumptions. His death was a rejection of those assumptions and His resurrection stands as a challenge today, because His blood still runs though our veins, as it were. He calls to the world through us.
Because of the vast layer of cultural nonsense that has been pasted on top of that ancient faith, we struggle against our own fellow believers to get this message out. There is a huge Christian mythology about the nature of everything Jesus taught, and it rivals the Jewish mythology against which Jesus fought during His ministry. Jesus was not Jewish and neither was the Old Testament. Judaism was the awful Talmudic perversion of Old Testament religion.
Folks in the Old Testament were born again and went to Heaven, too. Paul says quite bluntly that membership in God’s eternal family was decided before we were born. Indeed, it stands as an eternal fact outside of time and space, because our temporal existence is just a small bubble inside the far greater extent of Creation. I can scarcely go anywhere among mainstream Christians without encountering people whose brains operate under the assumption that our temporal experience of time-space constraints affects God, too. They cannot even register the concept that there could be an existence outside time and space. Our spiritual destiny stands as eternal truth itself.
We should not be surprised when discussing this eludes the ability to express in human language. That’s partly why Hebrew language itself is parabolic in nature. It’s not that Hebrew people had no use for blunt literal descriptions, but that nothing really important could be conveyed that way. It’s the same point I make in noting that Hebrew intellectual traditions include Aristotle’s logic as the lowest level, rather like a juvenile level of reasoning. Nothing really important happens there. You have to learn symbolic reasoning and parabolic discussion. The dividing point for us between Heaven or Hell is simply not something we can explain in concrete terms.
But the means to calling men into Heaven is not in doubt. Jesus did not change the message of His cousin, John the Baptist: repent! That is, examine the Law Covenants and search for something that calls your name. Read between the lines to the higher meaning of the law code. In some places, Jesus could rather bluntly explain how Moses was a poor reflection of God’s divine justice (see discussions on divorce and marriage). In other places, He got parabolic and talked about it indirectly. The point was that before His sacrifice, you had to go through the relevant covenant law as the passage to recognizing the deeper spiritual importance. Time and resources spent pursuing the Law was an investment that yielded spiritual awareness. You were converted by that investment.
In Christ, the process is reversed. We begin with spiritual insight as a free grant, followed by the call to rightly divide the Law. The issue is not that something eternal has changed. Your conversion experience does not affect things in Heaven, in that sense, but is merely your awareness of Heaven. You are directly connected in awareness and your faculty for perception has changed. Now the Law will make sense to you, provided you shed the limitations of mere human reason and sensory data, and awaken those higher perception capabilities God had granted Adam and Eve before the Fall.
Yes, conversion is a human experience. It is a well-understood psychological process. It can be implemented by all manner of persuasion, including fraud. Conversion is merely the observable manifestation, and may mean nothing at all. That’s okay. On our end of things, we cannot possibly know if another person is genuinely connected to Heaven, only that they appear to act like it. Religion of necessity must include those who may not be end up in Heaven. Our practice of faith has to include sufficient cynicism to let in folks who behave well enough to offer no threat to fellowship.
At any given time, the bulk of a church membership offers very little actual support for the mission. They may contribute to the material means, but don’t really do much else. They are too busy absorbing it all, struggling against the inner resistance to the mission. Those who actually push ahead with the message of repentance become leaders simply because no one else is doing much. They grow, they change, they become different people. They show themselves willing and able to shepherd, and so they do. The only thing left is making sure we constrain those who actually cause harm. Church assumes a spiritual awareness as the purpose, but doesn’t require it, much as any other kind of family will often include a lot of children who contribute little and eat a lot, making messes all the time. We ostracize only genuine threats.
It’s never objective; it can’t possibly be democratic because the bulk of membership will always be children. They have a voice, but decisions are made by someone and that someone is the family leadership. Their decisions will always be the result of some mixture of inspiration and their best human understanding. It can’t be fair, but it must be that the character of whomever God places as family head is the deciding factor. God works through honest mistakes, too.
We have a long way to go shedding Western Christian mythology to recover what Jesus actually taught.
It never stops. Every where I turn, I keep encountering the same blindness, though expressed in different ways. And the people who wallow in that blindness rarely seize the hand offered so they can be pulled out. Mercy cannot be forced.
