Dr. Brown explains the power of being sure of your spiritual convictions and then discusses how to experience God’s love in our personal lives with David Harwood, author of God’s True Love.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: When you stand before God, He won’t ask you, “Was it easy?” or “What did the people say?” He will ask you one question: “Did you do what I called you to do?”
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is nothing more important in your life than knowing the love of God. Go before Him, meditate on His word, and ask Him to open your heart and mind. As His love is revealed to you through Jesus, He has made you worthy. Walk it out for His glory.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
Dr. Brown Brings Encouragement after the Legalization of Same-Sex “Marriage” in NY, and Dr. Brown and Pastor David Harwood Talk about the Love of God
God’s True Love by David Harwood
Pastors David and Elaine Harwood: David is a Jewish believer who has pastored New Covenant Community of Believers (Glen Cove, NY) since the mid 1970’s. A prophetic teacher and worship leader, David has presented this message in conferences, training centers, and congregations in the United States, Israel, Canada, and Mexico. He is ordained through The Lamb’s Chapel… Read More:
What an awesome show today, I really like what Dr. Brown said in the first hour, sorry if I misquote it, but roughly: ” God isn’t going to ask us how hard or how easy it was, but whether or not we did His will.” That’s so true! It reminds me of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7, speaking about only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom. And I thoroughly enjoyed the interview with David Harwood (who sounds a bit like Benjamin Netanyahu, lol), the whole concept of God’s love for us, on a personal level is so refreshing and uplifting to hear. Such a joy hearing about it.
May God bless you all!
We all experience God’s love daily. What concerns me is whether or not we are aware of it and whether or not we properly respond to it or not, for one man might walk the earth and not see the love of God that is all around him while another man might be taking in what he can of it.
One’s eyes might begin to see while the other one might walk in darkness.
I saw some deer the other day and they seemed surprised to see a house in a place they may have often been visiting in the past for berries or whatever.
The ducks claimed the retention pond as their own and seemed glad.
A woodpecker was loudly hammering away at what must have been an aged tree.
The morning was alive with creatures of God showing me his handiwork and his provision for them. How could they not be telling me of his grace and care for them and the many ways God blesses me?
I liked this show too. I understand that my personal relationship with the Lord is the only thing that keeps me going some days, many days. I just don’t know sometimes how much more heartbreak I can carry on behalf of another. My nephew is suffering terribly and it’s easy to say, “Trust in God with all your heart” but when your heart’s breaking for another it’s not really that easy anymore. I never think of myself as God’s favorite. That can’t be true.
David Harwood’s book “God’s True Love”is a very good book.It helped me to understand what God’s love really means to us all and how we should love others.
Sheila, Of course your G-d’s favorite, we all are who truly know him..think of it this way, your a house fit for a King…there’s a good teacher on are true value to G-d on you-tube search Dan Mohler
peace,love and Joy to you..
Dr. Brown,
This is a bit off topic, but since knowing the love of God has a subjective aspect to it, and my question deals with the subjective, I will place it here.
You spend time in prayer and come away with the conviction of “knowing that you know” Jesus is Messiah(That is not to say that you do not have a Scriptural basis as well).
Shmuley Boteach spends time with the Lord and comes away confident that Jesus aligns with his version of the Kosher Jesus but is not the Messiah.
Since contradictory statements cannot be true, either both or neither have truely heard from the Lord. Now I can understand that a Hindu praying to Vishnu might come away with false doctrine since Vishnu is not really God. But your friend Shmuley along with thousands of devote Rabbis are praying to the true God who must certainly hear them. Why does not God speak to their hearts with the same message He speaks to yours?
S. Johnson,
Since I’m an atheist when I ask the kinds of questions you did I’m told that my doubt and skepticism are actually rebellion against God. You’ve asked a question that is difficult for believers to answer. For that reason I don’t think Dr. Brown or anyone else will try to answer it. If we apply Okham’s Razor to the problem we are forced to conclude that neither subject has actually heard from God. That conclusion requires far fewer assumptions than any other.
