SavageSoto

My Spiritual Journey

2011-09-04T16:01:00.006-05:00

I recently had to write a paper for my ordination course on my personal spiritual journey and my call to ministry. Most of it is all information I've shared here on my blog at one point or another but some people said they were interested in reading it, so I'm going to go ahead and post it since I haven't really had any time to blog lately anyways:

When did my spiritual journey begin? It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when as I grew up in a conservative Christian home that frequently had me attend church, Sunday school and Bible schools. I would say around the age of seven is when I started to embark upon my spiritual journey by reciting the “sinner’s prayer”. At the time though, it was only an acknowledgement that I didn’t want to go to this scary “Hell” place I was hearing about, so there was yet to be a heartfelt desire to actually follow God. I would spend the next few years recommitting my life to Christ through many prayers and being a bit unsure where the whole Christian religion was to fit in my life. Then around the age of twelve, I heard a sermon titled something to the effect of “getting real with God” at a church summer camp. I don’t recall much the content of the message but by the end of it I just decided it was time for me to know God intimately, rather than just call on him whenever I felt unsure about my afterlife destiny.

After that point, it was clear that something in me had really changed. I remember a few days later after I came back home, sitting on my friend’s lawn just staring at the sky feeling a spiritual “high” so to speak. Knowing that the Lord of All loved me, accepted me and wanted to use me was quite the over-powering feeling. I would evangelize frequently to my friends at school (often to the point of unintentional annoyance) and I’d even find random people on the internet solely to inform them how Jesus could change their life and save them from everlasting punishment. Even though I was a shy person, I took Jesus’ call for us to “go and make disciples” seriously.

Some years passed and I started to give up on evangelizing due to how few people I had actually led into the faith. Sadly, as a result my own faith took a back-seat for awhile and I didn’t focus on it as much. I still believed deep down inside but I didn’t feel the passion for ministry that I once did and I didn’t feel as close to God either. It wasn’t long though before this started to bother me, and through the conversion story of Brian “Head” Welch (formerly of the rock band Korn) I remembered the power of a life transformed in Christ. So one night I simply prayed that God would give me such a love and a passion for Him and others like I had before.
Almost immediately, my interest in faith matters was rekindled and I could feel God’s presence again in an exciting way. Yet there was something else that soon came along with it: honest doubts. Perhaps they were doubts I always had tucked away in a corner somewhere in the past, or perhaps they were just things I never thought about much before? Either way, I perceived them as being from Satan himself because they cut at the core of things I always believed and told others about.

These doubts included many aspects of my faith but mostly involved the idea of a never-ending Hell for those that died without accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. I had always told people previously that God had to send people to Hell (or rather, allow them to send themselves there as the cliché goes) in order to be “just” and “holy”; but that reasoning no longer seemed compelling to me. It no longer made sense to me that there could be anything “just” or “holy” about endless torments befalling anyone for any reason; let alone mistaken beliefs about God or his way of salvation. And no matter how many pastors or Christian friends I talked to, the idea continued to feel wrong in my soul.

It was around this time however that I had come into conversation with some of my online friends about an idea called “universalism”, the belief that everyone eventually goes to heaven. At first, the idea angered me and seemed nothing short of wishful thinking; but after a few days it began to make a lot of sense. So I wrestled with the concept a few more months before finally ordering a book I found on the Tentmaker.org website titled “Hope Beyond Hell”.

I started reading the book on a college bus trip and I remember it seeming so revolutionary to my mind that I felt absolutely euphoric. I could look around at everyone else on that bus and believe that they too would be bound for heaven; it was truly an incredible thought. And the more I dug into the idea of Christian universalism, the more it continued to amaze me and ended up fostering a deep interest in theology in general.

My actual “call to ministry” was something I guess I’ve always felt in my Christian life, at various times and in varying degrees. As I stated earlier, I was big into evangelism at one point and even still I like to make people think about spiritual matters and ideas. I often entertained the idea of being a missionary or a youth pastor, though it was always kind of a secondary idea. People would often tell me things like “you’re smart, you should be a pastor” but I usually dismissed the idea as silly because I didn’t feel I was wise enough for such a role.

Some time passed though, and one day while earnestly praying and asking God what I should do with my life, the idea of minister came up and I felt strongly that it was something I was supposed to be involved in. I second guessed it a few times but God really began to show me how I already had a vision for the future of Christianity. He showed me that even though I have different ideas about some mainstream doctrines, that there was already an underground of ministers and churches breaking out from the norm. And that’s helped affirm things for me because I know this isn’t a battle I have to fight on my own and that I can be a part of something that really makes a Kingdom-minded difference.

As far as what I would do as a minister, I would like to basically help guide the next generation of Christians in emerging from fundamentalism. There are an increasing number of people disillusioned with church, Christianity and even religion/spirituality as a whole; this is tragic to me because there is such a foundational worth to those things. So I want to help people see that you don’t have to believe things like a never-ending place of punishment or that every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. I want to help people see that the Bible, regardless of what translation errors and ancient perceptions may exist, can be a tremendous tool in our search for meaning as humans. It is extremely useful for people in its function; which is to connect us with the divine force that crafted our very being.

I’d also like to either start a church or become involved with an established church that is universalist and open-minded in its theology. This church would be centered on God, Jesus and the Bible but would allow freedom to question ideas. It would not only respect but also celebrate the diversity of perspective and would seek to help us learn from one another. It would teach people the Christian tradition and inform it of its history, yet not claim to be “superior” to all other faiths and would leave room for personal interpretation. Ideally, this church would overall be big on outreach to the surrounding community, providing support, hope and the love of God to all those in need; rather than expending a bulk of resources on big buildings, staff salaries or flashy productions.

In conclusion, the words of Jesus in Luke 4:18-19 inspire me as a foundation for the ministry that I want to undertake: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

Reading the Bible (for the rest of us)

2011-07-24T11:44:00.004-05:00

One of the main mental walls that I keep hitting as of late is this: if everything we believe about the Bible is ultimately based on assumptions (including the assumption that it's Gods revelation to man), is there really much to be gained from studying it? If I can't be sure if "God did this" or "Jesus said that" what is the point of trying to apply it to my life or help others apply it to theirs?

As I've said before, most people at this point simply give way to atheism and secular humanism (which I guess would be in line for me to do seeing as people already consistently ask me whether I'm an atheist or not). However I still feel there is more to this than I am seeing, or at the very least other possible alternatives. The first being that if there is anything to be gained from studying the Bible, I think it needs to extend beyond the old perspective of it being God's revelation---more specifically God's 100% inerrant and infallible Word. For if it is God's Word, then I'd say we are doomed to be lost within the never-ending halls of interpretative guess-work. What I mean by that is such a conclusion forces us to undergo a tireless process of guessing which translation is most accurate in regards to the original "God-breathed" manuscripts, which we obviously don't have. Then after that, guessing what the original intent of the each text was, which is hard to determine given that all the authors died 1,800 years ago or more. And lastly, guessing what the application to your life is which is usually influenced by particular pastors, authors and theologians (and of course you have to guess which ones are dispensing "Biblical truth").

Of course, to make this process sound easy we're told all this can be done by following the Holy Spirit's guidance, which was always the litmus test I banked on in the past. But it doesn't take a seminary student to notice that many devout Bible believers in several denominations all claim to follow the Holy Spirit, yet come to several different conclusions. And the few central conclusions those denominations have are probably only still shared because there are simply some things you're not allowed to question (like the deity of Christ). So if the Bible is the divine product of God, the honest inquirer has to wonder if He was serious about the part that states that God is not the "author of confusion"(1 Corinthians 14:33)? "Confusion" would indeed seem to be a fitting word for the common approach to the Bible.

I will note here, however, that despite the seeming complexity of this old perception of the Bible, many Christians seem to be just fine with it. They simply don't see it to be as messy as I have laid out. And for those people I would say there is probably no real reason to change their perception if they feel it works for them. Yet for those of us that have grown weary of that perception, I'd say there needs to be an alternative approach in order for the Bible to still play a vital and honest role in our lives. So I'm going to attempt to lay a very basic framework for just such an approach, based on what I've thought about so far:

I make my first point by noting that the old perception of the Bible as God's word is obviously very much concerned with historical accuracy. For if God put historically inaccurate information in his Word, He must be a liar and not trustworthy Himself (or so the logic goes). So for those of us who no longer think it is entirely historical are often confused on what exactly to make of stories that seem only likely or true in part. The solution though is rather simple if we are willing to look for truth in the metaphorical sense rather than the literal or historical sense. Adam and Eve, for example, don't have to be actual people who existed and conversed with a talking snake for them to be an allegory representing humanity. Adam and Eve can easily represent humanity's inclination to trade a God-experience for deceptive promises that ultimately cause us much suffering, without anything having to be accepted historically speaking. This is simple truth that I think is evident from our everyday lives and thus can serve as a cautious reminder. So whether all the Biblical stories happened or not as is recorded is not as important, I think, as the power and wisdom that can be gleaned from those stories.

Secondly, the old perception typically identifies the thoughts and opinions of the Biblical authors (and those whom the Biblical authors talk about like Jesus) with the thoughts and opinions of God himself. But some of us are unable or unwilling to make that connection 100% of the time. So alternatively, I think we can appreciate the perspectives of the Jews and Christians of old without believing those perspectives to be God's own. After all, is there really any good reason to think that the authors of the Bible necessarily understood God and His ways any better than we ourselves do today? And though many Bible stories record God being physically present in some form or speaking audibly, does it mean that He really was? Could it not simply represent how close to God the people involved felt? Or represent how strong their convictions were on what they believed God was telling them? It doesn't mean that God was actually telling them to "conquer this city" or "stone that sinner" but merely that that is what they believed based on their limited perception of God.

Lastly, our perception of God should be able to grow beyond our ancestors' ideas about God and spiritual reality. This does not mean that we completely scrap their ideas of course, but rather we build upon them with not only our own experiences but with our ever expanding scientific and philosophical knowledge. Suggesting that we can only construct our theology with "Biblical" ideas is akin to suggesting we can only construct towns with the tools and technology available in Biblical times. Yet I doubt too many people would sign up for that idea, because it is generally good and necessary for us as humans to improve upon past methods and ideas. If that seems a bit discomforting though, I would urge you to briefly consider the matured perception of God in the new testament as compared to the old.

In the old testament, God was often painted as angry, dissatisfied, vindictive, and for the most part only concerned with the well being of the Jewish people. He has rule, after rule, after rule, many of which seem down right silly to us today (such as wearing mixed fabrics in Deu. 22:11). In the new testament you can still pick up on those aspects to a degree, but it is greatly over-shadowed by Jesus' radical perception of God. Jesus' perception of God is much more focused on His desire for restoration and reconciliation, for both Jew and gentile---He is not prejudiced. God's grace therefore evolved (from a cultural standpoint) from the tribal success of one people to the spiritual success of all peoples. This evolution is often missed or masked by the idea that God was just teaching us a lesson about how we couldn't live under the law and needed grace. Which may be true in a sense, but I think more importantly the Jewish God concept had matured. Likewise, our perception of God should evolve and mature with the minds and hearts of the human race. That is the journey I think God calls us to and is why He doesn't just make obvious all truth about Himself and the universe.

If this all sounds really hazy and ambiguous, thats probably because it is. And truthfully I've become so burnt out from the old way of reading the Bible that its hard to really get back into it even with such refreshing ideas as these. But even if I had spent hundreds of hours doing it, I still wouldn't want to hammer it down to another ritualistic formula. We always want specific formulas for these sorts of things and if you explore deeply into the realm of Christian theology, formulas is exactly what you'll get. The thing I dont like about formulas though is they deduce the nature of God and truth-finding to a science---which makes it sound like we can find out much more than we really can. And in my opinion, Biblical study (and theology in general) should be much more free and exploratory than the common methodology of Christendom.

Can one be a Christian and still think?

2011-05-22T14:46:00.003-05:00

The more I analyze my personal beliefs and in what ways I still identify with the Christian religion, the more lost I tend to feel. It seems the more I learn and the more I critically examine the ideas I once held as facts, I honestly just don't know what to believe sometimes? Two years ago I would have said that I agree with mainstream Christianity on most things besides concepts like everlasting punishment for unbelievers, but now its hard to say I agree with it on much of anything at all. And I think this dilemma has only come to amplify itself over the past year and a half since I felt a call to ministry. After all, if I cant concretely make up my mind about what I actually believe and what direction I should go, how on Earth can I teach others what to believe and what direction they themselves should go?

This is to be expected though, since within the last few months its finally dawned on me just how much you're never taught in church. I mean, if going to church is any way supposed to be a Christian education for the average believer, I think its safe to say it has failed miserably. You're never taught, for example, what the actual differences between the gospels are or that many scholars are unsure if any of the apostles even wrote them (in other words, every saying and deed attributed to Jesus should be taken with a grain of salt). You're never taught much, if anything, about alternative views on Hell and salvation such as Christian universalism. You're never taught that the Bible is in fact not without error and has quite a bit of internal disharmony theologically speaking. You're never taught about alternative eschatologies such as pantelism and preterism which date Christ's symbolic return within the lifetimes of the apostles as opposed to 1,978 years into the future and counting. You're never taught that there is little to no historical mention of Jesus outside the New Testament. And you're rarely even taught that one can be a Christian without completely disregarding the scientific consensus of the Earth being billions of years old, rather than a few thousand years old. So if Christianity were compared to an iceberg, I think its fair to say you're only shown the very tip of it in church, while the rest is kept submerged beneath like some deep dark secret that its ashamed of. Or perhaps a crazy old uncle that has a room in the basement that no one really talks to or about.

Honestly, why is that?

My guess is that these types of things aren't taught because if they were it would undermine the faith of a good many people. More specifically it would undermine people's faith in several popular church doctrines. But if the truth really does set us free, as Jesus supposedly said, what could really be the harm in at least giving such things some mention? Should we not be seekers of truth first, and Christians second? What importance is any religion if it is either at odds with or turns a blind eye to the facts? I'm aware of the inherent uncertainty that comes about when some of this lesser known information is brought to light, but regardless of what we make of it the facts still remain. People deserve to know of these things even if it doesn't change their faith or their approach to it in any way. And this is one of the reasons I'm thankful for individuals like Rob Bell who are bold enough to put some of the lesser known viewpoints like universalism and post-mortem salvation out on the Christian table for all to see. We need more leaders in Christianity who are willing to do those sorts of things no matter how controversial they may be.

Anyway, to the point of all this rambling: I often wonder if one can (or at least if I can) be a Christian and still think with honesty and sincerity? Most Christians I'm sure would respond positively to that and of course there have obviously been many Christians who have also been very deep thinkers such as C.S. Lewis. But what I've come to find is that it's often times hard for me to be true to my faith while also being true to my conscience. Faith can be a great tool to fill in what we humans cannot yet fully grasp about our purpose and our existence, but it can also act as a pair of blinders when it comes to things outside of what we've been taught to believe. For instance, it doesn't matter how heartfelt and sincere a Muslim or someone of another faith may come across, they're still in conscious rebellion to God because they do not see Jesus like we do. God has revealed the "truth" to them as obviously as He has to us Christians but they just choose to do all this other stuff that they don't really believe in. Or it doesn't matter how many conflicting passages and ideas seem to be in the Bible, or that it was written in an ancient time and culture far removed from our own. It is still the perfect Word of God and to say anything else is to call God a liar. Or so mainstream Christianity often teaches.

I guess to my mind, there is just little to no reason to believe some of the things that many Christians do. Some beliefs (like eternal torment) I honestly don't want to believe anyway, but then there are other things (like the accuracy of the gospels) that I really wish I could believe but just cant for the most part. I believe in God as the creator of our universe, I believe in Jesus as a savior from sin and from more primitive views of God. And I believe the Bible contains some wise insights and musings about God and His relationship to us. Yet beyond that I just have mountains of questions and doubts, most of which I have really no idea how to process. Even on the more liberal side of Christianity, I find people super confident in things I can only find to be a bit entertaining to think about (like with basically all eschatology), yet beyond that I just have to kind of shrug my shoulders. And most of which I'm coming to conclude doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things, since I don't believe in a God who's future acceptance of us depends on which religious avenue we died on. But they are important questions none the less and I will need to figure out some way to approach them if I am to take this pastor thing seriously.

So can one be a Christian and still think? Well, I sure hope so.

The Lord will provide?

2011-05-05T21:30:00.000-05:00

One of the most famous Christianese phrases from the Bible is the line "The Lord will provide", which comes from the story where Abraham is told to sacrifice Issac, but God instead provides a ram in a thicket (Gen 22:1-18). This is used as an attitude within the faith that states that whatever we go through in life, God will ultimately provide what is needed. And this has always brought much hope to me as Im sure it has to others throughout the centuries, but recently I've noticed a negative aspect to this attitude.

Ever since graduating college two years ago, I've been waiting for something to hit. Waiting for my life to blossom in full-bloom and live a life of purpose and direction. Sadly, it never seems to happen. And many times I've wondered why, since this basic principle of the Lord providing should be at work in my life...shouldn't it? Shouldn't God lavish me with blessings and opportunity for firmly placing my hope in His wise guidance and great plan as I always have? Shouldn't my prayerful requests grant me a fulfilling career, money and a successful love life to boot? Dont I deserve these things? Why then has the Lord not been providing for me?

Then I one day I wondered whether this idea of waiting on God to provide can actually give us the opposite of peace? Maybe in its extremes, it could actually cause us to be depressed simply because God hasnt given us the life we need, or the life we want? It certainly seemed to be the case for me, anyways. Rather than take some responsibility for my own situations, I wanted to blame God for not blessing me as well as others (or at least blame the Devil for being all-up-in-my-grill, as they say). This, I now see, was a big mistake because I've come to realize that its probably not Gods job to do everything for me, or everything for any of us.

Regardless of how you see the free will vs determinism issue, I think its safe to say that on some level God is inviting us all into creativity, He's inviting us to do something positive. "Waiting on the lord" doesnt have to be simply praying for something and then sitting around until that something happens (if it ever does); it can instead be envisioning what you feel is necessarily, asking for guidance, and then stepping onto the water in faith much like Peter is said to have done in Matthew 14:29. And if you read that whole story, I think it actually reveals one of the most important aspects to living the Christ-life: if you ask God to do something, and you step out in belief, what would normally seem impossible actually begins to happen. It was only when Peter focused on the wind and his scary surroundings that he began to sink. He took his eyes off Jesus and let the negative forces purge the faith from his heart and mind.

This principle is echoed again in Luke 11:9-10,
"And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened"

All this to say, if you feel a desire in your heart that God has placed, yes, the Lord will provide but even before that, you have to step out and walk into what you're envisioning. I'm not sure that it guarantees anything to happen, but Id say its got a much better shot. Not only that, but I think that is the way in which God works through the human soul to manifest the kingdom and its good things all around us.

The Problem with Theology

2011-04-10T19:32:00.001-05:00

*Capitan’s log, star date: I don’t really give a a flying borg’s eye…*

If you were to take two people with two differing theologies , put them in a discussion on a differing belief and you stripped down what they were saying, it might go something a little like this,

“No, you’re wrong. You’re wrong because this verse says so” Said Person One.

“Actually, I’m right because that verse doesn’t mean what you say it does, it means something else” replied person two.

Person one looks puzzled and shouts “What? No, that verse can’t possibly mean that! It has to mean this because this other verse says this, and that confirms what I’ve been saying all along!”

*rinse…repeat…sometimes for hours*

I’m sure we’ve all heard or read or been in a conversation like this before. And it is always interesting how one theology interprets everything to fit in a certain “grid”, so that when someone else suggests one of those pieces should change its position, the first theology shouts about how that can’t be so because it doesn’t fit properly in their “grid”. But seldom some wonder whether or not part of their grid (or perhaps the whole thing) may be incorrect. And this is to be expected, since such a question is quite daunting and uncomfortable, but what happens is this: What could be a potential learning process becomes more of a war of the doctrines. It is a war in which no one ever really wins (just YouTube a controversial video dealing with religion, and you will see what I’m talking about). Hence, to some degree I’ve lost interest in the topic, or at least debating it with any vigor or desire to show others that I’m right.

You think I'm wrong? Well, cool...but I just dont really care. I'm more than willing to hear you out on why you think I'm mistaken, but at the end of the day, who really knows who's right? I mean, in all genuine honesty, how? The problem with everyone is that they think they've arrived at the highest form of truth (or at least somewhere in the ballpark of it), when there's absolutely no way to prove what the highest form of truth is. In fact, not only is it something you cannot prove, but your opposition probably thinks they have the highest form of truth as well.

Everybody’s enlightened…everybody’s saved…and everybody is lucky enough to be the chosen ones. Or so everybody thinks, at least.

I mean once upon a time I loved theology. In some way I still do love it, but not so much in the sense of trying to pin point every right belief about God and the Bible. This, I would say, is mostly because no matter how much you study (the Bible, the Christianities, etc), all the conclusions you come to are merely assumptions. That’s it…assumptions. Assumptions based on other assumptions. Some of those assumptions might be more historical or traditional than others, but they are usually based in no more objective evidence than the next assumption. And then we feel inclined to take those assumptions and spend loads of time trying to beat the differing assumptions out of someone else. It's all rather pointless, and usually not that loving either.

This is also why I waste absolutely no time in calling people “heretics” or “false teachers” just because they disagree with what I think is true. I mean, between the velvet lies, there may be a truth that’s hard as steel, but that doesn’t make it any more obvious in a world where God seemingly made it impossible to prove such things, does it? Do I really need to call you a name or judge your character or relationship with God, just because you believe differently than me? And do you really have to brand me as “out of your club”, just because my ideas didn’t get the highest votes among some old stuffy men in Rome, over a thousand years ago? I think it’s just better to accept our differences, and share ideas when and where civility isn’t going to be an issue.

So what do we do? How do we determine the “right” theology? Is that even possible? No, I don’t really think so. Yet, I think one can get an ‘A’ for effort, if they are at least trying to determine what is most true about God and spiritual realities. All we can do is make the best assumptions that we possibly can. After all, we don’t have any other choice but to abandon the search all together and be content with an existence only in-tune to the physical and provable dimension (which some do). Yet some of us still have a hunch that there is still some very real truths to be uncovered (even if only partially) within this spiritual quest we find ourselves in.
So, we must push forward and continue to test the fruits and test the spirits, as I mentioned in my last blog.

A Rebirth of faith

2011-04-03T14:03:00.000-05:00

Since I sometimes get a kick out of reading my past religious musings, I decided to read a couple of my old blog entries the other day and happened to notice that while I had written thirty-three entries in 2009, I only had six entries for 2010. And so my question to myself was naturally, why did I write so little last year in comparison to the year before? Was it a lack of time or lack of ideas? Or was it the fact that my blog entries dont typically spur the conversations that my facebook posts tend to? Did I just have more to say as a new universalist/heretic in 2009 than in 2010 and beyond?

Truthfully, probably each of those things contributed a bit Im sure, but maybe the main reason is that the more I question every bit of my past understandings of God and faith, the less neat and definable my personal theology becomes. And its a little frustrating, honestly. I often find myself wishing I could return to the days of simplistic faith, when I didnt over-analyze everything I believed and why; when I just assumed the preachers could understand God and the Bible better than me. Yet in another sense I am glad that I am free of that dogmatic and legalistic system. My nervousness does not outweigh my feelings of liberation; a liberation that encourages me to finally go through with this ordination process and help others seek out God in Christ even beyond the orthodox understandings.

None the less though, I feel confronted with a belief-structure that is on its deathbed. And when a lot of religious people come to this point, the majority seem to find ways to just let go of spirituality all together (even if its over the course of several years). However I feel to do so would "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as the old saying goes. This is because I still find value in the spiritual symbols I've come to know and love, as well as my Christian tradition and its scriptures. Yet I've come to find that the more I examine not just individual doctrines, but the entire paradigm ive constructed is in desperate need of a refreshed and updated approach. Like the legend of the mythical Phoenix bird, no matter how magnificent it may have seemed at one time it eventually gets old, tired, and in need of that final rest. But as the story goes, the sun would shine down upon the bird bursting its remains into flames (or...something) and from its ashes a new fledging Phoenix would arise. And I am hoping and searching for God to do much the same thing to my faith (which I dont think is a stretch, giving the whole "born again" concept is a fairly big staple concept in Christian tradition).

So what might this reborn faith or approach to faith look like? To be honest, beyond a few vague ideas, I dont really know. I definitely dont think it means giving up on either God, Jesus, the Bible or even certain Christian rituals. What I think it does mean however, is attempting to look at all those things in a different (and often times, more reasonable) light, only returning to traditional ideas when and if they actually seem to work in a consistent spiritual paradigm. Its the kind of faith that isnt interested in being different from traditional Christianity merely for the sake of being different, but at the same time doesnt hold to it and its answers unquestionably so. It would be aware that it can be deceived and wrong at times, yet it is not afraid to use the heart and mind that God himself gave us. It is a faith that loves and cherishes the Bible (and even possibly other holy books or books period) but is aware that realistically no one writer or person can speak for God, even if he/she has a message inspired by their God experience or Gods spirit. This faith would be free from the delusion that any one religion or spiritual perspective can fully contain, define and confine the vast and mysterious entity we call God. And this faith realizes that for every statement or hypothesis about God and truth that we can make, it will most likely only be a shadow or outline of the actual reality. In a nutshell (or bird eggshell), this faith is simply interested in discovering and experiencing the God and His/Her/Its truth, whatever and wherever that is.

