Today, there are close to 7 billion people living on planet Earth, consisting of a variety of
nations.1 Each having communities comprising unique individuals of different cultures, tastes
and habits. We see how people have adapted to their environment and how their lives are
influenced, subtly guided and moulded by various perspectives around them. We know that a
person‟s values and behaviour, a society‟s unique culture, or a nation‟s position and standing in
the world, did not develop overnight. People‟s belief systems and that of their societies are
formed over extended periods of time and influenced by various factors. When considering a
person living in a family unit – as part of a community or society – we can easily identify different
facets that would play a role in shaping who and what that person will become. We see how
society influences the way you think about life in general as you grow up, but also how you are
moulded and shaped as a result of the impact of people around you. These influences come
from various sources.
Barbara and Philip Newman constitute that factors can be external in the form of the
environment, or caused by situations that one has to deal with on a daily basis. It could be the
social situations in which you find yourself and the social pressure of your peers. The influence
could also be internal - your emotional status, health and lifestyle which may affect how you
think about life and the world. Some influences could shape you over an extended period of
time, like a family tradition, going back decades or even centuries and it could determine how
you interact with people. Other circumstances could have an impact on you over a short period
of time, like a tragedy in the family. Even the media presenting a trendy new fashion, could
shape the way in which you would interact with peers, based on new fashionable trends that are
promoted through the media. This in turn would even help you to distinguish yourself from other
people.2
In some cases, according to Gary Ferraro, where people have adapted to harsh environments,
the knowledge passed down from previous generations will aid in the survival of a new
generation and would be considered essential. This could include knowledge on survival in
extremely hot or cold climates, how to find food and to preserve it for times when there is little to
none available. Parents living in these conditions would teach their children everything they
have learned from their parents and through their own experience, in order to prepare them for
life. This is a necessary prerequisite for surviving in certain environments. If you put a person,
who lacks the knowledge that some of these people groups have accumulated over centuries, in
a situation where they would have to survive without it, they may find it extremely difficult to
cope, or even survive.3
Tim Kasser shows how life could be easy in affluent situations. Here children are provided for
in luxury by their parents. They live pampered and comfortable lives, free from the cares of
physical survival. Here, the society they live in, does not require focus on staying alive. Taking
care of the basics like food, clothing and a roof over their heads would be considered “worries of
the poor”. Nonetheless people living in these societies may perhaps struggle to survive
emotionally. They often do not have the same emotional attention, focus or care from their
peers, as would be the case in societies that are less materialistic and more “people-focused”.
A materialistic society would not apply its strategy for survival on extracting knowledge from the
previous generation. Where people rely on their finances and position to supply their every
need, they do not perceive the environment to be any threat to their existence. They would
rather focus their efforts towards improving their position and status and could be competing
with their peers on a materialistic level. This might include owning brand items, trendy designer
clothes promoted by the media, or moving up a corporate ladder - always aiming for the top
position.4
Whether it is life in the city, rural areas, seashores or jungles, or even the arctic region, each of
these environments will require specific perspectives and abilities from its inhabitants. The
people around us and the information we share with our peers and parents help shape us. It
affects how we fit into our community, how we relate to others, the way we think about things
and ultimately, the person we become during our lifetime on Earth.5 Our personalities, the
interaction with our environment and our peers form the foundation for cultural develo pment.
Cultures all over the world have been shaped over millennia. As knowledge accumulated and
technology improved, the ability to deal with life, in specific locations on Earth, also blossomed
and advanced. Although some of the cultures have similar traits, others are very distinct and
have particular and unique.
Charles F. Gritzner states that personality types found within specific communities also play a
major role in shaping views and beliefs. If we compare countries like Mexico and Japan, we will
notice distinct differences related to people‟s personalities. In Mexico people tend to value the
importance of social interaction. People living in Latin America would be considered
passionate, driven by their emotions - they highly value personal relationships with their family
and peers.6
In Japan on the other hand, people would focus on being the best at what they do, their honour,
meeting their commitments and not failing in anything they attempt. Although their interactions
with others would require certain etiquette, their priorities would in general not be as focused on
social interaction, as is the case with people from Mexico. The Japanese people would spend
more time per day studying or working to achieve the best possible position in their career,
because failing to focus on these aspects, may bring shame and social rejection to you and your
family. Mexicans‟ personalities, together with most Latin Americans, would contain on average
more people with Sanguine personality types, while the people living in Japan, would on
average have more people with Melancholic personality types.7 These qualities are neither right
nor wrong, but they shape and influence their thought patterns throughout life. All of these
factors combined, contribute to the person that we become, living within a specific society with
particular traditions and a historical heritage, and ultimately what we believe.
