Quicksilver Commentary

Arts and Crafts: How to Make a Diety

In a previous post, "The Fear of What God Might Become, if We Let Him," I wrote of my own journey from the Religious Right to wherever I am now, and of the way I tried my very hardest to make Christ accept the oh-so-logical-and-just set of beliefs that I worked for years to form.  Now though, I must say that I am quite sure I was never alone in my rebellion.  I can call out no individuals, and I will not, for the path they take is God's alone to decide for them; however, I have no problem with addressing the problems I see in a movement as a whole.  Thus I must speak to the Religious Right, though I doubt they will hear me (for I have yet to host a radio show). 

When I was a Republican, I am quite sure that I wanted nothing more than to create God in my own image.  I had imagined a God who expected everyone to make right choices (under the threat of eternal damnation), and who existed for nothing but the good of the entire world.  Indeed, anything bad that happened to anyone was surely the result of their own sin.

I was missing something though.  First, right choices don't come so easily to those who are utterly imperfect, and second, man (and least of all a teenager) has no concept of what is good for him.  However, I could not see this; I expected all men to do good things, and for God to reward us with lots of nice stuff, because "my God shall supply all my needs," you know. 

Both of these expectations, I believe, stemmed from where I live.  I live in a society where even many Christians believe in some way that man is "basically good"; that is, Christians might deny it, but they still imagine that a man who is sinful can do things that please God.  I know I did.  I knew all about freedom, and I knew that in the situation I had been raised in, I had found doing "good things" to be quite easy.  If someone else finds these things hard, then, I'd say they deserve whatever they get, whether their reward be poverty, jail time or an STD. 

My society had also taught me that "stuff" is good, and that more "stuff" is better.  You know what I mean; in the world we live in, "Excess is equated with success," as Switchfoot says.  I was conditioned to assume that getting money was a positive event, and that getting sick was a curse straight from the Devil.  Part of this was due to my religious training, but I believe that training itself was the result of the materialism of American society. 

You see, society had molded my beliefs to fit its image, and I in turn tried to mold God to fit my image.  Unsurprisingly, I didn't succeed.  But I did create a nice little god of my own to worship; he was an impotent god who never really did much for me, but I was quite sure that he at least wanted to give me lots of stuff and that he agreed with me that people with AIDS should have really been more careful about whom they slept with.

But what does this have to do with society?  Here's the connection.  American culture is quite materialistic, and America itself is exceedingly wealthy.  Oddly enough, I have found the Religious Right more likely to debate this than the Secular Left; the Right will say simply that "God has blessed us," while the Left will cry until they turn blue that we should spread our blessings around a bit.  Not that they actually spread their own blessings around, much less do it effectively, but despite their being mired in materialism, at least they are able to see that materialism and rail against it. 

But I digress.  Back to our wealth and materialism, consider this:  It is our materialism which causes us to consider "stuff" to be good, and it is our wealth which makes us look down on those who do not have "stuff."  Perhaps this is confusing, so I ask you this:  When a person considers a thing (be it money, health, or friends) virtuous, and he happens have more of this thing than others do, how does he come to think of other people?   Does he esteem them higher than himself (as Paul might counsel us), or does he think "Gee, I've sure got a lot of virtuous stuff going on here"? 

The materialism that makes us regard "stuff" as virtuous is subtle.  It is difficult to recognize, partly because we are so numb to it (it saturates every part of our lives), and also because it has quietly crept in to Christianity from its secular origins.  Chances are a person with plenty of stuff isn't going to admit to himself that he thinks he is better than a person with less stuff, because that would mean he would have to admit that people with more than him are better than him.  However, he still secretly holds to the belief that many in this democracy have:  the belief that everyone has an equal chance, and if one person does not have as much as another person, then it is an indication of poor choices at best, and vice at worst. 

Of course, not everyone has an equal chance of doing equal things for an equal reward.  I'm not talking about men making more money than women, or white people making more than black people.  I'm not speaking of inequality between salaries at all.  Instead, I'm talking about the hand that God plays in the reward of every man, and the hand that sin has in all of man's choices. For God is the rightful judge of what any man should receive, both in this world and the next, and sin affects the choices of all of us, especially those who know nothing but sin. 