Is this kind of faith possible without drifting off into extreme spiritual vagueness and uncertainty? I honestly dont know. I suppose the best one can do is to try to "test the spirits"(1 John 4:1) and determine if what we believe or are coming to believe is worthy of the God we have come to experience, which is not an answer that will be the same for everyone. We should also look at each of our beliefs much like Jesus suggests we should look at people (Matthew 7:15-20), and determine from the "fruit" produced which is good and which is not. If said fruit causes us to be violent, angry, sad or in any way abusive to others and the world/opportunities given to us, then it may indeed be bad fruit. However, if it causes us to show love, use our resources wisely, discover peace and connect us with the God experience, it is likely to be a good fruit. And while this approach doesnt necessarily determine which beliefs about God and truth are indeed true, it may at least give us a guiding star by which to determine what may be MORE true about God and what may be MORE true about ourselves and others.

Why I believe (Pt.3): Belief in "Christianity"

2011-02-02T12:00:00.000-06:00

As you may remember from some time ago, I was trying to critically examine and explain my beliefs in other aspects of my faith such as my belief in God and my belief in the Bible. In this installment I (finally) want to talk about why I view those previously mentioned beliefs through the lens of Christianity (and by "Christianity" I mean in the most basic sense of belief in the life and teachings of Jesus, and not necessarily all the mainstream christian views)

First, it is inevitable to say that one of the reasons I believe in Christianity is because of my environment. I grew up in a Christian home that regularly attended services and sent me off to church camp every summer for a solid decade. On top of that I've spent countless years around Bibles, C.S. Lewis books and plenty of friends and conversations associated with the Christian faith. So while I've come to amend many of the beliefs instilled by said environment, I suspect Christianity is always going to affect my world-view in some form or another, like it or not.

My emotions also play a big part as to why Im a Christian. While there are things in the traditional mainstream faith that emotionally disturb me (like eternal punishment), a great deal of other things appeal to what seems to be ingrained in me as subconscious truth, if you will. For example, the idea that our salvation is not our work but God's work is very appealing. As well as the christian belief that Gods love for us is unconditional and everlasting (but more realized in the universalist's theology of course, which is part of why I embrace that as well).

The idea of the afterlife is perhaps another big one, because I just cant imagine a world where countless cruel things happen without something on the other side to balance it all out, and not let those who died in poverty or slavery or poor health be given the short end of fortune forever. There is many an injustice that goes unrighted in this world and I cant imagine there isnt something on the other side to make right what has gone wrong. If God exists and has a good plan for us, I would imagine no experience in this life is ultimately meaningless and therefore it is my hope that He will one day show usall the meaning we missed, as well as its value on the other side.

The last reason is simply my life experiences (which I guess ties in with emotions too, as they affect how I perceive said experiences). Not that I've had too cool of experiences, but I have seen a few "demons" being cast out of people in the name of Jesus. Ive also "spoke in tongues" on several occasions, at least the first time being something Im pretty sure was genuine. Those times were some of the most peaceful and divine moments in my life. When Im away from seeking God, I feel empty and like I need something more. So I try to seek him in the ways that have worked previously, because thats usually when I feel the most peace and direction in my life, and are most loving and guiding to those around me.

Perhaps you're thinking that I just believe a bunch of stuff because I want to, and it sounds sensible to me? And thats probably true to some extent, but I think everyone else does something similar whether they realize it or not. The reason being for that is when it comes down to it, we all need to organize abstract concepts like love, justice, and mercy in some way to give our lives meaning. Not that one has to be christian, let alone religious, in order to organize and interpret such things, but I personally find that a modified-Christian paradigm provides a good foundation for achieving just such an organization. And I feel a sense of truth radiating from many of its key ideas and perceptions.

SEX?!?!?!?!111!!!?

2010-08-16T15:17:00.000-05:00

(yeah I kind of gave up trying to come up with a picture for this subject, so...this will have to do)

I've grown up my whole life being told that sex outside of marriage was a sin. Period. Whether it be a sermon in church, a seminar at Church camp or a topic of a youth group that didnt seem to talk about much else...it was constantly drilled into my subconscious. Like most people with most doctrines, I didnt do a whole lot of questioning on the subject and just read the Bible with the filter that what I was told was true (like so many other things). Recently, however, I have been thinking about it considerably more and have come to the realization that the Bible is rather silent on the topic of premarital sex. Which, if you're anything like me, may come as a real shock.

Most will undoubtedly point to such popular verses as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which reads,

"Do you not know that unrighteous men will not inherit God's Kingdom? Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime, nor theives, nor avaricious people, nor any who are addicted to hard drinking, to abusive language or to greed of gain, will inherit God's Kingdom." (WNT)

But there seems to be some controversy regarding the word thats translated here as "fornicators", which is the Greek word pornos. That is because according to Strong's #G4205, it can also mean "prostitute" or "whoremonger" which obviously means a bit more than simply sex between two unmarried persons. So it could very well be that what we see here is merely the bias of the translator, who probably thought fornication was a sin.

Another one that is used is Matthew 5:27-28,

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (ESV)

People tend to use this to say that having lustful thoughts about a woman is as bad as actually having sex with them, and so they therefore conclude that all such thoughts and sexual actions outside of marriage are bad. But this conclusion seems to ignore that fact that Jesus is specifically talking about adultery, since that is the sin that He says such people commit. In other words, Jesus is only saying its a sin to sexually desire another persons spouse; it has nothing to do with an unmarried person wanting to have sex with another unmarried person.

Now, lets take a quick look at the Old Testament. If we go to Leviticus 18 where various laws on sex are given, we strangely do not find the act of sex between two unmarried persons among them. It speaks against incest, adultery, bestiality, and (perhaps) homosexuality, but nothing that seems to imply premarital sex itself is a sin. And we find a similar lack of condemnation on the matter in Exodus 22:16-17, which reads,

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.

If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins." (ESV)

Notice how neither the man that seduces nor the virgin are commanded to be put to death, or to sacrifice any animals. This is because premarital sex, unlike the sexual no-no's in Leviticus 18, is not a sin. The man had to pay the bride-price for her, whether he went on to marry her or not, but that doesnt appear to be a penalty; it was simply a cultural practice. And presumably, if the woman was not a virgin, then the man wouldn't have to pay her father anything, because it specifically says the "bride-price for virgins".

Another thing that I've always found strange is how common things like polygamy and concubines(which were basically women just kept around for having sex with) were in the old testament. King Solomon, for example, was said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines(1 Kings 11:3)!!! It is true that there doesn't seem to be anything condoning such practices (at least that ive run across), but there also doesn't seem to be any condemning of it on Gods part. And with all the hundreds of little laws given in the old testament, you would think God would remember to bring up such things if they were that big a deal to him. God apparently didnt like that Solomon had wives that turned away his heart from Him, but this appears to be because they were foreign women that enticed him to foreign gods, not because God thought he was sinning by indulging in polygamy and concubines(1 Kings 11:2).

Biblical matters aside, I think its also important to note that we now live in a very different time than that of the Bible. This does not mean truth does not permeate age, or that the Bible is "outdated" as some skeptics say, but it does mean that the way we live our lives in response to the world has changed. For one thing, people (in general) don't get married nearly as early as they did in those days, or even as people did 200-300 years ago. I haven't really researched the matter myself, but I'm willing to bet it was fairly uncommon in those days to be twenty-one and single, much like myself. So if one were to use the phrase "waiting til marriage" back then, you could probably translate that to "waiting til you're about 15 or 16". And thats probably because back then there wasn't really any such thing as pursuing a higher education in hopes of getting a career in which you could (hopefully) support a family with. There was also no such thing as birth-control, so it would make sense for verses, such as Exodus 22:16, to suggest marriage; because there was a much higher chance of the woman becoming pregnant and thus needing someone to help raise the child. There was (to my knowledge) no such thing as child support laws, in which the government could force the absent father to financially help the mother. It was all just a very different world.

So, what are we to make of all this? Do I suggest we should just go out and have sex with whoever we please, and disregard the God-given specialness of intimacy? No, not at all...because that would just be very irresponsible. So, I think the best way to approach this matter is to remember some of my favorite words of the Apostle Paul,

"Everything is allowable, but not everything is profitable. Everything is allowable, but everything does not build others up"(1 Corinthians 10:23 WNT).

Just because I could play guitar and XBOX 360 all day, doesnt mean that it would be a good idea (although if I won the lottery, I dont see why not). And likewise, just because you can have sex outside of marriage, doesnt mean that it's a good idea in all circumstances. There are STD's and unwanted pregnancies to avoid, as well as fragile emotions that you should be slow to give to another person. While sex outside of marriage may not be a sin, I still think it should still accompany an emotional commitment and an intent to marry at some point, God willingly.

Waiting for a train...

2010-08-08T21:17:00.000-05:00

Theres a quote from the movie Inception that particularly stuck out to me today while watching it for the third time. Its one of the quotes thats repeated a couple different times through the movie, presumably to emphasize its importance in the story. It goes like this,

"You're waiting for a train,

A train that will take you far away.

You know where you hope this train will take you,

But you can't be sure.

But it doesn't matter - because we'll be together"

Of course, the quote really only makes sense within the context of the movie , but regardless it kind of made me think of how I view my beliefs and my relationship with God. All my ideas about God, how He made life to be lived, how He saves our souls from darkness and lifts us all to eternal life, represents where I hope the "train" of destiny will take me.

But...I can't be sure. No matter how much faith or conviction I may have (or seem to have) I can't be sure how my story or the human story in general will turn out. I just have, what I feel, is a well-founded and thought out hope. And therefore it sort of bewilders me how many religious people can go through life and tout their beliefs as if there isn't a chance in Hades they could be wrong. They never seem to wonder if perhaps they are the ones in err while the opposition they so openly criticize are the ones who are correct. Perhaps the "Hell" that fundamentalists spend their time cosigning everyone of different faiths to is actually the "Hell" that awaits those very fundamentalists? Who is to say? I hope it is neither. But I think if each one of us were honest, we could only call our beliefs a hope that we cant be sure of. A very strong hope...but a hope none the less.

Anyway, as the last line of the quote says, It doesn't matter - because we'll be together. Which to me means that no matter what the truth is and where it leads me, my firm belief is that God will be right there beside me, whatever the outcome of my life or this universe is. And as I read that line again I think it also has another meaning to me as well; that we, as in all humanity, will be together. Whatever God has in store, I believe we will be together in that grand experience, reflecting on our lives and the journey that God brought us through both consciously and many times, subconsciously.

Why I Believe (Pt.2): Inspiration of Scripture

2010-06-23T11:14:00.000-05:00

The Bible and why I believe it to be inspired by God has been another question Ive been contemplating for awhile now. And it seems to be the more I think about it and the more Im honest about it, the more uncomfortable I feel about the whole thing. However, after reading this blog from about a year ago, I realized I'm really on the same train of thought that I have been for some time now...I guess im just now starting to notice all the "scenery" around said train.

But before I start talking about what I think the Bible is and why I believe it, I want to talk about what I think it is not. The Bible is not (in my opinion) the "inerrant and infallible perfect Word of God". It feels weird for me to say that so bluntly, but for the longest time now Ive felt like God has been telling me that the Word of God is something rather separate from the Bible itself. And really, Im inclined to say the Bible even agrees with me on that point at least, since John 1 describes Jesus as "the word [become] flesh". And so if that is the case, the Word of God is something that manifested in the person of Jesus, not so much in the 66 canonized books that we have come to know as the Holy Bible. And even the Bible itself cannot really defend itself as being the word of God, since any verse/passage you use to justify that conclusion(such as 2 Timothy 3:16) was written before our current canonization (and even if you could prove such a thing with the bible, it would be rather circular anyways). So other than the Bible traditionally being believed to be the perfect Word of God, I do not think there is much reason to conclude that it is. And in a sense, I think there is a great danger in concluding that it is, because in the begining was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God, according to John 1:1. Therfore, if we conclude that the Bible is the Word of God, then that literally means it is itself God. And I think that is the source of a lot of Christians seeming idolization of the scriptures...an idol that needs to be torn down in our hearts.

I think another reason that Christians tend to believe the Bible is the infallible word of God is because it brings a certain amount of comfort and convenience; its comfortable to think that everything God wants to say to us has been perfectly preserved in a single ancient text, by which we can then build our rituals, beliefs and whole lives around. And its convenient to think in our minds "everything this book says about God is true, but everything in every other book is nonsense" because then we dont have to take any other religious/spiritual claim besides our own seriously. We dont want to think that the Bible may not be perfect and all true, because then we must undergo the unconvient task of determining what of it is really true (if any of it).

Now some will argue perhaps that the opposite is true; that its more comfortable to think that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, because then you can pick and choose out of it what you want to believe. But I've begun to wonder if the people that accuse others of this, arent themselves doing much the same thing? If one decides to believe that the Bible is true while everything else is false, then arent they "picking and choosing" what to believe and not to believe as well? The only difference is picking the text you want to believe from among the various sacred texts of the world, as opposed to picking the verses/passages out of a single text that you want to believe (which I think every Christian does anyways, whether they realize it or not).

So with all that said, I suppose one would ask why I still read the Bible and search it for truth, even though I see that there are errors and have come to the conclusion that its not all true? If part of the bible isnt true, why think any of it is? Well, that is the very question I think that kept me bound to thinking that the Bible was the infallible word of God, but then I realized I didnt treat anything else in life quite like that. For example, I may not agree with the Pastor of our church on every doctrinal matter, but still think he speaks alot of truth. Or I may not agree with every idea a politician has, but still vote for him because I agree with him far more than his opponent. So in the same way, its quite logical to believe there is immense truth revealed through the bible, even if much of it is colored by the writer's opinions and perceptions.

Anyway, I think there are many things about the Bible that intrigue me enough to look to it (or I would say, through it) to find truth; a few in particular that I would like to touch upon breifly. One such reason is that it paints us pictures of God and experiences with God from many different people's perceptions(and sometimes, multiple perceptions on the very same events, as we find in the gospels). And all of those people werent merely clergymen sitting around wondering what God may be like; the authors of the bible consisted of everyone from wealthy kings to tax collectors to simple fishermen. Having such a book with a broad palate of experiences given on God is valuable to say the least, but what makes it even more valuable is that there are timeless themes that seem to get repeated over and over throughout the book. Just a few examples of those themes would be love, forgiveness, mercy and salvation. Granted, there is a fair bit of tension on and around these concepts because there are different authors (hence where some of the error lies), but we shouldnt let that bother us anymore than the peeling paint on an old mural. We should look at and appreciate the overall picture we can see from a distance. Looking at that overall picture, or common themes, among many authors over many generations I think attests to a very real truth that is most likely inspired by the Creator himself.

Lastly, and probably most influentially is simply my experiences. I grew up in a family that honored the bible and the christian tradition, so of course it influences me from that angle. But one of the reasons I think the bible still has a great influence on my search for truth, is that its wisdom has visibly shown itself to be true and have a positive effect in my life. An easy example would be Matthew 6:31-33, where Jesus says "Do not be over-anxious, therefore, asking 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For all these are questions that Gentiles are always asking; but your Heavenly Father knows that you need these things--all of them. But make His Kingdom and righteousness your chief aim, and then these things shall all be given you in addition." I cant tell you how many times I've really needed something in my life, and it actually comes to me once I stop worrying about it and instead try and dwell on what God wants to do in my life. Perhaps it's just coincidence, but I feel its much more than that.

Another one that comes to mind is James 1:2-4 "Reckon it nothing but joy, my brethren, whenever you find yourselves hedged in by various trials. Be assured that the testing of your faith leads to power of endurance. Only let endurance have perfect results so that you may become perfect and complete, deficient in nothing." Several times I've gone through various trials and it really tests my faith and me as an individual, but I eventually see the good that comes of it and feel like a more "complete" person in general because of it. And I could go on and on with similar examples, but those are just a few.

In closing, while I dont think the Christian scriptures are without error, or should truthfully be called the Word of God, I also dont think that they have to be to find them immensely useful in my own spiritual journey. Its relevance and importance has shown itself to be true in my life and the peoples around me, and thus, I comb them for truth.

Why I Believe (Pt.1): Belief in God

2010-04-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

Introduction

Lately, I've been trying to deal with a question that has really been floating around in my head for quite sometime now, but just recently have felt more compelled to think upon. The question being "Why do I think I'm right about Christianity in the first place?". (Of course, I use the term "Christianity" loosely here, as I do not adhere to all the fundamental beliefs commonly held by Christians. Rather, I'm referring to the core ideas of Christianity that I still find to be true...such as the belief in God, divine inspiration of scripture, and obviously the teachings, atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ.) Which I suppose is the inevitable result of questioning/reexamining other long held beliefs, which I've been doing for almost two years now anyway.

But I'll be blunt, this is a scary question and one that I've greatly neglected; not only in writing about but in thinking about. Its one thing to question and reexamine a brick in the wall of your faith yet it's a whole nother thing to question the whole wall upon which your perceptions about life are built upon. But as uncomfortable as it may be, it's an extremely important question to ask. Because if I do not deeply understand why I believe all that I do, then I cannot expect myself to commit my life to said beliefs, let alone help anyone else to consider the same. So with that, I would like to take you on a little journey through a short series of blogs where I will investigate my core beliefs and why I believe them. And what better place to start, than at my belief in God.

The existence of humankind
Macro-evolution tells us that man evolved through several upon several mutations over a period of billions of years...from a tiny single celled organism to the complex multi-celled organism we are today. And while we do not possess superior abilities/mutations in comparison to all other animals, none-the-less we are very unique; particularly in our advanced intelligence and ingenuity that has caused us to dominate this planet.

This, from an atheistic standpoint, is said to have happened merely by chance. It just so happened that a universe came to be, with not only the right conditions for life to form, but also the right conditions to sling us high above the rest of the Earth's organisms; all because of one big multi-billion year long string of luck. And while I cant doubt the possibility, it all just seems much too unlikely and much too coincidental. Atheists such as Richard Dawkings must be conscious of this unlikely-hood as well, for them to suppose that there are an infinite number of universes and, what-do-you-know, this universe so happens to be the one that can sustain life and has caused humans to excel. But as interesting as this proposition is, I think the existence of just our one universe (without a creator in the formula) is puzzling enough on its own, let alone trillions of universes without one. Even Stephen Hawking admits in relation to our universe "it would be very difficult to explain why [it] would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us".

The beauty of life
Another thing that points me towards God is simply the very beauty that surrounds us and is in us. The amount of it in nature is astounding; whether it be scenery, majestic animals, the stars in the sky, or ourselves. Beyond that, the things we do and create bring in a whole new level of beauty into what already exists. We create art and music, think of theoretical and abstract ideas, construct breath-taking architecture, high-tech machines and have modeled the laws, agriculture and monetary systems that enhance our everyday lives. None of which any other organism (to my knowledge) does. And while nothing is perfect per say, and there are also many "ugly" things in our world (though I'd say this typically results from beautiful things being abused) its quite hard for me to see how this could've come together simply at random, with no supernatural intelligence(or God) involved. Even the simplest things like a child grow and learn over the years or seeing a beautiful girl smile, I find to be a clue that the splendor of existence had an intelligent source. Otherwise, as Tim Keller says "if we are [merely] the product of accidental natural forces, then what we call 'beauty' is nothing but a neurological hardwired response to particular data". And personally, I cannot accept that as an adequate answer for why such beauty exists at all.

the existence of morality
I'm pretty sure that just about every person I've ever met believes some things are right, while believing other things are wrong. Where does this sense of right and wrong come from? Certainly society and personal upbringing has something to do with it, but isn't it interesting that most people hold to the same general sense of morality and seem to have all throughout known history? Most societies in most times have taught that things like stealing, murder, cheating and lying to be wrong. And most societies in most times have taught that things like courage, justice, kindness, honesty, mercy, forgiveness and respect to be right (of course there are exceptions to this, but I'm saying in general). So it would appear to be that there is an inate sense of morality that supercedes that which is defined personally and culturally.

Some suggest that morality is the result of individuals surviving in greater numbers when they displayed the above "right" characteristics, as opposed to those who displayed above "wrong" characteristics. Thus, the favorable genes of the more unselfish individuals got passed down, causing most of us to feel these universal ideas of right and wrong. In other words, its only natural that our instinct tries to compel us to do the right things over the wrong things, because the right things help us survive. But do they always help us survive?

Stealing is considered wrong, yet if I'm a starving hobo the best course of action for survival may indeed be me stealing some guys hot dog, or robbing a convenience store. The right thing to do (which would be to not steal at all) wouldn't aid me in my survival in this instance. Helping people stranded on the road with car problems is considered courteous and right, yet doing so may cause me to be late to work and lose my job; and certainly the risk of losing my job or putting it in jeopardy wouldn't aid my survival in any way either. So the question still remains; where does this universal sense of right and wrong come from? Why do we feel inclined to adhere to it, even when it determents our survival? Well, my answer is that perhaps there is a God, who put it there in order to teach us what is good, and help lay a path for living life that goes deeper than even any religious text or life philosophy. Not only that, but it seems to imply there is some real purpose to our existence beyond just living and dying (purpose being something I talked about in a previous blog).

The unfulfillable void
Perhaps the evidence I find most compelling for the existence of God, is that each human seems to have a particular void in them that appears to leak whatever they put into it. And the hunger that void creates, I contend, drives us to do all that we do in life. We try to fill it with money, success, relationships, possessions, fame and even video games...but all of it fails at keeping this void satisfied. This is perhaps why many musicians who've dominated the charts and seem to have all that you could ever want, still sing about emptiness and fall into life-shattering things like drug addictions. If there is nothing beyond the physical and said void is purely an evolutionary mechanism to help us survive, such situations really make no sense. After all, most of those musicians have all the food, sex, money and fun they could possibly ask for, let alone need...so why should they continue to find themselves so unsatisfied and broken? From an evolutionarily perspective, they are surviving very well and probably reproducing, so how are we to explain this phenomena of emptiness?

I've heard some say that it is merely a fluke or just "evolutionary baggage" we acquired over time, as I believe Carl Sagan said. And while I suppose thats possible I just don't find that answer to be satisfactory. I think that the void is unfulfillable by any worldly thing for a much more significant reason. That reason being that it was purposely put there to show us we need something other-worldly to complete us; and it is my strong feeling that this other-worldly thing is a creator God who wants to have relationship with us.

A Pair of Divine 3-D Glasses

2010-02-23T02:09:00.000-06:00

The "trinity" is one of the most sacred and cornerstone beliefs of the Christian faith...but is it true?

If you're not familiar with the term "trinity" I'll try and give a brief run down (though to be honest I still don't understand very well, even after attending a church with "trinity" in the name for several years). As with anything, there are various view points and ways of describing it, but in a nutshell the "trinity" states that God is one deity, composed of three distinct persons...Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is argued however that these are not three separate gods, for each one represents God in totality. One is three, but each of the three is equal to the one all by itself...somehow. So in math it would be something like this I guess,

1=3

3=1

1+1+1=1

and,

1÷3=1

Now I may have only passed Algebra II by the skin of my teeth, but I'm pretty sure none of the above mathematical statements work. In other words, the "trinity" really makes no sense. And oddly those that advocate it usually admit that. The justification? "Well its just how God is, because He's higher than us. You're not supposed to get it". And if there is one thing I've learned about statements like that, is that they are nothing more than giant rainbow-colored tarps draped over the elephants in the room of religion. Nobody really gets it or understands exactly why it is true, so rather than actually test its validity, we just explain it away with theological gibberish. This is probably why every time I've asked someone to explain the "trinity", or read a scholars opinion on it, its always just a confusing garbled mess of words that really don't add up to anything at all(which looking at the math above, seems to show why). I was reading one theologian's definition last night, for example, and I honestly thought he was trying to weave such a confusing web of ideas, as to purposefully make the lay person go "yeah, well, he used a bunch of big words, so I guess he must know what hes talking about!". Please understand, I don't say this to poke fun at people that believe in the "trinity"(after all, I believed it myself), but rather to be honest about how I've come to see the idea.

Anyway, now that I've told you a bit about the "trinity", I want to begin talking about the view that I am coming into by quoting Colossians 1:15(a), which states,

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God...