The key to the answer is that “GOD looks at the heart.” Thus the RULES to the Tree of Life are different than those of the Tree of Knowledge. We can’t outthink GOD; and because GOD IS LOVE, trying to have a bigger heart is also impossible!
In Him, Ron M.
Ron,
I’m not sure if your comment was meant for me or not. If it was meant for my question then I think it is inadequate. There are Rabbis that are deeply committed to God, so I think their hearts are in the right place.
Borris,
Sorry to hear about the atheist position you hold. It seems like a difficult place to live. As Sartre said “atheism is a long and cruel affair”. I may not fully trust the subjective experience that some claim to have but after years of study do trust the objective evidence. There is good objective evidence. In a nutshell to be an atheist one must believe that order comes from chaos, that information comes from non-information, that consciousness arose from the unconscious, that moral value arose from the amoral. And from a Christian standpoint, that somehow the predictions made about the Messiah were either faked or that the writers of the NT lied about thier fulfillment; both seem to go against the character and the words spoken by the men involved. Further, they could not have changed the extra biblical evidence that supports their position. And lastly of course they would not have died for a lie.
When multiple lines of evidence point to the same conclusion, the probability of that conclusion being true approaches 100%.
If you have an Ipad or Iphone download the app Molecules. Then look at the 3-d rendering of say DNA polymerase and ask is it feasible to believe this 31516 atom containing molecule, with its exact 3-d folding structure (folding required for function) came about by chance and natural selection. Then multiply those odds with the vast number of similar molecules, and then factor in the probability of creating organ systems that come together to act in harmony. It is this sort of reasoning that led philosopher Anthoney Flew to change his mind.
Sorry to hear about the Christian position you hold. It seems like a difficult place to live. Anthony Flew said Christianity is ridiculous. I agree. It’s obvious to me and anyone else who hasn’t been frightened out of their minds by the myth of hell that the gospel writers wrote their fables to conform to earlier prophecies to make it SEEM like Jesus had fulfilled them. I’m quite sure Jesus Christ never existed.
Being an atheist means you will be conflicted on social issues because you have to consider both sides of the issue. Christians just follow the orders of their religous leaders so they don’t have to think about tough issues. It’s easy to be against say the right of women to choose an abortion because you never consider the consequences of forced parenthood. Well we who think for ourselves do. Try it some time.
Boris, your statement on abortion is self-serving in the sense that you assume Christians cannot consider all sides of an issue (and in fact take action on those issues), but of course an “athiest” does (or is at least capable of doing so).
The evidence appears to the contrary. Many many Christians laboring to help those in “unwanted pregnancies”, adopting unwanted children, giving resources to found homes and shelters. Helping stem the moral decline, sexual promiscuity which has resulted in those pregancies is high on a Christian’s list.
What have Athiests done beside support killing babies? Where are the athiest shelters, the athiest counciling centers? Maybe I just haven’t heard of them so please point them out.
Why is the solution to kill many many millions of unborn humans, if as you yourself has said, the highest value is human life?
Perhaps evolutionary thought places these unborn humans in some sort of “prehuman” category, so killing them now for the future perceived benefit to the mother or father, or to society as a whole, is justifiable. Science certainly has shown that the unborn are humans.
Maybe you yourself don’t hold those views.
I must point out the fallicy of the “forced parenthood” idea that Boris used above. The cause of parenthood is very well understood, and the VAST PREPONDERANCE of abortions result from elective abortions, not as a result of rape.
It cannot be stressed enough that this type of lie has to be called to the light.
Everyone, this is NOT a thread for the discussion of atheism. Boris and others are going at it all the time on other threads that are relevant, but this is NOT one of them. So, just a reminder: The purpose of this forum is to discuss the topics brought up on the radio show rather than to serve as a platform for any individual to argue his or her position. Should others here want to engage Boris, please do so in an appropriate thread. Thanks!
