I nearly “flipped out.” I was reading “Dear Abby” and could hardly believe my eyes that such disinformation can be so readily passed on to an unsuspecting public. What happened was that Abby reprinted a letter she received from Jessica Aronoff, executive director, Break the Cycle. Break the Cycle is an advocacy group against domestic violence—by the way, even the terms domestic violence are loaded with a negative presupposition. Abby duly thanked Arnoff for her letter and spoke in glowing terms about Break the Cycle and then spun her own set of facts and insights that were, of course, more disinformation. Arnoff, for example, stated that domestic violence, “(touches) everyone—through friends, co-workers and family members who are suffering silently without our even knowing it. Many of us also know abusers—people who may seem charming and likeable on the surface but cause fear, self-doubt, pain even death, to those they claim to love.” Hum, I wonder who exactly is doing all of this domestic violence? Husbands, biological fathers—they seem likely suspects, right? Well, let’s take a look.

First, the terms domestic violence are a nice euphemism for violence in the home. These terms are a way of indicating to us that the average American home with parents and children is a dangerous place, right? For now, let’s just ignore that domestic violence has been expanded to include such things as verbal abuse and “abuse in a dating relationships” between teens. Let’s just focus on who is doing all of the real physical abuse and what kinds of “homes” are experiencing this abuse.

David Blankenhorn is his powerful book “Fatherless America” gets right to the bottom of the real statistics—not using anecdotes or fuzzy language like “significant others” or “domestic partners.” Using data from The Centers for Disease Control he found that “compared to married women, unmarried women are three to four times more likely to be physically abused while pregnant.” Then using the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice he found that in the eight year period between 1979 through 1987 that of “all the violent crimes against women committed by intimates during this period about 65% were committed by either boyfriends or ex-husbands, compared with 9% by husbands.” He concludes his detailed study with this strong statement. “Clearly, male violence against female intimates is concentrated not within the marital institution but outside the perimeters of it—either from sort-of-spouses (boyfriends) or from former husbands.” However, Blankenhorn’s wrap-up statement on domestic violence is the most pointed. He states, “For if the cultural antidote for male violence is monogamous marriage and responsible fatherhood, the breeding grounds for it are casual sex, family fragmentation, and nonmarital childbearing.” In short, Blankenhorn noted that a sure way to have domestic violence is to ignore God’s prescriptions for sex and family. Additionally, the men who are doing the vast majority of the violence in homes are not the average committed husband and father; rather, it is what Blankenhorn calls the “near-by guy”—the live-in lover or ex-spouse. Committed husbands are the least likely group of men to perpetrate violence in the home.

Now as I write this, I know there are those who have an anecdotal story of a father who was abusive. There is no denying that husbands commit about 9% of the violent abuse within the homes of America. However, on a statistical basis, this number pales into insignificance when compared to what the “near-by guys” are doing. However, have you ever gotten this information? My guess is no. My guess is that the impression you have gotten is that there is an epidemic of domestic violence in typically middle-class; seemingly “normal” married families that live in the suburbs of America. Our public discussion of domestic violence almost never acknowledges, much less analyzes, differences in marital status among men who assault women. Why?

I think the answer to the “why” question is that if the true picture about domestic violence were consistently broadcast it would undercut the cultural paradigm of our age. That paradigm is that marriage is a nice institution but unnecessary for a good and just society and that sex outside of marriage is not a threat to the fabric of that society. The Bible proclaims the exact opposite message. God, through His Scriptures, tells us that the healthiest and happiest place for sex is in marriage and that marriage is the fundamental building block of a good and just society. The data on the pathologies of America that hasn’t been “cooked” by advocacy groups strongly support the biblical view.

One of the more popular ideas held by secular materialists is that mankind lives in a totally purposeless universe and is himself the product of a blind process termed natural selection. Gaylord Simpson offers a classic statement of this idea:

“The meaning of evolution is that man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind.” G. G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New York, New American Library Mentor Book, 1953), 179.