Simple enough, right? Yet it sparked a divine revelation in me in regards to what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit actually are. In regards to Jesus, it simply means that His purpose was to be a tangible, visible, and audible representation of God to mankind. In this respect, what Jesus actually was/is goes well beyond the apostle Paul's analogy of an "image", but since no one had any idea what a video or hologram was back then, I think it was the best term he could use (haha). I also have a curious feeling that Paul used that term to allude to the creation of man story in Genesis 1:26, which states,

And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness

I always thought this meant we were made to look like God the Father, but how are you made to look like something that is (according to Col 1:15) invisible? However, if Jesus is the image of God, it seems to make a bit more sense what we have been modeled after; Jesus is the archetype for humanity. And really this goes back to the second part of Colossians 1:15(b) which calls Jesus the "firstborn of all creation". Jesus was, in some sense, in existence before Adam and is what Adam was made "in". This is affirmed in verse 16 which says, "because in [Jesus] were the all things created...all things through him, and for him, have been created". I feel this is key to understanding not only what Jesus is, but also what we are and our relationship to Him.

So I suppose the million dollar question is "Is Jesus God"? To which I answer: in a sense, yes, in another sense, no. If Jesus is the "image" of God, then he can not logically be God simultaneously. If my mother shows a picture of me to someone and says "thats my son, Eric", the person seeing it perfectly understands that I am not literally that thin piece of paper with a colorized image on it. The picture is just a photographic capture of all my features. In a similar way, Jesus the man is not literally God, However, Jesus perfectly represents God(as perfectly as one could represent God in our physical realm, anyways).

This is why Jesus could rightly say "He who has seen me has seen the Father"(John 14:9). But Jesus himself is not God the Father, otherwise how could He say "the Father is greater than I"(John 14:28)? Or how could He say that "concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"(Mat 24:36)? According to the "trinity", the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are "coequals", but to be equals one cannot logically be greater or wiser than another. To be equals one cannot be the "head" of another, as we are told God is the head of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:3. And to be equals, one cannot be made subject to the other, as we are told Christ is made subject(or literally "put under") to God as we are told in 1 Corinthians 15:28. So while the man Jesus displays God by His words and actions, His unique nature causes Him to be limited in providing an all-encompassing display of God. It's still confusing to me, but I think its fair to say that Jesus is sort of like a divine pair of 3D glasses, if you will. Humanity previously had the words of the prophets and the Jewish religion that provided humanity with an intro to God. But God, being an invisible spirit, was still probably a hard to grasp concept for them(afterall sometimes He was a burning bush, other times a pillar of fire or cloud, it was all rather mysterious) making it hard to really have relationship with God or understand Him truly. So the Son of God comes upon our eyes and upon our hearts, and projects a previously hard-to-look-at, red, and blue reality, into an image we feel is right in front of our faces so that we can begin to grasp who God is and how personal He is. Christ is our way of seeing God in a new way, within our reality.

I've always liked Carl Sagan's simple illustration of the 4th dimension, and have heard it related to Jesus before. I'll post it here if you want to see it,

You could say that human existence is in "flat land" while the apple is God in Christ, displaying His image for us to know and follow. God in totality cannot be fully realized in our world, but Jesus is our glimpse at Him, His characteristics and plan.

This makes Jesus's existence really quite unlike anything else, and while I dont think the "trinity" paints it completely accurate or logical, I don't wish to diminish the complex miracle that He is. Jesus is the logos, or reasoning/expression of God (translated as the "Word" in scripture) combined with a human embryo, which gives the logos of God a physical vessel by which to display Himself to mankind and speak His will for us. Perhaps one could say Jesus's persona is literally the logos of God, which according to John 1:1, was with God in the beginning and yet was God. To be honest, I'm still figuring out what the Hades that even means exactly, but I think the idea of Jesus being a combination of a man and God's logos actually gives some weight to the mainstream idea of Jesus being "fully God, yet fully man". That never made sense to me previously, but now I think it simply means the logos (which is God) embodies Jesus(which is a man).

It is symbolic of the divine union that God has always had in mind for Him and humanity. Jesus was the original design from which Adam was created, but then God allowed sin to temporarily disrupt the union between God and man. God did this in order that man attempt to live a holy life according to God's law; a feat that was also meant to fail and to show us that we can never do enough good things to overcome our fallen condition and separation. So God sends His logos into our physical dimension to teach us, to show us a new and beautiful picture of Himself and to ultimately fulfill the law(because He was perfect), so that our salvation from sin and separation would not be based on our actions but on Christ's sacrifice on the cross. This has paved the way for Gods new covenant of humanity, in which those awakened to the truth become "one, as [the Father] and [Jesus] are one"(John 17:22) and ultimately will come to completion within all of humanity, at the time when God becomes "all in all"(1 Co 15:28)

The Comfort of Faith

2010-01-29T14:43:00.000-06:00

(Yeah, how's that for a typical christian blog title!? Oh yeah! lol)

A comment I've heard at least on a few occasions from atheists is how they do not (or no longer) understand how people honestly find comfort in their "Christian" beliefs. While I think such accusations depend entirely on which particular beliefs and interpretations one associates as "Christian", I thought it might be fun to blog about what I find comforting about my particular beliefs, and then relate that to how I see the atheist perception. Please note that I am not saying Christianity (or my version of it) should be believed over atheism or any other belief system simply because it may be theoretically more comforting. Rather, I simply mean to describe some the ways I do find it more comforting and leave it at that.

Comfort of purpose

One of the things I find comforting about my faith is the comfort of having a purpose in life. The atheist will argue they have purpose as well, but the difference is, is that they personally create and define what that is...where as mine (at least, I believe) was created and defined by God. Which one is more comforting is, of course, up for debate and really depends on how you look at it. But I think there is something much more comforting about the belief that I was created with a divine purpose, rather than purpose just being some abstract and imaginary concept that I can construct to justify my existence.

Even if I were to find the later take on purpose as more or equally comforting as the first, there would be the whole issue of my constructed purpose being completely "on my shoulders". In other words, the fulfillment of my purpose would rest entirely on me and thus the possibility of me failing my self-made purpose would be very real. However in my view, while I may be able to mess up minor details in regards to my purpose, I believe that God will not leave it unfulfilled(at least in the big things). He will work through me and my life circumstances to bring about the tasks He wants me to complete, ultimately ending in my main purpose which is to love and fellowship with Him long after I am physically dead.

Comfort of Afterlife

The idea of an afterlife has always been comforting to me to a degree, though looking back on my traditional Christian views on it (where some experience unending paradise while the mass majority experience unending suffering) I can certainly understand how some don't find the idea as particularly comforting. But now that I believe that all will attain fellowship and paradise with God in the afterlife eventually, its much easier for me to grasp the overwhelming comfort that the idea of the afterlife brings. Knowing that I will still exist in some form consciously even after my human life is over is part of the comfort, as I must say that does seem more appealing than the atheistic alternative of just ceasing to exist altogether. But even more comforting is the thought of seeing loved ones again, along with the rest of resurrected/perfected humanity and being able to look back on all our successes and failures to see the glorious outcome it created.

Comfort of Unconditional love

Unconditional love is one of those abstract concepts that I don't think we as humans are truly capable of demonstrating, at least not in our earthly/imperfect selves. I think its certainly possible to love someone your whole life no matter what, but it is so very rare. And because of our imperfect nature and imperfect world...it can also never be guaranteed. Even when unconditional love does exist, I think the one who loves (consciously or subconsciously) still has a line where, once crossed, all hope of relationship will be abandoned or at least postponed. This is perhaps why so many people who get married and commit their lives to each other end up in divorce, because while there may always be love, it has reached an impasse.

And while in traditional Christianity, God does reach such an eternal impasse with humans if certain conditions are not met, it is my belief that He does not. It is my belief that God will continue loving us and working on us as moral beings throughout this life and the next. And to know that at least one person will never give up on you, and never stop loving you even after you die, is perhaps the most comforting thing I can think of.

Cut and paste theology

2009-12-18T14:40:00.000-06:00

"Well, you cant just cut out the parts of the Bible you dont like"

As i've begun to have not-so-traditional interpretations of the Bible and Christianity, Ive heard this phrase more and more. The ironic thing always being that I never recall asking that we "cut out" any part of scripture to begin with. Of course what people usually mean by this is that we should make sure not to just ignore certain parts of the Bible, and instead interpret each verse/passage with the whole of scripture in mind. And while I agree with that idea, I contend that doing so does not magically lead you to one unassailable Biblical perspective...as those who use this phrase seem to think.

The first reason for this, is simply that every person who reads the Bible comes to it with prior assumptions. These may come from a sermon you heard last week, something your parents told you when you were young, a book you read by Joel Olsteen, or dare I say that which you desire to be true or false. All these things and more help create the lens by which we view and read the Bible(or really anything else in life). In some cases it helps us connect ideas and events in a way that aids our understanding. A simple a connection I remember making at a young age was from the story in Genesis 22; where God tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, but at the altar provides Abraham with a ram to sacrifice instead. I quickly saw that story as a foretaste of Christ's future atonement , that I probably wouldnt have seen had I not been already familiar with the Gospels.

However in other cases, our presumptions hinder us from seeing things that otherwise would maybe be more apparent. This is because some of our presumptions are very "set in stone"(or what I call core beliefs). If one is to define something as a core, unmovable belief, then any passage or verse that seems in opposition to that, is systematically going to be interpreted around that core belief. One of the typical core beliefs of a Christian, for example, is the deity of Christ. So when they read a verse like, Ephesians 1:2 where Paul says, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Its not likely they are going to assume that Paul means that Jesus isnt God, even though Paul references God and Jesus here almost as if they are two separate beings entirely. Rather, one might say, Paul's simply refering to Jesus and the Father in a "trinitarian" sense (Thats not the greatest example, but you get the idea). Now, with that said, many peoples core beliefs do change on occasion. But it happens more slowly and a lot less often than our perspectives on more "minor" biblical issues(such as baby baptisms and the rapture). Core beliefs are usually so deeply hardwired into our hearts and minds, that to modify them requires a major reassessment of our world and biblical view. So even in the face of considerable evidence it is only natural that we fight for these ideas tooth and nail...even to our "theological death" so to speak.

Our presuppositions on the Bible are also developed through our readings of other parts of the Bible. Each interpretation we make about a particular verse/passage will in some way affect how we see another verse/passage...be that in the same chapter or 8 books later. One particular conflict that is solved in such a way, is in regards to Jesus being the savior of "all men" and the existence of an "eternal" Hell. Both are concepts founded on several verses, but at face value we logically cant believe both ideas. Jesus cannot save all mankind and yet, some be lost eternally to Hell...its a contradiction, so we have to make some interpretations here. We may interpret that Jesus is the savior of all, but only in the sense that He can potentially save all, thus allowing for the existence of a never ending Hell for some. Or we may interpret that the Hell texts do not speak of a literally unending punishment and that any punishment God gives is for our ultimate good, thus allowing for Jesus to be the savior of every single person at some point. The reasonings for both conclusions can be debated of course, but in both cases one interpretation gives way to another.

This is how we make sense of the Bible, by subliminally bending texts around the poles of our core beliefs. Which is why I find the phrase "You're just twisting scripture to say what you want it to say!" to be as pointless as the cutting out scripture phrase . Because everyone, in some sense "twists" verses around their deepest held theological ideas to compile a coherent perspective on the Bible and what it says about God, life and us. Theres pretty much no way not to do that, because without it the Bible is nothing more than contradictory books and letters that adhere to no rhyme, reason or purpose. Some verses/passages have to be assigned minor roles, if you will, so that the main concepts of the Bible can play on the center stage of our interpretations. This doesnt in any way mean you ignore certain verses, it just means you arrange them so that coherency can exist among them. Without our ability to give order to concepts and ideas presented in scripture, I think it loses its most important quality which is its spiritual quality. And the only way to do this is by praying and listening to what God is saying to us as we read. Otherwise you may arrange a coherent sounding theology, but it'll just be a big tower of cleverly stacked falsehoods.

Lately, this realization has caused me to lose a bit of interest in debating, particularly in regards to Bible verse meanings. It can be fun, and I think its actually somewhat of a necessity to challenge one another on them for personal growth and understanding. But there are just so many different ways to look at and connect its themes, that it seems pretty prideful for me or anyone to jump up and shout "EUREKA! I have constructed the perfect grid for which to arrange all Biblical concepts!". Obviously I feel the way that my theological grid arranges the main concepts of the Bible is the most compelling, or I would simply just believe something else. But its not my place to tell people how they have to interpret things, I can only share the reasons why I interpret things the way I do and politely leave it at that.

To preach, or not to preach?

2009-11-21T00:16:00.000-06:00

So as many of you know by now, I'm beginning to believe that I am called to be a pastor, or something ministry related at least. There are a number of reasons that have been more or less "snow balling" within me, however I believe the conclusion was finally triggered a few days ago. And so Im going to attempt to walk through the process that brought me here, in hopes to clarify to myself (and to others) what I'm thinking on this...

The last several weeks/months have left me very frustrated with life, what with my car dying, my job giving me less and less hours, and my graphic design leads giving me less than stellar results. I had been feeling for a few months now that maybe I was supposed to do something that didnt strictly pertain to my graphic design degree, but I wasnt sure just what. That and I tried to avoid thinking about it, since I didnt want to be one of those American morons that spent years going to college for something, only to realize afterwards that they wanted to pursue something else entirely. But the doors of opportunity appear all but open in this crappy economy. So finally I prayed in desperation, asking God to tell me what I was supposed to do even if I didnt want to hear it, and the idea of a pastor and ministry immediately came to mind. Being as its something ive only passingly entertained in my mind before, I naturally asked God if He had gone completely mad or if I was just hearing things.

After mulling it over for awhile though it began to make more sense. Over the past several months I've heard time and time again, from both Christians and non-Christians, that I should be a pastor...though I'd always respond how I didn't feel cut out for that line of spiritual duty (and Im still wondering if I am). After all, who am I really? Just some artist/musician guy who writes religious blogs and works at a supermarket. I have a number of issues that cause me not to be the model Christian more often than not(ex. impatience, laziness, selfishness) , and I struggled with giving speeches in both high school and college. So I certainly wouldn't seem to be the most likely candidate for a preacher-type.

Though I guess when you think about it, Jesus chose some pretty unlikely people to first spread His word; A couple of them were fishermen, Matthew was a tax collector and the apostle Paul murdered Christians before Jesus appeared to Him. Prior to Jesus calling them, none of them probably had a clue as to the great roles they would play in God's story. And perhaps in a similar way, God has used other people to call me to something I never would have considered in years past.

Another thing thats helped spur me in this direction, is my over all frustration with "church" and Christianity in general. As ive stated before, its really been a struggle finding my place within a system that I no longer believe in. I love God, I love the scriptures, I love all my Christian brothers and sisters and I support many things that churches are doing throughout the world. However, going to church in the attempt to salvage what truth I can and plant seeds of knowledge, has been an endeavor that has left me more frustrated than uplifted. All you are given in church today, are traditional interpretations and ideas(with small variances here and there) in a manner that leaves little room for personal interpretation. And if you are so bold as to question the clergy's interpretation, you are often looked down upon and told how you cannot possibly be right. Which makes my biggest problem with Christianity not the fact that I disagree with it on a couple key beliefs, but that it has fooled itself into thinking its beliefs are beyond reconsideration.

As long as Christianity lives in that delusion, it will continue to discourage its participators from thinking and discerning for themselves. As long as people arent discerning for themselves, they will continue to commit the most tragic crime of religion: elevating man-made beliefs above God's conviction within us. And the more I realize this, the harder it is to simply sit by while good-intending leaders of faith, direct people down a path that can cripple their spiritual growth (as it did mine). Thats why, God willingly, I want to bring believers together in a setting where people arent guilt-tripped into believing a certain set of doctrines, but are free to have their own interpretations. A place where I can give a message according to what I feel God is showing me, but also let everyone voice their opinion. A place where I can tell people about Gods truly unconditional love and salvation for humanity, that I never learned about in "church". A place where I and others are truly unbound by fundamentalism, to search the scriptures ourselves and see what is true. Perhaps some meetings we wont even talk about the God, but simply go out into the community and reflect God in deed. And the only setting I can think of that this would be realistic would be in like in a home or some other non-formal location.

Im not sure whether God is really calling me to ministry or not, or just how exactly I am supposed to go about that. And my views on any of the above ideals could change or become more specific, especially in my ordination process (which is part of the reason I want to go through with it, to give me time to sort out my vision). But if He is calling me to minister, I hope I can help give people the tools to search out God themselves through the scriptures, and underpin it with the fact that God's spirit is the ultimate teacher...not a creed, not a church, not a theologian, and certainly not me.

So to preach, or not to preach? I dont know, but either way I'll still make annoying Facebook statuses ;)

If Hell isnt eternal, how can Heaven be?

2009-11-10T16:50:00.000-06:00

Once again, I got into the subject of universal salvation, this time over on the Faith Freaks forum. One of the objections was a popular one that, up until recently, I didn't feel very good at answering; hence I didn't really write a blog strictly pertaining to it until now (whether I am any good at explaining it now, you can be the judge). The objection was,

"If Hell isn't eternal, how can Heaven be eternal?"

This line of thinking comes from verses like Matthew 25:46, which reads,

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

And at face value, this verse seems to denote that the coming punishment (Hell) is literally eternal in duration, as well as the coming life (Heaven). But I believe the truth of the matter lies within a Greek word I have talked about long ago on here, which is the word aionios. It is the word in Matthew 25:46 (as well in many verses) that is often translated as "eternal". However, it is not always translated so. In fact, some scholars would argue that it should never be translated as forever or eternal, except perhaps in the case of God. This is because aionios is an adjective, which derives its character from the subject to which it refers. In other words, its time duration is defined by the subject it's attached to.

To clarify further, aionios is kind of like our English word "tall". If I use "tall" in a sentence like,

"There was a tall man at the park, and he even had a tall dog! What a coincidence?" and I say that I think the man was around 6'7", you're probably not going to think that the dog was also 6'7"! That's because the word "tall" in itself has no set height, its only a general term for describing height. What its actual height may be is completely relative to the subject in question. So the dog could have been less than half of the mans height, but still be considered tall for a dog. Such is the same with aionios, except in regards to time. (note: as I'm sure you know, several other English words function this way as well. Such as "big", "great", "long" and "thin")

This dismantles the common objection that aionios must be rendered as eternal, even if used multiple times in the same sentence. There are several Biblical examples in which this is obvious, one such is Romans 16:25-26,

"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long [aionios]

but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the [aionios] God"

The first aionios obviously does not mean eternal and it appears most Bible translations recognize that (because it makes no sense to say a mystery was kept secret for eternity, but then say it "has now been disclosed". That butchers the meaning of eternity, which is "without end"). However, the second use of aionios is rendered eternal because we understand God to be literally eternal or without end. Gods eternal property is not changed simply because the same word earlier in the sentence does not mean eternal. And I would argue that in the same way, the eternal property of "eternal life" in verses like Mat. 25:46, is not changed by the fact that "eternal punishment" is not literally without end.

Now you may object, and ask as to why I think aionios in the case of life literally means eternal, where as punishment I believe it is only temporary? And I suppose there are several reasons why I think this, many of which I talk about on my blogs here. However, without writing another blogs worth of information, I would simply like to point to how scripture defines the coming punishment. As you may recall, the original punishment decreed by God for sin was "death" (Gen. 2:17). In the new testament, Paul echos this by saying the wages of sin is "death" (Ro. 6:23). And the lake of fire in scripture is called the "second death"(Rev. 21:8). So "death", whatever that entails, is the punishment for sin, the aionion punishment talked about in places such as Matt 25:46. Yet this punishment of "death" (both first, second, third, whatever) cannot possibly be eternal, because we are told in 1 cortinthians 15:26 that "the last enemy to be destroyed is death"

So if a time comes when death is destroyed (both in the physical sense and the spiritual separation sense) what is logically left to partake in? Life! Not just a physical life, but also a spiritual life. This conclusion fits nicely within context because in the following verse it talks of God subjecting all things to Himself, and ends with verse 28 which states that God will be "all in all". And in order for God to be all in all that is subjected to him, the period of punishment and separation must come to an end at some point in the future.

I'm certainly no Greek scholar, as I've said before. and I'm sure there are much wiser people that will disagree. But hopefully this sheds some light of understanding for you, on texts that seem to speak of "eternal" punishment.

God cannot? or God will not?

2009-10-18T17:16:00.000-05:00

Under all the controversial Greek words and different perceptions on key Bible texts, I really feel the universal salvation debate comes down to this; If God does not save all humanity, it is because He either cannot...or will not. All the opposing arguments that can be raised against Ultimate Reconciliation, boil down to one of those two morbid conclusions. And it seems to me that both conclusions are riddled with problems even just within themselves.

God cannot?

This is the conclusion we must come to, if the Arminians are correct(this is where most of mainstream theology falls). Because they propose that although God would really like all peoples to be saved, he cannot execute it because of "free" will. This is the more "friendly" conclusion of the two, since it paints God as sortof a hopeless romantic, rather than a big-fat-meanie-face. Yet I find it poses God as either very weak, or very in lack of priority.

In this view, He seems very weak because there is a force(ie human "free" will and or Satan) that can overcome His plans against His will, and for all eternity none the less. Either that, or He seems very in lack of priority because (as I stated in last weeks blog) He views human "free" will as the most sacrosanct thing in all the universe, even in the case of it doing irreparable destruction to ourselves. And as I said before, that would not be a demonstration of ultimate love, but a demonstration of ultimate apathy for His very own creations.

If we boil the "God cannot" theology down even father, we continue to find the same apathy. Because even though God isnt barring anyone from accepting his grace, He already knows that most will never accept or benefit from it. But if God knew that all humankind could not be saved(despite His desire to) that means He brought billions upon billions of people into existence, knowing that most would be forever doomed! You can pawn it on "free" will and the Devil all day long, but the bare bones of it is that He knew, yet still made...which seems no more responsible than two minimum-wage-earning adults, purposefully having more kids than their salary can obviously support...then blaming most the kids for their starvation, instead of themselves and their bad planning. I would grandly hope God is not that ridiculously stupid.

Some will argue that perhaps God does not actually know the future, or at least does not know who will be saved when all is said and done(one such idea is open theism). That would seemingly get God off-the-hook, except that that would mean God just took a huge gamble with the eternal destinies of mankind. God created humanity, and didnt stop its condemnation, knowing at least that the outcome could be less than all souls finding redemption. This poses God both as a cosmic gambler and a haphazard, inept creator...none of which can I believe God to be.

God will not?

This is the conclusion we must come to, if the Calvinists are correct. They propose that God will save all that He so desires(which is the "elect"), but God simply does not desire to save all people. He could save all, if He wanted, but He doesnt want to...thus He will not. So yet again were presented with the cosmic gambler, who rolls a big die in the sky on who He will love and who He will not. If youre lucky, God will lavish the knowledge of the truth to you and give you eternal paradise! But if youre not so lucky, you will become one of Gods eternal stress balls.

I find this view, deeply more disturbing. Partly because it doesnt have the human "free" will scapegoat to clean Gods hands of our big sin mess(which it wouldnt anyway, but I digress). But mostly because it means that God purposefully created people that He not only knew wouldnt be saved, but didnt want to save either and finds glory in their everlasting torture. God has the ability to cure all his offspring(through Christ), but chooses only some while disowning the rest and leaving them to die. And I cant help but ask, would that even be a god you could love with all of your heart? Many calvinists or reformed people claim so, but I honestly dont think I could.

In conclusion, this is the question I ultimately came to before knowing about universalism, and I think it applies to both the Arminian and Calvinist view: Why would God even create a single, precious soul, allow them to be born into sin and yet not want to rescue them or know he wouldn't be able to? If you do not believe in ultimate reconciliation, I really challenge you to chew on that question this week.

Choice, and its various shades of grey

2009-10-10T20:45:00.000-05:00

Choice. Its a word you often find in Christian discussion, commonly used to articulate beliefs such as "free" will. Many Christians like to use it in attempt to sort of cleanse God's hands of any responsibility, regarding His creation and their deeds(particularly choices that determine ones afterlife destination). They may use it in a sentence like "Well God loves everyone, but He loves them so much that He gives them a free will choice!" or "God nor anyone else causes people to do bad things, they choose themselves to do bad things! He wants them to do good, but its their choice!"

And of course that sounds all warm and fuzzy, and seems like a simple enough concept to grasp. I certainly accepted it for many years. But once I really dived into some of the variables surrounding "choice", I found that it appeared to lose its supposed "black and white" simplicity, and gain various shades of grey.

Lack of Information
One of those shades of grey, is lack of information about the very choices being made. For example, I typically love Asian food, so I may be given the chance by some friends to try sushi for the first time. Lets say however, that I am unaware and uninformed that sushi has raw fish in it which has a higher chance of food-borne illness...and lucky me ends up getting some sort of stomach virus from it. Would it therefore be logical to say I "chose" to have a stomach virus by eating sushi? Probably not, since no one even bothered to inform me on the contents of sushi or the risks. You could say that I probably should have investigated a bit further on the food before hand, which may be true...but regardless is not rational to say that I chose to have the stomach virus, being that the possible result was unknown to me.