Some viewpoints are formed on a purely personal level. Here an individual would form his (all
subsequent references must be understood to refer to he/she and his/her) own viewpoint based
on his own thoughts, personal experiences and the knowledge he gained on physical, emotional
and spiritual levels. His exposure to education would also affect his thought proces ses. (It may
not always be a positive influence, as we will demonstrate later in this book.)
Aiden Wilson Tozer found in his research on Japanese culture that no matter where one finds
oneself on Earth or whoever one encounters, all people seem to have a built-in need to worship
someone or something. Whether it be god/s, man-made idols, ancestral spirits, angels, nature,
historic people, or even themselves, there seems to be a natural tendency in human beings to
find an object to worship.8
The Yanomami Indians live in small communities in the forests of Venezuela and Brazil. Their
lifestyle does not require much in the form of clothes or earthly possessions. They live simple
lives and are dependent on the rainforest and their vegetable gardens for food, so they spend a
substantial amount of time each day hunting and gathering food. They have an abundance of
water with showers falling almost on a daily basis. Food sources are also supported by fertile
soil and providing food for the family would not be considered a challenge. Their families are
their most valuable asset and they focus on strengthening the bonds between families through
arranged marriages. They live in small villages that are scattered throughout the rainforest.
The size of these villages could be anything from a few people to as many as 300. Their skills
and abilities are passed on through generations and this allows them to maintain and improve
on the experience, gained over hundreds of years. Threats to their existenc e include attacks
from other villages, which may be a few days walk away, or attacks from the outside world that
could destroy their environment. They also have to fend against wild animals and insects in the
jungle as well as the diseases that they may transmit. Through their experience over years they
have learned how to deal with these issues and survive with ease.
The Yanomami people‟s traditions are shaped by the belief that the natural and spiritual world is
a unified force; nature creates everything and it is considered sacred. They believe that their
fate and the fate of all people are inescapably linked to the fate of the environment and that with
the destruction of nature, humanity is actually committing suicide. Each village would normally
have a shaman as a spiritual leader. These people were living isolated lives in the rainforests of
the Amazon, cut off from the outside world, till there was a gold rush in the 1980s.9
The Inuit tribes of the Arctic, another tribal community, distinctly different from the tribes living in
the Amazon rainforests, survive. These people live in some of the coldest and harshest parts of
the Earth, including the north-eastern tip of Siberia, the islands of the Bering Sea, the coastal
regions of mainland Alaska, parts of Greenland and the northern coastal regions of Canada.
Traditionally, these people also lived isolated from the rest of the world and had to sustain
themselves by means of hunting. Whether it was walruses, whales, seals or caribou, their
nomadic existence would be closely linked to their food sources.
Until relatively recently, they would have had to follow their source of food and move with
migrating animals to survive. Living in extremely harsh conditions, would have been fatal if they
did not prepare for the elements they would have to face during a hunt or when they moved
over land or sea to set up camp close to their food source. It is also believed that in centuries
past, people who became a burden to Inuit tribes - the elderly and even infants with defects,
would have been murdered in times of starvation to allow the survival of the strongest in the
tribe. In some cases old and sickly tribe members would even willingly sacrifice themselves for
the benefit of the tribe. The entire village would then attend the suicide procedure, where the
victim would be dressed, wearing his clothes inside-out.
The Inuit‟s traditional beliefs are fil ed with mythological tales of adventurous walrus and whale
hunts. The long winter months that they had to endure, gave rise to tales of fantastic creatures
and ghosts miraculously appearing. Inuit people are superstitious and try to find the faces of
their dead in the Aurora Borealis, or northern lights. Children are even taught that if they
whistled at the Lights, it would fall down and cut off their heads. They also believe that their diet
consists of the souls of the animals they kill; therefore they believe that it should be done with
the utmost respect for the animal and in such a way that the soul of the animal would not
avenge its death. The Inuits believe that they constantly have to appease the supernatural to
live a normal day-to-day life, free from streaks of bad luck through which entire communities
could be wiped out.10
The tribes mentioned above, come from totally different backgrounds and have adapted to very
different environments, with all the associated risks involved. They have lived isolated lives for
many years and yet, as all other people living on Earth, hold to very specific views when it
comes to the spiritual or the supernatural.