Borris;
As one who is trained in Science (3 degrees)and who is well familiar with years of indoctrination about the “truth” of natural selection, I find it falls short of answering some fundamental questions. It seems if you apply Okham’s razor to the points I posed above the solution you chose does is not the simplest explanation. It requires a myriad of low probability events. Can you explain how information came from non-information? How life came to be? I do not know your science background, but if you have a fair handle on genetics, I would suggest you read “The Signature in the Cell”, by Stephen Meyer. He systematically reviews the various theories of how life “spontaneously” arose and shows just how flawed they are. Having read many such books, I think this is one of the best. As an aside, I find it interesting that intelligent design proponents have been accused of not doing “real science” since “real science” can make predictions. When Francis Collins wrote his book in which he supported evolution based on the fact that there was so much “Junk DNA” and a designer would not put in junk, ID proponents responded that in time “junk DNA” would be shown to have a function. Flash forward several years and now “junk DNA” while it does not code for proteins, is involved in a host of important functions. So it seems that ID proponents do make predictions after all! And now there is even another layer of complexity that points to something beyond DNA that may be controlling DNAs transcription…something called epigenetics. The deeper we go the more information rich systems we are finding. Where does all this information come from? Do you not see some irony in the fact that according to the atheist world view these complex systems came about by chance, and yet after years of scientific exploration using Truly ingenious techniques, we still don’t understand the elegant systems that nature produced by random chance? Einstein once said (paraphrase don’t have the exact quote at my fingertips) that one of the most amazing things was that the universe was understandable. In other words, Why should randomness be subject to mathematical description?
As far as philosophical arguments go, Dawkins recently ran from a debate with William Lane Craig. Yes, he came up with some nonsense about Craig not being worthy of debating him as he then went off to debate lesser known people. Could it really be that he took Sam Harris’ comment seriously (““the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”)? Bottom line Dawkins had the opportunity to debate a world class apologist and ran away. He had a perfect forum to defend his book “The God Delusion” which Craig had torn down and showed no interest. Dawkins as the master of the strawman argument, clearly knew Craig would have none of that.
As far as independent thought goes, I have tried it, I just came to different conclusions than you did.
Sorry Dr. Brown. I missed your comment before responding to Boris, I will cease and desist.
I would still be interested in your answer to my question.
S. Johnson,
May I encourage you to read and prayerfully meditate on the events in Genesis 42-45. In the right time, Joseph revealed himself to his brothers. They met with him, received sustaining provision from him, even treasures revealed that they did not understand. His brothers did not know him at all until they were prepared to become slaves, recognizing their sin and their helplessness before authority.
Joseph is a type of Christ. He longs for His own, and will reveal Himself to them at the appointed time with joy, even as He is now sustaining them and working for them to see their need.
This may be one facet of the answers to your very reasonable question.
Yes, Dr. Brown, I will also refrain from further comment off-topic. Thanks for the reminder.
Topic: confidence; love.
S.J.,
From the few rabbis I’ve met, they don’t seem much different than most preachers I’ve met; take it as you will.
In the NT record, Jesus seemed to scold the Pharisees intellectualism as much as he embraced the ‘common man’s’ faults; so this seeming disparity for me is explained by the ‘head-attitude’ v the ‘heart-attitude’; else how can you explain the ‘vipers’ v the ‘sheep’?
Ther preponderance toward the mundane (blue-collar) is offset by the weight of the administrators’ (white-collar) predominance; so Nicodemus et al hold a special place that Paul later expands on; and which also becomes a caution as to abuse in early Revelation.