Let me say a little bit more about God's dispensation of blessings.  We as humans are finite, flawed, and ultimately it can be said that we don't know very much.  So on what authority have we allowed ourselves to be convinced that material things are good?  To be certain, they are not evil unless there is such a thing as a necessary evil (for we are encouraged to ask for our daily bread), but how can we legitimately believe that any one thing is good? 

Now remember, it may not be a conscious thing that causes us to believe material success is good (or an indication of good), but it is a real belief nonetheless, and one that afflicts us all.  And yet, it is an unfounded belief.  God is the sole determiner of right and wrong, of what is good and what is evil.  He has not told us that a person with little should make better choices, or that a person with much has done many things right.  Instead, He has told us that rich and poor alike need the same thing, and that thing is Him. 

So why, then, has the Church begun seeking riches?  Why do we give money for our church to change lightbulbs and buy new video cameras?  Perhaps the Lost just really want to spend a couple of hours of their weekend listening to knock-off Chris Tomlin music and learning about things that have little or no bearing on their everyday life in a place that is well-lit and video taped.  If that is the case, then the money we give to the Church (secretly hoping that it will be returned thirty, sixty and a hundredfold) has been sown well.  But if the Lost have no interest in such things, and if we have done nothing with our seed to help the World see that their purpose can be found in more than this material world, then we have merely thrown money at God (or in his general direction) to see if He'd give us money in return. 

And perhaps that is our downfall.

We consider money and possessions to be good, even though we have no right to.  Now, what better to lead a person into sin than a false belief that something is good?  For man naturally pursues what seems most good to Him.  So I do believe it could be said that, while money can be a blessing for some who need it to survive, it can also be a curse to the man who believes it good.  And here in America, I find there are very many people indeed who believe it to be good. 

That is why I say our combination of materialism and wealth is a very dangerous one.  We view money as a blessing from God, when it very often may not come from Him at all.  For He will not lead us into temptation, and if money or "stuff" happens to be our vice (as is often the case with materialists like us), then maybe excess isn't in his plan for us. 

I dunno, just a thought. 

But do you see what has happened?  By recognizing materialism for what it is, we can then see that it's okay to have less than everything, and that people who happen to have less than we do are exactly the same as we are.  Their choices aren't their problem, it is their heart, for the heart makes the choices.  And when we recognize that we are materialistic beasts, we can finally begin to allow Christ to turn us into something else, something He can use to provide for the poor, if they need it, and humble the rich by living humble lives themselves. 

This is where I speak to the Church.  You can see for yourself the image of materialism, if you can bear to look upon yourself for a moment.  It's true that in the past, there were people who believed God would give no one any material blessing, but that does not justify your extreme reaction to their extreme position.  While material may or may not be evil, it is not something to be sought; only something to be given, first by God, and then by those who received it to those in need.  It can be nothing else without moving God from his rightful place in our doctrine.  Now you have seen how materialism has infiltrated your institution and affected your beliefs, assuming you are willing to look at yourself as Christ did, and perhaps you see what it has done.  You do not give the World the help they need, because you insist on forcing them to learn (apart from Christ) how to live rightly, when it is their heart of stone which you so happily ignore that causes them to sin and make poor choices.  For the sake of the Lost, for your own sake, and for the sake of the purpose we were all created to fulfill, lay down your possessions.  Give all you have to the poor, pick up your cross and truly follow Christ. 

Two Responses

Yeah, so I'm too lazy to write in my own comment box.  So sue me.  Here are my replies to the recent comments by Peter Wilson and Ubersehen on my "Slim, Laughable Possibility" post. 

Ubersehen said:

Fascinating stuff. Coming from a non-Christian standpoint, I find your approach refreshing, and entirely more honest than others I've encountered in the past.

That being said, you stated in this post that you felt that non-Christians were "not listening" when you presented them with the Christian message.

I tend to lean very strongly in an atheistic direction, as my current beliefs go. I'm not wholly comfortable, however, with the label of "atheist" because many interpret it to imply a dogmatic and absolute denial of the possibility of anything spiritual or that cannot be explained by scientific means. To digress a bit, I think that the term "atheist" is similar to "Christian" in that one who professes to fall under one of these categories can hold very different beliefs and possess equally diverse approaches to those beliefs in relation to others who claim the same title.

