Advent with Moses - Vik. Jethro Rachmadi

Another word for advent is expectation. Our life often does not turn out as we expected, often the reality doesn’t meet our expectation. GRII KG choir just opened an application for new members, and some people came up to me and ask why they have not succeeded in the choir yet? I told them, the point of learning music is more than just an instant-fried-rice kind of a thing, but more like a long-processed steamed food. Choir practice takes a long time as steaming is to cooking. So does our expectation towards God and how it will dictate how we live.

Our scripture reading today are from Numbers 21:4-9 and John 3:12-15.

Moses and the Brazen Serpent
by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640)

Reading Num 21:4-9, we might consider God as a sadistic and mean Being. People were bored of manna and He got angry. He was also being "impractical" by asking Moses to build a bronze snake in order to bring salvation. Reading John 3:12-15, we see it's as if God needs to be plead to in order for Him to help us.

Reading the original language, the term snake here is seraphim. Actually, snakes are referred to as seraphim over fifty times in the Bible (seraphim means “to be fiery”). While it’s only used once in the Bible to refer to as an angel. So why is snake here referred to as seraphim? It’s because snake bites cause a fiery, feverish and immense thirst effect on your body before you eventually die.
The question is, is this a proportional / deserving punishment by God? Is the punishment too much for such a simple transgression? But we can always assume that God’s punishment is never wrong, which only means that God considers sins as serious matters. This part teaches us how serious sins are.

Furthermore, we’re going to learn a little lesson from history. We know of the two eras: modern (early 18-20^th century (the enlightenment era)) and post-modern (20^th century above). In the modern era, it is believed that men are good by nature. Crimes happen due to external factors (poor education, poor moral knowledge). So, they had a dream that one day, the problem of humanity will be solved. In contrast, in the post-modern era, we believe that men are bad internally by nature. Pay attention to old vs new movies. New movies don’t create bad vs good characters. There’s always good in the bad and bad in the good, and the main character could turn out to be a bad guy, even a cop. How and why the drastic shift? There are many factors, but one of the leading factors are WWI and WWII. Men’s positive optimism was crushed by the brutal death of many during the wars, especially at the end of WWII when the world figured out about the Holocaust and the concentration camps. They were even more surprised to find out that the culprit was Germany, such an educated and modern country, which gave birth to people like Bach and Beethoven. So, people began asking the question of how men could act such terrible deeds? The two possible answers are that there is something wrong with them (The Nazis, Japanese, Stalin, etc), or another alternative, there’s something wrong with us all as humans. Of course, we believe that there’s something wrong with them, and not us generally as humans. But, notice that that’s the exact same thing Hitler proclaimed at the beginning of the war, “there’s something wrong with the Jews, so we need to annihilate them.” People look down upon others, so they feel more superior to look down on others (it’s a cycle). If we say that there’s something wrong with them and not us all, then how different are we than Hitler? So, the only answer left is that there’s something wrong with us all. Entering the modernism from postmodernism, we should realize that we are capable or there is a potential of us becoming a Hitler, there’s no fundamental matter that could keep us from being like Hitler, and this is the root of why he created the Holocaust.