In Him, Ron M.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for reminding the people here that this thread is not the place to discuss the subject of atheism. It’s not the place to try to convert Boris either. I should point out that my original comment was in response to a post made by S. Johnson and is relevant to the subject being discussed. My original comments on all of the threads on this blog have only to do with the subject of that thread or something I heard on the show attached to the thread. However as soon as I post a comment several people cannot resist trying to challenge my lack of belief in Christianity. And look at how they do it! They’re talking about molecules, Anthony Flew, having a science degree or three, DNA, natural selection, Richard Dawkins, William Craig, Signature in a Cell and a whole bunch of other stuff. Then Matt wants to challenge my views on abortion, a subject I only mentioned to illustrate the point I was making, and he doesn’t even know what my views on abortion are. I read and post comments on this blog for the exact same reason everyone else reads and posts comments on this particular blog: I listen to the show and have for years. I tune in when I can and if the subject interests me I listen and if it doesn’t I change the station to ESPN or Fox Sports. You’re in rarified air Dr. Brown. Sometimes I read the comments about the show. I post a comment if I think I can add a different perspective. You have to admit I get people talking and posting their comments. Like you I wish they would all just stick the subject of the thread. From now on if they stray too far from the subject of the thread I just won’t comment on their posts. All of this annoys me more than it does you. So sorry.
Boris,
I am thrilled to be in such rarefied air and yes, you do generate lots of activity here. I’m glad to you have you as a faithful listener! What would be even more amazing is if you became a financial supporter too. Now THAT would be a story. 🙂
Is it just me ? or did I hear a pin drop! 🙂
Boris, do you ever wonder why it is that you are drawn to Dr. Brown’s radio program, or who it is that draws you there?
It was for the love of God that I was drawn to Jesus.
I listen to the show because I want to hear what people who let other people do their thinking for them have to say. Plus Bible believers say some really funny things. It is for the love of truth that I reject the claims OTHER PEOPLE make about Jesus and the Bible.
Boris, I know your comment was intended to be serious, but it just makes me smile and is quite laughable. Thank God he gives you the opportunity to listen, but it will make you more accountable before His throne one day.
Boris, are there OTHER PEOPLE who have made the same claims about Jesus and the Bible that you also believe?
If there are two sides to this, there may be many who hold to either side, but both obviously cannot be right.
Dr. Brown,
I don’t want to get off the subject. However I’m not the least bit concerned that your God is going to follow me to my grave and keep me alive in some disembodied state for the sole purpose of punishing me for all eternity because I accepted the facts of rational science and rejected the non-rational authoritarianism of your particular religion or worse, that I wasn’t converted by listening to your radio show. This threat of judgment and subsequent punishment appeals to the base emotion of cowardice rather than logic, reason or even common sense and like the rest of the claims of Christianity there is not a shred of evidence to support it.
I first heard about God on the radio when I was four years old. I heard Charles Fuller describe God and his supposed attributes and I was at once an unbeliever and fascinated with the notion that anyone else could believe these things. Still am.
Matt,
I’m not sure what you mean but I don’t believe claims made without evidence to back them up which of course is the reason I reject the claims of all religions. Not too many people agree with my views on the Bible and Jesus but that doesn’t concern me. Not too many people have looked into the subjects as carefully as I have.
Boris, you’ve claimed to believe many things that do not have a shred of evidence to back them up:
-Jesus never existed
-all organisms evolved from “simpler” life forms
-life spontaneously began from non-life.
These beliefs require a lot of faith only, as they cannot be substantiated.
I spent some time in Orlando working with the homeless. There comes a point sometimes where ‘reasoning together’ is no longer productive; it’s like you’re speaking foreign languages neither understands.
I try to communicate with the ‘inlaws’ of the House rather than the ‘outlaws’ because of this disparity of ‘rules’. If there is no basis of agreement, you often just go around in circles. There are plenty of subjects concerning ‘House-cleaning’ that can be more ‘edifying’, such as:
Exactly where is the line crossed in ‘ritual’ becoming ‘idolatry’? Conversely, where does our ‘freedom in Christ’ stray beyond the ‘outer courts’; and how ‘secure’ can we be ‘outside the camp’, physically and Spiritually?
