The Other Quest

Written by admin on May 7th, 2010

Greetins yo, ma sis, ma bro
I’d have ye hear my tale to tell
But force ye hear, I’ll not m’dear
I’ll just… suggest… you listen well.

Within the groves of Euronoves,
A forest full of bouncy beasts,
There lived a Chap named Joseph Sapp,
His species: moth. His liking: feasts.

This furry fellow of temper, mellow
Oft’ flew flights in the mist of morn
He’d get out of bed, comb the hairs on his head,
Get food, be off, come back, eat corn.

This moth one day, went walking, gay,
(And don’t you dare, say “Sam u perv”
You know what I mean, you mindless bean
Go back to your basement and eat soft serve)

Well anyhow, he passed a cow
A puffy pal, called “Caleb Lay”
The Jo squeaked “hi” as he passed him by,
Adjusting his locks, cow turned to say,

“Oh how my hair gleams, in the sunlight, it seems,
One could live his life sustained by the sight
Its glory shines forth, from the South to the North
And surely ‘twould brighten the darkest night…”

He blabbed like a fifer, ’till he spotted a heifer
His locks he licked, his eyes shot up
He flexed his biceps, abs, and triceps,
And with beefy complexion he grunted, “sup”

The Cow left behind, to flirt with his kind,
Jo fared forward into rising rays,
Of sunlight gleaming, seemingly screaming,
“It’s going to be a jolly good dayz!”

He then passed Nicole, who lived in a hole,
Where weeks went by with that wombat within,
In mysterious fogs she worshiped small dogs,
Though we all know they’re dumb she insisted, “they’re win”

On past that hole, Jo found the old mole,
Who sat in the sun finding rest on a rock
Slowly beating a gong to a depressing song,
He mourned and wept and wailed like a sock.

Trying to cheer mole, that mournful old soul,
Jo solemnly said, “a deer just died.”
“Hurrah!” Caleb said, “Something’s dead!”
And off he went, his heart blessified.

Continuing trek, Jo heard the woodpeck,
A big brawny bird by the name of “Grace B”
Jo followed the sound through the woods to the ground
Where Grace stood a’peckin an old oakwood tree.

They started to talk about shearin and chalk
But passing such panter they drove to debate,
Jo knew he would win, but said Grace with a grin,
“rebelution.com”, and sealed Joseph’s fate.

Jo left in shame with ruined name,
but fast forgot that shameful sham
For next he flew by kangaroo
A kindly kanga, “Egg Hannam”

This jumpy girl like caffiened squirrel
Would chomp on chocolate every hour
Mike Boobl, her fav, to him a slave
She was, although his tunes sound sour

Jo stopped by the ‘roo, Hannam counted to two
And with much momentum she bounced off a bluff
So down the ‘roo fell, aint much more to tell…
(Hannah don’t really do that, that’s just made up stuff) [authors note: maybe]

Jo stood there and blinked, then he said, “well that stinkt
‘fer Hannam.” That ham… what lousy life-end.
Anyhow, let’s move on, ‘git the grease fier, Jon!!!
Oh sorry, a greese fire was just ’round the bend.

At this point poor Jo, was traveling slow,
Weirded by wackos who flooded his flight
But alas there was more, for this moth-boi in store
Not knowing this fact, he went on to termite.

On his way to the nest where the termites thrive best,
He passed porta-potty in the thick of the trees
Where inside Grace Sapp with imac on lap
Surfed youtube for pleasure like nobody’s business

There at the nest Josif landed to rest
Talking to termites while resting his rump
Then along came Breunne, the most devious one
And she lit Jo afire, and Jo died on that stump.

No I kid, Josif found a small stream in the ground
So he crawled in the creek, deflaming the fire
When the flames all went down the moth started to drown
And he drowned to his death and his soul fluttered higher.

No I kid, for a stick floated by in the nick,
Of time, doomed death would wait a while,
Oh what a sad day, it was too far away
So he drowned anyway, like a fat crocodile

Forsooth! Kate McJo, saw the poor mothy go,
So she swam where he sank, and dived down, got the moth
Jo opened his eyes, and he started to rise,
And he kindly thanked Katie by eating her sloth

He turned, said goodbye, as he started to fly,
Bre bolted from nowhere and lit ‘im again,
This time, termite win, for the flames did him in,
And Mole stood by cheering and gave it a ten

Now listeners, tell, do you ever fare well
To trust the ‘termites’ of life with your life?
Truth is, suckers, no, this all goes to show,
That you never trust no one, your friends or your wife.

Live life on the edge, set to jump off a ledge,
Like Hannam the hoppy who crawled off the cliff
Flirt much as you can, if you can’t you’re no man,
Light fires, cheat, lie, steal stuff ’till you’re stiff.

Posted in Poems | 4 Responses »

Why Does Man Sin After Salvation?