Yet, this is what the Bible has been proclaiming over and over again, there is evilness within men’s hearts—that is sin—which is a very serious matter, and we need to clean our glasses to see our “simple” or “inconsequential” sins to be more than it looks. Meaning that in Num 21, God was right and just to punish them that way. What exactly was their sin? It was a sin that says, “nothing is good enough” (verse 5). In our lives, we could be unthankful of a lot of things, our parents, family, mom, dad, children, or even the Bible and sermons. Jonathan Edwards said that the most primordial sin of mankind is saying, “the garden of Eden isn’t good enough”, because they said, “we can do all things in this garden, but one thing”, and the serpent asked them if that’s good enough for them, and the fell. But this is the nature of all mankind, even if we are in Eden right now, we would find something that’s not good enough. Often the problem is not in the situation, but in ourselves, because everything is not good enough. It seems like we have all been bitten by snakes and the venom has run through our veins saying that things aren’t good enough. Take your monthly tithes, for instance, you say, “I need to think of myself too, not only the church”, on the other hand, there’s a really religious person who says, “I’m good because I give my tithes, those who don’t are not real Christians”. By saying so, this religious person has belittled the blood of Christ by saying that the blood of Christ is not enough.
The Israelites here had a fever of seeking more and ever thirst for something that will not satisfy them. There are a fire and desire burning inside their hearts. The same effect when a snake’s venom enters their body, “fiery, feverish and immense thirst”. God was trying to show them physically what God sees inside their hearts spiritually. We need to pay attention to the physical and spiritual connection in the Bible. Like how Naaman was healed so his skin was like of a newborn because his spirit was being reborn. Alike, God was showing the Israelites that the condition of their hearts was more serious than the suffering and death they’re experiencing physically.

The Father's Testimony of the Son - Rev. Billy Kristanto

Scripture Reading: John 5:31-40

The title Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Bible Institution of Indonesia) gives to this pericope, "Kesaksian Yesus tentang Diri-Nya" (The Testimony about Jesus about Himself), is not appropriate, for it is said in verse 31 "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true", if Jesus testifies about Himself, that testimony becomes an invalid testimony. Jesus did not testify about Himself, but about the Father. The Holy Spirit testifies about Jesus. And in this section, we read that the Father testifies about the Son. This is the Trinitarian Personhood, each does not testify about Himself; self-testimony shows human's narcissistic personality, not Trinitarian Personhood.

We are created in the image of God, therefore we must follow the movement within the Trinity, and not create our own concept of personality that has been intoxicated by sin. We have often heard the word sin, but what is the true meaning of sin? Sin is of many dimensions, one of them if we discuss in the Trinitarian understanding, that is the perverse concept of personality that does not correspond with the Trinitarian concept. So, it is not that the Father testifies about the Father Himself, the Son testifies about the Son Himself, the Holy Spirit testifies about the Holy Spirit Himself, these are not the Trinitarian that we read in the Bible; what is written is that each testifies about the other persons.



We might testify in perversion if we testify about ourselves, we could diminish our shortcomings and failures, we bloat our virtues as much as possible, even if they exceed reality. Jesus would never have done that. If you pay attention here, say if Jesus testifies about Himself, His words must be true, and nothing wrong, because He is Jesus. But according to the faith of Christianity, the problem is not only the 'content' of the true testimony but also 'who' testifies it. Just if Jesus testifies about Himself, then the content must be right, but here Jesus says that that testimony becomes incorrect. Why? Because it is not right for Jesus to testify about Himself.

In the first chapters, we have discussed that in our daily life, the most common setting for witnessing is courtroom; which means there should be an accused and a witness (a person who testifies). Therefore, if Jesus testifies about Himself, He would be in the accused position, as well as the witness; if that is the case, we should might as well say that He could too be the judge. And because Jesus is the Judge, He would always win the case. But that is not what is written on the Scripture. Verse 31 is very relevant in our life, because we alone are not free from being talked about behind our backs, which is often slanderous and full of misunderstanding, and we are tempted to defend ourselves. We are tempted to testify about ourselves. Yet, according to Jesus, testifying for ourselves will not be a valid witness. We are not called to be a witness for ourselves; we are called to be the witness of Christ. A personality that revolves around oneself is non-Trinitarian, but a sin. The denial towards the concept of the personality of the Trinity is a sin.