In any case, back to the point of this comment. I'm curious, since I feel as though I've always listened very carefully, and considered very closely, the beliefs and truth-claims of people of various religions, as to how you feel a person would need to behave to be viewed as really "listening" to your message.

I've often felt, when confronted about my skepticism of the Christian belief system (not necessarily limited to that system, though), that I would be required to first believe in the argued truth of the bible to be able to be convinced of the message being expressed to me.

Do you have any insight here?

 

...

A second comment to inquire about a few things Sam said above:

1. “One of the foremost laws in the country (as well as in the Bible) is against murder. And here's the kicker: if abortion truly is murder, then it should be illegal. Period.”

I agree on the premise of the argument:  If abortion is murder, it should be illegal. 

My question for Sam, and anyone else who'd like to jump in, is: At what point in the process of conception do you consider the fetus to be a human life? Once the fetus develops a heartbeat? Once the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain? Once the fetus develops a noticeably human form? From the moment of conception? I think what's lacking in a lot of the discussion is a clear and unanimous answer to this question.

2. “Homosexuality is shown to be irresolvably harmful to society at large, so it is not a thing that the government should promote by, for example, allowing them to get married and adopt children.”

How has homosexuality been shown as "irresolvably" harmful to society? I'm not currently aware of any research that has pointed to that conclusion, so I'm curious as to how you came to your belief on the matter.

Hi Ubersehen! Thanks for the comments.  I apologize if I am brief with these replies, I don't have much time to write. 

I'm afraid I was yet again unclear in something I said in my post.  I did say that non-Christians had ceased to listen to us, but you must understand that this post is directed toward Christians, and when I spoke of non-Christians not listening, I was not saying this to condemn them.  Rather, I was attempting to explain *why* non-Christians don't listen; I wasn't trying to make the point that non-Christians are especially obstinate, but rather that we have done a pathetic job of giving them reasons to listen to us.  So many Christians seem to reject logic altogether, or claim to be Christians when in fact their beliefs have nothing to do with the faith they say they follow.  Because of this, I would say that any non-Christian who does in fact listen well to Christian arguments and consider them has been kinder to Christians than they deserve.  At the same time, I would also say that to listen to many of those arguments as though they truly are *Christian* can easily paint a skewed picture of the Christian faith in the mind of a non-Christian.  Thus even those who are open enough to listen to us babble about the Ten Commandments for a while will be no closer to understanding the faith for their listening than someone who paid no heed at all.

As for the necessity of accepting the Bible before one can be convinced of the message of Christianity, you are correct, though I would say that the acceptance of the Bible itself is something that, if pursued intellectually, need not begin with a simple belief in spite of all evidence.  Indeed, inquiries into the truth of Christianity must start with the search for the existence of some supreme being.  I believe this can be readily proven by any number of philosophical arguments; it can't be proven out to mathematical certainty, of course, but very little in this world can.  Anyway, when (and if) a person comes to believe that there is a god, the question becomes one of what sort of nature that god has.  That is where religion comes in (though you no doubt know this); many religions make many different claims about God and his nature, and it is up to the individual to find out which set of beliefs about God's nature is most accurate.  Again, it's a highly philosophical pursuit, but not exclusively so; for there is little evidence for any religion's claims about the supernatural that is better than the religion making claims about nature that can be proven logically but could only have been revealed supernaturally. 

So in short, you will not likely accept many Christian beliefs if you do not accept the Bible, which is the source of those beliefs.  It is indeed silly to quote the Bible to an atheist, who does not accept the Bible in the first place; how can anyone expect the Bible to prove itself?  Instead, it is philosophy, logic, nature and history that proves the Bible (though again, not to mathematical certainty), and it is the Bible which makes claims about the God who created nature and had his hand in history.

To reply to your second comment, you are correct that we lack a clear and unanimous position on when life begins.  I do not know entirely where I believe, though I believe that when dealing with the issue of human life, it is our duty to be careful and consider more than simple consciousness to be evidence of life.  However, I believe that at present, it would be best to define life as being when there is a detectable heartbeat (after all, the first thing you do when you want to see if someone is alive is check their pulse).  From there, we can debate and study all we want, but I think it's important to at least make that first step, if people will listen.