Written by admin on March 4th, 2010

So, man is good. Man is born sinless. Man falls. Man is now born sinful and guilty. Jesus comes. Jesus dies. Jesus’ death redeems man. Those who believe and confess are born again, back into man’s original uncorrupted state. So now man’s nature is what it was originally; good. And yet… we still sin. Why? Perhaps this is because man is still corrupted ‘to an extent’ after rebirth. This is how most would explain the dilemma; most would say something to the extent of, “Man’s flesh is still sinful, though his spirit has been regenerated”, or, “The corruption of man remains until it is worked off through sanctification”, or “We’re not fully regenerated until Jesus’ second coming.” But really, is that right? Is there still corruption in man after regeneration? It seems that the very nature of the terms “rebirth” and “regeneration” would suggest otherwise. What are we reborn into? Partial sin? Are we ‘regenerated’ to a state of less corruption than the state of corruption which we were born into? In addition, read chapters 4-7 of Romans. Paul constantly and heavily emphasizes the fact that we are “dead to sin” and “no longer slaves to sin, but slaves of righteousness.”

…So after salvation, is man’s nature still sinful and still corrupted?

I have yet to hear rational support for such an idea. I believe that if a man is saved from sin and is dead to sin, well, then he would be just that; free from sin; sinless. Doesn’t this make sense? In what sense could a man saved from sin and dead to sin still be sinful? And yet, everyone believes just this. Everyone wholeheartedly believes and says that “we’re still sinful”, “our hearts are still corrupted”, and the like. Why, why I ask?

Well, I know why. It’s because after salvation, man continues to sin. I won’t deny it; I can’t deny it. I sin. My friends sin. Those in my church sin. This seems to be a small dilemma… or rather an uncrossable chasm… in “my” neat lil theory. If after salvation we are born into a new, uncorrupted, sinless nature, why would we sin? We wouldn’t.

Hmm. This stinks. But wait. There’s more.

We have your average Christian, conservative, homeschooled kid. Let’s call him Nehemiah Ezra Rehoboam Dayson. Nerday for short. Nerd for short short. Nerdy for that perfect middle ground. Nerdy gets along with his siblings. Sometimes. Okay, no. He likes the outdoors. He likes guns. He likes formulating war strategies and talking about historical battles. He likes politics(aka badmouthing Obama). He likes to tuck his collared shirt into his darned pants. And it annoys his friend Samson Hayashida like the dickens. But yeah, like I said, Nerdy doesn’t get along too well with his sibblings. They fight over who’s turn it is to do the dishes, who used the milk last and ought to put it back in the fridge, and whose fault it was that little baby Nathan Onesimus Ohad Barnabus got locked in the basement. While mom was gone. For 10 hours.

The day after getting back from a retreat his youthgroup attended, Nerdy realizes that he doesn’t actually have a relationship with God, or at least not an intimate one. So he DOESN’T pray the sinner’s prayer(the speaker’s name at the retreat was Paul Cleaner[a joke you probably won't get unless you're really cool]), but he does actually place faith in Jesus’ resurrection, confess Jesus as Lord, and all that jazz. For all intensive purposes, Nerdy wasn’t saved prior to this experience, and is now saved after making this commitment and holding true to it.

Nerdy is excited. He feels so free that he must untuck his collared shirt from his darned pants. But then after twenty minutes he snugly re-tucks the shirt into his darned pants with a sigh of contentment. Blast. Nerdy feels that all those problems he had with his siblings will now be gone forever. A day goes by. Nerdy is sitting on the couch, doing Calculus 5. For fun. His younger brother comes up and cracks an unsuitable joke at Nerdy. Nerdy gets fired up and slugs that sucker, whose stunned carcass goes flying out the back window at the speed of light. Ok fine, Nerdy just slaps his brother with moderate force. They start bickering until their mom tells them to stop.

That evening, Nerdy, still angry at his brother, realizes something… He sinned. Nerdy wonders, “Why did I sin? Why did I get mad at John? Why did I slap him with moderate force? I havne’t changed at all… Does this mean I’m not saved from sin? Was I not sincere when I committed to following Christ?”

I don’t know about you, but this is exactly what has happened with me. After listening to a sermon or reading a passage in a book, I would “realize that I wasn’t saved”, and would break down in tears and beg God to enter my life. I’d think that everything would be changed, that my anger problems would be solved, that I would from then on be free from sin’s grasp and would be a complete “slave to righteousness”. The next day… or next hour… I’d sin, and would get very mad at myself, “realizing that I wasn’t sincere”. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone through that routine. Assurance of salvation is something quite new to me; something that first appeared and has been growing stronger in me with the past 6 months.

You’re right. I’ve progressed nowhere. All I’ve done is I’ve introduced a wordy narrative portraying that which you already knew to be true. Well, here is where I make my foreign, “highly unorthodox” claim of the month. The reason why we sin after salvation is not, in fact, because we are still corrupted. Nor does the fact that we sin necessarily mean that we’re not saved. We sin after salvation out of habit.

“You’re epic claim was highly lame”, you say, also pointing out that your accusation “rhymes”. Well, let us think. Stop and think about what I said… We sin not out of the corruption of our nature, but out of habit. Fact 1. You think this sounds practically heretical, if not not practically heretical but inherently heretical. Fact 2. You have a strong craving for chocolate and peanut butter. Ignoring fact 2 for the mo(actually, forever), let me ask you. Why do you so strongly disagree with this idea I put forth? I admit, there is something in me which wants to say, “but man’s nature still IS sinful!” In saying that man’s nature is completely sinless and uncorrupted after salvation, I feel prideful, naive, unorthodox, and well, like a heretic. heh. But perhaps this is because you and I have been told that man’s nature is still sinful(in some weird, half sort of sense) after salvation since we attended Sunday school as preschoolers. And yes, I’ll give it to you that the fact that most of the Church supports MISSAR(Man is still sinful after regeneration) gives MISSAR a… lot of weight… and it probably means you should believe in it. But in this instance, I *really* see no reason to hold to the idea of MISSAR. Call me arrogant, but I think MISSAR is nothing more than an ill-thought through response to the fact that man continues to sin after salvation. I believe that Christ’s sacrifice not only allows man to be free of guilt, but that it also allows man to once again take part in a sinless, uncorrupted nature.