In the same way, I don't think its fair to make the deduction that people choose Hell and separation from God, merely because they chose to eat the "sushi" in life(aka sin). People with lack of information on the consequences of sin, do not choose the consequences themselves; they chose the sin in ignorance.

Hindsight
Going back to my sushi analogy, if I eat the sushi and contract a virus from it, what is the likely-hood that I'm going to eat sushi again? Probably not very high. If I do, I can certainly tell you it would eventually lose all appeal to me; if getting sick was a constant result of me eating it. Hindsight and often regret is the result of many of our choices in life, but thankfully we have the capability to learn from them(even if that takes a long while, haha). Thus, it seems like an enormous assumption for mainstream Christianity to say that most of human kind will never learn from their mistakes (in choosing something other than God), and will continue their unrelenting rebellion for all time. I personally cant accept that as a reasonable conclusion to make, especially in light of verses such as Philippians 2:10-11,

"in order that in the Name of JESUS every knee should bow, of beings in Heaven, of those on the earth, and of those in the underworld(wouldn't that be "Hell"),
and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD, to the glory of God the Father."

I don't know about you, but the picture of everything in the universe bowing and confessing to Jesus...just doesn't scream "unending rebellion against God" to me. Obviously there must come a point where, in hindsight, everyone and everything realizes and confirms that Jesus is LORD!

Disbelief
This is a big one. If someone tells me that a crappy looking bridge is safe to cross, can I merely choose to believe them without any confirming evidence? If its breaking apart in certain areas and looks extremely old, chances are I'm not going to personally see the reason to believe that it is safe. Try as I might to believe this person, something needs to cause me to believe that the bridge isn't going to give way and let me fall to my death, after taking 5 steps across it.

That belief isn't something I can just "drum-up" out of thin air and choose to have, it is caused into existence by something else. That something else could be watching other people cross that bridge and not die, or perhaps reading the results of a safety inspection regarding the bridge. So its not a matter of whether I chose to believe the bridge is safe, but whether something convinces me that the bridge is safe...and therefore my belief in the bridge is born.

Misrepresentation/misinterpretation
On a more solemn note, I remember reading something very disturbing once. It said that above the doors to the gas chambers the Nazis put Jews in, read "Christ killers". Regardless of any pre-conceived notions those Jews had about the person of Jesus, do you think reading that had a positive effect on what they thought of this Christ and those that supposedly claimed to do His "work"? Do you think they were any more likely to accept Jesus into their heart in their last moments after reading that? No, of course not. The disgusting actions of Hitler and the Nazis, presented those Jews with a false representation of Christ and His followers...thus marring and probably destroying any hope of those people coming to Christ before they died. And it isn't just the Nazis who have presented people with a false representation of Christ; its happened with the KKK,the Westboro Baptists(God hates fags), "Turn or burn" preachers, Catholic priests molesting children, and even some of the most well-meaning Christians who present God as an ever angry, unsatisfied deity.
Misrepresentation and misinterpretation on who God is and how He views us, radically impacts our Earthly choices to serve and obey him. It also radically impacts whether a love for God is fostered within us. If I'm a Jew hearing about that "Christ killers" story, its very likely that I'm going to think the Christian view of God is a very-antisemitic and demented sort of God... I wouldn't love him or want to obey him based upon that false interpretation.

Choice shouldn't overshadow safety
Its really kind of puzzling to me when I hear other Christians say,

"God loves us SO much, and respects our ability to choose SO much, that He will let people rot and writhe in Hell eternally if they so choose."

As if God letting us toss and scream in our own sin forever, was somehow an ultimate demonstration of true love. If God truly loves anyone, I would sincerely hope that His respect for our choices would never be placed above His will for our eternal safety.

If I had a son who was drowning in the ocean, and I had the means to save him, I somehow doubt it would matter to me if he screamed "NO!!!". My love for his life and well being would be greater than whatever ignorance he was undergoing to think that he can either save himself or that dieing would be better. In the same way, I think there comes a point where God values our eternal well being above our choices. For him to do otherwise, would speak of a far more disturbing evil than the Christian "no-no" of God interfering with our choices.

There are really countless other variables I could bring up(and have in some blogs) that constantly effect our choices both big and small. Choice is not some black and white, free of influence decision, as Christianity would like to paint it. And I truly believe that God is smart enough to realize that as well.

One body of Christ

2009-09-30T19:00:00.000-05:00

Long before I ever came into my period of "questioning" my beliefs, throughout the years I never really understood why Christianity was divided into the thousands of denominations we have today. I suppose if we wanted to know how, we would have to look at church history and the reformation from the Roman Catholic Church and so on. But I just always thought the idea that we as Christians needing to "further define our beliefs" by creating sub-genres for ourselves (over petty issues like "I dont believe in baptizin' no babies!") was rather silly.

Thus in the past 8 or so years of being "saved" Ive never really considered myself any particular denomination (well when I was a little kid I called myself Catholic having no idea what that meant, but my dad was! And later in life I would sometimes call myself a Wesleyan if people asked since the church I was baptized in was Wesleyan). But I never really felt that urge to box my beliefs up and brand them with a label for all to see that Im "part of THAT group". I was saved, I was Christian, I believed in the Bible...and that was good enough for me. Even when I found myself becoming a Christian Universalist this past year, I was reluctant to embrace the label. Not because I was ashamed of it, but its easy for people to see "universalist" and equate that with "Unitarian"(which Im not going to get into the difference right now). So before I even get a chance to talk about my beliefs, already people will assume things about me and my beliefs that aren't necessarily true. Though I suppose that will happen no matter what I do or call myself, and even the "Christian" label itself has those general assumptions attached. Anyway, getting back to the point...

I suppose one could say that denominations and sub-groups exist, to keep groups of people happily worshiping God the way they want; which I would say is an important thing in essence. I mean, I wouldn't want to rattle the old folk with our "loud" worship music and make them squint at power point slides if they didnt want to (which is obviously why most churches have contemporary and traditional services). And I wouldn't want to force people to attend services where speaking in tongues and convulsing on the floor are regular activities, if they didn't feel comfortable with that brand of "holy spirit fun".

But the real problem ive begun to see is that denominations, whatever "pros" there may be to them, keep Christians very divided. Every denomination, or sub division we create for ourselves as believers in Christ, only creates more separation in what is supposed to be one body of Christ. And a body divided...is not really a fully functioning body the way it was designed to be. Paul talked about the subject a few different times I believe, but I think he really sumed it up in 1 Corinthians 12:17-19

If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the nostrils be? But, as a matter of fact, God has arranged the parts in the body--every one of them--as He has seen fit. If they were all one part, where would the body be?

Every person, no matter what denomination, or how different their beliefs may be...functions in a certain way that another person cannot(or perhaps cannot yet). Each individual "member" has the ability to see and do things that maybe another person with another personality and perception cannot. For example, some people may be more equipped to do prison ministry because their background is that of an ex-felon. Or more related to what I'm talking about, some people may have been shown a side of "truth" that maybe another person isn't yet able to see. Just like the brain is unable to perceive smell without the use of the noise. Nor can it perceive sound, without the use of the ear. Certain body parts do certain things, but they're all pretty much needed to be connected as one, in order to be a healthy, working, full-fledged body.

One line in a lyric by ascitiesburn kindof attests to the absurdity of divided believers,

And if we are the Body, how'd the pretty man get so ugly?

How'd He get all these, spaces between each limb?

Anyway, this is an important reminder to me, because as my beliefs and perceptions drift further away from what I always call "mainstream Christianity", Ive really questioned my place in a system I no longer fully embrace. Ive found it increasingly hard for me to fellowship, participate in church and play the smiling "im okay everybody!" game, when I feel there are many lies about God and His plan being preached and largely unexamined. However, I'm coming to find that I should not let that in anyway hinder my fellowship with believers that ascribe to the mainstream(though many times its actually they who want nothing to do with me). And if anything, that should be all the more reason to participate in the mainstream Christian system(at least from time to time); to help people to think about what I feel God has been showing me, and in turn, learn some things that I don't yet see or understand.

Universalism and all the things Ive learned have been great, and I would love to attend a church(or perhaps even start a small group/house church) that believes in such things at some point. But on the other hand, the body of Christ does not need more division. It needs more unity, to fully function and perform the will of God on Earth. It needs tolerance to accept the fact that not everyone interprets the bible the same, and not everyone has the same perspective on things. Just because someone doesnt believe the same as you, doesnt necessarily mean that they're wrong; it just means that God perhaps has not yet revealed to them what hes revealed to you. Or maybe even Hes revealed some things to them, that you haven't been yet shown (and here you thought you had God all figured out? lol).

I guess I'll close by saying this: If we are supposed to be a body, then we should treat each other as invaluable, and irreplaceable parts of Gods will. That doesn't mean everyone has to believe like you, or you have to believe like them. It doesn't mean even that you have to go to church every Sunday or listen to Christian music or attend the same Christian events. What I think it does mean though, is that we should cast off this "us against them" mentality, and realize that we could learn alot from one another. Most importantly, we should help each other, in reaching the rest of human kind with the love and teachings of Christ and His salvation.

Grace THROUGH faith

2009-09-15T13:37:00.000-05:00

What is it that really saves us? My entire life I've been told that we are not saved by anything we do, but by what Jesus has done. The key verse that people back this up with is Ephesians 2:8-9,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

People use this verse to say that grace is not of ourselves, but yet seem to think that faith is of ourselves entirely. This is perhaps why many Christians "blame" non-believers themselves(rather than God) for not having faith before they died. But if faith is of ourselves entirely, and is not a gift of God, then wouldnt we have something to "boast" in as believers? If us mustering up the faith to believe, is what makes salvation applicable, then we are doing something to save ourselves; we are in effect, saved by a work of ourselves!

That seems to be against everything Paul is saying here though. He says,

for by grace you have been saved through faith. and this...

This what? This grace? No...this grace through faith. And so what about it? It is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God. Grace comes with faith, and vice versa...Paul doesnt seperate the two components to salvation and say that one is of ourselves, and the other is not. So perhaps faith is like the vehicle, by which grace comes to us FROM God to execute salvation within us.

some might object however and say,

Well you have to accept that gift

And I think thats true to an extent, but again if that ability to accept something is entirely of ourselves, it is us that is doing a "work" to be saved...not God and His grace. So I think God has to make someone able to accept grace through faith, if it is truly not of themselves. Simon Peter didnt believe that Jesus was the Son of God all on his own, he believed because God revealed it to him. In Matthew 16:15-17, Jesus says

"But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

If you get nothing else out of this blog, get this: Grace is what enables us TO have faith!

I think this more or less blows a hole in the mainstream christian theology that says that faith is up to us and our "free" will. Because these verses seem to say that it is not up to us to save ourselves or give ourselves faith; it is of God and his dispensation of revelation to people individually. And if that is so, then it is logical to say that if someone dies without having received said grace through faith, that it is not they that are ultimately responsible...but God.

But wait, God cant be to blame for the sinner that rejects Him! you may reply.

Yes, God is totally responsible for our salvation, if it is truly not by our own works. That includes our acceptance and rejection of it. Paul testified to this too in a sense, in Romans 9:18,

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills

Did you catch that? He wills, not our wills. It is His will that some(probably most) will be hardened from the gospel this side of the grave.

But this is only disturbing though, if we think that Gods title as "Savior of All Men" will never truly be fulfilled. This is only disturbing, if we constantly beat every bible verse and thought against the doctrine of "free" will. We need to realize that God has a plan that wont fail.

The end result of those people that are hardened, will not be eternal separation(which according to what we've examined, would be Gods fault basically). They too will come to God, when He allows them to. Because it is true that no one can come to faith in God, unless God draw him (John 6:44). But it is also true that God will draw all men to himself (John 12:32). What time table God decides to do that under I will not limit him, but I will say that it is not limited merely to this short human existence we have been granted.

"If everyone goes to heaven, whats the point?"

2009-09-08T18:39:00.000-05:00

*(the picture of Bush has nothing to do with anything...I just thought his confused look was hilarious)

This is a question that seems to turn up in every objection to universalism Ive seen thus far, so I thought maybe id blog about it finally

If Hell is not eternal, and everyone eventually gets to be with God...whats the point of doing good or following God? Shouldn't we just do what we want now, since it doesn't matter anyway?

I think people ask this question (as I did too once) because the idea of Ultimate Reconciliation really causes us to reassess the foundations of the Christian faith. And in this case, it reassess our motivation to serve God. That motivation, I think, is often clouded by our evangelical conception; that following God in this life yields the "treat" of heaven, while failing to do so yields the "spanking" of eternal hell. So when universalism takes out eternal hell and replaces it with age-long chastisement, I suppose one could justify that they dont need to serve God, since the punishments are only temporary anyway.

But if a husband continually cheats on his wife, and justifies it by saying,"well, she wont leave me forever, she'll love me no matter what", is it fair to say that that man probably doesnt really love his wife?

In the same way, if the sole reason we serve God is because we are terrified of the idea of eternal punishments, is it fair to say that we dont genuinely love God at all? In that case, we would only be serving God out of fear...fear of punishment or abandonment, not out of love or willful obedience. The same can be said if we serve God only because of the reward of an eternal paradise, except that its not out of fear that we would be serving God, but out of lust for the reward itself. Its kind of like a dog standing on his hind legs at command, simply because he knows his master will give him a doggie treat for it. The dog probably doesnt do it out of love for the master, but rather a love for the taste of bacon-flavored bites.

Because of Jesus, all of the worlds offenses have been forgiven (1 john 2:2) and we are now under grace, not a system of rules in which we have to perform. But just because God loves us no matter what we do, doesn't mean we should just "party it up" and sin our lives away. I have never endorsed that view, nor do the scriptures appear to.

In fact, Paul talked about that very thing in Romans 6:15-17,

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means![...]

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed.

Paul makes it a point to say that our obedience is from the heart, thusly I think that is the real underlining reason to serve God...because we want to do so, from the bottom of our hearts.

Another common question along the same lines is,

So whats the point in spreading the gospel, if everyone is just going to be saved anyway?

I think the first point to make here is that Jesus tells us to "go and make disciples of all the nations"(Matthew 28:19), so apparently God wants us to be apart of his truth-revealing process to the world. Secondly, but perhaps of equal importance, is the fact that it doesn't take a PhD to see that we live in a very broken world, in need of the knowledge that God loves them and died for their sins. All throughout the Gospels, Jesus's compassion for the lost was evident, Matthew 9:36-38 is a good example,

When he saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepard. Then He said, "The harvest is truly plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord to send out laborers into His harvest".

Christ made "the harvest" possible through His blood shed, so as followers of Him (of which His spirit lives inside) we should be laboring in His name, and in the same vein of compassion He had for people. We shouldn't let people suffer their whole lifes, and through whatever "hell" is, before having a joyful and fulfilling relationship with Jesus. God revealed His goodness and grace to us, so why wouldn't we want to share that with others so that they too can experience it? The notion of Hell not being eternal, and being for a good and remedial purpose...doesn't discredit our faith, or our reason to share it. If anything, it should allow us to truly lay our hopes in Him...that its not up to us to save people, or always live perfect lives. God loves us no matter what and has a good purpose for us from now, til forever.

That's good news I feel like sharing, how bout you?

Does orthodoxy always = truth?

2009-09-01T11:38:00.000-05:00

Many times, people say that I am wrong in my beliefs because they dont strictly adhere to what Christian orthodoxy says(orthodoxy being the long established, and "approved" doctrines). And while I can respect such beliefs and their place in the church, I cant help but wonder why something should be deemed true, simply because it is orthodox or traditional?

After all, many things have been "traditional" or accepted throughout human history, that we now (generally speaking) deem evil or incorrect. Slavery is a good example of something that was accepted and practiced for hundreds of years, but now most would consider vile and disgusting(at least in our European countries). It was once traditional or orthodox to say that the earth was flat, even though we now know it not to be(though I guess thats not a perfect analogy, since thats something a little more observable and thus provable). But maybe on a more related note, many times in church history have we found things to be incorrect or untrue. The most famous of those being in the Reformation, when Martin Luther proposed that salvation comes to us via Gods grace, and not by paying clergy men or any other "work" we could do. If the so called "orthodox" opinion could be rightly challenged back then, why can it not be now? If traditional church opinions were prone to error even in its earliest of days, what makes it free from any error here in more modern times?

The consensus in Christianity seems to be that orthodoxy should be accepted on the merits that those who created it did so with "tried and true methods"(none of which, people seem to elaborate much on). But what began to disturb me about that, is that we are told to accept those orthodox traditions and ideas even when they appear to make the Bible seem contradictory.

If anything is "dangerous" I think it may be this line of thinking; that we cannot scrutinize the theories or interpretations of those who first proposed our core Christian doctrines. Almost as if our allegiance should be to the Church and its doctrines first, and then to God(if He falls in line with the established theology, of course).

But this seems ridiculous to me, first of all because our allegiance should first be to what we feel God is trying to show us personally. And secondly because the church has always had varying doctrines and positions on every conceivable matter since its birth. So just because a certain set of beliefs have been deemed "orthodox", it is only so because of a consensus at some point in history...not necessarily because it is an irrefutable fact. I like the way John Shelby Spong puts it,

"To be called Orthodox Christian does not mean that one's point of view is right. It only means that this point of view won out in the ancient debate."

With that said, our belief in what is true shouldn't be based upon a consensus or tradition, or even what any religious teacher says...but rather on the conviction that God gives us through the Christian scriptures and even just through everyday life. We dont have to have all of our theology spoon-fed to us, we have the ability to discern for ourselves, and I think that is what is meant by 1 John 2:27(WNT),

And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him remains within you, and there is no need for any one to teach you. But since His anointing gives you instruction in all things--and is true and is no falsehood--you are continuing in union with Him even as it has taught you to do

Even Jesus posed the question,

"And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" Luke 12:57

Jesus wasnt talking to the religious "orthodox" teachers of the day, he was talking to everyday people. So whatever is truly "right", Im not sure that it neccesarily needs to pass through the hands of teachers and orthodox doctrines, to be interpreted as such. We can "judge for ourselves"

This is not to say, that I or anyone, should place ourselves as "wiser" than orthodoxy and its established conclusions. There is alot of value to be had in tradition and its ideas, but that doesnt mean we should negate our own abilities to interpret and study the evidence, Biblical or extra-biblical. We should consider what others have to say on such matters, but the ultimate conclusion, I believe, should be left to the Holy Spirit within...not man and its varying and conflicting doctrines.

The Shack

2009-08-24T15:05:00.000-05:00

Over the past week, I read the popular(yet controversial) book called The Shack. I had heard a lot about it for a few months now, but after seeing some of the book quotes and pastors on YouTube railing against it being "evil"...you know I just had to pick it up :).

Its a fictional story about a guy named Mack, whose child is abducted and brutally murdered in an abandoned shack. A few years later, Mack gets a note in the mail from God inviting him back to that very same shack...where Mack spends the weekend asking God all sorts of questions. The Trinity and the way it is presented, is probably one of the most controversial parts of it. Seeing as God the father is portrayed as a big black woman, the holy spirit is an Asian woman, and Jesus is well...a middle eastern carpenter(as you would expect him to be anyway lol). This caught me off guard at first, and sort of weired me out...but then I realized it would have been too cliche and stereotypical for it to be two bearded old men in robes, and a dove/tongue of fire floating around (hence the point was to break stereotypes). Anyway, I wont give all the details since, I think you should read it if you haven't yet. But I just wanted to take a minute to talk about some of my favorite parts out of it:

Before his youngest daughter (Missy) is murdered, Mack tells the story of a Indian princess who had to jump off a cliff, in order to save her people. Missy asks Mack if he would ever ask her to jump off a cliff, he replies,

"No , honey. I will never ask you to jump off a cliff, never, ever, ever"

"then will God ever ask me to jump off a cliff?"

"No, Missy. He would never ask you to do anything like that."

This is the first of many hints at universalism the book provides. Though it always does so in a manner that doesn't totally pin-point and complete the idea. It was also the first part of the book that made me teary eyed, because no loving human father would make their child jump off a cliff. And yet, so many people believe God will make most of His creations jump off a cliff into an everlasting, unpurposed, pit of torment.

God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerner's access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges?

This little bit made me giggle, because it made me think of a lot of fundamentalists I talk to that accuse me of not "properly" interpreting scripture. There seems to be this idea in religion that everything we think about God or the Bible needs to be tested and interpreted by the "proper" spiritual geniuses, whom have been apparently gifted with all the right beliefs. The thing that's funny to me about that though, is that the "proper" authority is apparently never the one that disagrees with your theology, only the one that disagrees with the person you're talking to. So when we throw around terms like right theology and proper interpretation, we're really just trying to prove something as true, according to our biases and personal perspectives...not according to some indisputable fact or method. Which at the end of the day, seems pretty silly.

This is a part where God (or Papa) is talking to Mack, and he says

"but your choices are also not stronger than my purposes, and I will use every choice you make for the ultimate good and most loving outcome".

Then a page later the chapter ends with Mack saying

"I just cant imagine any final outcome that would justify all this"

"Mackenzie." Papa rose out of her chair and walked around the table to give him a big squeeze. "Were not justifying it. We are redeeming it."

I think its easy for us Christians to think that the most loving outcome is 5% of humanity being saved, while most are forever being incinerated, due to their bad choices(because common sense tells us that's what they really want). That God attempts to put out the forest fire that is our sin, and for the most part, fails. Then God sweeps the remains of billions under the rug of Heaven, smiles and shrugs. But perhaps, God is really more purposed and loving then that. Perhaps hes not trying to simply put a band-aid on the human condition, but rather was smart enough from the begining, to know how to ultimately redeem every single one of us despite our bad choices and misunderstandings.

This is a part where Mack is in a room talking with what is supposed to be a projection/embodiement of Gods justice. They go through this whole conversation about judgment and then she tells Mack that he must choose two of his children to go to heaven, and three of them to spend eternity in Hell. He obviously, freaks out.

"Mackenzie, I am only asking you to do something that you believe God does. He knows every person ever concieved, and he knows them so much more deeply than you will ever know your own children. He loves each one according to His knowledge of the being of that son or daughter. You believe He will condemn most to an eternity of torment, away from His presence and apart from His love. Is that not true?"

Anyway, it goes on and Mack decides that he cant possibly decide between his children because,

For him, it wasnt about their performance; it was about his love for them

When I read this, it made me shed a few tears, because it reminded me of how many look at the concept of predestination and judgment in general. Many believe that God created all these people in the world, knowing all the things that entangle them to deception...yet only picked a few of them to be saved from it. No father could possibly pick amoungst his children, for some to be damned and some to be saved...yet we believe a God who is love would do so? More over, we call that perception of God "just" and "holy"? Sometimes, I wonder how I made those concepts work in my mind for all those years without completley shattering eachother in conflict.

Theres a part where Jesus says,

"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims; some are Democrats, some Republicans and many dont vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions[...] I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa..."

"Does that mean," said Mack, "that all roads will lead to you?"

"Not at all. Most roads dont lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."

This quote was actually one I was shown before hand, and made me want to read the whole book. And I think this, whether intended or not, sums up the universalistic position. Its not that all religions and beliefs are neccesarily correct, or that they all (in of themselves) lead one to salvation in God. Its simply that God is willing and able to travel any of those roads of belief or lifestyle to find that person and draw Him unto himself...be it in this life or afterwards, be it in the Christian religous structure or not. Jesus is not limited to the Christian religion we have created around His teachings, or other scriptures. And His will and unfailing purpose I believe is to find and redeem every person, regardless of the road of life they are on.

Anyway, there is alot more that I highlighted in the book, but this blog is getting long as it is. But Im sure I will bring up other parts of it in other blogs in the near future.

Why I cant be an agnostic...entirely

2009-08-18T19:44:00.000-05:00

I had to attend jury duty today, and as I'm sure you can guess, it was terribly thrilling in every way imaginable. I wasn't actually picked to be on the actual jury(thankfully) but I still had to sit around and listen to the prosecutor ask questions that, for the most part, should have been ridiculously obvious. So I spent most of the time reading The Shack, while occasionally listening to the questions he was asking the potential jury.

One of the things the prosecutor asked was whether it was possible to prove something without a "shadow of a doubt". I will attempt to recall how the short conversation went, since it would be hard to follow if I wrote it any other way,

Prosecutor: Lets say I'm trying to prove who I was, if I provided an ID of myself...would this prove that I am that person?

Juror: Probably

Prosecutor: But it could possibly be a fake ID, correct?

Juror: Correct

Prosecutor: So what if I brought in several people to testify to me being this person, stating that they knew me since I was little and that they went to school with me at one time? Would that prove who I was beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Juror: Not beyond a shadow of a doubt, no

Prosecutor: No, because they could be friends of mine, or I could have paid them to say that. No matter what evidence I can bring, there is always another variable that can be brought up. So today we are not here to prove this case without a "shadow of a doubt", but without a "REASONABLE doubt".