In the Bible, we see a strong connection between the understanding of the Trinity with eternal life.  If you read the books of catechism, including the classic Reformed confessions and catechisms such as Heidelberg, Belgic, Second Helvetic, Canons of Dort, Westminster, Geneva Catechism that Calvin wrote, you can obtain many insights about the Trinity. The understanding of the Trinity is the fundamental of eternal life. If we do not know and understand the Trinitarian God, we do not inherit eternal life, and the Scripture confirms this. The question is, how should we understand the Trinity? You should be careful with the idea called formulae Christianity, that revoles around a formula, " O, my understanding of the Trinity is straight, not hereditical, that is Una Substantia (one substance), Tres Personae (three persons)" then think if we say 'one substance, three persons' we would automatically be saved; but if 'one person, three substances' we would be damned in hell. This is called Christianity in a form of a formula. I am not harassing the ecumenical councils that the LORD has blessed, but if you read the Bible, we would be aware of how limited the ecumenical councils are. There are many that are not discussed in the ecumenical councils, the Bible is so much more deeper, more broad, richer than them. There are many that could not be contained by the great ecumenical councils, including the great Reformed catechisms, because the richness of the Bible is too abundant.


This sermon note has not been revised by the preacher.

Alice

Reformation Eschatology: Living in Light of Christ's Return - Prof. Ligon Duncan

This sermon was preached by Prof. Ligon Duncan during the commemoration of Reformation 500 at the Reformed Millenium Center Indonesia (RMCI), in Jakarta.

I have been asked to speak on the subject of Eschatology, which means the study of the last things. Specifically, I have been asked to speak on Reformation Eschatology: Living in Light of Christ’s Return. This is a very important theme in the Bible, and in the teachings of the great Protestant Reformers.

When I studied in the seminary, I had to take a course called “Eschatology and Ethics.” I wondered why those two subjects in one course. They didn’t sound like they went together. But I came to understand that the Bible teaches that we are to live the Christian life in light of the end.

John Calvin understood this. In his Geneva Catechism (1545), for instance, he wrote this: “How does Jesus resurrection benefit us?” Answer: "Threefold. For by it righteousness was acquired for us; it is also a sure pledge to us of our immortality; and even now by virtue of it we are raised to newness of life, that by living purely and holily we may obey the will of God."

“Does the fact that Jesus is to come again to judge the world bring any consolation to the believer?” Yes! For we are certain that He will appear only for our salvation because the Judge is our Advocate to defend us!”

What does “I believe in the resurrection of the body and everlasting life” teach us? It shows us that our happiness is not situated on earth. This serves two purposes. First, we learn to pass through this world as though it were a foreign country, treating lightly all earthly things and declining to set our hearts on them. Secondly, we are not to lose courage, no matter how much we fail to perceive the fruit of the grace which the LORD has created for us in Christ Jesus, but wait patiently for the time of revelation.”

You see, Calvin understood that the Bible’s teaching on the future, the Bible’s teaching on the end times, is meant to help believers live their lives now.

Let me take you to three passages: 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Romans 8:16-25.

In these passages we learn at least three things:

1. Truth is for Life. Biblical Teaching is for Christian living. We are to live in light of the Truth of God’s Word.
2. The truth of God’s Word about the future is meant to help us live the Christian life now.
3. The future glory that believers will experience is meant to help us cope with present suffering.

1. Truth is for Life. Biblical Teaching is for Christian living. We are to live in light of the Truth of God’s Word.

1 Thessalonians 2:1-2, 8-12

Paul proclaimed the Gospel & taught them how to live.

"For you yourselves know, brothers, that our coming to you was not in vain."

"But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict."
"So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us."
"For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God."
"You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers."
"For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory."

"walk in a manner worthy of God

Who calls you

Into His own kingdom and glory."

Ephesians 4:1

"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called."

Colossians 1:10

"So as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God."

1 Thessalonians 2:12

"We exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory."

Philippians 1:27

"Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ."

2 Thessalonians 1:5

"This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering."

2 Thessalonians 1:11

"To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power."

When Paul calls them to walk in a manner worthy of God, he means for us to honor God in all that we are and do, in our relationships and activities. Live in a way that is consistent with who God is, with His calling, with His Gospel, with His kingdom.
Truth is for life shows you how to live the Christian lifend that theology is in fact, practical..

Live life in light of truth. The truth of who God is, His calling of you and His Gospel.