Romans 6:3-7

“(3)Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (6) knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; (7) for he who has died is freed from sin.”

Now back to the concept of habit. Why do we continue to sin? We continue to sin out of habit. Nerdy got angry at and slapped his younger brother with moderate force because he had continually done this for the past 10 years, not giving a second thought about it. This formed a bad habit in nerdy, and this bad habit was not simply ‘destroyed’ in Nerdy’s experience of salvation. Yes, the sin and corruption of his nature was done away with, but not the habits he had formed during his non-regenerate life. This new idea of ‘habitual sin’ doesn’t need a whole lot of explaining; it’s a pretty simple concept that you probably already understand. But there are some important implications of it that I’d like to point out.

Habits can be changed. Man’s sinful habits can be changed into habits for good. Man can stop sinning. In this life. Completely. Stated otherwise, man can attain ‘moral perfection’(in a sense) in this life.

If that doesn’t make you want to throw your hands up and burn me on the stake, I don’t know what will. Except if I started promoting Gnosticism and/or Arianism. But I’ll hold off on those ones for now. “GAH. Sam, you dumby dumb dumb… you can’t be PERFECT. WHAT are you talking about? Then man would be able to be LIKE God, morally!!!!!” Hold up, hold up. Let’s make one thing clear. Man cannot and never will be able to reach the moral status of God. What I mean by “moral perfection” is merely sinlessness. God is beyond sinless. He is positively good, not neutrally good.

1—————–2——————3(———>)

On this chart, sinfulness would be the space between points 1 and 2. When you reach point 2, you get sinlessness, or what I have called “moral perfection”. However, you can be good beyond this point of moral perfection; goodness extends out infinitely to the right. God is infinitely good, not merely sinless or ‘morally perfect’.

I *will* wrap up now. Why have I told you this? Why have I told you that man can be perfect? Did I just feel like contradicting one of mainstream Christianity’s most major claims… for the heck of it? No. I have told you this so you can get rid of the idea that “I can’t be perfect; everyone sins!” Moral perfection isn’t some high pie in the sky fantasy which we are all to glance at every now and then and say, “meh, wish I had that.” No, the concept of moral perfection… of “being like Christ” is VERY real. And attaining it isn’t optional. You have a duty, an obligation to STOP sinning, completely. And I deny that no one has attained sinlessness here on earth. I’m convinced that there have been men to reach this status of moral perfection here in this life, on this earth. The idea that “we have to sin” is not only false… it’s just downright bad. It demotivates us to the point that we’ll stop trying to actively work against our sinful habits and will simply ‘accept’ our sin. And this is one of the main reasons why I have written this post. I write this post in an attempt to convince you to not simply ‘accept’ your sinful habits. You simply must not. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus bluntly says, “Therefore you are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” You must actively be working against your sinful habits, and with God’s help, they will disappear.

Now know that I’m in no way promoting one of those silly “works-based salvation” concepts. I’ve learned to hate such concepts much more than most of you do. I’m not taking away from what Jesus did on the cross and saying “we need to perform works as well as have faith”. No, I’m doing quite the opposite. If I’m right, it much adds to the awe of Jesus’ sacrifice. It makes the difference between only the guilt of sin being gone… and actual sin being wiped out. No, I’m not saying we have to stop sinning to become saved. What I’m saying is that we as Christians have a very real goal which we are not only to strive towards, but which we are to reach.

MA SUMMARY: Let me restate the original question: Why does man continue to sin after salvation? I have set before you two answers to this question. The first, which the vast vast majority of Christians hold to is this: “Man continues to sin after salvation because he still lives in a corrupted body. Or something.” My answer to the question is this: “Man continues to sin after salvation because he has formed sinful habits as a corrupt man, and these sinful habits carry on over into his new, regenerate life.” If the vast vast majority of Christians are right, then in this life, we’ll always be inclined towards sin; sin will always be ingrained in us, and we will never be able to conquer this inclination… in this life. If I’m right, then we *will* be able to defeat this seeming ‘inclination’ towards sin, in this life. And not only will we be able to destroy our evil habits, but we will be able to form good habits, making our inclination towards good rather than towards evil. It will just be a matter of time, effort, and God’s help. And I suppose, at the core, this is what sanctification is. It is a matter of uprooting sinful habits and forming good ones.

Yes, I’ve faced reality. I know that you’ve probably stopped reading by now, and if you haven’t, you only skimmed the whole thing, and if you didn’t, you’re just plain sick of reading my silly “new ideas”. Though if you did actually read it and realize what I’m trying to say, comment… Tell me how much you still disagree with me. If you have reasons, list ‘em. If you have other comments, post ‘em. Well, whatever the case, I thank you for at least trying to cope with my noobish naivety, and wish you a good rest of the day. AND STOP SINNING.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Responses »

The Trinity: Mysterious and Beautiful

Written by admin on January 12th, 2010

Something I’ve been contemplating for a while is the matter of the Trinity. How can Jesus be both God and man? Does Jesus’ incarnation mean that God is in the flesh? Why is it that Jesus talks with God as if He is not God?