Since Ive recently been dealing with re-emerging feelings of agnosticism, this particular idea on how to reach a verdict got me thinking. Its particularly easy for us as humans to say "I know this" or "I know that", in terms of religion or lack there of. And we get so worked up trying to defend what we "know" ...that we never stop to realize that we don't really know much of anything(at least in the sense that we can know that we know, and prove that indisputably). No matter how convincing the evidence for our beliefs may be, no matter how much we may actually feel we know, there is always "another variable" to take into account. There is no way this side of the grave that anyone can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that their beliefs are correct.

Such a realization seems to lay a great foundation for agnosticism, because if nothing is indisputably knowable or provable in terms of God and truth...whats the point of stressing myself out about it? Why bother myself with something I cant prove? Well, because to claim that I know, that I cant know...is still in fact, claiming that I know something(that I cant know anything for sure lol). In which case, the whole paradigm pretty much fall apart. It makes more sense to me, to not ignore my personal experiences and encounters, but rather use them to draw a close rendering of what absolute truth may be. Though, hopefully more accurately so than this Yoda drawing I did in paint...

As I have said before, combining ones experiences and conclusions on certain evidences, to make the most coherent view of "truth", is honestly the only thing we can do in this short life. While I cant prove what the truth is beyond a shadow of a doubt, I feel should strive to at least prove it beyond "reasonable" doubt(to myself at least)...because it affects how I live my whole life and how I perceive myself and others. I feel this is better than just throwing up my hands in frustration, and closing off the brain to all possibilities... simply because nothing spiritually is knowable to a proveable extent.

Besides all the Biblical and moral evidences, I feel this is perhaps the strongest case for universal reconciliation. Because it is very obvious to me that we are not even meant to know the absolute truth about God and salvation in this life...its simply not possibly to know that we know what that is(and yes I guess I am claiming that I know its not possible, but hence the title of this blog lol).

I still think its important to formulate the best conception I can, because I think our choices in this life do matter to God(and they certainly hold consequences here and now if nothing else). However I simply doubt He's such a big baby as to eternally hold us accountable for not believing that which wasn't possible to know, which He apparently did not make possible in the first place. I believe what God cares more about, is simply guiding us through the mystery of this life...without knowing all the "other variables" and ability to prove anything. I think that is because that by never truly "knowing" in this life, we can begin to simply trust in Him through the good things he is subconsciously and consciously instilling in our hearts. And ultimately, that creates a relationship between us and the Creator.

Limited to the logical

2009-08-08T21:27:00.001-05:00

Over the past few weeks, I had the pleasure of debating with a random atheist (something I hardly do anymore) via the "undisputed king" of meaningless, angry controversial debates....YouTube. I really only replied to him to correct his assumption that I believed that God "sent people to be burned for all time", but we ended up messaging back and forth for several days about different things. The main thing came down to the typical "why does God allow suffering" argument that I already refuted here a few weeks back. However, his argument made me think a bit deeper.

He argued that an infinitely powerful and loving God could not exist, because there is suffering in the world. If God was truly both of those things, he'd argue, God could have produced love, appreciation and character in us without the use of suffering whatsoever. And though I tried to find my way around his argument as hard as I could, I realized I was just avoiding a hole in my theology. One that had been engraved in me since as long as I can remember...the idea that God is limitless in power.

After thinking about it for a few days and listening to various opinions, I came to conclude that maybe God is indeed all-powerful, but only within the realm of logic. God can do whatever he pleases, but is limited(by his own choice or what I don't know) to that which, well, makes sense. For example, God could create a triangle as big or as small as he could possibly imagine, but He really cannot make a "4 sided triangle" because, well...that doesn't make any sense. A four sided shape is a square (or a rectangle), saying otherwise defies the definition and is simply illogical.

But then you might say,

Well what 'bout Biblical things like talkin' snakes, parting seas, and water turning to wine? Those things don't sound logical but God did 'em!

Regardless of the fact that such things MAY or may not have been exaggerated or metaphorical (in some cases I assume they were), I think maybe they fall more into the "highly unlikely" category, rather than completely "illogical". For example, snakes have mouths like humans, and the ability to make sounds. So a creator of the universe could easily allow a snake to actually speak a human language, if He so chose. It would be "highly unlikely" but not totally illogical. It would be illogical, however...to simeltaneously deem that snake as a toaster oven; that just makes absolutely no sense. The snake could logically be transformed into a toaster oven via supernatural means, or possibly even a snake shaped toaster oven(how would that work?), but it could not be both things at the same time.

The idea of God having "limits" was uncomfortable to me at first, but now I feel it makes decent sense. God is still far higher than us in all his qualities, but not so high that he is limited by no consistent moral or logical truths. A verse that may attest to Gods higher, yet not necessarily unlimited qualities is 1 Corinthians 1:25,

For the foolishness of God is wiser than mans wisdom, the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength

If God truly had no limits...he could contradict any definition or characteristic of himself, and still be perfect. He could tell the truth, and lie, at the same time. He could love you, and at the same time, hate your guts. He would have no moral limits and thus, it'd be impossible for us to base our life around a being that holds to no absolute, logical definitions on anything. In order to serve God or accept personal revelation from God, there would have to be a plane of morality and logic he was limited to...or he truthfully could change the rules at any moment and still not defy his characteristic of being just and fair. And if that were the case, we might as well all just give up trying to understand what God is saying to us (haha)

So then I wondered if this idea (that God is limited to the logical) punched any holes in relation to my universalistic theology? I wondered if perhaps, it would not be "logically" possible for God to save all people, even though he'd really like to(which is basically the Armenian view)? But then I thought, how would God saving all his children, from that which harms them, be illogical whatsoever? I mean, wouldn't any loving, able parent seeing their kids drowning at sea, do everything in their power to rescue them? Why would God be any different?

What would be more illogical to me, is if God was indeed the example of perfect unconditional love (after all that's what he IS, according to 1 John 4:8), but yet was willing to, at some point, burn his children in torment for all eternity? With not another chance at forgiveness or purpose for the punishment beyond revenge? That would certainly defy any logical definition of love and morality that humans were hardwired with. And I suppose the same would work for the thought that God is "just", yet supposedly requires infinite punishment for finite crimes. Which I think would again, be illogical according to any human definition of justice.

So anyway, back to what the atheist originally was arguing against. Which was, that an all powerful, all loving God would save us from any suffering and still would be able to produce in us love, appreciation of that love, and good character. In which my answer is, is that the ability to choose and experience things outside of God(be them good or bad) is logically necessary, in order for concepts like true love, appreciation, etc to come about within us. Sometimes our experience with those things outside of God are negative, and generate the suffering we see in this world all around us. But what husband could truly say he loved and appreciated his wife, if he had never met another woman, particularly one who treated him poorly? What person could say that they have a wonderful house, if they had never been outside their house and seen a rundown, decaying house? It would be logically impossible. In the same way, in order to truly appreciate the unconditional love, and good things of God, we must be given the chance to experience bad, in order to know and love that which is good. I think this is what is meant by Romans 11:32,

For God has bound all men over to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on them all

Logically speaking, God could not have mercy on anyone, if they were never allowed to fall into disobedience and the sufferings that come from that. So it would logically make sense to me, that this same mercy God wants to have on us will not fail to save one person that he allowed to fall. And while suffering is necessary to produce the good, relational love God wants for us...it will not last for anyone. Mercy will someday find every man, woman and child.

P.S. Thank you to as the cracker head crumbles For mentioning SavageSoto in their "sites to see" blog. Greatley appreciate it.

Is God bound by the Bible?

2009-07-26T15:43:00.001-05:00

For some reason, I typically do all my "deep" thinking while Im at my dish washing job. I've never understood why (possibly for the lack of brain power it takes to complete such a monotonous task) but it really feels like the time that God likes to plants seeds in my mind. Tonight I was thinking about something Ive constantly asked myself over the past few months...is God bound strictly to Christianity? More specifically, is He bound by the collection of writings we call, the Bible?

In past years, Ive always looked to the Bible as the only way to find out anything about God and how to live life. If I had any feelings, or thoughts that weren't backed by several passages and verses (and sermons), I would consider it of the devil! While I still hold to the Bible as the backbone to my beliefs and understandings about God, I'm finding it silly how often we Christians confine him to it...as if He is chained between the binding and the cardboard covers of the Good Book. How can a God who is omnipresent and omnipotent, be a concept that we can slam shut in a single religious text and a set of doctrinal ideas?

On the moral, and intuition side of things, I found I could agree with a lot of things that didn't match up with the typical Christian theology. However on the mental side of things, I couldn't make the leap for the sake of that very theology and the Bible. I took things that (I now feel) God was trying to say to me, and disregarded them merely because they didn't line up with what I had been taught about the Bible. But I no longer think that's what God wants...and at the risk of saying something highly heretical(because I haven't done that in the last 20 blogs haha), I'm coming to believe that personal revelation has the ability to be just as divinely inspired and of God, as the words of the Bible.

As shocking as that may sound to some, I think its somewhat easy to see if we are honest about the Bible and its origins. Without completely saturating it with religiosity, the Bible would seem to be a collection of writings, written by people that claimed to be "inspired" by God to write them. While I do not doubt that the writers were, in fact, inspired by God...I don't think its too much of a stretch to say its not the only things God has inspired people to do. For instance, Ive learned certain things about God and His will for me, before ever hearing it in a sermon or reading it in the Bible. I may have read it somewhere else, or heard it in a sermon at a later point...but I think its limiting to say that Gods main force of inspiration went out to the writers of the Bible and then any inspiration we get hereafter has to strictly feed off of that embodiment. I think its also important to note that the collection of writings we call The Bible, was compiled from among many other "inspired" writings. One such book that was almost put in the Bible, for example, was the book of Enoch(research it if interested).

So all the books we have today in the bible, were chosen at the liberty of a church council(or a series of them)...according to their own biases and personal beliefs. Then, centuries later in the protestant movement, we dropped some of those original canonized books (ex Maccabees) because Martin Luther didn't agree with purgatory and the like. And all this, again, has been done by man...and what they decided to be acceptable doctrine. And then besides all that, there is the whole translation upon translation mumbo-jumbo that I'm not even going to bother getting into right now because I'm lazy(which is actually pretty significant when the meaning of one or two words can and HAS changed the meanings of entire passages).

While I can have faith that God brought together the Bible for a purpose, I don't feel so comfortable saying that it is all that God has to say to us about Himself. Even if what we held today was completely scott-free of any error, that still would not change mans ability to misinterpret scripture. I heavily rely on the Bible to understand God and His ways, and that will probably never change. However I dont think its fair to make it my sole means of life/spiritual perception...nor was it probably even intended to be.

I see the Bible in multiple ways, one fun illustration I came up with, is that its like a "Gods greatest hits" album. Or perhaps more accurately...a tribute/cover album by various artists based off of "Gods greatest hits". While you can learn much about a particular artist and their style based off of a greatest hits or tribute album...it does not paint you a full spectrum of their career. Sometimes there are ways artists play or sing certain songs with such feeling, that none or few others can even properly replicate them. Sometimes an artists greatest hits aren't even that great, just what was chosen as a single at the time of its release. So the only way to truly begin to appreciate the original artist for what they are, is to go beyond the greatest hits, to go beyond the tributes and remixes. In a similar way, to truly understand God, I feel you must look beyond the Bible while at the same time, considering it for all that it is.

I think this idea especially works when you think about the gospels as being 4 tribute albums to Jesus's "hit singles" or most notable sayings(which by the way weren't the only gospels written, but I digress). They each have their own perception, writing style, and "hits" that they have included that others may or may not have. But none of them could have ever said, or perceived those "hits" like Jesus did...especially not 30-60 years after they heard him say them. More over, Jesus never even told His disciples to write down what he said into a book (as far as we know). He also didn't appear to say to put said writings into a mass collection of books that would be hand-picked by a council several years off into the future, to be added to the old scriptures, then mass produced at some point to be used as blinders for every person who wished to follow God. And even beyond that, Jesus never gave a method (let alone an inerrant one) on how to go about creating such a book. Jesus never said any of that to our knowledge, and its curious that if He did, He was not recorded as saying that as it would seem to only give credit to the existence of The Bible.

Again, my intent is not to slam the Bible or even those who believe it to be inerrant. I am also not really saying that the Koran, the book of Mormon (or insert religious text here) should have equal spiritual weight. I cant help but to think of the Bible as being more influential and divine, than any other book(regardless of whether its a result of my personal upbringing, my biases, my culture or personal revelation). All I am really saying, is that as time goes by, I realize that its unfair to contain my idea of God and and His will for my life...strictly to the Bible and the mainstream doctrines we've created around it. God is so much bigger than that, and I think he can use any book(be it religious or not) or any thought or really, any medium to convey truth to an individual as He sees fit.

The purpose of evil and suffering

2009-07-19T20:42:00.000-05:00

I feel like I cover the same ground over and over again, and this topic is pretty on course with what I always seem to blog about(though hopefully you've noticed I've tried to be a tad bit more versatile in subject lately). But I will attempt today, to present things in a slightly fresh manner:

One of the age old questions brought up by atheists and agnostics alike is actually of moral nature. They contend,

How can there be an all-loving God when there is so much evil in the world? How could God allow all the sickness, death and deception that plagues humanity?

They use this to say, that God can not exist because of the evil that is so strong and evident in this life. And while I, nor anyone, possess all the answers...I think the short answer to this is simply "because God has a purpose for it".

Though In my old views I believed God had a purpose for evil (as I do still), it really didnt make sense in the grand scheme of things. Because while most sufferings and atrocities in life are blamed on mankind's rebellion against God(which I would say is not entirely accurate), it all stems back to the fall of Adam that, as I said in the last blog, God allowed. God could have just as easily stopped Adam and eve from partaking of the tree that would damn mankind for all eternity, but he didnt. Better question yet, why even create the object of temptation(the tree) to begin with? Fast forward to the end of the world, and whats the result(according to my old orthodox view)? Most of humanity and creation burning away in suffering as a result of evil being unleashed upon the world! No wonder atheists and the like have a hard time believing a good, loving, all powerful God exists...they're taught that the evil of this life ultimately prevails more than God! What comfort and faith can one really have in a God that is over shadowed by the very evil He knowingly allowed(and I would say, pretty much created)?

So we come back to the question of why God allows evil and its sufferings? My only reasoning, again, is that God has a purpose. And since God is perfect, I will add that this purpose must end with an ultimately positive result for all, whom the evil was unleashed upon (such of which, an eternal punishment would most certainly not fit in...there is nothing positive about unending, unpurposed pain).

A passage that helps illustrate this positive use of suffering, is in Lamentations 3:31-32,

For men are not cast off by the Lord forever.
Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
So great is his unfailing love.

If the "grief" described here is the sufferings of sin and death in this life, how then will God show compassion if most are doomed to torment for all time as a result of those very things? Not only does that make no sense, but it completely contradicts the prior sentence which says for men are not cast off by the Lord forever! No evil that will ever exist, is outside the power and purpose of God almighty...not even "Hell". 1 Samuel 2:6 is a great example,

The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol [translated as "Hell" often] and brings up

This verse could be interpreted like this(according to my theology): God may allow death, but he will make those people alive again. God may allow people to go to "Hell", but will bring them up from it as well. I think this fits quite nicely with my belief, that all humanity is eventually saved unto God. Because if the result of evil is ultimately and completely overcome by God for his glory and to mans benefit(as I believe), than Gods allowance of evil and the devil is of no moral compromise to me. Its like when a child does something wrong, like touching a hot stove for the first time, even after their father told them not to. The parent may have watched it happen, but only does so, because they know that it will only temporarily harm the child and that the child will learn what not to do because of it. Such I believe is a similar reason(though much more complex and varied), for why God allows evil and its griefs in this life. We can run from sunset to sunset searching for thrills that will only bring us down and cause us destruction, but God allows it knowing that we must (and will) come to understand our need for the perfect thrill, the perfect high that is found only within His presence. From the very moment he called us into existence, he knew all that we would do and all the destruction that would result from it...yet allowed it because the end result would be a loving and lasting relationship with all of His creations.

That is the God I serve and love

Finite sins against an infinite God

2009-07-12T20:33:00.000-05:00

In Christianity, you will often hear something like this,

our finite sins deserve infinite punishment, because they are against an infinite God

Though I have already talked a lot about God's Justice in a previous blog, this particular belief continues to boggle my mind. As humans, we can neither physically see, touch, or prove God and/or His truths...yet He supposedly thinks we deserve unending punishments for temporary mess ups? Why would a perfect God be even less understanding than a human?

Were we not born into sin by no fault of our own? If it is anyones fault, it is Adams...but even he was tempted by the Devil that GOD (yes, God) created. So from the very start, our "free" will has been at the mercy of forces and situations completely beyond our control. And all of these things have been allowed by God for some purpose(s), so how would it be sensable for God to hold us, imperfect beings by nature, forever accountable for the situations he placed us in? It makes no sense at all.

And it is curious indeed, that no scripture (that Ive ever come across) teaches such a bleak truth. No where is sin against God described as needing infinite punishment, solely just because God is infinite. The Bible simply describes the penality for sin as "death" (Ro. 6:23). And whether it is a physical or spiritual death described here(I would say both), it doesnt seem to imply the merit of infinite punishment we supposedly deserve.

On a final note, it is often said that Jesus paid the price for our sins, that he took our punishment for us. This goes along with the prophecy in Isaiah 53:5, which says,

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;

Yet we also say that we all deserve an infinite period of suffering because of our sin. Using the same logic however, we would have to assume that Christ suffered infinitely in order to pay the infinite debt we incurred. But, as any Christian can tell you, Jesus rose again just 3 days after death...he did not experience infinite suffering for one persons sins against God, let alone the whole world's sin!

So there is apparently a big hole in our theology

Identifying with Gandhi

2009-07-07T19:43:00.000-05:00

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” -Mahatma Gandhi

This quote, at one time, greatly offended me. It seemed like a bash against Christians and made me think,
Even though Gandhi did alot of nice things, he sure is going to Hell!

But as time goes by, Ive come to greatly identify with the statement. And ive begun to understand why many people can find the person of Christ so compelling...while finding the religion that bears His name and His followers quite distasteful.

I suppose in one way Ive never quite felt like I "fit in" with the Christian community even from my early days of being a believer. Yet even long before I came into the belief of universalism, I've felt less and less like I can relate to other Christians. We (apparently) serve the same God, believe Jesus is the way of Salvation, hold to the Bible as truth...yet when I go to church or talk to other Christians I feel more frustrated and suffocated, than I do encouraged. I feel like were on two different wave lengths when in theory, were supposed to be on the same one.

As to any one reason why I feel like this, I suppose there isnt just one in particular. If I were to rattle off every reason why I'm not crazy about Christians in general, I'd be here all night writing this thing. But I will say its not really a "all Christians are hypocrites!" mentality that Im dealing with. There are many wonderful Christians I know trying to serve the Lord and really do love Him and other people. I dont doubt the good intentions of many Christians I know (whether I agree with their methods or not).

I think what it really comes down to though, is the fact that Jesus, and the beauty of Gods love, stretches so far beyond the concrete walls of church, our religious rituals and our padded Christian subculture. I've come to a point where none of that is very appealing or edifying to me...because God and His love are not confined to that system. That system of rules and organization has been too often equated with having a passion for God. For example, if you dont go to church regularly, or involve yourself with church activities, or listen to Christian music, or hold the same beliefs as other Christians...you're love of God comes into question. Ive become disillusioned with the system of Christianity we have made for ourselves, and that has caused some people to be concerned about me. Nevermind the fact that now I feel freer and more able to love and seek God, I dont believe and do the same things other Christians do! So that seems to put me on some sort of mental prayer list.

Its so backwards to me...Christians seem to be more concerned with people subscribing to their brand of faith than they are with people seeking God. They wouldnt say that, but that is what Ive seen, especially now that my beliefs dont identify with the typical religious crowd.

But when I remind myself that Jesus himself never identified with the typical religious crowd, I realize that Im probably on the right track. All throughout the gospels it seems that Jesus is pitted AGAINST the religious people and their laws. Jesus would acknowledge scripture and their laws, but he would always show how a love for God and for others far out rooted the rules and rituals of religion. Jesus was a dangerous adversary to the rich religious crowd and to their power...which ultimately got him plotted against and killed. And that is probably why Gandhi liked Christ and not so much the Christians. He saw in the character of Christ a loving person that was beyond religion and was willing to love and show people truth regardless of their sins or social status. Yet when Gandhi saw the Christians, he saw people overly concerned with everything BUT loving people more often than not.

With all that said, I think its time for me to put more time and energy in seeking and loving God, and helping me express his undying love for others.... rather than pleasing other Christians by subscribing to their doctrines and practices.

Changing the law, Doesnt change the heart

2009-06-27T23:54:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, Iowa (the state in which I live) made gay marriage legal fairly recently. Many (particularly Christians) have been outraged and furious, holding up signs and protesting. Many commenting to me jokingly about it, expecting me to be on their side I suppose, and then are infuriated to find that I really am not.

First off, I dont personally condone homosexuality, nor do I think that the Bible does. Yet on the same note, I dont elevate it to this terrible atrocity that most Christians seem to do. I dont see it as any greater a "sin", than premarital sex, lust, lying, or gossip (None of which, by the way, do many Christians hold signs up about or try to make laws banning them). If it is truly not Gods will to practice homosexuality, than I dont think God loves the person in that any less, than He loves the one who has premarital sex, lusts, lies, gossips or all the above.The same can be said about abortion, which I most definitely do not agree with.

So we try and implicate these laws, and protest, assuming that by doing so...we will create a safe, "Christianese" country for us and our families. And thats understandable, I think it is important to vote and stand up for the things we believe especially as Christians.

But I cant help but ask, what changing the laws of our country will do to change the hearts of those I disagree with? We can bar people from doing all sorts of things, and we do on many occasions. Our laws try to prevent us from things like murder, stealing, cheating, and running red lights. Yet even when the threat of punishment is successful in preventing an individual from doing such things (or more likely, from getting caught), is that person really any different? Do their views on right and wrong, good and bad, necessarily change at all?

Even if gay marriage were to have been kept illegal in Iowa, it wouldnt stop anyone from practicing homosexuality or still feeling that gay marriage was their right. The same with abortion, if it were illegal, nothing would stop anyone from feeling it was okay or worse yet, find ways to abort babies outside of medical direction. Just because something is illegal, doesnt make someone think that it is wrong. Just because someone is prevented from doing something bad does not automatically turn the person's intentions good. This is common sense.

Beyond all that, Im not sure it is my right to try and make other people live by my moral convictions. Part of the reason the United States was founded was to break from the oppression of religion, and worship, believe and live as one chooses. It doesnt mean I have to personally agree, or support someones life choices...but it doesnt matter if I agree. I hope people will make Godly choices, but they have to find the motivation to do that themselves (which ultimately comes from the conviction God gives us). I or no one else can force that on them...

I guess I just find it hard to believe that God is as concerned with the laws of America, as most fundamentalist Christians seem to be. This is maybe why politics fail to interest me more often than not. Afterall, Jesus was certainly not a political activist, and no where in the gospels do we see Jesus rallying any political overthrows of Caesar. In fact he said "render to Caesar, what is Caesar's". Jesus was however, all about changing the hearts around him, helping people reunite in relationship with the Father and His will. Jesus knew that the religious and political laws could never change anyone, yet he loved us, died for us and gave us his spirit to live within our hearts.

I truly believe we as Christians, should be more concerned about loving people and showing them the God we serve, rather than trying to impart laws for our own self-centered, self-concerned motives...and then claim that "its what God wants". I think what God wants is people to turn to him in his appointed times, not for America to have the most Bible based laws. Therefore, I think our part as followers of Christ should be to be a light to our fellow humanity and country men. In which they can see the life and love of God emitting from us and will too want to be apart of what God has for them.

Two kinds of salvation

2009-06-22T01:17:00.001-05:00

Two blogs ago I talked about how we are not so much "saved" from a place called Hell, but rather our separation from God. This is going to be sort of the follow up to that blog, so if you havent read it yet, read that first. This week I will be taking about salvation in its two different forms, and hopefully, I will do it without confusing you or myself, haha:

Salvation in Christianity is most popularly viewed as the act of accepting Jesus into ones heart and asking His forgiveness. That by saying the sinners prayer, Jesus comes to "live" in your heart and you get saved from the devil poking you with his red pitchfork.

This view treats salvation (or reconciliation to God) like a freely given coupon, in that if you fail to cash it in by an unknown expiration date...the blood shed for you is no longer any good to redeem you and thus you get to go to Hell for all time. In this view Gods attitude is,
I did my part, now do yours, or I will cease to help you

Salvation (in this view) is thus not entirely dependent on God's love and Calvary, but is equally co-dependent on mans will to repent and live the correct lifestyle. Our works and attitudes ultimately affect Gods so called "unchanging" ways and attitude towards us, and makes him out to be no different than any other temporary, selfish human being. Even so, we talk a lot about how Christ came to free us from doing works to get Gods favor and forgiveness...yet this view clearly states that Christ really only gave us new works in order to merit Gods affection.