In Him, Ron M.
Folks, one more reminder: Boris is not the subject of this thread and atheism is not the subject of this thread. Thanks!
But Dr. Brown, I think you must admit that there is more emphasis in modern Christianity on Witnessing than Doctrinal Issues (Housekeeping);
so what the Lost may perceive as their own ‘aura’, the rest of us here see as trying to ‘snatch them from the fire’.
Please indulge me just this once: in my own testimony, it became a very short step from Absurdism back to Fundamental Christianity; I am attempting to help.
Albert Camus (from Wikiquotes)
• There is not love of life without despair about life.
o Preface, Lyrical and Critical Essays (1970)
• Life continues, and some mornings, weary of the noise, discouraged by the prospect of the interminable work to keep after, sickened also by the madness of the world that leaps at you from the newspaper, finally convinced that I will not be equal to it and that I will disappoint everyone—all I want to do is sit down and wait for evening. This is what I feel like, and sometimes I yield to it.
o “Letter to P.B.” in Lyrical and Critical Essays (1970)
• The realization that life is absurd and cannot be an end, but only a beginning. This is a truth nearly all great minds have taken as their starting point. It is not this discovery that is interesting, but the consequences and rules of action drawn from it.
o Critiquing Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre, as quoted in Albert Camus and the Philosophy of the Absurd (2002) by Avi Sagi, p. 43
An Absurd Reasoning
• What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.
• If I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers. I can sketch one by one all the aspects it is able to assume, all those likewise that have been attributed to it, this upbringing, this origin, this ardor or these silences, this nobility or this vileness. But aspects cannot be added up.
• I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone.
• Everything considered, a determined soul will always manage.
• I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I cannot know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me — that I understand. And these two certainties — my appetite for the absolute and for unity and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle — I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my conditions?
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer.
The Absurd Man
• At this point of his effort man stands face to face with the irrational. He feels within him his longing for happiness and for reason. The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world. This must not be forgotten. This must be clung to because the whole consequence of a life can depend on it. The irrational, the human nostalgia, and the absurd that is born of their encounter — these are the three characters in the drama that must necessarily end with all the logic of which an existence is capable.
• There can be no question of holding forth on ethics. I have seen people behave badly with great morality and I note every day that integrity has no need of rules. There is but one moral code that the absurd man can accept, the one that is not separated from God: the one that is dictated. But it so happens that he lives outside that God. As for the others (I mean also immoralism), the absurd man sees nothing in them but justifications and he has nothing to justify. I start out here from the principle of his innocence.
• That innocence is to be feared. “Everything is permitted,” exclaims Ivan Karamazov. That, too, smacks of the absurd. But on condition that it not be taken in a vulgar sense. I don’t know whether or not it has been sufficiently pointed out that it is not an outburst of relief or of joy, but rather a bitter acknowledgment of a fact.
• The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. “Everything is permitted” does not mean that nothing is forbidden.
• A sub-clerk in the post office is the equal of a conqueror if consciousness is common to them. All experiences are indifferent in this regard. There are some that do either a service or a disservice to man. They do him a service if he is conscious. Otherwise, that has no importance: a man’s failures imply judgment, not of circumstances, but of himself.
• One recognizes one’s course by discovering the paths that stray from it.
• To work and create “for nothing,” to sculpture in clay, to know one’s creation has no future, to see one’s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries — this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions. Performing these two tasks simultaneously, negating on the one hand and magnifying on the other, it the way open to the absurd creator. He must give the void its colors.
The world evades us because it becomes itself again. That stage scenery masked by habit becomes what it is. It withdraws at a distance from us.
This was her finest role and the hardest one to play. Choosing between heaven and a ridiculous fidelity, preferring oneself to eternity or losing oneself in God is the age-old tragedy in which each must play his part.