Have you ever considered this question: Why do people hold spiritual beliefs and why are we
different from animals? Animals may display behaviour in the form of submission to other
animals or to humans, but nothing that we could define as communication with spiritual entities
or acts of worship. On Earth we as humans seem to be unique in both the need to worship, as
well as the ability to worship a higher spiritual being.
There are more than 10,000 distinct religions or beliefs in the world today.11 What you believe,
will be among the myriad of different beliefs and viewpoints that people hold about who we as
human beings are. Our past, our present and our purpose on Earth and what will happen to us
after we die forms an integral part of who we are. Being thinking beings with the ability to
conceptualise, we can utilise information we remember from our past, to plan ahead. We have
the ability to think about the future and ask questions about anticipated future events. At some
point the questions that everybody seeks answers to, will naturally surface: What happens to
me when I die? Where do I go when I die? Where did I come from? and What is my purpose on
Earth while I am alive?
The dilemma is that it has become almost impossible to distinguish between what is true and
what is not. In recent years, relativism and the disappearance of absolutes have slowly crept
into popular mainstream thinking and philosophy.12 No longer are absolutes proposed on any
matter, but rather a personal interpretation of the information as it is experienced by the person
considering a specific subject. People are expected to interpret information in such a way that it
al ows them to come up with their own “truth” on any matter. This essentially becomes a biased
emotional interpretation of any issue, whether it be valid or false, purely based on the perception
of the viewer, rather than factual evidence. This principle is especially applied to issues of
morality, where physical evidence is not always readily available. Where grey areas over issues
exist, where it is difficult to clearly distinguish between “right” and “wrong”, the view of the
majority is normal y accepted as “true” or “valid”.
In today‟s world most societies will classify people, who clearly define right and wrong, as old-
fashioned, fundamentalists or bigots, just because they maintain a specific viewpoint which may
now have been labelled out-dated by the majority, who have now adopted a new or revised
viewpoint. It has become socially unacceptable to have a fundamentalist standpoint on any
subject these days, even if any opposing viewpoint would have shocked the world a decade or
two ago. Everyone is encouraged to interpret a subject, based on their own experiences in life
and their view of the world around them. They must find answers that best address their
questions and if theirs match the majority view, great! People are told that what is true for one
person, may not be true for the next. What is unacceptable behaviour for one person may be
totally acceptable for another.
In some countries, legislation has even been put in place that makes it a criminal offence to
belong to specific groups that hold views, which are seen as opposing that of the majority. In
these instances a paradigm shift occurred. The same, previously accepted views are now
labelled as hate crimes. It is also interesting to note that a tendency has arisen over the past
few decades that would favour the view of the majority over t hat of minority groups. 13 With this
difficulty of discerning between right and wrong, having also to deal with social pressures and
acceptance from peers, how would you then go about identifying a specific belief to choose
from? How would you go about seeking out and finding a belief that will not leave you with
empty promises and a life‟s worth of sacrifices and rituals which wil turn out to have al been in
vain?
If you are destined for an eternity that depends on your choices today, would you not w ant to
make sure that you “know for certain” that your faith is built on a solid, sure and factual
foundation? A basis where you can have 100% certainty, rather than a belief in which you have
to deal with 50% doubt.
If all situations or subjects are treated as grey areas, instead of clearly defined black or white
situations - where a right and a wrong can clearly be identified - they could in many cases have
devastating effects and significantly impact people‟s lives. The fact that a person‟s viewpoint on
a matter may move from a clearly defined true or false, to an undefined grey area of: “maybe
this”, or “maybe that” - depending on how he experiences life and how he feels that day - will
ultimately not alter the mechanics behind the subject in view, no matter how people‟s viewpoints
may change. The way in which a “truth” or a fallacy” wil affect a person, wil remain constant
and is not affected by a shift in opinion. Attempting to impose a viewer‟s interpretation on a
subject can be quite dangerous, as the impact and final affecting results remain the same, even
if an altered viewpoint or “perceived truth” is held by the majority. The fact that the law of gravity
exists on Earth will not be altered in any sense whatsoever by how people view the matter.
Whether you believe that gravity is factual and true or not, wil in no way affect how the Earth‟s
mass will interact with your body through gravity.14
To demonstrate this a little more clearly, let us consider the following scenario as an example: A
man takes a bottle of cyanide (we do not know why he has a bottle of cyanide in his house) and
puts it on a shelf in his garage, next to some of the pesticides he uses in his garden. The bottle
is clearly labelled on the outside, stating that the liquid contained in the bottle is cyanide, that it
is lethal and should not be consumed.