But is this really how God set up salvation to be? Lets look at Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. ¹⁹For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

There are many things we can say about this passage. But I think the most notable, is the fact that it relates the human condemnation through Adam(which none of us chose to be born into), in direct proportion to justification through Christ. Therefore, if the condemnation Adam brought on human kind didn't take our acceptance to take effect, then why would the justification of Christ need our acceptance to take effect? According to this passage, Adams curse on the human race is in effect from the day one is born, so by the same logic, Christs justification takes effect from the day we are born, to counteract that curse. All this to say, it doesn't take ones accepting Jesus, in order for one to be justified by Jesus. We are all justified by the blood, whether we "accept" it or not. Beyond that, because of Christ, it is impossible for a human to offend God by sinning.

The Greek word for sin is "hamartia" (to offend) or sometimes the Bible uses "hamartano" (to miss the mark). knowing that, the following passage reads thusly:
1 John 2:1-2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not [miss the mark]. But if anyone does [miss the mark], we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our [offense], and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

We all miss the mark in life, for even the most devout Christian will still sin. But God cannot be offended by our wicked deeds any longer...Christ paid and saved us from the offense. This dismisses the popular notion that God somehow has "no choice", but to cast unrepentant sinners into an eternal abyss, because his holy purity is somehow offended by the stench of our sins. It is literally impossible to offend God, because of Christ. I call this Type A salvation, or automatic salvation, because everyone is justified and clean of offense automatically via the Cross.

Now you might say, what about Romans 10:9?
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Using this verse, you might argue that surely one has to confess and believe to be saved, right? Well, I think its important to note here that when the bible talks about being saved or salvation, it doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the common churched idea of eternal deliverance. In Romans 10:9 the word used for saved is "Sozo", which literally means to heal or preserve (think back to the other blog where I said Christ came more to save us from earthly things than eternal ones). So this passage is not talking about justification, so much as its talking about sanctification. Everyone is already justified, or made right with God. But not everyone is sanctified, or made holy in relationship with God. Sanctification requires Gods revelation to us of His truth in order to progressively release us from earthly woes, and thus unite with God in fellowship

In other words, to be justified by God through type A salvation, no you dont have to confess or believe anything. But to benefit from type B salvation, yes, you must confess and believe in order for THAT to take effect in your life.
(sounds like Im talking about diseases, doesnt it? Type A and Type B and all lol). Think of it this way,

Suppose you have a rich uncle who dies and leaves a 100,000 dollars JUST for you in a bank account, and the only one who knows about it is your dad. Now in order to benefit from this large stack of moola, you would first have to know that it exist. But you would not have to know about it, for the money to merely exist in your name or for it to gain interest. It is yours and legally, nothing can change that. However, your father might not tell you that it is there until you are old enough to spend it wisely and fully appreciate the gift for what it is.

I realize theres a few flaws with my analogy, but I think it illustrates my point adequately. Type A salvation is a done deal, it was completed and put into effect the moment Jesus said on the cross,
It is finished.
However, type B is not persay done, because it is not an event. It is a process that may never actually cease to progress the human soul. Type B salvation starts when one is awakened in their conscious to the fullness of Christ (when GOD chooses to reveal), leading that person to take up their own cross and follow Him. When a person accepts Christ, they are re-birthed in their mind and heart to what God has done for them and will continue to do in their life. This is what I think Jesus truly meant by one being "born again"(John 3:6-8)

Ive brought up the following verses before,1 Timothy 4:9-10 it says,
This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance ¹⁰(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

When one confesses and believes in Christ, they can truly live in the peace and knowledge of ones reconciliation to God and thus fully experience a relationship with God. This is what I think is meant here by saying especially those who believe. God is the savior of all men, whether they acknowledge it or not. But He has a special relationship and "salvation" from self, for those that do believe. We are all justified, but not all sanctified.

We are all bought by the blood, but we are not all yet washed by it.

Salvation is not like a coupon that expires, or milk that goes sour. It is imperishable. It is in one way, already complete. Yet in another way, requires Gods unveiling of our hearts and mind to the truth in order to obtain the life that He has waiting for us.

I realize I got pretty heavy in this blog, I even had to double check some passages and words to make sure I knew what I was talking about (lol). But if nothing else hopefully you understand this idea of salvation a little more clearly.

What if I'm wrong?: A problem of perspectives

2009-06-13T22:29:00.000-05:00

I had planned to continue the salvation discussion this week, but instead I think I'll address this matter. I've been asked various questions as of late but most of them boiling down to,

What if you're wrong and eternal torment is true?

There are various aspects in the answer to this, and I would be lying if I said this wasn't an uncomfortable question. But I think the first thing to say about that, is that I cannot base my beliefs on "what if's". By that same logic, just about anything could be true or untrue. For example one could say,

What if God does not exist?
What if Christianity isn't true, and Islam is?
What if life is really a complex computer program, and humanity is unknowingly enslaved by octopus-like robots?
What if there's tiny green aliens that live inside my body, where they have nightly disco parties?(that could explain my difficulties in sleeping, lol)

Questioning things, as I've said before, can be very healthy. And I wouldn't be where I am today had I not done that. But spending time living in constant fear of what I don't know and not making a conclusion simply because I cant PROVE anything, seems to be a ridiculous way to live life. It makes much more sense to me to base my beliefs off of the evidence I have been given...rather than that which I have not.

The next thing is, is that the perspective I hold now (that God loves all and will save all), has had a positive impact on my own life in numerous ways. One being that I feel closer to God and feel free to love him, without some ever passing fear that hes angry at me and is going to incinerate my loved ones. More over than that, I think if ones perspective is that,
God eventually gives up on most people and will torture them forever, if they don't accept the right beliefs
...then your attitude towards people will likely be as short-lived and conditional. No matter how much and how long you want to "save the masses from brimstone" it always wears on you to a point that you just sort of shrug your shoulders and fall back into a state of apathy, that can only be (momentarily) cured by a preacher's terror tactics. Hence most of Christian culture today seems surprisingly unconcerned by the overall destiny of mankind, that is supposedly marching their merry way into the devils human cauldron.
I know this firsthand, because such perspective is what brought about the breakdown in my own faith. But if your perspective is like mine, that,
God never gives up on people and loves them unconditionally no matter their beliefs
then your attitude towards fellow humanity will be of the same, ever-loving, persevering vein.

Now if eternal torment is true like orthodox Christianity says, which perspective is likely to "win" more souls to God? Which perspective on God would an unbeliever most likely want to serve and love? The one that is planning to damn you forever if you dont jump through all the religious hoops, or the one who loves you no matter what and wants to transform your life for the better? I would say the later, and that would probably explain the reason why I can talk to people about God and spirituality that before, would not be willing to hear me out. All too often, I hear other Christians say,
Well everyone on earth has heard about Christianity!!!! They have no excuse!

Yeah, they've most all heard the "turn and burn" self-righteous, judgmental, homo-phobic Christianity, that has committed tons of atrocities supposedly in the name of Christ. Very few people have really heard of Christ and the perspective that God loves everyone where they're at unconditionally. And that's the perspective that will draw more people to Him if anything.

Lastly, I really like what Bishop Carlton Pearson said in his book The Gospel of Inclusion, on this very matter,
I'd rather be wrong for overestimating the love of God, than underestimating it. I'd rather err on the goodness, greatness, and graciousness of God than the opposite.

As simple as this statement is, I couldn't agree more. It makes more sense in my mind to believe that God is much more compassionate and understanding than the kindest "Mother Theresa", than to believe he is more sadistic and merciless than the cruelest "Hitler". Ive thought about it several times, and I don't believe I could even go back to worshiping God from the perspective I once held. I have thought about it and examined it far too closely, for it to not make my stomach churn and make me feel depressed...hence what started this spiritual journey to begin with.

The god(yeah I'm not even going to capitalize it) of orthodox Christianity is one that wouldn't even be worth serving, if that were indeed his nature. As dangerous as it might be to say...I honestly would have no interest in worshiping a god so obsessed with his own cosmic ego, that he'd gamble the eternal destinies of mankind and torture billions of unfortunates for all eternity. I would have no interest in worshiping a god that allowed the world to be entrenched in sin and destruction, only to redeem a few undeserving souls...all in the name of so-called "justice". Such a god I could only fear and be terrified of. Such a god I could not love with all of my heart, soul and mind as the Bible commands. And I think if every Christian were deeply honest with themselves, they would come to a similar conclusion.

We have no real way of proving one way or the other, but I believe the Bible provides us with much evidence of Gods unfailing love...much of which I have been trying to share here. And I believe that is why God put me on this journey and has let my heart leap to the most astounding plateau of my faith I have yet experienced. I don't believe God would drop this in front of me only to raise false hopes and to coax me into some false sense of love for Him. Because He is not really cruel, and is far more loving and just than most give Him credit for. And when you put all of the Bible into transcendent, divine perception, I believe it is ever so clear and wonderful. That is the God I serve, that is the God I trust.

"Saved" from what?

2009-06-05T20:51:00.000-05:00

Last summer, I remember one sunday at church we had a missionary who gave a sermon on "evangelizing to the world". I dont remember much about the message, but one story he told still comes to my mind frequently.

With very distraught eyes, he told the story of him and another missionary coming across a baby at the foot of these mountains, in india I think it was. And the other missionary looked at the baby with tears in his eyes and said,
You know, it would be better if we killed this baby right now so it could go to heaven...than to let it grow up in this culture with the likelihood being that it would grow up and reject God, and go to Hell forever.

The rest of the sermon is blank to me now, but Ill never forget the look of horror and desperation on the missionary's face all throughout it, the tears that never left his eyes and the deafening silence from us that were listening.
Soon enough though, everyone was back in the halls...laughing, smiling and scarfing down sprinkled donuts, while the unsaved world was supposedly "going up in flames". And I remember going home that day, and thinking to myself,
Could that really be the great hope we Christians are hanging on to?

It certainly must be hard for anyone to come to grips with this doctrine that God has seemingly placed more responsibility on Christians to save mankind, than He has placed on that of Christ himself. Such would seem quite absurd, but I find its what most of us Christians actually believe.
And Ive come to find that maybe the problem is, is that no one really understands what it is that Jesus came to save us from in the first place.

In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that the day he eats of the tree of knowledge, he shall die. Take note God does not say "you shall surely be thrown in an everlasting pit of flames and screaming" as the consequence of sin. He simply says that Adam will die. While Adam did not literally drop dead in the garden the day he ate of the apple(in fact he supposedly lived about 900 years), he and Eve did die another way that very day; they died in spirit. In a similar way, I contend we have all died in spiritual awareness and connection with God because of our sin. It has little to nothing to do with us being doomed to a fiery abyss in the ground.

This makes massive sense when we look at what Jesus said he came to do. In Luke 4:18, he says,
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed

I find it interesting that in His first public address, Jesus speaks of freeing us from a much more earthly state of being, than an eternal one. If Christs sole mission was to save us from an eternal Hell, why the focus on temporary things? Why even waste time talking about and healing the temporary ills of this world, when we need to be snatched out of the gaping jaws of eternal damnation? Maybe it is because eternal damnation was never in the balance to begin with. Maybe it is because Christ came to liberate humanity not so much from Hell, but from the Hell of life caused by our spiritual death in sin.

In 1 John 3:8 it says,
The Son of God appeared for the purpose of undoing the work of the Devil

If the devils work was tempting humankind into a state of spiritual death, than that is what Christ came to save us from...not this pagan conception we call "Hell". Our souls and our planet are subliminally broken and out of proportion because of our flawed nature, but Christ came simply to heal and lead us in a Godly process. So that step by step, every human lost from God could have an awareness of the Father and His love for us.

I have more to say, as this is a very complicated subject. But I think this is a good place to stop for now and hopefully hear some comments.

A Rebuttal to C.S. Lewis

2009-05-28T19:56:00.000-05:00

This is what C.S. Lewis had to say about the issue of "free" will:

Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating. -Mere Christianity, p. 48

First off, I love C.S. Lewis. His writings, particularly the Narnia series, have had a big impact on my faith growing up. So this is not intended to be a bash to him or to state that I am somehow theologically smarter than he was. I can agree with this quote on a basic level, but I feel it leaves out some pretty important factors in regards to our ability to choose or "reject" God. Ive already covered in a previous blog this issue of free will once before, but I would like to briefly rebuttal to Lewis's quote with three different points...

Point 1
If the only other choice that God gives humanity is suffering in an everlasting pit of unspeakable horror, than we are not really free to choose or love Him.

What would most Christians say to a husband, who openly threatens to burn his wife in gasoline if she ever leaves him? Could he then say that he has deep, true love for her?
NO! She would only stay with him out of fear...her well being depends on it! Thusly, it is insane and sadistic to say that God gives us choice under THAT particular premise.

Point 2
Mans will cannot truly be free if it is bound by Gods choices. Jesus tells us in John 6:44 that,
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him".
This implies that God has to do something first in our lives, in our hearts, before we can even think about accepting God and is the only way to have a relationship with Him. Then Paul tells us in Romans 8:7
"the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
If a mind tainted by sin cannot subject itself to God of its own "free" will, then we dont really have "free" will to begin with. So therefore the people that have not accepted God yet, are merely incapable of doing so until God makes the initiative to open their heart to Him.

Point 3
Lewis is right when he says that God didn't make us as "machines" that really only love God because they are not free to do otherwise. I think we are able to make choices that are against God's wishes, a.k.a. sin. Yet on that same note, I think we need to remember God's original design for us, before sin even stepped into the picture. God says in Genesis 1:26 ,
"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"
To me this implies that we are first and foremost made not only LIKE God(on a much less scale of course) but FOR God. So though we are tarnished by sin...Christ must be the emery to clean our hearts back to its original luster. And once at that original perfected state, we as humans cannot help but love God for all that he is.

To say that God would make any human without the potential to reciprocate love, once God begins to unbind us from sin, would be very cruel. It would mean God literally made people that were incapable of loving him, and thus could only be sent to eternal torments in response to their pre-programed desire to hate God and never change. And this is where the mainstream view comes into conflict with its own moral crutch called "free will"

Therefore, I think of the "free" will to love God, as merely the inate desire we WILL have once God cleans us from our dispositions. God didnt make us as robots incapable of doing anything else, but our will is won to him slowly and beautifully as he cleans away the devils work from every single human being. God will not give up til everyone comes to that point of purity and acceptence of Him.

"Love never fails" and neither does God

2009-05-18T19:17:00.000-05:00

(*Didn't make this picture today, but I really thought it fit well, haha)

The wonderful love of God is probably the most talked about and celebrated thing in Christian culture. We sing songs about it, we use it as the focal point of most sermons, we put it on t-shirts, and we talk about it while handing out food bags to the less fortunate. We seem very enthused with this fact that God loves us enough to forgive us our sins and take us to heaven (and rightly so). Most Christians believe that God is infinitely loving, and that His love is available to all to have, if they so "choose" to believe in Christ (John 3:16). Most Christians believe that God "is" love, as stated in 1 John 4:8. That God is the very definition of it and the ultimate example of what love should be for us humans.

But most Christians also believe (though talk about it substantially less), that God eventually just...gives up on us. That if we dont accept Jesus as Lord by the time we die, that God will release His grip on love and let us fall into an everlasting abyss of suffering. He spends our whole life trying to get us to accept His love, to demonstrate it through the lives of us Christians, but because of some strange "mystery of life"...most of humanity just doesn't want such perfect love. Even so, it never stops us from calling such a temporary love the "Good News" of the gospel...or as Id like to call it more appropriately, the "not so good news" gospel. We say many times in evangelizing,
God loves you unconditionally!
While at the back of our minds thinking,
Well, sort of...
Because the fact of the matter is, if the person you're evangelizing to doesn't accept Jesus before he dies, God will revoke all love and hope to that individual and leave them in Hell for all eternity (according to mainstream theology anyway).

And while most of us aren't bursting for joy about the darker side of the gospel, we accept it and kind of shove it to the closet of our minds. We casually cruise past it in the majority of our sermons, and focus on the more "happy" side of it... that WE Christians can be sure that God loves us, because we turned our hearts to Him and are following Him! And though I passively accepted this view of Gods love for many years, I eventually found it in bitter conflict with the very nature and character of God. And after many months of staring it square in the face, I eventually saw it completely contradictory to the very nature of love, as given to us by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:4-13...

⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away[...]
¹³And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

If God is love(1 Jn 4:8), to the very definition and perfection of it...then how could God's ultimate attitude and affections towards humanity be any less, than the definition of love given here? If God is love, then we should be able to accurately replace every "love", and in place of it put "God"...and end up with an accurate statement about His character.

God is patient, God is kind.
God keeps no record of wrongs.
God always perseveres.
God never fails.

Yet the mainstream church insists that...

God is only patient until you die, God is only kind if you obtain the right set of beliefs about Him.
God is keeping a record of your wrongs and once you die you're going to suffer eternally for them.
God will not always persevere, and eventually will give up on you.
God will eventually fail to save humanity, and only end up with a small portion of it.

How can we dare think of God's amazing love this way? How can we tote around the idea that "true love is unconditional" yet believe God's love is extremely conditional on our ability to understand that love and our performance as humans? If God is love, how can we say it so disgustingly violates the very definition of love? I would say that to do God any justice, we cannot!!!!

Most Christians view God as a kind, well dressed man who passes by a restaurant everyday before going to work. In this restaurant is a beautiful waitress that he used to date in high school, but after some tough times, called off the relationship. Even so, he decided years later that he forgives her and still wants her as his wife someday. So once in awhile he may pop in the restaurant for some coffee and smiles at her from afar. Once in awhile he leaves notes for her telling her that he misses her and asking her out on a date, and every time she kindly declines. And after awhile of the same tired routine, the man finally gives up on the woman and without a goodbye...never again returns to the restaurant. And though frustrated that his love was never again returned, hes just happy that he has a lock of her hair to remember her by (as if it makes up for not having her in his life).

But this is saying that our perfect God who IS love, has a love for us that is just as petty and conditional as typical human love. This is saying that because our love ends at death, so must God's. This is saying that because we Christians can be satisfied with just us being saved, that God will also be satisfied. This is saying that God is really not much different than any other human with temporary goals, hopes and emotions. This is...quite frankly...stupid. Especially in light of the parable Jesus gives us in Luke 15:4-6

⁴"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? ⁵And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders ⁶and goes home.

This parable has always been so heart-warming to me, especially now that I believe God not only wants to save all, but will do so. It speaks of a love that will not give up until each one of us are found and returned back to Him. That one sheep...one soul...is just as valuable to the Good Shepard as the other ninety-nine are. But yet, the mainstream insists that God will only rescue a few sheep from the clutches of sin...and will eventually stop looking for the majority. That God, in all His mercies and forgiveness and wisdom, and unsurprising, all abundant love...somehow didn't plan for our fallen state and will eventually leave us to it in eternal horror. How can we call that the unfailing, perfect example of love?

It breaks my heart so much that this is our majority view. That we cling so violently to such a doctrine, that most certainly does not line up with love as shown in the Bible. That in all our legalistic doctrines and traditional interpretations, we have unjustly put God's love on the same level of imperfection and failure as human love. So its no wonder that many people "reject" the gospel when we say that God's love sometimes fails indeed (in fact it does most of the time according to mainstream theology). But I believe God's love is so much greater than human love, so much more unending. God's love is so much more grand for every human soul than we can possibly ever grasp at...and yet the majority of humanity is blind, deaf and completely dumb to that fact. Do you think God is going to give up though? Do you think He will magically stop loving us just because we dont always get things right? Do you think He is surprised by any of our sins, even the one of unbelief? Do you think Jesus died only so that a few would be forgiven and reconciled to God? Do you really think He's going to let Satan overcome and win most souls in spite of Gods patient, and unfailing love for them?

I really don't think so. Call me a heretic for believing my God is that big, but it will not change the truth of God or the true gospel of Jesus. Nor will it change Gods heart towards humanity, even through judgment and its purposes. And I dont believe we can accurately preach to a "dying world" if we believe God's love and patience for them to be just as short as our human lives are.

I encourage you to read over these passages in your own time with God, and really ask yourself, Can God's love possibly be as amazing and unrelenting as the Bible says? Ask yourself,
If God is powerful enough and willing enough, can He also be loving enough to bring all to salvation in Him?
My prayer is that in time, you will see that yes...God's love is that amazing, and that unrelenting. And yes, God is that loving...to the fullness of every characteristic of love.

Praise God

The nest of tradition

2009-05-12T03:31:00.000-05:00

In the eight month period of what I've decided to call my "spiritual renaissance", I feel God has really challenged me to step outside my head so to speak. To break the Christian box. To stop confining Him to all these preconceived notions, particularly the ones people instilled in me as irrefutable truth(with good intent of course). To stop assuming that I have things all figured out.

And this was very uncomfortable to me, as I think it is for any human. Bishop Carlton Pearson says,
"the human mind has an incredible capacity for refusing to see what it doesnt want to see. Sometimes we feel that we know so much, that we dont want to know anymore. That we dont want to consider that there just may be another aspect of truth we havent considered yet."( very loosely quoted).

Thats where I was, and in some ways still am. I had prayed many months ago to be closer to God, to have that passion that I had in years past again. All I wanted was God back the way I knew Him...I didnt particularly want new or enhanced understandings. So there I sat in my ship with all the questions I (to this day) believe God allowed me to have for good reason.
I prayed constantly and cried out to God...I just wanted to love others and help them see God like I had in years past... but He finally helped me realize that in order to do that, I needed to stop trying to sail back to what I knew before, and completely release myself from the shores of mainstream Christianity and let the good Lord guide my ship.

So finally I did, and I let myself examine the concepts that I had completely either written off as crazy or were only slightly sympathetic to (such as ultimate reconciliation). And slowly but surely I felt the anger and confusion melt away in awe of an amazing, transcendent God. I felt challenged, but also willing to examine my old beliefs and adjust them according to what God was showing me...even when it didnt seem to make sense...or in the case of ultimate reconciliation...too MUCH sense (haha).

At the same time I developed a knack for skepticism, to the extent that I never really had before. Ive never been a fan of questioning things too much or too deeply (until these last 8 months or so) but it unwillingly became ingrained as apart of my thought process.
At the same time I get the typical sense of surety that I shouldn't question such things...that I should just accept what Ive been taught growing up. But what am I afraid of? If God is truth, more investigation of that truth will only confirm it and give me a more solid ground to stand upon. Truth would not and will not magically overcome God and the Bible if they indeed be true, in which I believe they are. So I began to question why I KNEW what I did, how was I so sure?

I knew that I had had reasons to believe what I did, but was there a bigger picture of the world that I wasnt seeing?

Even though I feel like the dust has settled and I feel my beliefs more solid than they were previously, I constantly ask myself this. And I feel that question ultimately has led me to a much grander view of truth. Coming back into having a passion to debate and investigate I cant help but ask myself "Who is really right? Could I be wrong?". I wish more Christians were able to do that. because one of the main problems I see in the world today is the fact that everybody thinks they're right about everything, and so little do we challenge that. We're so ready to accept whats been handed down to us, and what the preacher says on Sunday mornings, that in the process we may plug our ears and laugh at a more reasonable (and often times, more Biblical) view.

Our tradition and Christian religion is a wonderful incubator or "nest" in which a fledgling Christian can hop around and chirp. A place where one can open their little mouth in hunger and eat the worm of mainstream doctrine, and be safe from the likes of atheist and Muslim birds. But eventually the fledgling grows up and gets sick of the prescribed doctrine worms. Eventually the bird is tired of his sibling birds who have grown enormous egos along with their bodies. The small nest no longer suits his need for growth and shelter. And thus the once little bird must spread his wings and fly into the unknown, and make his own nest so to speak. I call this flying "the nest of tradition" or phase two of the Christian life. Its not to say that one disregards everything one learns in the nest, but that our growth in God and understanding Him cannot be contained to the nest of tradition and its interpretations.
Flying outside of that nest I feel I have more of a real love for God and people, and a bigger view of Him and His ways.

So many times we seem to value our tradition more than we value what the Bible says or what God may be trying to show us. In Matthew 15 some Pharisees get mad at Jesus because His diciples didnt wash their hands before eating, as was the tradition. And Jesus replies in verse 3-7,

"And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? ...(buncha stuff)... you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. ⁷You hypocrites!..."

I think Jesus implies here that our tradition, The Bible, and what God shows us arent by nature in the same camp...and should be separated when they come into conflict with one another. Failure to do so gets us stuck in our man-made religions and ideals...instead of a pursuit for God. I think we should no longer allow such tradition to get in the way of the things Gods trying to show us...and in doing so will make us so much wiser as I feel I have started to become.