The Trinity is a fascinating field of doctrine. Beyond it being interesting, I am beginning to realize just how important it is to have at least a basic orthodox understanding of this doctrine. I would guess that more than half of the major heresies were(or rather, are) based off of misunderstandings of the Trinity. In fact, if I asked you to give me a summary of the essence of the Trinity, I wouldn’t be surprised if what you told me bordered on heresy. Heretic. lol

Most often, modern evangelicals view the Trinity as simply “a mystery.” They leave it at that, accepting the general idea that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one; basically, they deem the doctrine to be too deep for mankind to grasp. Well, there is certainly an element of mystery in this doctrine, but there is also a large part which we can understand, and very much should understand. I would go so far as to say that man is capable of understanding all truth. However, we will simply never know ‘all truth’ granted there is infinite truth… and time. But that’s another post.  It’s important to realize that within Trinitary doctrine there is nothing contradictory. Non-Christians will often point at the doctrine of the Trinity as inconsistent, and rightly so; the way modern evangelicals portray it, it does seem inconsistent. Evangelicals will reply, “it’s a mystery”, which non-Christians take as, “Maybe it is contradictory, but I still want to believe in my religion”. I’ll say it again. There is nothing contradictory within the truth of the Trinity.

The Trinity is both completely consistent and mystically beautiful. Its mystic beauty comes not in its doing of the impossible, but rather in its beautifully sound and unparalleled reality. And thus, so that you can walk away with a good, orthodox understanding, I shall summarize the doctrine as I understand it to the best of my ability. Perhaps I will later on post and make amendments to what I am about to post.

There are five prominent components to the Trinity:

  • Divine nature
  • Human nature
  • The Father
  • The Son
  • The Holy Spirit

The first thing I ought to clear up is this: there is a difference, a distinction between “God” and “The Father”. People most often confuse the boundary between these two different ‘things’. “God” refers to what I just called Divine nature, and “The Father” refers to what you might expect.

Divine nature and Human nature are natures. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are persons.

What is a person? A person is, in essence, an individual consciousness. Philip Schaff(a reaaaally sweet, brilliant Church historian guy) defines ‘person’ in his creeds of Christendom as “the Ego, the self-conscions, self-asserting and acting subject.” It is nothing more; neither the soul nor the spirit, nor anything beyond consciousness is a part of the ‘person’. Suppose the following is a truth: “Jimmy Puff picked up a rock.” There are two truths which can be extracted from this ‘broader truth’. According to this truth, both someone and something performed an action. The something that performed an action was a human being; flesh, soul, and spirit… a creation of God, a large compilation of matter, a spiritual being. However, this is not all we learn from the Jimmy Puff truth. We also learn that someone performed an action. This someone, Jimmy Puff, is merely self-consciousness. This person cannot be described as what acted, but rather who acted. It can’t be explained any other way. There really isn’t much to it, yet, it’s taken me a couple months of contemplation to get the place where I understand the concept of ‘person’.

What is a nature? A nature is, in essence, everything else. A nature can basically be viewed as the substance of a being; the flesh, spirit, soul, mind, and qualities of a being. Schaff defines ‘nature’ as “the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being.”

———————————————————————————

Let us start with the divine nature(’God’). The divine nature is everything which we view as God; ‘it’ is omnipotence, omniscience, love, mercy… all the qualities and truths of ‘that thing mentioned in the Bible, which guided the writing of the Bible’. Make sense? Now, how do the three persons of God fit in? The three persons are three, individual, completely distinct consciousnesses of the Divine nature. You may have started to get confused. The concept is quite simple, though. Think about it. One substance is simply conscious three times.

To illustrate, let’s take my body as an example. I have substance, I can think, I have a soul and a spirit. Now let’s say you hop out of your body and into mine. However, I don’t switch bodies with you, I stay in mine. Thus we have two indidvidual consciousnesses acting in one body. I would have the same body, spirit, and soul as you. It’s hard to say how control over the body would play out in this instance given the limits of matter… but imagine the same thing happening, but within the context of a supernatural being. This is, in essence, how the Trinity works. God is one substance, however, this substance is conscious three times.

The three individual consciousnesses are the three persons of God. The three persons of God are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And now we come to the matter of Jesus, and how human nature fits into the trinity.

The second person of the Trinity, the Son, has two substances. He has both the divine substance and the human substance. Jesus is not a mixture of God and man. He is not solely God, nor solely man. He is fully God AND fully man. Thus Jesus partakes in(is conscious in) the same nature as the Father and Holy Spirit; He has the same omnipotent, omniscient, just, merciful, loving substance as them. Yet He also has(is conscious in) a physical body, a human spirit, and a human soul. Stop for a moment. Think about it. Is there anything inherently contradictory in what I have put forth? Nothing so far as I can tell, and I encourage you to speak up if you think something is contradictory within this doctrine.