And as for homosexuality, I see so much that is harmful to society from heterosexuality that I'm not entirely sure of where I stand on it anymore.  To be sure, I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, but I don't believe it's my job to ensure that homosexuals are kept from doing the things that we allowed Brad and Angelina to do.  Indeed, is there any more harm to society in allowing two men to get married in the eyes of the state than allowing a man and a woman to get married and adopt children, only to divorce shortly thereafter?  Surely the institution of marriage and society as a whole suffers more from broken contracts than from an increase in the number of people who can enter into said contracts.

And now, I'd like to turn to Peter Wilson's comments and reply to them, which I failed to do for so long. 

Peter Wilson said:

I think now I see that I disagree with you in some respect.

You said "it seems to me that sin is a concept that can only be understood properly in spiritual terms, something the World cannot comprehend."

If I interpret you correctly, all the world knows of sin is its bad effects on the life we live now and absolutely nothing of eternal consequences. I will construct my ideas around this understanding.

you said "I would simply suggest that we not struggle too much with getting someone who by his very nature can't understand sin or its gravity to stop sinning."

I think that the issue is not that the world can't understand sin but rather that they don't understand sin. Truly, without God we would not have any sort of acknowledgement of the divine evil of our actions. But because God is a God of truth, he has given ALL human beings a General Revelation of the evil of their actions not just in terms of a bad aftermath of their actions, but of a divine law against transgressors. People, in their sin, suppress this truth. Romans 1:17-32 is clear that man's ignorance of sin is not because they can't understand it but because they "exchanged the truth about God for a lie."

Since, by God's grace, the world is in fact able to understand the gravity of their sin through general revelation, we as Christians should speak of it in spiritual terms. No one sees their need of salvation otherwise.

You also said "the World must simply trust us when we speak of grace."

Since I lived 14 years of my life becoming a proud child of the world, I think my point is valid when I say that my understanding of my need for grace did not come through a trust in my parents' assertion of my condition. I had listened to their lecture many times in the past with no effect on my soul. My conviction of sin came directly through the Holy Spirit who warned me of my doom. It was from this conviction that I understood and my life was saved. I believe that a conviction of sin does not come through trust in Christian but through God's self-revelation.

It is true that the gravity of one's sin will never occur to the world through our rantings on the evil of sin. Nor will it occur through any device of ours. It is purely by the grace of God that they will see such a need. But that does not excuse us from the task of speaking this truth. It simply means that God will in fact get the glory from all converted souls for it was His initiative that brought them to Himself. And we have been given the dignity to take part in his plan by being messengers of His truth. We should speak it word for word as it was given to us and God will change the heart of the world and show them their sin and His grace.

I respect you for thinking through this issue and I anticipate your response (I hope I didn't misunderstand you again). Thank you for seeking to be faithful with the gospel. God bless.

I would disagree with you that the world is capable of understanding the gravity of their sin, save through the Holy Spirit's act of regeneration, for in order to understand the gravity of one's sin, one must first understand what he is sinning against.  Now, if that were part of the "general revelation"; that is, if the world understood God and the nature of his infinite goodness (hence the infinite nature of our own evil) and simply turned away from it, where would be the need for salvation?    It would be as if mankind had never fallen, or falls individually. And how could man, in the face of the perfection he was created to enjoy for eternity, turn from it in defiance of his own nature?  For if man is fallen, I see no way that he can look upon God's perfection, and if he can't do that, then I don't believe he can understand the evil of his own sin, except through the Holy Spirit.  Even I as a Christian only understand God's goodness dimly; I can spout about infinity all I like, but I don't really understand it.  It is only a concept I use to remind myself of just how much greater God is than anything I know.

Now I think that we are taking two different paths to say the same thing, or nearly so.  For you would say that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the true gravity of our sins to us, and I would say the same.  I never intended to suggest that we are the ones who convict others of their sins, only that we have a responsibility to speak the truth, and to speak it in such a way that it will be heard and listened to.  We are not the ones who save people, we only help the Father in much the same way that a child might "help" his earthly father build a house; the Father does not need our work, and we need his support and strength just to do our meager bit of work, which He still uses and delights in.