Its possible and am almost sure that I am still wrong about some things. That other people may be wiser in some respects, even some fundamentalist Christians. I certainly hope Im right about many things, most particularly ultimate reconciliation and Gods unfailing love for all humanity. But at the end of the day I've come to conclude that THIS is where God wants me to be. This is the place of mind where He has led me and where He broke the oppression from my heart. My understanding always has and always will be in need of growth (as is the case with everyone). And I could spend all day everyday in torment worrying that God will be forever furious if I dont get the perfect definitions of everything. But God purposefully has not given us the answers to everything in "clear as day, proven fact" form. So the only thing we can do as human beings, is to piece together the evidence given in the most coherent matter possible, with the Holy Spirit guiding us accordingly. And thats what I try to do now as I live life...nothing more, nothing less. I dont think God honestly expects anything more of His creations, how could He? And that is part of why I believe He truly has an unfailing and unconditional love for us all, that death itself cannot and will not stop.

So wont you fly the nest? Isnt it so cramped and confusing in there? Isnt it so frustrating dealing with the "know it alls" after awhile? Arent you ready to let the spirit of God take you on a journey to see a bigger view of the world and His love for it?I admit it can be scary at first, but I think its healthy to really look at why we believe what we do. To not stubbornly presume we have the "right" interpretation and everyone else is just wrong and deceived by Satan. To truly examine the possibilities. I think in doing that we can begin to understand people and God so much better.

An empty chair

2009-05-05T21:33:00.000-05:00

I really intend this blog, obviously, to be more geared as a spiritual journal for me. So I really debated whether or not to post this entry. But sometimes, like today, I just have more personal things on my mind. So this blog wont be terribly interesting (I dont know if they really ever are anyway) as it is not meant as anything but a vent, and maybe a small clarification to those of you that havent understood the pains in my recent months that HAVENT been as spirituality related. So just be for warned if your looking for my so called "deep" spiritual insights:

Its kind of weird to say that Ive been single almost half a year now. Its even weirder that it really bothers me, since before my last relationship I had been (well officially) single for about two years, and then before that I never had even dated anyone. But here I am, sad, and feeling sorry for myself that no romantic endeavor has even slightly worked out in this near 6 month period.

Most of the time I would have been way over any girl by this point, but as Ive learned painfully but surely in the past 6 months, is that I really was(and in a less romantic sense, still am) in love with Amy(my latest ex). I hate admitting it to myself, since the 2 times I thought I was "in love" before that I shortly concluded afterwards that I was just naively infatuated. But despite all the things about Amy that I didnt agree with or like(particularly the person she transformed into at the end), I still reminisce on all the good times we did have when I would visit her(or even apart). And I really miss the part of me she completed at the time and just really the friendship that was like none other. We were apart the majority of the relationship obviously but in her I had a friend that would listen to me, and likewise...no matter what the problem, the success...any time of day. It was such a magical connection that I felt, and that, she at the time, claimed she felt as well.

I really had convinced myself that she was my soul mate and that I wanted to marry her, and though now Im glad I didnt pursue those plans any further...I was serious about it. Maybe what makes me most lonely and hurt still to this day was the terrible way we ended, that til this day has been completely irreversible. I can understand a person not feeling romantic about me anymore, I guess I can even understand when a person doesnt want to be my friend anymore. But when a person meant everything to you, and they claimed the same about you for over a year, I cant understand that person just walking out of my life never wanting to speak to me again...for no real given reason. More than my girlfriend, I considered her my closest friend...it didnt matter how far we were apart. So the various times I tried to mend things at least as friends between us from the time she broke up with me til about a month ago, and them being met with absolutely no response...just kindof blows my mind I guess. Its still hard to believe that I spent 1500 dollars and a years worth of love and care on someone that, for really small ridiculous reasons, dumped me for an athiest and wants to never speak to me again.

I know that I just need to completely get over it..since obviously her actions in the end showed that she wasnt the right girl for me at all. And in one sense I have...I dont think about her as often, Im fairly motivated to achieve something in life again (well on my good days) and Ive felt attracted to other people. But theres still a part of me that hasnt really dealt with it, that doesnt really know how to. Theres a part of me that is still with her even though our physical involvement never went beyond a 8 second kiss. And sometimes I just break down, because a part of me is still...dead and unfulfilled. And no matter how many times I tell myself that "she just wasnt the right girl and God will just magically give me someone better someday" it doesnt really repair what was broken in me.

It doesnt replace the empty chair in my life that she brought into the circle of my heart and just one day, left for something "better". And so ever since then, Ive just felt so lonely. I have a few good friends, not alot, but they're good and I try to hang with them when I can...but they do not nor could they possibly fulfill what Amy did in my life.

I still really deeply care about her, and hope that whatever shes doing she is happy. I hope that God brings her the best, most Godly man possible someday. In one way I feel sad and disappointed to no end that I could not be enough for her, or be that guy. But then in another way I dont feel bad at all because I know that for the staunch majority of the relationship I did everything I could to treat her kindly and respectfully unlike her past boyfriends. I know that I truly gave it my all, and that no matter how much I cannot understand it now, it was in Gods will at the time but not for the long run.

And though she may not forgive me for my weak self-esteem and analytical nature, I will forgive her for much more terrible things and be glad that we at least tried.

I know (or at least hope) that God has someone out there for me that will be for the long run. But I've pretty much concluded that wherever she is Gods probably not going to reveal who she is to me until I am content with myself and God, just as I was before my relationship with Amy. And that really it makes alot more sense for me to just establish myself in my career and figure out the man God is trying to make me into right now, before rushing off into another relationship. I only wish that in this time of singleness I could be content and not feel so empty and lonley without that "special" type of girl in my life. Its really difficult not to miss what I had, and not to in some way search for it. But I will pray that God gives me the strength to do His will contently in my singleness, while having the wisdom to see and cherish the right thing when it comes along.

God's "justice" vs. Man's "justice"

2009-04-23T22:11:00.000-05:00

For those of you tired of hearing me rant about topics from a Universalistic point of view, I will apologize in advance. Because I am about to embark on yet another, though, I feel like this is a crucial issue to talk about(as usual but still). And its also nice to have some in depth arguments typed out as I learn these things myself, and try to show others where Im coming from:

An argument I have heard frequently in opposition to the Christian Universalist, is like the one below that I pasted from an actual Christian forum post:

" it's not YOUR heaven, God is not subject to YOUR interpretations or YOUR rules or YOUR fallacious opinions...God is not obligated to let [anyone] into HIS kingdom. If that idea makes you 'boo-hoo,' with all respect, get over it."

While this poster presented the argument in an extremely brief, bogus and heartless way, I will admit that he and others have a point. Because I agree, God is not subject to merely what we think is right and "just" as humans. We are not entitled to anything on our own(why do you think Christ died to begin with?). What God has made He most certainly has the right to do with however He so chooses under whatever conditions he deems. For as I've said before, our finite minds can only grasp so much at that which is God and His ways.

But the argument is still...only half-baked, to say the least. And heres why...

This argument assumes that Gods idea of "justice" must be completely at odds with the typical ideals of human justice, in order for God to be...well...God.
But here's the thing though...if what WE think is Gods "fair and perfect justice" is that people will be tormented infinitely for not understanding the correct views of God by an un-given due date...than what does that say about our own ideals of "justice"? Can we truly call our ideals of right and wrong, fair and unfair, true "justice"...if that perception be true?

Suppose I'm principal of a new elementary school, and I try to establish the ground rules through some brief conversation to the kids in classroom A (lets assume there's 27 classrooms total). The kiddies in classroom A eventually proceed to construct a "rule book" based as closely as they can off what I told them a few weeks earlier and tries to be "good" lil students and follow it. Now the other 26 classrooms have no idea about what I told classroom A, and they are all running around, terrorizing the teachers, having food fights and erecting statues of Bart Simpson. Classroom A then goes out and tries to teach the other classrooms about my rules from their "rule book".
"HEY GUYS WE GOT THE RULEBOOK ON HOW THE PRINCIPAL WANTS US TO ACT!!!"

Lets say classrooms B, C, and D accepts the message of the "rule book" as truth because lets say I write them a note and say,
"Yes these are pretty much the school rules"
and thus classrooms A through D tries to follow it and tell other classrooms...but are unable to convince the others that the "rule book' is actually based on what I, the princapal of the school, said. And since the "rule book" following classrooms cannot prove as fact that the rulebook does in fact, contain my rules, the other classrooms refuse to follow. Then one day after a month of this I decide to come down from my office and forever expel from school all the little bad, food fighting terrorist kiddies because they didn't follow the rulebook that classroom A wrote about my rules.

Now, regardless of the fact no school is run like that (though here in America I wouldn't be too surprised), could we honestly say that, I, the Principal, executed "justice" and "fairness" at its finest by forever expelling kids for not following rules that were never proven to all to be mine? Would their parents no less expect that I have mercy and common sense, and make my decisions according to the situations and not merely just the actions? I think its safe to say that, though they need to be punished, a "everlasting" and "unchangeable" expulsion would not only be unfair to the children, but completely ludicrous.

Why then do we assume that God, the pinnacle of all that is "just" and "fair", will execute "justice" towards humanity, in an even more gruesome and unfair way than the principal did to the school children? It cant be only the "Christian Universalist" that sees the injustice presented by mainstream theology. And I feel the only reason that many people (including myself for many years) stomach this contradicting idea is because they've been taught that that is the ONLY conclusion one can draw from the Bible. Therefore the typical Christian allows this moral piracy to invade their beliefs because they feel to question this particular interpretation of the Bible, is to question the Bible and/or the motives of God himself...but I would argue that it is not. I would argue we owe it to God to test and refine our understanding of Him and His ways the best we can in this life. And I feel it is unfair to hardheadedly presume that God's perception of justice is somehow less merciful and fair than our own gut feelings, and then scapegoat it as just some weird "mystery of God!"that for some reason...cant be examined or investigated without God frowning down at us. God should not be below or matching our ideal judge, but be far greater.

So then what would we as humans generally conceive as (at least ideally) a"just" or "fair" judge? Consider the following:
-A just human judge would first of all, have to be unbiased and impartial.
The Bible says that God does not show partiality (Col. 3:25).

-A just human judge would not let crime "off the hook" without punishment, but would propose a fair punishment to fit the crime. The Bible tells us that God renders to EACH according to his deeds (Ro. 2:5-6), therefore a generic "infinite" punishment would make no sense because the measure by which God would punish us would be the same for everyone regardless, and not tailored to the "crimes" themselves.

-A just human judge would do what he could to seek the correction of the culprit, to show them right from wrong and what wrong gets you. Not just to "avenge" those that were wronged to begin with. The Bible tells us that people will learn "righteousness" from Gods judgments(Is. 26:9), but how would they learn or benefit from the learning of what is right, if all they're doing is being BBQ'd for all eternity in Hell? How does that add up to God's purposes for judgment?

-A just human judge would consider all the variables involved in what caused the criminal to act as they did(if they indeed did), including their mental health and age. Most Christians do not believe that the mentally handicapped or small children undergo infinite punishment in Hell, because the state of their mind keeps them from being capable of fully comprehending right from wrong and what Jesus did for them...but doesn't every person have something(s) that keep them from understanding those things with absolute clarity? Hasn't God allowed us all to be afflicted with sin, the very thing that pulls us from His truth? Did God merely allow man to fall into sin, with no intention to take such a "disease" and "mental insanity" into account on the day of judgment? The Bible tells us that God has more compassion and mercy than that, for what He allowed knowingly(La 3:31-33). I don't believe God will merely turn a "blind-eye" to that which caused us(the "sane")to make our flaws in belief and action, because we too posses a type of "insanity" of the soul, and a blindness of the heart and mind that only Jesus Christ can clean away from us at His appointed times.

Looking at these verses, can we AT LEAST agree that God could be no less a judge than any good human judge or authority? So back on point...would His justice then really be at such complete odds with our own, as mainstream Christianity subtly suggests? You may say
"Well Gods ways are not our own!"
And that is true, but looking at the above statements and verses, I think its safe to say His idea of justice is NOT so far removed from ours, as is taught in the mainstream. It appears instead to me that while the "justice" of God should not be directly proportional to man's, it is a perfect and unfailing projection of that which we idealize as true "justice". God is transcendent and greater,wiser and more loving and forgiving than us in every respect. But at the same time, He made us in His "likeness and image"(Gen. 1:26), so we can expect that the things He essentially instilled in us as "justice", "love" and "mercy" are spitting images of Gods own concepts of them...not completely different(and conflicting) ideas all together. He is the very source of these concepts...so we can only belittle them, not amplify them beyond God's own versions.

So lets go back to the school/principal analogy, and lets say I, the Principal, come to a different verdict. Lets say I don't FOREVER expel the bad kiddies for not understanding the unproven rules, but instead allow them their due punishments, while taking into account what they did not understand and why. And once their punishment runs its course and they understand with absolute clarity what they did wrong and why its bad, allow them to come back to school. Could we agree that this is overall pretty just? Could we agree that the whole reason that I implemented the rules to begin with was to show them what is the good and proper way to act? And wouldn't the punishments not be so much about "getting back at them" or "avenging the teachers that had to put up with them" as much as it was hoping for their overall betterment, in hopes that they one day become very successful and productive members of society? (Okay so maybe I'm romanticizing the principals intentions a wee bit too much, but I think you get the point).

The idea above is called "rehabilitative" justice. It is punishment that seeks the overall improvement of the individual, to aid in turning a "doer of evil" into a "doer of good". And based on what we can generally conceive as justice, and the above scenario...would we expect God to act any less "just" and "purpose-driven" with His own creations? Could His ultimate judgments be not so much the supposed "retained wrath of God now unleashed!" and more so Gods "cleaning up" method of the messes Satan has caused humans to make, and getting the rest of His kids back on track? Wouldn't that be what not only a good, just judge would do, but a loving father...as God is both of those things in their perfection? I propose Gods judgments are not at such great odds with ours, but is rather more analogous and to the very ideas own "perfection" beyond which we can even comprehend. And rather than subjecting us to eternal, un-purposed, punishment...will instead direct correction upon us until the point at which justice is satisfied and we ALL feel the need to turn our whole hearts to Him. For He is not angry forever...but instead wants to gladly give us all mercy(Mic. 7:18)! And I believe He will in due time.

I will let you draw your own conclusion here, but hopefully even if you disagree or find fault with my argument, you can at least better understand what it is your disagreeing with...which is really my ultimate intent with any of these "religious themed" blogs. You cant really understand what you don't agree with if you don't understand whats truly being argued in the first place.

Shalom

Christs death, election, and the problem of "subconscious superiority"

2009-04-14T00:20:00.000-05:00

The cross was the means by which God would reconcile his creation to Himself...to save it(2 Corinthians 5:19). It cost Jesus his dignity and His life. And though he did it for "all" and the "world", somehow people seem to believe that most of humanity wont be saved from it. That somehow, the cross failed to accomplish its mission(though they would argue that it didnt fail, but it was simply us that failed to accept it, or some complex "God vs Man" rationalization).

But why cant Christ get all that he suffered and died for? Cant it be logical to say that God will not give up until everyone comes under that repentance, that love and salvation in Him?

The sad argument I hear against this often is:
"If all will be saved, then that cheapens Christs death on the cross"

Im sorry, but how on earth does someone dare to say that Christs death and payment on Calvary was somehow "cheap" if he reconciles not a few sinners, but all that God created and loves?
Thats like Jesus spending all His money to buy a mansion that he had his eyes set on His whole life(the guy was homeless His whole ministry maybe he wants His own pad for a change, eh?). But soon afterwards, as Jesus is about to enter the mansion, Satan hops out from the bushes and goes,
"HA HAAA! You have the keys to the mansion, but all Ill allow you to have is the tiny bathroom! I still own all the rest of the property that you paid for! HA HAAA". And Jesus replies.
"Awwww...shucks! Oh well, I like bathrooms!"
...but how does that even remotely make sense?

So people seem to rationalize this limited line of thought, by suggesting that God only meant to pay for "the tiny bathroom" of humanity, otherwise known as "the elect"(this is more the Calvinist view). That Biblical passages like:
"For God so loved the WORLD that he gave His only begotten son"(John 3:16) and
"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and NOT ONLY for ours but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"(1 John 2:2)
...were only a figurative round-about way of saying the fraction of humanity that is called the "elect" of God.

And here we find a grave problem. Because if Jesus only died to save a few select sinners(us Christians in this life) than that means God chose us over the BILLIONS of unsaved, depraved people. He reached His hand down from heaven to save us from the fiery pit of destruction, but only gave sight to a select few to see that hand at all. Then He goes on to punish for all eternity those whom he didn't allow to have sight. And sadly enough, this view makes God out to be the worst villain ever to exist. This view states that though he allowed humanity to drown in a pool of sin, he only chose to rescue a few...even though He has the power and DESIRE(2 Peter 3:9) to save all. Consider this little cartoon:

Could God REALLY be like that? Mainstream Christian theology seems to think so. And this understanding sets in peoples minds...until they view the unsaved like this:
"God was gracious enough to save me, but not you! Oh well, you made your choice!"

We then as Christians, unknowingly, find ourselves more loved and cherished by God, because we are his "elect". We come to understand that God saved us Christians exclusively. This creates in us what I like to call "subconscious superiority". Its the same sort of "subconscious superiority" that Israel had because they were the "chosen people of God".
This subconscious superiority does not mean that you don't have "a heart for the unsaved" or that you automatically strut around thinking your better than anyone who is not Gods "elect". But at the same time...it creates that knee jerk reaction that goes,
"NO! Christ cant die for all, he died for me, he picked me, not you! His sacrifce would be meaningless if he REALLY died for EVERYONE!"

because the line of thought is (at least in the Armenian view) is that while God loves and died for everyone, He doesnt love them enough to save them and lets their clouded minds of "free will" override Gods ultimate purposes.(Calvinists would simply say Christ only died for the elect and thats all, but I digress). So the concept of us being the "elect" becomes subliminally etched in our minds and hearts as the pristine, "cream of the crop" batch of humans that God decided to REALLY die for over everyone else...because everyone else hates God and just wants to sin against Him! Rawr! (You like the rawr? I like the rawr. Im getting way off topic)

But in either case...the question burns...how can the scope of Adam's power to damn us be greater than the scope of Christs power to redeem us? Most would argue that it is not. But if we are honest with ourselves we can admit that according to both the Armenian and Calvinist schools of thought...the destruction of Adam will FOREVER claim the majority and will belittle the portion of souls redeemed through Christ. But how can that be so? How can that be Gods "perfect plan". Quite simply...it cannot be.

My honest question to you is, did He really die for you, more than He died for someone else? Did He die for the rich televangelist more than He died for the homeless drug addict? What makes us (Christians, the first fruits of Christ) any less of a sinner in need of grace than the next person who is never unveiled to His truth in this life? How can we truly believe that WE CHRISTIANS are all Christ came to save?

Israel certainty wasn't the only peoples to which God wanted to extend grace and love to, and later revealed that it was to the Gentiles too(Gen. 22:17-19).Was that not God's plan all along?:

John 14:47
"...For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it"

Luke 15:4-6
"⁴"Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? ⁵And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders ⁶and goes home."

John 17:21-23
"that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²²I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: ²³I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

1 Corinthians 15:22
^"22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

1 Timothy 4:10
"that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. "

These are just a few of HUNDREDS of verses that hint at Gods awesome plan to reconcile all of man-kind to himself. So I ask you again...why cant God get all he really paid for? Will he only be partial to a portion of humanity? Or will He be the savior of all humanity...ESPECIALLY of the the "elect" who believe in this life, like it says above in 1 Timothy? I believe we Christians are not superior, but equals to the non-Christians...of which God loves JUST as much and WILL bring to salvation and repentance as He has desired from the beginning. Christs death is therefore not "cheapened" or "meaningless"...it was the very high price God paid to save us from our depravity. To show His love for us as a people...not just for the "elect". It was the only means by which ALL humankind could and SHALL be saved by.

I pray God opens your mind, and your heart.

Free will?

2009-04-07T14:42:00.000-05:00

In Christianity one of the things we're first taught is that God loves us "all", but that he allowed man to be "free agents" of choice, to choose God or to reject Him. This seems like a reasonable and fair thing to accept (at least it was to me for many years) since the idea of a tyrannical dictator God forcing us to love Him just seemed preposterous. How could God ever expect us to love Him if he didnt give us the free choice to choose so? And I think the average human is already under this assumption that they have "free will" to do and choose as they please(consequences abiding of course).

But do we truly have this thing called "free will?" Did God create the world in such a way in which he has control over everything, except our hearts? Does God want all of us to be saved but is simply unwilling to infringe upon our human right to choose eternal damnation over eternal life?

I think the short, non-philosophical answer is: Yes...and no. Consider the following verses:

Romains 8:29
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

and a verse from last week
Ephisians 1:11
"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,"

The greek word thats translated "predestined" is the word "proorizo", which means "to determine before" according to Strong's Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. And according to the modern day Church, these verses mean that those who come to Christ are those that God determined before hand...since the beginning of time. So already we see our "free choice" being infringed upon by God "hand-picking a few lucky bums to get the grand prize of infinity nights in Gods sky hotel". But wait...I thought we had a "choice"? How can humans truly have a choice to become saved if God decided who would be saved from the dawn of time? Doesnt make any sense huh?

For so many years I looked at things, as many Christians do. Like humanity is a huge mob of hampsters that God bought one day, and sat down in a cage and said "now be good little pets!". He didnt give them shots so they all got rabies and he knew this, but he hid the vaccination amoungst his appartment hoping all the hampsters would find it. But they immediatley started rioting and tearing up His house while he was gone at the store because they just wanted to be evil hampsters. And then God came home and he was like
"I TOLD YOU HAMPSTERS TO BE GOOD, BUT YOU DISOBEYED ME!" and then God had to shoot all the little hampsters with a shotgun except for a couple fearful good hamsters that found the cure, and so they hid in the corner.

But then I realized that God wasnt like that, and nor was life that black and white (nor were their hampsters, but beside the point). He was the mass orchestrator of it all, and he wasnt just going to shoot the majority of His holy hampsters that he loves and sold His son for!!! He may punish the naughty hampsters, but he has bigger things in store than dead hampsters that didnt choose to love and obey him, or find the cure in time.

Though some would argue
"well, he reveals himself to everyone and they have a choice to choose Him or not"

But is that really the case? Lets look at what Jesus said:

Matthew 11:27
²⁷"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (also look at Matthew 16:16-17)

So right here we are told that it is actually God that chooses to reveal himself to us. We may have a measure of free will to choose him once hes revealed himself to us...but without that revealing of Gods choosing there is simply no way for us to choose Him.

Another thing I would like to point out is its not really us that choose the circumstances we are born into, that ultimately shape every choice and road we take in life. God allows them for whatever reasons he feels best. So to say that a man who grows up in Muslim saturated culture his entire life, is expected by God to somehow drop all his beliefs at the name of Jesus is simply unrealistic. Is that beyond Gods power? Definitly not. But the point is, is that our attitudes and choices are based on the very things that God placed us in, and our selection of Him as Lord and savior is dependent on that...and even more so on Gods choosing to reveal himself to us.

With that said...I think its fair to say that God has only chose to reveal himself(to the degree that we can "choose" him) to a small percentage of humanity. So is God merely impartial to the rest of humanity? How can God "so love the world that he gave His only begotten Son" if he only chooses to reveal himself to a fraction of us in this life? Could the answer be that his love and revelation extend beyond the grave enough so that every human to ever exsist truly has a clear "choice" to accept him as is in our very design to be complete?

I think we have free will...the ability to choose...but its firmly guided, pre-planned and placed in the enviroment that God ordains. And since He does all he wills and desires, He will lead us all to our intended destiny eventually, even through death and judgement.

Stop praying and start listening

2009-04-03T22:33:00.001-05:00

(*photo taken by Dennis Rassing, photoshoped by me, Eric Soto)

I felt like just keeping the topic a little lighter this week, in hopes I get more of you to discuss:

I've always found prayer to God a very important, and daily part of my life. Even before I was "saved" it was always just one of those things I did. I'd tend to pray for things that I "needed". Or at least thought that I did.
"God I need this girl, shes like the coolest girl ever, and shes freaking hot. Yeah. I just want to get to know her. Please God!"
Or sometimes(I think I still do this unintentionally) I bargain with God.
"God if you just please change this, and fix this, Ill be a better christian and read my bible way more...". I think a lot of people bargain with God, even people that don't believe in Him.

As time goes on though, I wonder what the purpose of prayer actually is? I think most people (including me) look at praying as "opening Gods blessings on us" as if hes a cosmic vending machine filled with divine goodies. Maybe even a lovable bearded pinata in the sky that if we hit with our Bibles enough times he'll dispense some candies entitled "Gods sweet strength" so that we can make it through the day. Then when God "doesn't answer prayer" we say something like-
"Well it just wasn't Gods will, he has a better plan".