———————————————————————————

Some common mistakes in anti-Trinity reasoning:

The Son is all of God.
The Father is all of God.
Therefore the Son is all of the Father.

This is an argument I’ve commonly run across. Here’s the mistake it makes: Both the premises are false. Yes, in one sense it makes sense and is correct to say, “Each of the three persons of God comprise all of the substance(nature) of God, and therefore each of the persons of God *are* all God.” In any normal, informal talk, such a statement is perfectly acceptable. However, when it comes to formal logic, you cannot equate the persons of God to the substance of God(Divine nature). Technically speaking, consciousness(person) cannot be equated to substance(nature), and therefore each of the three persons of God *are not* the substance of God. Rather they ‘have’ the substance of God.

Luke 2:52 says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. This would mean that Jesus did not have complete wisdom. God has complete wisdom. Therefore Jesus cannot be God.

Another common argument. Here’s what’s wrong with this reasoning: it has the underlying assumption, “Jesus had only one nature.” It completely ignores the fact that in reality, Jesus had two natures. You see, Jesus’ man substance was not perfectly wise while at the same time His God-substance was perfectly wise.

There is one more major thing that results in confusion and seems to poke holes in the stability of Trinity teaching. When the Bible says, “God”, it is not necessarily referring to “The Divine Nature”; it is not necessarily referring to ‘all the substance which comprises the supremely Divine being’. No, often times when the Bible says “God”, it is referring to only the Father. Thus when the Bible says something suggesting that God is one, it is most likely referring to the Father. Take in mind that the mystery of the Trinity was not revealed to those of the Old Testament… and in the New Testament, there was no official, orthodox understanding of the Trinity until the 300’s.

———————————————————————————

I find that in the end, God’s truth always prevails. I, being the person I am, was very skeptical of Trinitary doctrine before I had an orthodox understanding of it. However, as time has gone by and as I’ve contemplated(and argued for, haha) this idea, I find that it is perfectly sound. In fact, I’d go beyond this and say that the truth of the Trinity is beautifully sound. The more I contemplate its truth, the more I realize just how beautiful it is. Community… at perfection. Gah, I just can’t escape the word ‘beautiful’… God truly is mysteriously beautiful. The essence of the Trinity is so profoundly simple… much more simple than I ever would have thought. Yet, as I’ve begun reading Augustine’s 400 page book, “On the Trinity”, I’ve also come to realize just how deep its truth is as well.

My guess is that all I’ve done is confuse you more. And so, I command ALL of you, if you have ANY questions after reading this, comment and ask. Seeing as a blog post is in a purely informative format, the most I can do is give a summary of the basics. I know you all still have questions, so again, I ask you to inquire so I can respond to what needs clarification. I’ll(try to… meh) extend this post when I have a feeling of what needs to be written.

Posted in Theology | 8 Responses »

Moral Law: A flaw in atheism, and an often misunderstood reality in theism

Written by admin on December 19th, 2009

Something that I’ve been pondering lately: just what is moral law? What is morality? What is it that determines right and wrong? Perhaps you view moral law as I did before my speculation. Here’s how I thought of it:

Moral law is an absolute, abstract law; it is just as any law of logic or science. This law is what determines all actions to either be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This is not to say that one action will always be right or wrong: like a law involving many variables(as opposed to constants), moral law takes into account multiple variables. Two of these variables are the condition and the action. Thus depending on the circumstances, one action could be ‘right to take’ in one situation and ‘wrong to take’ in another. Take note that this in no way makes the law itself relative; it simply takes into account multiple variables. And this is in essence what moral law is: an absolute, abstract law which determines the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of every action.

So, this sounds pretty good and solid. But unfortunately, such is not sufficient for the likes of me. Here’s a question that was bothering me. Why should we follow moral law? Perhaps moral law ‘obligates’ us to do things, but why should we follow it? You may say, “Because God made it that way.” Why should I serve God? Why do I owe Him my service? Saying, “because if we don’t, we’ll get punished” does not demonstrate obligation. It doesn’t prove that we *should* serve God: it proves that we ought to if we don’t want to get hurt by God. In fact, this is a very important point: there is a clear, important distinction between *desire* and *obligation*. And I shall go off into a sidetrack to expound on this distinction.

If you ask an atheist to account for morality, he will inevitably say that it is a product of natural selection: they say that our sense of right and wrong springs forth from our sense of community and empathy(which came about through natural selection). This provides a seemingly sufficient answer to all arguments for God’s existence using morality. I’d like to point something out here, though. First off, this response to morality is in essence a denial of morality(and a clear thinking atheist won’t deny it). It does not provide an explanation for the actual existence of morality, but it provides an explanation of why humans *think* morality exists(not to say that it’s at all a *good* explanation). Atheists cannot account for obligation. The most they can do is say that we ‘want to perform’ one action over another because of an innate, naturally selected desire(for survival, community, etc.).

An atheist cannot employ a “should” without an implied “if”. An atheist can say, “You should put on warmer clothes.” But there is an implied, “if you want to stay warm”. They can say, “you should listen to your parents,” but there is an implied, “if you want to receive the benefit of their advice.” In their vocabulary, there is no such thing as a “should” without an implied “if”. One believing in moral law, , however, can employ a ’should’ without an implied ‘if’: “You should listen to your parents.” If what? You simply should. Perhaps you can employ an if in this situation: “if you want to obey God.” Then we come to the statement, “You should obey God.” This is ultimate ’should’ without an ‘if’; Why should we obey God? Simply because we should. Which brings me back to my original intent for this post.