The Almost Christian

Matthew Mead regarding Felix and Agrippa (Acts 25-26)

“An almost Christian is one that has much light and knowledge, but no grace; he may know something of himself and of sin, of its being a violation of the law of God, and of the bad consequences of it, but has not true repentance for it; he may know much of Christ in a speculative way, concerning his person and offices, as the devils themselves do, and of the good things which come by him, as peace, pardon, righteousness, and salvation; but has no application of these things to himself; he may have a large notional knowledge of the doctrines of the Gospel, but has no experience of the power, sweetness, and comfort of them in his own soul; all his knowledge is unsanctified, and without practice: he is one that has a taste of divine things, but has not the truth of them; he may taste of the heavenly gift, of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come; yet it is but a taste, a superficial one, which he has; he does not savour and relish these things, nor is he nourished by them: he has a great deal of faith in the historical way, and sometimes a bold confidence and assurance of everlasting happiness; but has not faith of the right kind, which is spiritual and special, which is the faith of God’s elect, the gift of God, and the operation of his Spirit; by which the soul beholds the glory, fulness, and suitableness of Christ, under a sense of need, and goes forth to him, renouncing everything of self, and lays hold upon him, and trusts in him for salvation; and which works by love to Christ and his people, and has with it the fruits of righteousness: he may express a great deal of flashy affectation to the word, and the ministers of it, for a while, but has nothing solid and substantial in him; he may partake of the Holy Ghost, of his gifts largely, but not of special and internal grace; and indeed he can only be an almost Christian, that becomes one merely through the persuasion of men: it is one part of the Gospel ministry to persuade men, but this of itself is ineffectual; a real Christian is made so by the power of divine grace. Agrippa was only persuaded, and but almost persuaded by the apostle to be a Christian, but not by the Lord, nor altogether, who persuades Japheth to dwell in the tents of Shem"

Nikolai Bodarevsky, The Apostle Paul Explains the Law before King Agrippa, 1875. Sotheby’s

In The Almost Christian Discovered by Puritan Matthew Mead, he exhorts the reader to “examine yourselves, [to see] whether [you] be in the faith,” to “make your calling and election sure.” He talks about the dangers of being an almost Christian and gives several illustrations from Scripture. Please allow me to give you a couple of examples from the book:

- A man may hate sin, and yet be but almost a Christian.

-A man may have great hopes of heaven, great hopes of being saved, and yet be but almost a Christian.

Following are a few lessons we can learn from almost Christians Felix and Agrippa in the same style as Mead. May we heed their warnings.

-A man may be acquainted with Christ, and yet be but almost a Christian.

-A man may desire to hear the Word preached, and yet be but almost a Christian.

-A man may tremble with conviction under the preaching of the Word, and yet be but almost a Christian.

-A man may be familiar with, and even an expert on, the things of God, and yet be but almost a Christian.

-A man may believe the prophets,  and yet be but almost a Christian.

-A man may be almost persuaded to be a Christian, and yet be but almost a Christian.

All of these demonstrate how close a person may be to being a Christian without actually being one, and the danger of being in such a state. It’s dangerous because it’s deceptive; and it can be hard to reach a person in such a state and awaken them out of it. Both Festus and Agrippa were deceived. This fact that one can come so close to being a Christian and yet be so far from actually being one, should give each of us pause and cause to examine ourselves. “Take heed that ye be not deceived.”

John Gill

Christ: The Source of Life, Died and Resurrected

Reformed Evangelical Church Indonesia / Gereja Reformed Injili Indonesia

Event: SPIK (Seminar Pembinaan Iman Kristen)
Topic: Christ: The Source of Life, Died and Resurrected / Kristus: Penghulu Hidup, Mati dan Bangkit
Speaker: Rev. Billy Kristanto

Good morning, brothers and sisters, I will use the help of slide presentation to help us follow this session. Let us enter into prayer:

LORD, we give thanks, for in You we gain the true meaning of our life, we can live our days, even we could tread our days since we were born, for You were too born in this world. As we grow to be more mature, we also witness You growing. In this world, we learn as You also learn. We learn to obey God as You are also learning to obey the Father. When we see that one day we are going to die, we see that You have also died on the cross for us. Thank you, LORD, for Your presence in all aspects of our lives, that we may believe, consoled, and understand what it means to be in union with You. In Jesus’ Name we pray. Amen.