 

Now, you are right that sin must be spoken of in spiritual terms, for sin is a spiritual concept.  However, my point was that sin (and anything we know to be "spiritual") must not be addressed until we can be sure our message will be properly received; that is to say, we must first ensure that they trust us, and no amount of lecturing on that which is spiritual will yield such a result.

Now I think I get to agree with you, when you say that our understanding of the gravity of our own sin comes from God's self-revelation.  Indeed, it is the Holy Spirit, not us, that prompts a person to come to faith in Christ.  However, I was speaking strictly of our duty as Christians.  You see, I left out any mention of the Holy Spirit's work because (a) we can't affect when or how he acts, and (b) I believe He can work through us, revealing Christ in us.  However, since we can't alter what God does, I found it most expedient to focus on what we can alter, namely our actions and the way we present our message.

Thank you for your comments, and for getting me to think these issues through.  While I may not respect your blogging service (Xanga, har har) I do respect your grasp of these issues, and look forward to your response. 

The Fear of What God Might Become, If We Let Him

I'm afraid my thoughts aren't quite in order right now.  I just feel the urge to write something after listening to "Wilderness" by The OC Supertones, and I fear what I write will make no sense.  If you find this a laborious read, or just plain nonsensical, feel free to skip it or deride me in the comments section.  But don't do both; you may only deride me if you read the whole thing (which at this point, may end up being quite short).

I've been thinking recently about the time that I spent writing for my previous blog, and about my political and religious views back then.  How could I have left Christ out of my consideration of so many issues?  To be sure, there are a great many things I still leave Him out of, but the things I missed before. . . they seem so obvious.  I'm not entirely sure of myself even now, but to think that I had never even considered that the beliefs I now hold might be valid tends to cause a sense of shame; I feel as though I neglected my Savior and God for quite a long time, fantasizing that my own ideas about the world were somehow more applicable than His.  I am rather disappointed to know that I had that in me.

I would like to be able to say that the time I spent clutching beliefs I am now ashamed of was because someone had lied to me.  It would be nice to say that I was a puppet of the Republican Party, that I had been used, and that I was being indoctrinated; because then of course, it wouldn't have been my fault.  I would be able to cast the blame on someone other than myself for all the time that I spent ignoring Christ altogether.  But sadly, I wasn't spouting the ideas of other people, and I was by no means brainwashed.  The ideas I wrote about were mine, and I formed them on my own. 

And that, you see, is exactly the problem. 

When I formed my Republican views, I did so with good intentions.  It made sense:  Sin is bad, so we shouldn't do it, and we should make sure no one else does it either so God will be happy.  If someone does sin, even if they hurt no one, it's our job to ensure that the government punishes them, and that is somehow different than punishing them ourselves.  People who make bad choices just need to buck up and stop sinning, because Jesus told the adulteress to "sin no more."  Surely enforcing the philosophy of "sin no more" is the government's job, and if we can get people to just stop sinning, the world will be a much better place.

You see, the intentions behind this philosophy are good; I meant well, and I wholeheartedly believe that every Christian Republican means well when they vote.  But I do not believe they are right. 

Back to my experience, I formed my Republican views on my own, and I have said that that is why I was forced in the end to leave those views behind.  It was not because I refused to rely on other men for input, for no man is more infallible than another; rather, it was because I chose to found my philosophy on what I saw and what I knew, rather than on Christ.  To be sure, God was in there somewhere (hence my emphasis on sin), but my understanding of Christ was limited then even as it is now.  It was as if I had decided to form my worldview by myself, and then put a Jesus Fish on the back and call it Christian. 

I remember when I'd encounter people who were moderate or independent in their political beliefs because of their convictions as a Christian.  I used to scoff at them; they were wimps, afraid to really stand for anything.  They used Jesus as a cop-out, I thought. . . they used Him as an excuse to stay out of the "Culture War" because they were stupid, or they just didn't care.  I thought it quite funny that they'd use Jesus Christ as an excuse to cancel out such Biblical concepts as sin and the necessity of abstinence from it.  I thought they were crazy for not trying to get everyone to "be good." 