Why *should* we obey God? Perhaps because moral law dictates to us that we should. Well, why should we do what moral law dictates to us? Because moral law says we should, and we are under moral law. But this is circular reasoning. So… how do you explain obligation? Moral law is something which ‘places’ obligation on actions, thus obligation has to be external of moral law. Well, then what is obligation? Gah!

Here’s the problem. This is all a misconception of moral law. Moral law is not “an absolute, abstract law which places obligation on actions”. Moral law is obligation itself. Why should we obey God? Because we are obligated to do so. Why are we obligated to do so? There is no “why”. We *are*, because moral law is obligation, and we *are* obligated to serve God. God *put* obligation into us: He simply made us so that we *are* obligated to act in certain ways. Obligation is not a self-authenticating existence; it must have been created(if it exists). It was created by God and placed in us. Thus it exists. And thus we are obligated to act in certain ways.

And here is where any non-theistic attempt for an explanation of morality falls short. If we define “moral law” as “obligation”, an atheist cannot account for moral law. There is no other explanation for obligation other than it simply being created by God. Think about obligation. *Think* about it. Imagine a universe with no God, yet with obligation. Try and account for the simple essence of obligation itself without God. In other words, try to imagine a “I should ___” with no “If I desire to ___”. You can’t. It’s impossible. Obligation presupposes the existence of God, because obligation necessarily has to have been created by God. You most likely have heard this before… as had I, multiple times… yet its fullness is just beginning to hit me. What is obligation? Why *is* it? If you are an atheist, you are logically *forced* to deny obligation. Yet… everyone ‘feels’ its presence and its implications. This is why I refer to morality as a ‘flaw’ the title: if you deny moral law, it can lead to some pretty… absurd… grotesque… truths which few people will actually admit.

I wasn’t originally intending for this post to be an argument against atheism, and it still really isn’t(a good one, at least). I meant to more explore the actuality of obligation… what it is, why it is, what it does, it’s implications… Maybe another post. For its implications are really rather interesting.

~Edit~

Looking back… I’m seeing that this doesn’t coherently explain what I was trying to say. At any rate, here are my main points:

~Moral Law *is* obligation
~Moral Law is something *necessarily* created by God(given that it is not self-authenticating, and universal, abstract truths cannot ‘come’ into existence… and thus:
~Atheists cannot account for what I(and most) understand to be obligation

Posted in Theology | 2 Responses »

Objections to the Faith: Concerning the Nature of Jesus’ Sacrifice

Written by admin on November 25th, 2009

Here’s a tough objection I’ve come across: Why do some men still have to suffer punishment if Christ has already been sacrificed as payment for all sins?

The classic Christian cliche cop-out answer(CCCCA) for this is that “Christ’s sacrifice was a gift, and you have to accept a gift in order to receive it.” This may satisfy some… but… it by no means satisfies me. The nature of Jesus’ sacrifice simply doesn’t seem very ‘giftly’. If Christ’s sacrifice serves as atonement for believers’ sins, why does it not serve as atonement for others’ sins? If you think about it, it really doesn’t make sense to say that Jesus’ atonement for sins was a gift which has to be accepted on our part. In its essence, this CCCCA is responding to the objection by denying it’s premise: it claims that Jesus’ sacrifice did, in fact, not atone for all sins, but only for the sins of believers. This ‘gift’ explanation probably originated as a simple metaphor… for something. Then someone came along, saw it, and beat the fluff out of the poor thing, and others in turn used this fluff-ridden metaphor in their endeavors to explain this objection to ‘doubters’.

So if this answer which we are so used to hearing is not the actual answer, what is the actual answer? Before the fall of man, man could either live in harmony with God, resulting in glorification and life, or he could live in disobedience to God, resulting in degradation and death. Logically, you can look at it this way. Man owes God his all; his entirety; his full service. If Man holds back something from God(his service), he will consequently be in debt to God. However, man would not be able to repay this debt seeing as anything he could give to God is already owed to God. Thus man would have an unpayable debt. God, being a just God, cannot let anything go unregulated. In order to regulate unpayed sin, God would have to punish man. Now this is where hypothetical turns into historical event:

Adam, through disobeying God, held back from God what God was owed(Adam’s entire service). Adam, through eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil brought distortion into man’s nature and guilt onto mankind as a whole. Adam’s guilt was mankind’s guilt. So mankind is born in debt to God, being born with this ’sinful’, distorted nature(which is a result of Adam eating from… tToKoGaE). Therefore mankind is born in debt to God, and it is consequently necessary that every single human being born will be punished.

So now man is kinda screwed. If an individual man decides to live in disobedience to and rejection of God, he will be punished. If an individual man decides to live in perfect harmony with and in perfect obedience to God, he will be punished. Either way, all men will be punished; for all men are born with a ’sin nature’ and thus are all born guilty. This is where God’s mercy comes in. God, in His mercy, got rid of this unpayable debt through Christ. Christ was fully divine and fully man. Through His divinity he was born sinless, and through His humanity He was born… well, human.  Christ lived a sinless life. Christ, seeing as His entire life was without sin, was completely free of debt to God. Seeing as death is a consequence of sin, Jesus did not deserve death. However, Jesus suffered an undeserved death. This is what has atoned for the sins of mankind; Christ died so that we would not have to die(I mean death as in ‘the second type of death’; spiritual death. Christ suffered spiritual death in the place of all).