If we analyse this situation we would find the following: There is the person who performed an
action at a specific point in time, by putting a bottle of poison on a shelf on a specific date. This
person would be intimately familiar with the reason why he did this and would not question the
contents of the bottle or the reasons for his own action. He also wrote instructions on the label
to prevent other people from coming to harm when faced with questions about the bottle and its
substance. This could be compared to a historic situation or event where people today may
have varying opinions or viewpoints, regarding the accuracy or factuality of information
regarding that situation.
If a person, other than the man who placed the bottle on the shelf, now walks past this bottle on
his own, he will be faced with a situation in which he will need to decide how he views the
information presented to him. If he adheres to the instructions on the label and believes that the
information is true, he lives; if he chooses to ignore it and applies his own interpretation, he will
put his life at risk and could die.
There are also several ways in which people could then interpret and deal with the information,
as their viewpoints may be influenced over time, due to different forces that are at work. This
may eventually lead them to believe something other than what is written on the label. Below
are some possible situations:
A: -- If you see the bottle which you filled with the deadly liquid, which you labelled clearly with
the original information about the poison and put the bottle on the shelf on a specific date, it
seems logical that you, would pay attention to the information on the label and do as it says.
You remember filling the bottle with poison, and because you do not want harm to come to
yourself or others you also applied a label that clearly states the danger in black and white to
those who may encounter this scenario with questions about it. Having first-hand recollection of
filling the container with cyanide and those memories still fresh in your mind, you would not
entertain thoughts of applying a different interpretation to what you have in front of you. If
people follow these rules (or read the label correctly and do as it says) they stay safe and no
harm comes to them. They have interpreted the situation correctly and have applied the correct
action by doing as the label instructs.
B: -- If however, the bottle and label gathered some dust over time, the person who originally
filled the container with the poison has sold the house with its contents and is no longer present
to provide answers to questions about the container, people reading the label may have new
questions that the original owner did not even entertain. They may view the bottle with its
contents and label with a slightly different perspective than the original homeowner. Thoughts
entering their minds may include:
1: -- Did the previous owner really put cyanide in this bottle?
2: -- How long has the bottle been standing there?
3: -- Is the information on the label valid?
4: -- What was the cyanide used for?
5: -- Is the poison still poisonous after some time has passed?
6: -- Should we perhaps get the contents of the bottle tested, just to make sure?
If even more time passes and the house is sold periodically over generations, so that the label
on the bottle is not only dusty, but becomes faded to such a degree that one can barely read
what was written on it: Similar questions would come to mind, but in addition, people may now
have insufficient information available to assist them in understanding how the subject should
be treated. This could be analogous with moving viewpoints on a subject from a clearly defined
black and white area, into a grey area.
Since the label no longer provides enough information regarding the contents of the bottle,
people may opt to open the bottle and sniff it or taste some of the contents to determine what
they are actually dealing with.
If the label was completely removed, or someone attached a new label with new information, it
could have catastrophic consequences:
1: -- The person dealing with the subject now has no idea about the dangers that are lurking in
the bottle in front of them - the new label does not cancel the effects that the contents would
have on a person.
2: -- They have no idea of how the bottle came to be on the shelf, what it contains or who the
person was who filled it initially. Even though they see a container with some liquid in it and a
faded or altered label; they have no idea who put the bottle on the shelf or how he filled the
bottle, or for that matter, the information on the original label. All they have to assis t in their
evaluation of the situation is the evidence currently before them.
3: -- They would not know that the bottle contains a poison and while a new label provides
information to the reader, it could be totally misleading, incorrect and untruthful.
4: -- Swallowing some of the fluid in the bottle, unaware of the effects the contents will have,
would kill someone.
What this little analogy is trying to portray, is the way in which modern day society steers the
population into paradigms, where viewpoints on most subjects or situations in life are
encouraged to undergo a transition from a well-defined understanding of a subject to a personal
interpretation, which is moulded to suit the individual‟s preferences.
When viewing evidence today about historic events, for us, living centuries or millennia after
these events, the information may have become faded. We interpret the information related to
these events through the dust that have accumulated over the eras. Our interpretation will be
different to those of people living in the time of a specific event happening and who were
actually there to witness it. As time passes and the evidence fades, old viewpoints become out-
dated or obsolete in the minds of the majority in society and have to be replaced by more