As you might expect, the majority of my family and friends — virtual or otherwise — are not exploring the same spiritual territory as I am. It doesn’t end the relationship, just limits it. So I end up very much closer in spirit with a lot of folks I’ll probably never see on this earth, and rather distant from those I’ve encountered in meat space.
After a few years as online friends, I actually met Jason once when he came to visit relatives near where I lived at the time. We were already moving in different directions spiritually, but fellowship doesn’t require agreement on every point of faith. He must answer his own conscience. I’ve bluntly told him he’s too Westernized and not Hebraic enough, that his epistemology is not like mine at all. He recognizes something of the nature of our differences, but I doubt he has time and resources to follow me closely. That is, in our sharing, he seems to acknowledge nothing I teach. There is no reason to end a solid friendship of this kind, but there are limitations on it, so we share things on a lower level. It’s not less love, just less involvement.
For you, my dear parishioners, I would endeavor to explain how to answer the question my friend Jason raises, because my answer is nothing like his. For him to adopt my approach would probably destroy much of his world, to be honest. He lives and works in a different environment, and his answer is typical of his associates in the ministry. Jason knows that I love him as a brother. Nothing in this is meant to castigate him personally, but to examine the tradition he represents.
That tradition confuses the Two Realms. It remains mired in the Aristotelian assumptions of the Enlightenment. Virtually all of evangelical Christianity is essentially an expression of the Enlightenment, which itself was the full awakening of self-conscious Aristotelian reasoning deeply mixed with Germanic tribal moral mythology. In blunt terms, it defines Jehovah in character more like Zeus/Odin than the Hebrew God. The Enlightenment is alien to Scripture and you can’t use that approach to get a valid understanding of the Bible. It only pretends to be biblical.
The sound of Hebrew pleading with God for mercy over sins is simply proper protocol. It recognizes the whole prerogative is God’s. You don’t presume upon God, but you do carry the confidence to call upon Him in the first place.
Moreover, that Old Testament narrative refers to things on the moral level of the Law of Moses. It’s all about conduct that needs refining, and represents the need of the mind to learn how to obey the Spirit. But it is so very hard to put into words how the Enlightenment religion of evangelicals creates an entirely artificial concept of the Spirit Realm. There is some evil and intractable insistence that it must be rational. You cannot convince an Enlightenment soul that “rational” is not the pinnacle of truthfulness. Rather, it is a very long way short of it, and a really crappy substitution for it. Rational is the best man can do and woefully short of where God can be found. It is blasphemous to assume or state that God is reasonable, that anything we say of Him must be rational.
So we have Jason describing Jesus like a modern Western evangelical. Not because of the words chosen, but his image is false because of all the unstated assumptions behind it. It assumes too much that “born again” means something it cannot, that we can relax and not worry about our sins because we got fire insurance to keep us out of Hell. While spiritual birth does mean an eternal change in our standing with God, as described it has nothing to do with the Old Testament approach to God for mercy. This is where we see the worst confusion between the Two Realms. The question of moral conduct is not one of eternal standing. The Old Testament worshipers were not worried about Hell in that sense, but worried about missing out on the moral treasures available in this life.
And that is still a very valid concern in the New Testament. Do you think the Apostles wasted all that ink on better behavior for nothing? Was it not Jesus Himself who pressed for the necessity of changing our behavior to match the ineffable meaning of the Law, which Law was a parable of higher truth? The kind of worry that Jason addresses never arose in the minds of the Hebrew people. That sense of fear is entirely a product of Germanic mythology, foreign to the Hebrew culture. Don’t read that back into the Bible, folks. They didn’t live in the dreary world of Beowulf.
Reading those heathen cultural assumptions back into Scripture is, in one sense, the one flaw that ties together all evangelicals. It’s the wrong religion and the wrong god.
Let’s talk about sex.
Like everything else, sometimes you have to back off completely outside of things in order to line up the proper approach, the proper line of sight so the essence of things becomes clear. Even if you stumble upon this blog without having read a single previous post, the title and subtitle should indicate something of the priorities here. When I talk about sex, it’s a matter of placing it in the perspective of what God intended. We might argue about God and what He intended, but you should at least get the idea I’m pretending to know what He intended for me to say about it.
