God—

the Adults’

Imaginary

Friend

MICHAEL F. LAWLOR

Copyright © 2019 Michael F. Lawlor.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

This book is a work of non-fiction. Unless otherwise noted, the author and the publisher make no explicit guarantees as to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and in some cases, names of people and places have been altered to protect their privacy.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1 (866) 928-1240

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

ISBN: 978-1-9736-7563-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-9736-7564-8 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-9736-7562-4 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019914797

WestBow Press rev. date: 10/11/2019

CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

Introduction

Part 1   A Brief Understanding of God the Father

Chapter 1     God the Father Is Just a Phrase

Chapter 2     God the Father Is Transcendent

Chapter 3     God the Father Is Incomprehensible

Part 2   God the Father Does Exist

Chapter 4     The Ontological Argument

Chapter 5     The Cosmological Argument

Chapter 6     The Teleological Argument

Part 3   A Brief Understanding of Our Lord and Our God Jesus

Chapter 7     He Has Always Existed

Chapter 8     He Created the Heavens and the Earth and Us

Chapter 9     He Is the Mystery Revealed in the Old Testament

Chapter 10   He Is Misunderstood as Just the Son of God.

Chapter 11   He Is the Manifestation of God the Father Himself.

Part 4   He must be Preeminent in All Things

Part 5   A Brief Understanding of the Solution.

Part 6   A Brief Understanding of Real Christianity

Part 7   How to Obtain a Personal Relationship with Our Lord and our God Jesus

A Brief Supplement

Bibliography

About The Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is impossible to remember all the individuals who have had a positive influence on my life. Please excuse me for my limited memory. I will acknowledge the following: First, my Lord and God Jesus. Second, my wife Linda who is a gift to me from my Lord. Third, if not for the friendship of Jim and Carolyn Pounders, I would not have been a Christian or, in anyway, a somewhat educated individual. Lastly, I thank the North Boulevard Church of Christ in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, with whom Linda and I attended in the years of 1973 – 1976.

To all who have had a positive influence in my life I say, Thank You.

INTRODUCTION

One of my sons, once said to me, You know a lot about stuff that nobody wants to know about. I have to agree with him 100 percent. Why? In the last thirty years, people, ideas, and thoughts have changed dramatically. The material I will share with you is mostly for my children and grandchildren and for those children after them, not for the general public. I am concerned that if I don’t give them this important information, which I know will help them live lives of peace, contentment, and happiness, no one else will.

Today, we often receive our information from electronic media, much of which seems to be opinion, not fact. For example, I’ve watched television channels like Science, History, National Geographic, and Discovery, and the information they disseminate is not fact but speculation disguised as fact or just lies. The same applies to the slanted news companies, from the way they use the word evolution, to the ridiculous way they refer to distance in time and space, to the way they describe anthropology. They never say might be, could be, or we think it could be. They use the word evolution but never the theory of evolution. They say there are one hundred billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. Is it possible that there could be two hundred billion?

How do they know, when nothing we know of has ever been outside of our own galaxy? They use the word light-year, as if there was such a thing. Has anybody or anything ever traveled a light-year? No! A light-year is, they say, about 186,000 miles per second! Think about that: 186,000 miles per second. Can anyone truly comprehend that? The Superconducting Super Collider, located on the border of France and Switzerland, cannot—no matter how hard they try—reach the stated speed of light. So is there really such a thing as a light-year?

The media, in every discipline, uses hyperbole to make people believe what they want people to believe. I recently read Michio Kaku’s book The Future of the Mind. He writes, as a fact, on the first page of his introduction, There are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. His book also includes the following statements:

• But as we evolved from reptiles to mammals (18).

• We will see throughout this book the clever and ingenious devices that evolution has crafted (35).

• What were the evolutionary forces that gave us this genetic heritage after we separated from the apes? (157).

• This approach tries to follow Mother Nature, which has created intelligent beings (us) via evolution, starting with simple animals like worms and fish and then creating more complex ones (220).

• As we’ve seen, human consciousness is an imperfect patchwork of different abilities developed over millions of years of evolution (226).