Now I see that they were right.  It isn't about abstaining from sin, it's about being made sinless.  It isn't about being good, it's about being made good.  But I wasn't about to admit that; I didn't understand it, and I didn't want to take the time to.  This is because I was afraid of what it might do to my carefully-constructed belief system.  I had worked so hard to form my Republican philosophy, and was so proud of the fact that no one had ever told me what to believe that I couldn't allow myself to examine its very foundation; if I did that, I knew it would collapse like a house of cards.

Any truly Christian philosophy must begin with Christ.  He is God revealed to us, and God is the source of all things.  In Him all things are complete, and without Him nothing can stand.  I knew, this, of course, and that's why I was continually inviting Him into my worldview; I'd make all the right references to justify what I was saying as "Christian," trying to create something good enough that He would bless it.  But that wasn't what God wanted; I had to give my philosophy to Him, so He could smash it along with all my silly notions of "being good," and start over with Christ as my guide and foundation.  I was afraid of this, afraid of what He might do to my petty intellectual "achievements" if I let Him, so for a very long time I refused to give Him the control to rebuild my philosophy from scratch. 

Now, I don't say any of this to convince you all that, upon changing, I have somehow now stumbled upon the "ultimate truth," or whatnot. . . I am aware of my own persistent limitations, and highly doubt I would know the "ultimate truth" if it kicked me in the face.  However, that is part of the reason that I believe I am at least improving in my pursuit of the truth:  When I wasn't striving to make Christ the center of all my beliefs, I was sure that what I believed was the absolute truth, but now that I am at least trying a little harder (though weakly, no doubt) to let Christ lead me, I have become uneasy with my beliefs, lest my own fallibility obscure my view of where Christ is leading. I now at least care whether or not I am following Him.  Again, I am not sure that everything I stand for is perfectly true, but of one thing I am sure:  I am chasing after the Truth.  I haven't caught it; my humanity prevents me from doing that.  But I am chasing it, and I hope I will be willing to go wherever my pursuit leads and that Christ would continually point me in the direction I must go. 

A Response to a Friend

This message was originally written to a friend who asked me what becomes of good people who are not Christians.  I did my best to explain it adequately before I was kicked off the computer by NetNanny, cruel fiend that she is.  Therefore, please forgive any spelling/grammar/punctuation/logic errors you find in this post, as my writing of it was a bit rushed.   My response was as follows:

...I believe you asked what happens according to Christianity to "virtuous sinners," as it were: people who act nicely, but do not follow Christ. 

To answer, I'll start by explaining what is required for "salvation", or entrance into Heaven.  "Salvation," you see, requires holiness; that is, it requires sinlessness or perfection.  This is because we as human beings were created by a holy and perfect God, and we were created to be holy and perfect (though limited compared to our Creator, as creations tend to be).  According to Christianity, mankind is no longer sinless; he is naturally sinful because God created him with a free will, and man misused that free will to rebel against God.  This submission to sin rather than God resulted in what we now call "sin nature," or the fact that man is, in his natural state, prone to sin and incapable of entering Heaven.

Man naturally sins against God, sin of course being the transgression against God's Law as revealed in the Ten Commandments.  You see, it may be that not every person murders, or steals, or commits adultery, but in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (which can be found in the book of Matthew), He makes two key points:  First, that the physical act of killing someone is not required for the sin of murder, for even to hate someone or wish them dead is to commit murder in one's heart; and second, He said that any man who breaks any part of the Law is as guilty as if he had broken the whole Law.  This is because a single act of sin is an expression of complete rebellion against and rejection of an infinitely holy God.  No one sin is any worse than any other, because they all represent the same thing: rebellion, like Adam's original rebellion or act of disobedience in Genesis. 
Now, if we know that even to hate is as much a sin as murder, and even to lust is as much a sin as adultery, if we know that a single sin signifies a complete turning from God, then it stands to reason that even people we see as "good" have sinned, and thus are not deserving of entrance to Heaven.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I've broken God's Law, and I really don't believe it is possible to keep God's Law.  This is supported by Romans Chapter 3, among other scriptures. 