So let’s back off — waaaaaay off. Absent the Curse of the Fall, we lived in the glow of God’s glory. Nothing could possibly benefit us more than reflecting His glory as Creator. The story of the Fall is something about how we no longer reflect His glory instinctively. Somehow we decided to seize some of it for ourselves. That’s also the parable about how Satan came to be fallen, so it’s no surprise our biggest problem is that we too readily agree with Satan’s viewpoint. That means we rely on something inside ourselves to discover and define morality without direct reliance on God for the answer. Having that “divine spark” means nothing unless we remain in direct and constant reliance on Our Maker.
The fundamental task of humanity after the Fall is breaking the Curse. Breaking that curse is a simple matter of reversing the bad decision that brought us here. It means returning to God’s glory. The problem is that we are still fallen and do not easily absorb what that means. We have moved away from the place where we knew it by instinct, so God works with us in our current sad state. He gives us a hint of what His glory means by offering a revelation of moral conduct. Yes, He is the one who defines morality; it’s simply consistent with His divine character.
Part of what’s going on here is that, while the Curse has a snowball effect across time, so does revelation drawing us in the opposite direction. The earliest humans bore an entirely different cultural context that was much closer to our divine origins, but over the centuries humans have moved farther and farther away. The demands of glory have also risen to a higher pitch. In the climax of history, God offered one final revelation of His moral demands in His Son. The idea was that we absorb His human character so as to fulfill the Father’s glory. It can’t possibly be any clearer for us than the Person of Jesus, while we have continued our long slide even farther.
Without chasing the meaty rabbits of how radically different our intellectual assumptions about reality are from those of Jesus the man, I simply note that we today in our Western society are painfully alien to that Man of Men. We think we know what His followers wrote, but we as Westerners are not even on the same planet with the folks who left us the Scripture. I’m looking at you, Christian churches and leaders, when I say that. Organized religion is generally hostile to the truth even as it claims to teach it. You waste a lot of resources proclaiming your unique adherence to God’s Word in the face of opposition (often imaginary), but you are all alike in getting it wrong for the same basic reason. I’ll demonstrate by pointing out the radical shift in thinking it requires to see sex as God taught it in His revelation.
The Laws of Moses reflect God’s viewpoint on human nature. The social expectations were not simply quaint reflections of barbaric times long ago. When Hebrew people obeyed the Law of Moses, there are some elements merely contextual, but we tend to dismiss the whole thing without obeying Paul’s warning to rightly divide the Old Testament. You’ll notice his letters describe a limited adherence to Moses in some ways in how churches were to behave. Dismissing Paul as a Hebrew fuddy-duddy is dismissing God.
The masculine portion of overcoming the curse is dominance. Adam refused to lead Eve away from temptation, so the corrective is some measure of masculine dominance — get off your lazy butt and take the moral leadership. Not because such dominance is a part of God’s glory, but it is the path through this cursed existence back to His glory. Eve wasn’t evil; it wasn’t her job to discern where that moral boundary stood. The feminine portion of the curse is supporting the dominant male. But that dominance is fundamentally moral in nature. Adam should dominate by resisting the Devil’s intrusion in the mission, and Eve should faithfully support the mission in teamwork with her man.
She doesn’t decide the shape of civilization. He needs her input on things he does because the mission has a distinct division of labor, but the final decision is his before God. The two are one team with one goal.
Of course, the implications are far bigger than that, but dominance and support is the distilled essence in our language of what it takes to work our way back to God’s glory. As you might expect, our long descent into ultimate darkness and the End of All Things is reflected in how thoroughly our culture militates against that basic understanding. The act of balancing where we are against where we ought to be is the art form of following Christ.
Women do not define manhood. Paul said to cool their nattering in church and let the Word speak. Eve was deceived, not Adam; it’s a question of divine assignment. The modern Western Christian trend with calls to “man up” is just heathen feminism in disguise. Women are supposed to recognize moral manhood when they see it manifested in a man’s commitment to bring God glory according to the unique calling of that man.