Did he say that there might be 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy? Did he say maybe we evolved from reptiles? Did he say that it could have been evolution that used clever and ingenious devices? Did he say that we could have evolved from apes or from simple animals like worms? Did he say we think human consciousness developed over one million years? No, everything that he wrote was presented as facts, but his statements are not the truth. I will not let my children or my grandchildren or anyone else be brainwashed. I used Michio Kaku as an example because I have heard him say the same things on several television networks.

A great man and writer Dr. Francis Schaeffer wrote in his book How Should We Then Live?:

There is a flow to history and culture. This flow is rooted and has its wellspring in the thoughts of people. People are unique in the inner life of the mind what they are in their thought world determines how they act. This is true of their value systems and it is true of their creativity. It is true of their corporate actions, such as political decisions, and it is true of their personal lives. … People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions, we mean the basic way an individual look at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions laid a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions. … As a man thinketh, so is he, is really most profound. (19)

To put it simply, if you think something is right, you will accept it as right; an example would be abortion. The decision to legalize abortions was a personal opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that decision is still a personal opinion. Another example is homosexuality and what is called same-sex marriage. That decision was also a personal opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Court. It was the personal opinions of five out of nine people.

Do people make the most important decisions in their personal lives by using their own personal opinion or someone else’s personal opinion? Yes, they do, and I will give some examples. When some people are very sick, such as having cancer, they may make every decision based on their own opinions instead of the opinions of medical doctors, who have been trained in a specialized field to help them. People also make personal medical decisions for their children. When parents make all the medical decisions for their children without involving the medical community, the result sometimes is the death of that child. Another, example would be the use of money. Would a person who has a substantial amount of money make all the decisions on how to invest or handle that money, using only his or her personal opinion, rather than seeking professional help? Yes, and it happens all the time. Example: people who have won millions of dollars have ended up with nothing in a very short time because they did not seek the advice of a professional—that is according to many documented reports.

Today, people truly believe that their opinions are absolute truth, regardless of what the facts really are. If you listen to individuals on the radio, television, and most other media or even when you have a conversation with someone, you will hear individuals make three statements with regard to making their decisions. After they have used the three statements, on any topic, that is the end of the discussion for them, whether the other person is finished discussing the subject or not. After they have used these three statements, they will walk away; their minds are now closed. Those three statements are as follows:

• That is what I think.

• That is what I believe.

• That is what I feel.

These three statements are the new absolutes for all but a few people.

In deep or personal conversations that I have had with others, seldom has the person said to me, I really don’t know the answer to that. I’ll do some research and get back to you.

We should ask what gives this person or any person the right to express a strong opinion without at least listening to the facts pertaining to the subject we were discussing. Is this person we are talking to educated and trained in the subject discussed? When I bring my car in to be repaired, and the technician says he has repaired it, I do not question his expertise because I know he has been to school repeatedly to make sure he understands every component of that car. Therefore, I trust his judgment.

Nancy Pearcey, in her book Total Truth, coined a phrase that captures the essence of how people think today. She calls it radical individualism, with the emphasis on radical. Today, people’s thinking has become even more radical. I would add one more word to her phrase; it would read this way: radical irrational individualism, with the emphasis on irrational. Today, in what is called postmodernism, people say things like, Whatever, or To each his own, or It’s my life, or, as a great singer once sang, I did it my way! Such statements mean that the person is telling us, I do not care what you or any other person thinks. I am going to do and think what I want, regardless of what the facts are.

George A. F. Knight, in his book Christ the Center, writes,

Consequently we hear declared today that we are in a post-Christian era that this is the New Age of Man, and it requires a whole new intellectual approach if we are ever to use the word God again. In this postmodern age, we have actually gone beyond a mere return to Platonism (which at least had the advantage of being a single coherent view of how things are) but have actually taken up other ancient ideas and decided that there is no longer any overarching worldview. As a result, each of us may have our own faith. The logic of this position is that no one of these individual faiths is right. It is virtually a declaration (usually made quite unwittingly) that there must only be a pluralist approach to reality. The result is that a belief in pluralism has actually become the new religion in itself, despite the widely held view that all individual searches for truth are valid for me, even if, perchance, they are not right.