The church father, Irenaeus, said that Jesus went through all stages of human life when He came into this world. This is an interesting view because when comparing this to the Reformed or Protestant soteriology, we emphasize the aspect of substitution. I do not mean to compare here, but to enrich our understanding. But in such concept, in the Christology as taught by Irenaeus, what is discussed here is not merely on death, lived side by side with us ever since Christ’s birth. We are born, Jesus was born, we grow and so is Jesus, et cetera. Until at one point, we die as human and Jesus too died on the cross. There is not a single aspect in our life which God is not present. There is none. You may say, “I think there is. I got married and Jesus is not married. Jesus does not understand the difficulties of marriage.” People say this about marriage: Those who are in the outside wish to enter, but those who are in the inside wish to escape. We then claim that Jesus does not understand the difficulties of marriage. But according to the Scripture, Jesus was married. Jesus was written as the Groom and we are His brides. And Jesus’ wives, who are the congregation, are more obnoxious and problematic than any wives on earth there is. So Jesus understands the difficulties of marriage.

And lastly, we experience death and Jesus did too. Woe are they who in death are not accompanied by God. What are they comforted with? Pastor Stephen Tong once preached about a father and his son who are both atheists. When the father was about to face death, he was shaken as he fears the possibility of atheism is wrong. The son then reminded his father, “Dad, we have long believed in atheism. We have to be strong in our faith and hold on to atheism.” Then the father said, “Holding on to what? What is there to hold on to? There is only nothingness and emptiness, we cannot hold on to anything.” Not only did he not have anything to hold on to, but nobody was holding him. In our lives, there are times when we cannot hold on to God, yet we are still thankful that God is still holding us. But woe are they who do not know God in their lives. There is no God in their birth, there is no God in their growth, there is no God in their adulthood, there is no God in their marriage, and later, in their death, God is not present too. So, Christ’s death accompanies man’s life, as so in His birth, growth, obedience and so on. All these accompany our lives. I do not use the term accompany in an easy manner, I do not mean merely as an accompaniment. I am speaking of a spiritual union with God. Not only a mere accompaniment but a communion with the Living God. We could actually reverse this: Christ died accompanying our death, but even in our death, we could understand Christ’s death even more. Do you understand this reversal movement? We die because of our sins, Jesus died accompanying us. But it is in our death we could accompany Jesus in terms of gaining a better understanding of Him.

Points of Tension - Dr. Ravi Zacharias

This sermon was preached by Dr. Ravi Zacharias during the commemoration of Reformation 500 at the Reformed Millenium Center Indonesia (RMCI), in Jakarta.

Hezekiah brought upon a great reformation in his era. And we must continue to reform every era, every age.
"History is like a drunken man swinging from one world to another, knocking himself senseless. Swinging to extremes" (Martin Luther).
One of my colleagues said that "the current president isn't the problem, but the problem creates a person such as this president".
Sansel Taylor Collridge said "If a man can learn from history, we could learn a lot. But passion and party have blinded us".

If we could briefly define history, we could say that it is a story of enumerable biography. Individuals come to the scene and go and they have left us a trail. We could learn two things from the men before us: their strength and their mistakes.

Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1-16) and Josiah (2 Kings 22:1-2) are examples of a pendulum that swings from one extreme to the other, although they only differ by a generation.
Manasseh was a terrible king, yet he reigned for 2,5 generations. He laid a rebellion against his father's reformation. He put down what his father put up. His father, Hezekiah had his problems too, but he pleads to God in his prayer.