The strongest, most dominant man is the one who tells the Devil to slink back into Hell. That is, he first dominates his own sinful nature. While that may well also manifest in things like hitting the gym and looking all manly, and learning to exercise whatever amount of charisma he can muster, the requirement for spiritual women is to discern the underlying truth that this particular man is truly strong against sin first and foremost. Second, he should be busy in some mission can understand, a mission that calls her to support him. He will most certainly at times be strong enough to tell her “no” and leave her standing there if she isn’t ready to follow his lead. The assumption is not that he’s always right, but that it’s his job to decide in the end because God said so.
The supportive woman understands her greatest power is serving on her man’s team. There is a lot of room for negotiation. Most people understand what’s wrong with the secular American brand of sex and marriage. Yet they probably can’t comprehend how the bulk of what’s sold as American Christian sex and marriage is little more than a slightly older, more conservative version of the exact same Anglo-Saxon heathen cultural mythology. The entire range of Western Post-Enlightenment thinking about marriage is wrong, totally wrong. But even when you can demonstrate how completely foreign it is to Scripture, all you get are blank looks from those nice church folks. What passes for Western Christian womanhood is pagan in the worst sense of the term, because it retains the fundamental assumptions that make modern American feminism evil.
Our men are conditioned to focus on the lust of the eyes and of the flesh. They are taught to pretend they aren’t paying attention to that, but I can promise you that pink Cadillacs and the glitzy cosmetic barn paint that they represent do not convey God’s way of projecting femininity. Just as manhood is not confined merely to muscles but morals, so womanhood is not enticing by cultural sexual attraction. Here’s a clue: It’s the male peacock who struts his stuff and the females who choose their mates. We have it backwards.
Men, you do not pick your woman. That’s because you have zero capability to choose wisely until way too late in life. She’s ready to make babies by the time you have your first clue where God might be leading you. Our society frowns on men waiting until they are ready and taking a young wife, and we have zero cultural background for a community mate selection system, so we are left with letting her choose her man. She is better equipped to work out where she fits best, so the men need to keep their focus of projecting moral dominance. If you pursue the gal, it’s virtually guaranteed you won’t lay hold of God’s best blessings in marriage. Make her choose you. She will let you know if she is ready to take you on. How that communication takes place is subject to a very wide range of variables. You may be the one to initiate all the conversation and social contacts, but it’s up to her make the first signals, however subtle they may be.
That’s how you glorify God; sex on that path can’t get any better in this life.
English is hardly the best language to arise from human intellectual chaos, but it’s the one I know best. Part of that knowledge includes a lot of study in etymology and chasing out the roots through other variations in the Germanic family of languages.
My own name became a point of curiosity. The middle name is the one I use most: Edward. It’s an Anglo-Saxon variation on “warden” that implies noble status, and somehow we got the French version “guardian,” as well. It was a prophetic choice my parents made, because I’m bound under the divine call to keep an eye on things. For example, my complaint about the corporation managing the rental property where I live was more about warning that they were completely out of bounds from God’s moral justice. If a servant of God intently prays about a moral issue, we should expect God to take action that won’t be pleasant for those who resist His justice.
Naturally, a prominent theme in my ministry here is the warning that we are falling under a deepening tribulation. It’s tribulation and suffering as a direct result of moral blindness in our world. The whole meaning of prophecy starts with moral clarity. That I no longer occupy the prophet’s office has no bearing on the prophetic root nature of my calling and ministry. I prayed often from my youth for wisdom and insight into human nature, while praying also to really understand what God had in mind for us. You can debate whether that prayer has been answered, but I have little choice but to assume some measure of what I sought has been granted. Mostly it’s the matter that I cannot shut up about moral issues.
In my mind, morality is the frame of reference God offered in His revelation. Simply knowing God compels us to engage the task of moral shepherd. To know God is to be consumed by His message. Each of us has some task in which we guard our fellow humans from folly — “folly” defined as moral failure. We are each called to communicate in some fashion that particular perspective on moral truth that God gives us. We can only tell what we have experienced.
Unfortunately, the medium for me is written English, followed by spoken English. Not so much in high artistry of either form, but in full reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit to use such limited talent as I have. With deep sadness I note that Anglo-Saxon morality, the very foundation of our Western society, is perverse. If you think Anglo-Saxons are brutal enough in raiding and political conquest, it’s their tongue that has truly taken over most of the world, though quite by accident. Somehow English became the default for telecommunications and radio traffic first, and now the default for computer software. It’s not the best choice, but we are stuck with it through the accidents of history.