This is a logical fallacy known to philosophers since the time of Aristotle which is termed: A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter or "from a statement under a condition to a statement simply, or without that condition.” How this works with Simpson’s statement is that the process identified as natural selection can be investigated through materialistic instruments like microscopes and chemical tests. However, these materialistic measurements can tell us nothing about a purpose behind the process because “purpose” lies outside of the materialistic universe. The point is that Simpson draws the conclusion that there is no universal agent (God) that exercises purpose outside the materialistic universe from information gained only from inside the materialistic universe. And, by the way, the fact that Simpson—through his own reasoning—introduces the concept of “purpose” necessarily introduces an “agent” in the universe who happens to understand and exercise purpose—more on this below.

The logical fallacy states that if a conclusion is reached from a premise that is under a restrictive condition, then it is fallacious to proceed to reach the same conclusion when the condition on the premise is taken away. Yet, this is what Simpson and others do. They begin with the premise of a materialistic universe where they see no purpose within the universe then they remove the restriction of a materialistic universe and proceed to conclude there is no purpose outside the materialistic universe. This is a fallacious argument.

However, leaving this fallacy aside, let’s go back to how the secular materialist (like Simpson), using his own reasoning introduces the concept of “purpose” to prove that there is no purpose. Obviously, there must be some sort of purposeful actions or activities happening within the materialistic universe for the concept of purpose to arise. Otherwise, the concept would be meaningless and secularists would not have to waste time and energy to refute the idea of purpose because no one would know what they were talking about. Ah, the secularist notes, there is purpose but it is something that arises out of man’s actions or that man superimposes on totally random events. No doubt, humans superimpose purpose on things that are basically random (e.g. reading tea leaves); however, few rational people would deny that humans have the capacity to purposefully create structures, organizations, procedures, devices and a host of other highly complex things. Now here is my little insight. A basic mistake that the secular materialist makes is failing to see that man is part of nature. Therefore, all of man’s purposeful activities, in some very fundamental way, arise out of nature. Consequently, it is a serious mistake to fracture man’s connection to nature and suddenly declare that in observing the “nature” of the universe we see no purpose. This seems rather myopic to me.

In recognizing man’s purposeful activities, his awareness of the cosmos and his own self-awareness, Jewish scientist Gerald L. Schroeder maintains that the one of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is that man is part of nature. In other words, that a being (man) capable of causing, defining and recognizing purpose should itself be part of nature is proof on-the-face-of-it (prima facie) that there is purpose in the material universe and provides a substantial reason for exploring purpose beyond its limits.

In case you missed it, February 23, 2006, nationally syndicated columnist George Will wrote an incredibly fascinating piece titled “I'm conservative...and happy.” Working off a recent Pew Research Center study that found that only 28% of liberals classify themselves as “very happy” as compared to 47% of conservatives—a striking statistical difference—Will offered three reasons why there is this difference. At the heart of the three reasons is a central paradigm of pessimism. Conservatives view human nature and life more pessimistically than do liberals. This is what Will calls the “paradox of happiness.” Conservatives' pessimism is, therefore, “conducive to their happiness in three ways.” First, they are not surprised when things go badly (the government’s response to Katrina). Second, when they are wrong and things go well, it still makes them happy. Third, conservatives do not believe that “Santa God”, someone else, or the government can supply happiness—happiness to the conservative is a byproduct of one’s own activity.

Liberals, on the other hand tend to have a positive view of human nature and think that with more education, or the improvement of social conditions, or with more government programs or regulation that the lot of humanity will improve. Therefore, they are often disappointed when this does not happen. George Will puts it this way:

(Because of their disappointment) “…conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them, the better).”

Ah, yes, mega-churches, the greenhouse of so much liberal discontent and conservative happiness. (It just happens my church is getting ready to pave several acres for more parking—making so many people happier!)