Now that I have given some background, I can get into the goody goodies. What was Christ’s purpose in sacrificing Himself? Was His purpose to save all men from punishment? No. Christ’s purpose in sacrificing Himself was and is to get rid of the effects of sin so that all might be able to live in harmony with God, with life and eventually glorification. Why will people be punished if all sins have been atoned for already? This question makes an assumption. The assumption is that God will punish people on account of their sins. I would like to suggest otherwise. I would like to suggest that God does not punish men for their sins, but rather for their lack of faith. This is why people still go to Hell though Christ atoned for all sins; they are sent to Hell because they live in a state of disobedience and defiance to God(which is demonstrated through their lack of faith and confession). This idea, though it makes sense once you actually think about it, really does remodel the way most of us think about the punishment and justice of God. If you had asked me a year ago to tell you why God will send people to Hell, I would have said without hesitation, “because of man’s sin.” Now I would suggest completely otherwise.

I will continue on this train of thought shortly. In my next post, I will attempt to refute an objection which can be raised to what I have said. And if you yourself have any objections, comment, and I’ll add their refutation to my next post. No, seriously, I’m going to continue this soon. No, seriously.

Posted in Theology | 10 Responses »

Objections to the Faith

Written by admin on October 25th, 2009

I’ve always enjoyed trying to logically explain and demonstrate the answers to objections of the Faith. In the past month or two, though, my enjoyment of this ‘activity’ seems to have grown. I can certainly attribute at least some of this growth to my reading of the works of St. Anselm(for the Great Books course I’m in). Caleb and I have come to agree that St. Anselm is “like, the best.” What exactly this means one can not be sure, but at the very least it means that Anselm was one of the most fob theologians to ever live. Seeing as I’m trying my best not to write about Anselm as much as I’d like to in this post, I’ll have to summarize his works by saying that, in essence, he seeks to:

1. Explain objections to Christianity, and
2. Explain the nature of God and logically demonstrate various Christian principles and doctrine.

And what’s cool is that he doesn’t use scripture in any of his arguments. He bases all of his arguments off of his famed ontological proof, which proves the existence of god and relies solely on one premise, which is the definition of what we understand ‘God’ to be.

So, given that I have come to enjoy explaining the various objections to the faith, I thought I might post my various endeavors to do so on my blog. Do realize, though, that I do not claim to be anything but a n00b to the Faith, simply posting the dumbed down and immature explanations I have come up with after reading or just thinking about the issues. All of my beliefs are apt to change with time, and you are to by all means point out inconsistencies of these explanations with orthodoxy, or objections you might have to my arguments.

Now that I’ve finished with this, I can get down to the goody goodies. I shall now write up my thoughts on a certain question that has been hovering over me for the last couple of days in particular, but which I and probably most of you have encountered various times in our life.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Responses »

He has fallen.

Written by admin on September 15th, 2009

So, a couple days ago, I… I.. Well.

Okay, let’s try that again. A couple days ago, I reactivatedmyfacebookaccountbutpleasedonthurtmeimagoodboyreally.

So, if you’re not on FB and didn’t realize this, well, that’s why I haven’t posted for a couple days. So, how is this going to affect my blog updating? Well, ideally, it won’t affect it in the long run. But realistically, seeing as I can interact with most of my friends through FB easily, my posts here will probably be slightly more scarce. However, the two serve different purposes in my opinion, and so I would like to keep each actively running.

What about EpWar? Well, I don’t really feel like putting in the effort I should put into it to get it on it’s feet. So that’ll probably die off. Maybe some day in the future I’ll revive it; I still think it was a pretty cool idea.

For my next post(which I don’t have time to write up right now), I’d like to share a part of a book I’m currently reading(Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England). One of the chapters tells of the experience of a man who saw heaven and hell, but was later sent back to life to live a couple more years… which I thought was incredibly cool.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Responses »

Attack on “Pi–A love sonnet”

Written by admin on September 10th, 2009

Link to original poem: Pi–A love sonnet

Text of original post:

“This poem is a sonnet. This means that it is fourteen lines long, there are ten syllables per line, it has iambic pentameter and a rhyming scheme of ABABCDCDEFEFGG.
This poem is worth 82 points. That means you will get 164 points for defeating it.

There is no number dandier than pi,
Beautiful three point one four one five nine,
More beautiful than a flourescent dye,
How I love its smell and taste more than wine,
Algebraically transcendental,
Astounding two six five three five eight!
So irrationally sentimental,
‘Tis a number one cannot overrate.
Oh, the unpatterned series of digits,
Infinite nine seven nine, three two three.
One will memorize them though he fidgets.
For pi, one shan’t stop making potpourri.
Yea, it is pi that I shall always love.
All who will take pi from me, I shall shove.”