It comes with a vast ocean of handicaps. The cultural orientation behind English is easily the worst thing to be foisted on humanity. We are a very long way from the dreary and morose mind of folks who gave us Beowulf, but what we have today assumes the basic truth of that ancient world. The cheerful amorality of Greco-Roman pretense is a thin cover over the fundamental fear that life just might be totally meaningless despite all we might achieve. And while that much is true, it’s the basic assumption that, if there is anyone above us, they hardly could be bothered to care, that fires all the very most misguided efforts of activism and frantic Victorian moral mythology.
So for all our raiding of other languages’ horde of terminology to give such a vast range of delicate flavor to every possible thought, we have nothing — nothing — for describing the God who cares enough to send His Son. The words of the English translation of Scripture you get, but the underlying otherworldly meaning is simply not available in English. There’s a vast treasure house of meaning that is discarded by the choice to use English. This is what made Anglo-Saxon mythology such a quick ally with Aristotelian rejection of a higher realm; it’s the reason the Enlightenment still dominates human assumptions today.
So while all this struggle to bring His revelation to life is serious business, with eternal consequences, you have to see the whimsy in allowing English and the attendant Western Civilization to flourish and dominate for such a long time. Within this moral wasteland, I stand in Pillar of Fire — the truth of God manifested in this world — trying to shepherd souls and warn them of the traps all around us. It’s a miracle anyone hears at all.
Close your eyes.
Climb down inside your soul. If you don’t find God there, you certainly won’t find Him outside of yourself. There will surely be a lot of conflict and question about how well you listen to Him there, but the principle remains: No one can prove to another objectively that there is a god.
That’s because the concept of objective truth is the first and biggest lie of all. Ultimate Truth is inherently subjective. If you don’t have a grasp on it, and it doesn’t have a grasp on you, then it might as well not be there. It’s not enough to conceive of something external that is trustworthy. That’s just a basic lie we all absorb from our environment. It’s the most egregious, heinous deception in human history.
Further, if what I splash on these virtual pages doesn’t call your soul, then it’s just wasted electrons. I strive to reach past your ingrained conditioning to help you find your own identity, to shed the imposed mythology of others. The motives of those who shaped you is not the question; it’s a question of whether it helped you. It’s more the motives of those who were behind them and behind the story they told you.
If your ultimate value is the glory of the Heavenly Father, then it’s for certain you will end up in the right place. You can’t possibly be what you were yesterday, and the functional truth of that time and place is no longer functional today. But the center of things most certainly is not outside of you; the center is you and Him together. He cannot possibly be known indirectly, as some external fact. So in that sense, the center of the universe is inside of you. If you start from any other center, you will be off-center. You’ll be blinded by a false line of sight toward the truth.
And just about the only thing you can really discuss about God is His moral requirements for living here and now. Such is the substance of all revelation. You will surely know Him in ways you can’t discuss with anyone else, but what you can share with another is His demands on you. There is surely a commonality there, because a critical part of His demands is that we discuss them. His revelation assumes there has to be something we can share with at least one other in this world.
I can’t tell you what’s really going on with this Ebola scare. I’m not a medical expert, but I am an expert in government immorality. No matter how dark and evil the portrait I draw of those with political power, it won’t be half the story. I’m not party to the medical facts, but I know for certain that those who do know them aren’t the only voices we hear. The biggest liars are those with the power to compel us to act on their narrative on the pain of violent penalties. The people in positions of earthly power and authority are hardly unanimous in what they tell us. Having seen that every one of them has lied in the past, and lied egregiously, why should we trust them on this?
If God intends to end your life with Ebola or something else with a different name, you have no power to argue. If God intends to keep you around a while longer, no power on earth can harm you. That’s the ultimate truth of life here on earth.
So what should you do? Turn back inside yourself for the truth. Extrapolate from your moral convictions. By no means should you listen to the mainstream scolding of people around you, nor their fear mongering. Could it mean you suffer and die? And what of that? Death is just a circumstance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
If the truth of what you should do is not written on your soul — inside your eyelids, as it were — then you won’t find it anywhere.