Notebooks (1942-1951)
• So many men are deprived of grace. How can one live without grace? One has to try it and do what Christianity never did: be concerned with the damned.
An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.
The Plague (1947)
He tried to recall what he had read about the disease. Figures floated across his memory, and he recalled that some thirty or so great plagues known to history had accounted for nearly a hundred million deaths. But what are a hundred million deaths? When one has served in a war, one hardly knows what a dead man is, after a while. And since a dead man has no substance unless one actually sees him dead, a hundred million corpses broadcast through history are no more than a puff of smoke in the imagination.
“What on earth prompted you to take a hand in this?”
“I don’t know. My… my code of morals, perhaps.”
“Your code of morals. What code, if I may ask?”
“Comprehension.”
There always comes a time in history when the person who dares to say that 2+2=4 is punished by death. And the issue is not what reward or what punishment will be the outcome of that reasoning. The issue is simply whether or not 2+2=4.
• In Oran, as elsewhere, for want of time and thought, people have to love one another without knowing it.
The Rebel (1951)
Every ideology is contrary to human psychology.
• The absurd … is an experience to be lived through, a point of departure, the equivalent, in existence of Descartes’ methodical doubt. Absurdism, like methodical doubt, has wiped the slate clean. It leaves us in a blind alley
• Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other.
The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown. He must dominate in his turn.
• But slave camps under the flag of freedom, massacres justified by philanthropy or by a taste for the superhuman, in one sense cripple judgment. On the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence — through a curious transposition peculiar to our times — it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself.
• If Nietzsche and Hegel serve as alibis to the masters of Dachau and Karaganda, that does not condemn their entire philosophy. But it does lead to the suspicion that one aspect of their thought, or of their logic, can lead to these appalling conclusions.
• Every rebellion implies some kind of unity.
• Every revolutionary ends as an oppressor or a heretic.
• Nothing can discourage the appetite for divinity in the heart of man.
• For those of us who have been thrown into hell, mysterious melodies and the torturing images of a vanished beauty will always bring us, in the midst of crime and folly, the echo of that harmonious insurrection which bears witness, throughout the centuries, to the greatness of humanity.
• When the throne of God is overturned, the rebel realizes that it is now his own responsibility to create the justice, order, and unity that he sought in vain within his own condition, and in this way to justify the fall of God. Then begins the desperate effort to create, at the price of crime and murder if necessary, the dominion of man.
• Then we understand that rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of love. Those who find no rest in God or in history are condemned to live for those who, like themselves, cannot live; in fact, for the humiliated.”
• “In the light, the earth remains our first and our last love. Our brothers are breathing under the same sky as we; justice is a living thing. Now is born that strange joy which helps one live and die, and which we shall never again postpone to a later time.”
• Whatever we may do, excess will always keep its place in the heart of man, in the place where solitude is found. We all carry within us our places of exile, our crimes and our ravages. But our task is not to unleash them on the world; it is to fight them in ourselves and in others.
The Fall (1956)
• To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others.
Let’s not beat around the bush; I love life — that’s my real weakness. I love it so much that I am incapable of imagining what is not life.
Resistance, Rebellion, and Death (1960)
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
A Happy Death (1971)
The opposite of an idealist is too often a man without love.
• Only it takes time to be happy. A lot of time. Happiness, too, is a long patience.
Restating my comment in #18 (hopefully better):
GOD, thus Yeshua Messiah, converts via the Heart rather than the Head (He being the Head, but DEFINED by Love); so we “enter the Kingdom as a little child”, which includes humility and simple faith; something the Leaders of the world(and sometimes “church”) often have great difficulty doing.This explains why Jesus seemingly had more compassion for the “common man” than (say) the Pharisees; in the former, He was gently ‘drawing them in’; the latter, pounding their know-it-all attitude with His Word like a Hammer.
True Ron, Are responsible as born again believers is to renew are (minds) through his word but only Jesus Christ can renew are hearts.
Peace, love and joy to you