Moses gave out 613 laws that replace 1 law of prohibition in the garden of Eden, do not eat from the tree.
This 1 law of prohibition has its own temptation: Be God, who knows everything.
Although the law was: Do not play God. Do not determine what is right or wrong.
David gave out 15 laws to replace this 1 law. Isaiah 11, Micah 3 (that are justice, mercy, and humility), and Jesus 2.
Jesus could have easily said 1, but he said 2. On these 2 commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37-39).  These 2 commandments touch on both the vertical and horizontal aspects. Because of the first law, the second law has a foundation and reason. Because God has created me, I have no reason to violate Him.

In the book of Mark, a man came up to Jesus and ask about tax paying to Rome.

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then He said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away (Matthew 22:15-22)".

The man hoped Jesus would say, "No, you do not have to pay tax to Rome". But if He did, we could be both rebellious and be righteous at the same time. Jesus asked, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then He said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”
If the man had a follow-up question, he would ask, "What then belongs to God?" and Jesus would answer, "Whose image is drawn on you?"

Post Truth Society & the Place of Faith & Reason - Dr. Ravi Zacharias

This sermon was preached by Dr. Ravi Zacharias during the commemoration of Reformation 500 at the Reformed Millenium Center Indonesia (RMCI), in Jakarta.

Have you heard the folk story of the bandit Jose’ Rivera, who became notorious in several little towns in Texas for robbing their banks and businesses? Finally the townsfolk, weary of the constant plundering, hired a ranger to track down Jose’ Rivera in his hideout in Mexico and retrieve the money. The ranger at last arrived at a desolate, ramshackle cantina. At the counter he saw a young man enjoying his brew. At one of the tables, hands over his ample stomach, hat over his eyes, snored another patron. With much gusto, the ranger approached the young man at the bar and announced that he was on a mission to bring back Jose’ Rivera, dead or alive. “Can you help me find him?” he asked. The young man smiled, pointed to the other patron, and said, “That is Jose’ Rivera.”

The ranger shifted his southern girth and ambled over to the sleeping bandit, tapping him on the shoulder, “Are you Jose’ Rivera? he asked. The man mumbled, “No speak English.” The ranger beckoned to the young man to help him communicate his mission.

The ensuing conversation was tedious. First the ranger spoke in English and the young man translated it into Spanish. Jose’ Rivera responded in Spanish, and young man repeated the answer in English for the ranger.

Finally, the ranger warned Jose’ Rivera that he had two choices; the first was to let him know where all the loot he had stolen was hidden, in which case he could walk away a free man. The second choice was that if he would not reveal where the money was stashed, he would be shot dead instantly. The young man translated the ultimatum.

Jose’ Rivera pulled himself together and said to the young man, “Tell him to go out of the bar, turn to the right, go about a mile, and he will see a well. Near the well he will see a very tall tree. Beside the trunk of that tree is a large concrete slab. He will need help in removing it. Under the slab is a pit in the ground. If he carefully uncovers it he will find all the jewelry and most of the money I have taken.”

The young man turned to the ranger, opened his mouth...swallowed...paused—and then said, “Jose’ Rivera says...Jose’ Rivera says...’Go ahead and shoot!’”

The question is, do you want to interpret something according to your convinience?
Do you really want to know the truth?

In John 18:33, Pilate asked Jesus, "Are You the king of Jews?", Jesus replied, "Is that a question from your heart, or did someone tell you that?" Why did Jesus answer the question with another question? The only reason why someone would do this is either to determine the direction of the conversation or to expose / humiliate the questioner.

George MacDonald said, "to give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation".
And Winston Churchill once said that "the most valuable thing in the world was the truth. So valuable, that it needs to be constantly protected by a bodyguard of lies".

Yet, we are currently living in a post-truth era, when satan continues to proclaim that there is no absolute truth. Now, which science tells the scientist to tell the truth? To tell the truth is not a scientific imperative, but an ethical, philosophical, and spiritual imperative.

When you are a victim of a lie, you will value the coherence of statements. An example would be saying no to the others when you say yes to one thing. The Hollywood culture does not follow this rule: the show and entertainment are for the camera, but if all that begin to dictate our minds, it becomes a philosophy and a harassment.