Consequently we are told to respect and not deride all those who dabble with Zen, then try Confucianism, take refuge in Buddhism or Indian mysticism, or else in one of the Western cults that have invaded us from the East, such as Theosophy, Spiritualism, Voodooism, Anthroposophy, Astrology, even the examination of the human anatomy and psyche; from the latter it is said there arises a hedonic nativism, perhaps described as the alternative life style, shown in the sexual revolution, or more radically and specifically in the pursuit of money, power, acclamation-all aspects of the New Age wearing its multifarious and fissiparous face in any and all of these new religions. (78)

Carl Raschke, in his book The Next Reformation, explains radical individualism like this:

The postmodern temptation, Groothuis asserted, is to entice souls to create a self-styled spirituality of one’s own, or to revert to the spiritual tradition of one’s ethnic or racial group without a concern for objective truth or rationality. Furthermore, said Groothuis, postmodernism is the same as nihilism, the fashionable View, emerging in the late-nineteenth century, that there is no supreme or enduring truth other than what anyone arbitrarily wills or chooses that truth to be. Truth decay is a cultural condition in which the very Idea of absolute, objective, and universal truth is considered Implausible, held in open contempt, or not even seriously considered. (15–16)

C. S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, writes (and this is Satan speaking), I have known cases where what the patient called his God was actually located-up and to the left at the corner of the bedroom ceiling, or inside his own head, or in a crucifix on the wall. But whatever the nature of the composite object, you must keep him praying to it—to the thing that he has made, not to the Person who has made him (30).

As a practice, as you read this material, please do not let the names of the writers bother you. I believe you don’t need to know how to pronounce their names; just remember these writers are the brightest and most intellectual writers who have addressed the issues we are discussing. Please just read the quotes.

In volume 2 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, a second-century writer and philosopher named Athenagoras converted to Christianity. He lived in about AD 177, and his books were presented to the Roman emperors Aurelius and Commodus. He wrote in his book, A Plea for the Christians,

For poets and philosophers, as to other subjects so also to this, have applied themselves in the way of conjecture, moved, by reason of their affinity with the afflatus from God, each one by his own soul, to try whether he could find out and apprehend the truth; but they have not been found competent fully to apprehend it, because they thought fit to learn, not from God concerning God, but each one from himself; hence they came each to his own conclusion respecting God, and matter, and forms, and the world. (132)

The discipline that uses the idea of radical irrational individualism and that uses the words I think, I believe, and I feel as having absolute meaning is religion.

The idea of religion being what some have called personal and private is a complete and total lie, disguised as an atheistic trick. No religions—and I repeat, no religions—are personal and private, although billions and billions of people today hold to this idea. How could a religion be personal and private and have more than one member? (Do not tell anyone I have a religion!) Religion is public and is to be proclaimed. This is one of the biggest problems in our country and the world. This problem is what I call the world epidemic of self-made gods—everyone thinks they are all-knowing and all-powerful in their own minds. I am not alone in saying people think they are self-made gods.

Norman L. Geisler, in his book Philosophy of Religion, writes,

But there is a radically immanent, irreligious stance taken by some contemporary men not only because of the inability to discover the Transcendent but also because of an unwillingness to make a total commitment (or even a partial one) to it. This unwillingness is the second characteristic of a nonreligious experience. There are many reasons why some men would refuse to commit themselves to the Transcendent, even if it were there: (1) it is deemed unworthy of their devotion, (2) man considers himself mature enough to get along without the Transcendent, and (3) the individual desires to honor himself as ultimate.

In brief, a man may be irreligious or purely humanistic in two ways. First, because he is unable to see a transcendent, and second because he is unwilling to submit to it. In either event, his experience would fall short of being adequately religious. (24)

Geisler also states, Sartre’s designation of the fundamental human project as the desire to be God is an even clearer indication of the essentially religious character of man. To be man means to reach toward being God. ‘Man makes himself man in order to be God’ (25).

He quotes Walter Kaufmann this way: Walter Kaufmann repeats the same point even more dramatically, claiming, ‘Man is the ape that wants to be God’ (25).

Much like the idea that religion is personal and private, another idea is that there must be separation of church and state. Where did this idea come from? The statement separation of church and state is totally misquoted and misused. For the benefit of all, please allow me to give a brief historical explanation of that statement. As I understand it, a letter was written to President Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802, by the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, thanking him for his strong stance on religious liberty and letting him know that they had some issues about religion within the state of Connecticut. The idea of separation of church and state came from a phrase Jefferson used in his reply, when he said "their legislature should ‘make no