The Truth about Happiness

God, as I have said before, is the happiest being in the universe. He is completely self-fulfilled, full of joy and delight in all of His works and goodness. Additionally, his plan for man is that we should share in His great happiness. The classic theological word for this is “felicity.” If you are a believer, you are headed for felicity. Felicity comes from a direct encounter with God and it is by encountering Him that all of your wants, desires, hopes and aspirations will be completely fulfilled. You will be full of delight and joy. There can be nothing greater than God, He is infinitely satisfying. In heaven your pursuit of happiness will come to an end in God.

On the other hand, you cannot achieve perfect happiness during your lifetime. You can only have imperfect happiness. The sooner you realize this, the better it will be for you and the more you will enjoy your stay on earth. It will also enhance your imperfect happiness to realize that “in this world you will have tribulation” and that only God can create utopia. Realize that evil exists and it is not going to go away any time soon. The more you embrace the paradox of pessimism the happier you will be—praise God!

In order to foster more productive dialogue, it has been requested that I list topics that have been adequately explored at TFD and do not need to be discussed any further. In other words we agree to disagree. These are topics that define some of the differences between orthodox Christianity and LDS beliefs. Here is our LIST:

1. Canon: orthodox Christians believe that the canon of Scripture is closed with the New Testament; LDS accept the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine of Covenants as well as the Bible.
2. Prophesy: orthodox Christians believe prophesy must be subordinate to and checked by Scripture; LDS believe that prophesy can set doctrine.
3. Godhead: orthodox and LDS have different ways of understanding God’s triune nature.
4. Christology: orthodox Christians and LDS have different ways of understanding how God was incarnate in Jesus Christ.
5. Salvation: orthodox Christians believe that salvation is by faith through God’s grace and His grace transforms and sanctifies the believer unto good works; LDS believe that salvation is through faith in Christ and good works.

While my description of each these topics for either orthodox Christians or LDS may not be exacting and precise, it remains that we have discussed them enough. We are now ready to say that we agree to disagree and to do so amiably. It is certainly legitimate to reference these differences (Example: one might write, “As an orthodox Christian I believe the canon of Scripture is closed, etc.”); however, it is no longer necessary for us to continue to debate the specific issues and nuances of these topics.

I would ask that you respect this limitation and do so in a positive and courteous manner. Please refrain from denigrating the beliefs of others and do not disparage anyone personally.

If there are other issues that you believe we have discussed enough and need to “agree to disagree” about, please let me know in the form of a comment.

First of all there is no before or after in God. One of the implications of this is that even though God willed the universe “always” (a chronological word that helps us understand these things even though there is no time in God), the effect of its existence was not always a reality. In other words, within the scope of God’s will there falls both the existence of something and the time of its existence.

Second, God brought into existence both the universe and time together. Additionally, the universe exists in a particular place. However, we need to keep in mind that with God and His heaven, there is no time and place. God has access to all times and places in the temporal universe.

Third, because there is no time or place before God created the universe, it is not a proper question to ask why the universe was produced “now” and not “before.” This is the wrong question to ask because there can be no “before” in relationship to the universe coming into existence. Remember time and space came into existence with the universe. The proper question to ask is why it was not always produced or why was it brought into existence after not existing.

A fourth thing to consider is that God does nothing out of necessity. If God does anything it is only done voluntarily—meaning that He willfully decides to do something out of His free choice. Nor can anyone claim that God does anything to improve His situation or make Himself better. God is perfectly fulfilled, content and happy within Himself. He is the happiest being that exists. Therefore, if God does anything it is because He does it freely for His own sake.

Finally, to answer the question why was the universe not always produced we can say a few things. One is that the universe coming into existence shows us that God is completely and utterly transcendent over all of His creation. Because the creation and creatures have not always existed shows our amazing dependence upon God. It also reinforces the fact that God is not chained to His creation in a cause and effect relationship. He did not have to cause anything. Thirdly, it shows that God willfully chose to create the universe, to create you and to create me. That’s awesome! It, therefore, proves that God must have a will and must be intelligent. See, even the creation declares His “eternal power and divine nature” (Romans 1:20).