But wait...if he has a "better" plan, wouldn't he just do it regardless of what we pray, if we pray anything at all? Does God need human permission or persuasion to act within the best interests of His Almighty purpose? Consider the following verses...

Job 23:13 ¹³ "But he stands alone, and who can oppose him?
He does whatever He pleases.

Ephesians 1:11
^11"In him we were also chosen,^a]">[a] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will,"

I tried talking about this with someone today and he said-
"[God] has a plan for everyone, but we are free souls to make our decisions ourselves. If you know the Bible, you line your prayers up with Scripture, and you'll be praying God's will."

And I can agree with this in part...our hearts should and technically will be more aligned to God and His "will" and purposes as time goes on so well pray for the "right" things. The assumption this guy is making though is that even though God has a purpose, we can just stray away from the purpose by not praying the right things into effect. Meanwhile God is up in the clouds with his hands over His head like
"WHAT?! YOU IDIOT! I TOTALLY DID NOT EXPECT YOU TO DO THAT!!! MY WILL IS RUINED!!!!"
But is God thrwarted that easily? Does he not expect us to do what we do thousands of years before we even do it? As the verses above show(and there are many many more) God has a purpose, a will, a desire...and he is seeking to do exactly that and WILL. God rigged the election long ago, so this whole idea of "free will"(a can of worms we can talk about later lol) is kind of a joke in regards to thinking that whatever we say will encourage God to do something within his will, as if he wasn't planning on it anyway.

Whats honestly the point in that?

I'm certainly not saying prayer isn't a good thing, I think prayer has always been important throughout the Bible...and it was obviously important to Jesus enough to give us the "Lords Prayer".

But I'm beginning to look at prayer as less of a method by which we obtain Gods purpose/gifts and more as just a key communication of the heart. I mean I can lay down at night and say all these different things about "God help me, why wont you help me, give me this give me that" but Ive begun to realize how selfish and pointless that is. Maybe by praying for that "new Dodge Viper" or that "hot christian chick" God will show us that we really don't need them, and instead show us what we really need and how to go about that.

So I guess in conclusion, I think the purpose of prayer is not to try to "help along Gods will" but more about coming to grips with God in communication about what IS on OUR hearts. And just letting God know(as if he already doesn't) that we want HIS will to be done and in that do a lot less talking and a lot more listening to what Gods heart is...rather than just praying for what we think is/should be Gods Will. We cant truly "alter" Gods will...I would beg we really cant even stray from it(again, thats for another time). He knows what His purpose for everything is and I don't think He's just waiting around for us to pray it into effect.

As always, would love to hear your thoughts. :)

Hell: For those who "just don't want God"?

2009-03-27T13:08:00.000-05:00

I get a quarterly christian magazine in the mail called "Ignite" that's aimed towards college students and the like, and in the Q & A section a girl writes:

"Why is there a hell if all sins are forgiven?"

Though the article is rather short, ill just type the part that "grinds my gears".

"[Hell]'s the place for people who want nothing to do with God. Heaven is not for anyone who doesn't want to spend eternity in Gods presence.

God offers each of us reconciliation and forgiveness...but if you spent your whole life ignoring or avoiding life with God, he's not going to compel you to live with him."

And the more Christians I talk to the more I get this type of "they just don't want God" rationalization. They appear to assume that everyone in this life that is not "saved", is simply walking around on earth, holding their "fingers in their ears" and whistling away while they live their sinful lives.

And all the while God supposedly keeps peeking in the door and saying
"Hey uh...wanna come hang out? I got some free tickets to eternal paradise, its pretty much the coolest thing ever". And the unsaved sinner replies
"WHAT? I CANT HEAR YOU!!! I'M TOO BUSY SINNING MY LIFE AWAY! LALALALA".

And quite possibly there are people like that in a sense. There are those people that know in full (well, they think they do) what a life in God through Christ entails, and they claim that they "wanna just live their own way". I'm not debating that mentality. There are also many times where its as though(and this has been true in my life) God has to run over, pile drive you to the ground and "pull the fingers out of your ears" to get your attention. If it wasn't for God doing that I think my months of questioning and struggles would have left me a very depressed agnostic/atheist the rest of my life. If it wasn't for that I don't think I would have ever given my life to Him to begin with. That's just apart of life because of the sinful nature that gets in the way.

But my argument is not that. My argument is the misconception that everyone who isn't "saved" in this life by stumbling upon the "right" things to believe, automatically doesn't want anything to do with God. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. The reason why people "reject" God in this life is either because they haven't heard of Him at all or they don't understand Him for who he really is(and really who can FULLY understand/experience Him til we are with him in eternity)? There are those who just "don't accept him" but they don't accept him because they don't really believe, and they don't really believe because they don't see how it could be true, and they don't see how it could be true because their sin, circumstances and the Devil himself are holding them and blinding them from whom God really is. From the love and forgiveness that he wants us all to have though His son who died on the cross.

I'm tired of this rationalization that choosing heaven over "hell" is this clear cut physical given choice that everyone MUST make. Its not as if theres a celestial airport that every human passes through when they are born. And the two destinations for that airport God announces over the intercom:
"Okay everybody, we have two flight destinations today. We have eternal paradise in Heaven with me, Lord God Almighty your loving creator...and then we have eternal torture in Hell, featuring Satan and billions of burning, screaming people who will choke and die til the end of time. Thank you for flying God Airlines!"

What type of insane person, fully believing and understanding.... would choose "Hell" (at least the mainstream conception of it) over God? its not that clear, its not that simple. Yet the entire christian community, including myself for many years has bought this lie of "people had a clear choice and they just didn't want God" hook-line-and-sinker, to just simply "pass off" any feelings of empathy for those poor hell bound sinners when they die. After all...they made their "choice"

...right?

But its that very kind of rationalization that shuts off the brain from probing what verses really mean. Its that rationalization that says "well that's just the way things are, I don't need to question my understanding of it".

Its that rationalization that makes us like the supposed sinner in my first analogy, with the fingers in their ears, refusing to listen and avoiding the question out of fear. Its a filter made by fear and by Satan. And God did not give us a spirit of fear:

"Romans 8:15
¹⁵For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship."

It doesn't even matter whether you fully believe in the doctrine of "eternal torture" or "ultimate reconciliation", because either way we need to look at the issue for what it really is and not just "rationalize it away". And I feel God has helped me stop rationalizing it away, and helped me lift off of me these types of falsehoods, to help see people for who they really are...His loving creations. Through that I have begun to have more love for others, more of a desire to tell them how to have a life in Christ and what He did for them. And to also think about their questions and fears in depth, as it is those very things that bar us from God. And I really just wish these types of rash generalizations/stereotypes/rationalizations would just dry up and never come back into the world of spiritual debates, because I really don't feel its helping us understand Gods true nature or his Love for people at all. God loves people deeper than "stumbling" across some beliefs, or making a "choice" in this life. While I believe those who don't accept God here on earth will still have to make a "choice" eventually...it'll be one before Him in all his glory at the end of ages, when people stand before him seeing him for how amazing he really is. It'll be an easy, clear cut choice...to be with their loving creator that they were made to be with.

...I believe everyone deep down needs and wants something to do with God, whether they realize it in this life or not.

Untapped by our human minds

2009-03-17T00:29:00.000-05:00

^{One of the things I've quickly re-encountered (very unpleasantly) as I've launched back into the realm of spiritual debates, is how puffed up and righteous people get about their personal interpretations(particularly on God and Biblical context).

I hear things like "Oh well that's not the context, your taking it out of context" and "Well lemme explain what that means"...as if said person has been given the ability to interpret the Bible 100 percent how God intended, to those of us that are just "stupid lil' doubters". They automatically assume that they understand perfectly the context of which the authors of the Bible and God meant. And for you to assume anything other than their "correct understanding" appears tantamount to spitting God in the face (and reading Harry Potter books of course ;-)).

But after hearing the word "context" for the billionth time, you begin to wonder what it even means? Let's be lazy and ask dictionary.com shall we?...}

con⋅text

–noun

1.	the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

2.	the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

3.	Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.(maybe some of these people I've been debating with have been dealing with these said mushrooms a bit too heavily before hand? hehe)

We see here that "context" basically means how a statement is used by the person who states it(most obviously). If you want someone to understand the context of what your saying, you want them to understand what your intentions and situations that surround it. For example, your friend just gets a brand new XBOX 360 given to him, and you have wanted one for a really long time yourself. When he tells you the news, you would say (well, I would sure say) "Dood, you suck! I hate you!!!".

Now you don't really think he sucks(or why are you his friend?) and you don't really HATE him(in fact you'll probably be begging him to play the 360 only moments later). And your friend will probably not run away crying like an emo child because you hurt his feelings by saying so. Why is this? Because of the CONTEXT....the context being that you were saying those things out of a bit of harmless, friendly jealousy. However if his girlfriend walked in the room right as you say "...you suck! I hate you!" she might be confused as to whats going on and possibly think your in an argument with your friend based on the words you said, not understanding the context of your "friendly" jealousy that would have been very obvious probably moments before...and that we would call a "misinterpretation". Makes pretty obvious sense so far, right?

So now that we've (hopefully) cleared the water on what context actually is....why do we as Christians automatically assume we can "correctly" understand a 2000 year old, divinely-inspired text in its entirety? The most common argument I find is something like:

"OH!! Well son if you read the Bible and are TRULY listening to the Holy spirit, you'll get the CORRECT interpretation! My interpreta-...I mean errr...God's interpretation!!! Yeah!"

And I can agree with that in part...we should be listening to the Holy Spirit beyond just what we think the Bible is saying to US personally. But if that is all one must do to understand the exact intent of every verse in the Bible, why are there (around) 30,000 denominations of Christianity in the world today? Are 29,999 denominations simply "blind" to the intent of God and the authors of the Bible? Is there only ONE exact way to look at a passage of scripture and ONE exact way to teach it in order to be "in line" with God? I would say, no.

I feel like so many times we Christians are like the girlfriend in my analogy above. Except were walking in on Jesus talking to a bunch of people sitting on a rock. Or were walking in on Paul writing a letter to a Church in a specific time, several thousands of years ago in a particular situation. Not only do we have an issue of understanding the "exact" intention of every verse in the Bible...but we also have an issue of understanding the language usage of a people thousands of years ago, many times translated and modernized.

And so many times we take verses out of that...and use them to mean things they may never have been intended to mean, even though it may be the "established" typical interpretation. At the end of the day...human interpretation is still....human interpretation. And I cant seem to convince myself that a "imperfect by nature" people can fully understand or interpret a "perfect by nature" God. Its not to say that we shouldn't even TRY to understand the exact context or intention...quite the contrary. We should learn from God as best we can through reading the Bible, but also not limiting ourselves to the interpretations of the mainstream Church or other people.
^{In closing I want to share a wonderful little song by a Christian band called As Cities Burn, called "Clouds". You should buy their album, "Come now, sleep". Basically, the lyrics go like this:

"Is your love really love?
Is my love really love?
I think our love isn't love,
Unless its love til the end. Is your God really God?
Is my God really God?
I think our God isn't God, If he fits inside our heads."

A lot of times we have all these perceptions of God and His Word, and all these ideas we've developed, but if we contain him STRICTLY to the understanding that WE have come to know Him in this human life, then is it really a transcendent God we believe in? If God truly is greater and wiser than us, which I believe that he is(and that means even greater and wiser than the authors of the books of the Bible) then there will ALWAYS be that percentage of Him and his knowledge/workings that remains untapped by our human minds.

So why not be at least open to other interpretations other than your own?}

"Aionios" - The Biblical Controversy

2009-03-11T17:56:00.000-05:00

First off, Id like to apologize for not updating this blog for a month. I have been busy with school and such plus I wanted some time to think about this subject a little more in depth:

The heart of the debate between "traditional"(the mainstream doctrine we've come to know anyway) Christianity and Christian Universalism seems to center around the meaning of the Greek word Aionios, which is translated to things like "eternal" and "forever" in our modern-day Bibles.

Some say(non-universalists) Aionios means "everlasting...without end". While others say(Universalists) it "only denotes everlasting in terms of God and his realm...for He is all that is everlasting. And in other cases its duration is relative to the subject".

So your probably thinking "so whats the big deal?Who cares? LET ME GO BACK TO PLAYN' MA Wii!!!". Hold on there video game cowboy, cuz the actual intended meaning of such words as "eternal" is crucial to understanding verses that denote the afterlife, particularly concepts such as Hell and Heaven, and how long humans actually go there for. If Aionios does in fact (as the mainstream church operates off of) mean "eternal" in the sense of Hell and punishment for humans that don't accept Christ...then the whole concept of ultimate reconciliation/universalism finds itself in deep doo-doo. Especially so to those who believe the Bible to be inerrant(without any errors whatsoever, of which I am not personally...but that's for another blog)

However if Aionios's intended duration is strictly relative to the subject of which it is applied to, then we find ourselves with new possibilities and deeper meanings to what seemed like black and white verses. We find a new lens upon which we can see God's plan for humanity. Lets look at some examples...

2 Corinthians 5:1
^"1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an [aeonian*] house in heaven, not built by human hands."

*(the Anglicized form of Aionios)

Here is a case where Aionios, according to the Universalist argument, would mean eternal or without end BECAUSE of its subject, which is pertaining to God and HIS realm...the only one of which can be "everlasting".

^{John 6:27
"27}Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to [aeonian] life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Here is another case where Aionios applies to the realm of God, particularly eternal life with HIM. Again the argument is that God and the realm of which God dwells can be truly deemed "eternal". Seems simple enough right? Not too much controversy screaming to "change your beliefs to SATANISM!!!", right?

But what about Aionios when used in relation to such things as eternal punishment in Hell...?

1 Thessalonians 1:8-9
^"8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.⁹ They will be punished with [aeonian] destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power."

Now here's where things get a bit more sticky. If Aionios/Aeonian is NOT relative to the subject(here being punishment) and deems eternal across the board, then we can only assume(as does mainstream doctrine) that people go to Hell... forever and ever into an unhappy pit of fire AHHHH!...you get the idea. However, if it is relative to the subject and only means eternal in the sense of God, then this verse seems to denote temporary separation or punishment. I say that because if Aionios is pertaining to "humanity" and "punishment" as subjects, neither are God or within the realm/presence of God(quite the opposite actually if were talking about separation in Hell), so therefore Aionios has to be(for arguments sake) a specific period of time not exceeding said subjects.

And since said subjects are not known to be God or in his "presence" nor "everlasting" we can only assume that the verse is NOT saying that people will be separated from God forever...but for a time.

I realize that this blog may have "hammered the same points into the ground" repetitively, seeing as I am not a Greek scholar. But this is the building block (or one of them) for the theory of all peoples being (eventually) reconciled to God through Christ at some point. Its not tossing away the idea of Hell all together or simply "cherry-picking" verses, its taking an interpretation of the Bible, particularly the original languages it was written in and going, "well now this usage may not mean people are separated from God forever.". It means maybe there is a greater purpose for it all, for Man...beyond some predestination or "stumbling upon the right set of beliefs in this lifetime".

Maybe God will bring all His creations until himself eventually.

Ultimate Reconcilliation Or Eternal Torture?

2009-02-10T09:33:00.000-06:00

One of the main things I began to analyze when all the "dark" questions started parading in my mind some months ago...was about "Salvation" (going to heaven to be with God, as opposed to not) and how it works in relation to different people in different times/circumstances. Ill apologize right here if this blog seems to be all over the place, I have a lot to say about it...and it may even be a two or three part thing depending on how much I write. This is a lot to chew even for me:

The first big question mark came when I began to think about those in the Old Testament, who had loved and followed God but wasn't (at least not in the sense we do today) operating on the hope the Jesus died for their sins. Yet to say that all those people(and I have yet to hear anyone say this) went to Hell for all eternity merely because they couldn't "say a prayer of salvation to Jesus" persay, seems a little harsh and probably untrue.

Amoung the theories Ive heard in response, are "They were rescued from Hell and taken to Heaven when Jesus was in hell", "No one is in Heaven yet, but they knew the spirit of Jesus without actually knowing it", and the more common "They were saved by believing in the promise of a coming messiah". The later being what I had pretty much believed for many years. And I certainly see the possibility of any of those ideas. Yet at the same time, see little support of scripture for any of those assumptions.

The big problem being...that none of those really seem to cut it for me...I couldn't help but think "There's more to it than just that...its not that simple". Because if it is that simple...than those of the Jewish faith shoudlnt be turned away on Judgement day...because they too trusted in that coming of a messiah...they were just blinded from it being Jesus. If it is that simple, than all the new testament jazz about inviting the Holy spirit into your heart obviously isn't required for salvation, as much as it is "trying to follow God" which sounds a lot more like a religion of works, and not grace.

Then I began to think to something a little more relevant to our time...
Do people really go to Hell for all eternity that never knew about not only Jesus and his sacrifice, but not even God as hes portrayed in the Bible? In response to this, I often hear things like "Well in Romans 1:20 it says they have 'no excuse', God revealed Himself to them in nature so He is not responsible" . Wait a minute..."have no excuse"? What excuse does a tribe secluded from society in the middle of South America NOT have? What excuse does someone who's been raised in another religion their whole life, NEVER hearing about Jesus not have? And why does the said "excuse" have to be in regards to their salvation? What if it just meant evil in general?

And I began to ask the bigger question "Can people really be punished FOREVER for something that was never made clear to them?" and "is God so cruel that he would create the majority of humanity KNOWING they would 'choose' to be away from Him FOREVER"? Forever is an awfully long time...

Most Christians would say "Well God has to be just", but here are the problems with that:
A.God is not an earthly judge...he is perfect, he is "Love"...thus He knows the circumstances and confusions that bind us.
B.We are not born with an instruction manual straight from the hands of God...we have an "inspired" book, a book which not everyone ends up reading.
C. With that said, there are many other books that claim to contain "truth", and other than the feeling in your heart/observable evidence...its all a judgment call.
D. Choosing between absolute "truth" and absolute "lies" is not as simple as choosing between and apple or an orange...God didn't give us that ability, so obviously he left it up to interpretation...up to a subtle learning process called "life".

I think those of us that are Christians feel like we have been thrust upon a spotless pedestal of reason by which we can see the world and God clearer than anyone else. But I don't believe this is the case at all. Regardless of whether we have, by the grace of God, "grasped truth" to the fullest of human understanding in this life...not everyone has. And more often than not its not because they just "are evil sinful people who don't want to obey God". Its because they are blinded from God and the truth...it is because all these things in this life can easily distract us from God and his true purpose for us, without us really ever knowing that purpose to begin with.

Everyone is trying to seek truth and "completeness" just as equally. I truly believe that. Not everyone is out running the streets "sinning away their life" because they hate God. Its because they are in a state that they don't feel they understand what God is, or are deluded into thinking its something else than it actually is. Were designed to be filled emotionally and physically...and yet many people don't figure out why that they still come up dry after obtaining all this life has to offer, even religiously. Even those presented with Christ...even those who have BEEN true Christians sometimes come up at the end of their rope feeling lost, confused and unfulfilled. Sometimes even those that are closet to God, are torn away by Satan and his lies.

But does any of that ETERNALLY void a person to be with their creator, their completeness...simply because they weren't able to fully grasp what God created them for in this life? I would say no....and as the days go by, that "no" gets a little bit stronger.

And verse wise, I feel like this is what God has shown me in support of this...

"Isaiah 45:23-25-

23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.

24 They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone
are righteousness and strength.' "
ALL who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.

25 But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel
will be found righteous and will exult."

Now the typical Christian would say "oh this just means everyone will give God glory in the end but it'll be too late if they didn't accept Jesus before... they're gone forever because its too late". And maybe they're right. Or maybe that's just looking at it through the typical lens they got from church...maybe that's not the way God wants us to view it. Which brings me to the next verse

"Romans 10:9

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

these people are admitting(in the prophecy in isaiah 45) to God and are bowing their knees(obviously in worship, and reverence)...even if Hell or punishment awaits (or has already happened) does that mean they are forever cast away? These people that have "raged against him" are turning to him in that final time...and therefore I believed that even they who did not accept him now...in this life...will come to him then and ultimately be reconciled to His love, even if temporary time in Hell is a prequel or sequel as a punishment.

"1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
If Jesus really died for us all...do you really think he'd just settle for a handful of people out of the billions that the Father created? Or is God really like the father in the story of the prodigal son...and even when his son strayed from him...rejoiced and forgave him when he finally came back to his father? I believe He is. I believe that tapestry that God is making can look like a mangled mess on the one side, the side we see in this life sometimes...but on the other side its becoming a beautiful, complete picture of His love and willingness to thread us all unto himself through the blood of Christ...no matter how long that takes to finish.

In the next part I'm going to go through some of the verses that seem to (or may actually) contradict this view and also some more thoughts in depth, in the meantime...feel free to comment with your thoughts. Id love to hear from you even if you don't agree at all =)

How do you KNOW?

2009-02-09T14:36:00.000-06:00

This is something I posted on myspace/facebook not that long ago, but I thought it a good lil read to kick start this blog and the things I wanna write about. So feel free to comment and Ill be writing more:

Ok so in my months of "trial, tribulations and questioning of faith" one thing ive really kindof realized how arrogant so many christians are(and non-christians too really). Whether you fall on the ET(eternal torture) side of the "fence" or the UR(ultimate reconcilliation) side, each side still likes to act like they have the FULL support of scripture and most of all they act as if they KNOW that they are right. As if its a matter of just being "enlightened" enough by God...and to believe otherwise...well golly you might not have been saved to begin with, partner!(sarcasimm, I greatly hate when people say that to me). One thing ive realized about Christianity in general, or life in general...is that I DONT know if Im right. I dont know if Im right to lean towards universalsim, heck I dont even know if im right to believe in Chrisitanity somedays!

Now dont tune me out here...I believe in what the spirit of what I called on...Christ...Jesus...yesh

a...God who supposebly became flesh......I believe in what he did in my life when i gave my full heart to Him. I believe in Christianity...I also believe that I could very well be wrong about all my assumptions, and maybe half or all the time I thought I heard God it was somthing else entirely. . Maybe some other religion is entirley right and Im just entirely wrong? Maybe the absolute truth isnt even knowable to begin with? And I guess I get really disturbed and irked when most christians(ive been in the boat too) walk around in the clouds as if doubts, and the possiblity of them being wrong is just...OF THE DEVIL AHHHH GET AWAY SIN!!! I was actually talking to a christian the other day, trying to get her to see why I lean towards the idea of UR and so Im just asking her honest questions about the bible and our interpretations shes like "Its just best not to think".....what? really? is that what american christianty has been brainwashed to think? that truley examining our belifs and our ability to know "truth" is just a bad idea all together? How are we to grow?

And really, I think thats why salvation is more than likely universal in the end of ends or whatever of eternity...while I still believe in Christ and him being of God to pay for us.....because humans are stupid! I heard a quote somewhere and it was absolutley true "everybody thinks that they are right" ...and yet no one ever sees that. Very few people ever challenge why they believe what they do, and then when they do dont challenge their ability to be right about their new conclusions either.

lemme state that its not just a problem exclusive to Chrisitanity, its an agnostic problem, its a muslim problem, its budhist problem, its a hindu problem, its an agnostic problem, its even an athiest problem.

Where am i going with all this? i have no clue. I guess the million dollar question is "How do we really know ANYTHING?" be it be about universal reconcilliantion, christs divinitiy, the bibles validity, Gods exsistence...whether our new assumptions about anything in life are right, religious or non.....whether the color green is in fact...green....whatever youy wanna insert here.

I know that it all comes down to God granted faith in the end (or be it belif in yourself in the athiest case) but...idk. somedays I really feel like im just forcing myself to believe what Ive been taught to believe rather than what I really feel, and its hard to discern which of that is God and which is that is satan and which of that is just me. I feel the most free and oddly, the most close to God and love when I just let myself think freely and ask the hard questions and examine my own assumptions even when I totally dont get it.

one things for sure, whatever you are...completly shutting off the brain to other ways of looking at things, be it what you thought before or never heard, is never a good idea. I think thats safe to say.

EDIT:
The fact is...no one can prove anything in either event.

But thats pretty much the case with anything spiritual...religious...or abstract. Why state the obvious?

Just because something cannot be proved, at least not at said given point...doesnt mean no efforts to attain it or identify somthing or BELIEVE something should not be made. I cant, nor can anyone, gurantee that I will have a good paying job or a job at all after I graduate this spring. Yet that doesnt stop me from hoping, or believing that furthering my education is a good thing.

The same applies with concepts of the spiritual realm and God. I cant prove really anything...but that doesnt mean I should just shrug my shoulders in apathy at the evidence Ive been given. I can be realistic and say I cant prove exactly what the evidence means, but I can at least piece it together to the best of my God-given ability while trying to commune with that which has come into my life.

And that fact and what I feel Jesus has done in my heart and changed me and others is about the only things that keep me from being a total agnostic