This sounds like bad news, but from the Christian point of view, it's not.  The Law is unkeepable; that is, we aren't at all capable of doing what it takes to make ourselves holy and sinless.  However, I believe that God made a way for us to become holy and sinless.  According to the Bible, "The wages of sin is death"; that's why the Jews used to sacrifice animals as payment for their sins.  However, Christians believe that God became man in the form of Jesus Christ, and He offered himself as a sacrifice, to be killed as payment for our sins.  Thus it is possible for us to be made holy and perfect apart from keeping the Law, and thus be capable of entering Heaven.  And the great thing is that the only requirement for being made perfect is to believe in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, the Savior of mankind.  But I'm not talking about some half-stepping "if it'll get me out of Hell" prayer which is borne out of fear rather than belief.  I'm talking about true belief, belief that causes a person to act upon it.  For doesn't anything we really believe in drive us to some sort of action?

How to arrive at this belief is a matter that can only be dealt with on an individual level.  Some people can be brought to such a belief through a persuasive and logical argument, while others must experience something that to them proves God's existence.  I do not know how any person can be brought to belief; that's God's job.  I as a Christian can simply speak the truth as best I know how, and pray that God uses it to help someone begin to understand that He exists, and is worth knowing.  He is worth knowing because He provided a way out of sin, and into perfection.  He did, in fact, save us, and for that I believe He deserves everything I have to give, as little as that may be. 

Now, I say all this to explain for you how God can justly condemn someone who has done their best to be perfect. You see, it's not about doing your best at all; a virtuous sinner might have been a very nice person, but they still sinned, and furthermore they missed the entire point of God's offer of salvation.  It wasn't about being good, for no man can do that; it was about being made good, freely through Christ. 

Lessons for the New Year

As anyone who has been reading my blogs for a while knows, I do not make New Years resolutions.  This is because I have very low self-esteem (due to having been homeschooled), and I can't bring myself to set goals that I know I'll never achieve.  That seems to be a rather stupid way to start out a new year. So, in place of these silly things that people call "Resolutions," I prefer to reflect on all that I've learned in the past year, and type it up into a post on my blog for the convenience of my readers, who might benefit (though only slightly) from the things that I have learned.  So pay close attention children; we don't want your reading of my post to be a waste of time.  Learn from what I have to say, even if you have to try very hard to find something worth learning. 

So... What did I learn this year? 

17.) The Truth isn't necessarily to be found in the place you always thought you could find it.

16.) I don't know quite so much as I thought I did.

15.) I'm still a sucker.  I figured that out two years ago, and I have yet to do anything about it.

14.) Contrary to logic, the smarter a person is, the more confused he gets by the whole disaster known as being a teenager.  That is, the more brains you have, the more there is for your hormones to mess with.

13.) Jeremy Camp has one song.  That's it.  One song.  At his concerts, his band keeps playing the same four chords the whole time, and Jeremy just changes up his lyrics every once in a while (in between altar calls).

12.) Being a nice guy won't really get you anywhere, but at least nice guys can feel good about themselves.

11.) If you want kids to call you "Sir," grow facial hair. 

10.) There are some ideas and feelings that the English language (and language in general) is insufficient to express. 

9.) When it is necessary to convey such ideas and feelings, don't feel bad when you end up sounding like an idiot.  You can't win, you can only try to sound like as nice of an idiot as possible.

8.) Dating, at least for me, is a rather bad idea.

7.)  Indie music is the best.  Do yourself a favor and check out Strike Four and Manodestra, for starters.

6.) Despite what you might think, moshing is great fun.

5.)  If you're gonna make a movie about Mayans, and you realize halfway through production that your movie sucks, don't try to salvage it with more soiled loincloths, natives rolling around in the mud and an underwater birth scene.  It just doesn't work. 

4.)  If you really wanna see such a movie about Mayans, make sure it won't cost you anything.  It's really not worth it.

3.) Life is like a box of chocolates... You want to give yours to someone you love, but if they're allergic to it, you're screwed.  (Did I really just say that?  God help me, I must be retarded.)

2.)  The more a person means to you, the harder it is to tell them so, and the more you want to tell them. This is rather infuriating and is part of the reason I will most likely die young.

1.) It actually is possible to leave ten pegs in that peg game at the Cracker Barrel.  Thanks to Sarah Liz for proving this.  :-)