Counter poem:


I’m sorry but your poem is just false.
You know that you like pi no more than school.
If you met pi I bet it you’d not halse.
You’d prob’ ly go and drown it in your pool.
And then you’d go and fish it from the deep.
You’d let it dry then would light it afire.
You psychopathic, cruel, ruthless creep.
We ought to lock you up, bind you with wire.
Pi is in truth a horrendous number.
It’s truly cacophonous to the ear
To say it is dull as chopping lumber.
Its sound fills the courageous man with fear.
My point has been made clearer than crystal.
If pi moves to Suffield I’m to Bristol.

Note: I ain’t calling Peter… a psychopathic ruthless creep. I’m just calling anyone who would want to drown, dry, and burn pi such.

Posted in EpWar, Poems | 3 Responses »

First Defensive Poem

Written by admin on September 10th, 2009

(An obviously not Christian) Star Gazer

Rhyme: ABCB, DEFE, GHIH, JKLK

Syllables(roughly):  8, 6, 10, 6

Value: 15

I often look unto the stars,
And let the hours stack
It’s still amazing through years of gazing;
To leave I need a smack.

I always see such space and size,
And wonder at the sight.
For there’s no compare to the beautiful glare
Of a star’s bright shining light

I want–no, long–no need to stay
But I’m called by child and wife. .
And though I feel pain like a witch in the rain,
I go and live my “life”.

So off I go to reality,
to my life of pain and sore,
but through my suff’ring I’m always thinking
Of when I’ll gaze once more.

I was desperate. I needed a poem out… so I could attack Peter.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Responses »

The Reality of God

Written by admin on September 9th, 2009

WARNING: what you are about to read is incohesive, unflowing, random, and ill-organized. This material is unsuitable for pregnant women, those with heart conditions, stomach pains, neck pains, or other severe physical ailments. Not that pregnancy is an ailment… it’s just… yeah. Be quiet.

God is real. Would you agree with that statement? Yes, considering you’re reading my blog, you probably would. Who is God? God is an all powerful, all knowing, loving, merciful, faithful, holy, righteous, awesome God. Would you agree with that statement? Well, yes, you probably would. Can you trust God? Yes. Everybody who believes in God believes that “you can trust Him”. Can He not provide you with food and clothing? Can He not get you into college? Does He not have the power to do absolutely anything with you and your life, and take you anywhere He would have you go?

Being at that age when I and my piers are starting to take PSATs and SATs and are financially and academically preparing for college, I find, funny as it may seem, that there is a lot of worrying going on. “Will I get a high enough score on my SAT to get into YimYim’s Super College?” “Will the handwriting in my essay be readable for the test checker dudes?” “How on earth am I going to not flunk the geometry section??? I stink at Geometry! And it’s not my fault; it’s genetic or something! Or maybe it was Ben’s fault! He was always distracting me when I was doing my homework! Or maybe I just ate too much pie! But I can’t help it! I love pie!” etc. etc. Not that worrying is necessarily bad. Ok. It’s bad. I said it.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I’m not trying to condemn all my friends who do this. I’m just… Ok, I’m condemning you.

Okay, okay. Seriously now. I’m not condemning you. I’m encouraging you and reminding you. We as Christians are to be led by the Spirit through life. It is our duty to seek God’s will in all matters. If we are living in good conscience, inside God’s will for our life, what have we to fear? Consider the following.

As long as we are living, our life is going to continue. Though it may have twists and turns, it will keep moving forward; onward. No matter what happens in life, you will keep on moving on. What is worrying? Worrying is the fear of the future. The question is, why do we fear the future? Well, there’s plenty of reason to fear the future if you don’t have your faith placed in God. But assuming that you do have your faith placed in God, there is no acceptable excuse to fearing the future. It’s almost as if we think worrying will improve our situation. Well, I’m going to tell you right now: it aint. It’s not going to slow down time. It’s not going to get you a job. It’s not going to improve your test score. Worrying does absolutely nothing. It is purely a result of your lack of trust in God. Moving on.

Your SAT is coming up. You need a 2000 to get into Kappy’s College For Uber-Supers. You take the test and get a 1900. Well, I guess God didn’t want you to go to Kappy’s College for Uber-Supers. No! Not at all. You take another SAT. This time you got a 2200!!! I guess God wanted you to go to Kappy’s College for Uber-Supers. No! Not at all.

Just because God closes a door in your face doesn’t mean He doesn’t want you to try again. Just because God opens a door does not mean that you are to go through the door.

No matter what happens, you are to be constantly seeking God’s will. You should constantly be asking God, “What should I do next?” If you are doing this and are living in good conscience with God, what could possibly go wrong in your life? Maybe you have tried multiple times to get into a college and simply can’t do it. Has God failed to carry out His plan? Certainly not! If you don’t get into a certain college, it simply means it wasn’t part of His plan to get you into that college. Maybe your mom died in a car accident. Did God make a miscalculation? No. Maybe you’re terribly lacking in finances, you’ve been kicked out of your home, you’re out on the streets, and you’re just eating enough to stay alive. God MUST have done something wrong. No, in fact, just look. He’s kept you alive. Maybe you die. He DID mess up there… Right?  No, that was a part of His plan for your life as well… God has to end every life some time, some way, some how.

Quoting that line from the Westminster Shorter Catechism which you have probably heard, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”  No matter the circumstances, we can do that. If we’re in a 10,000 sq. ft. mansion on pineapple lane, Kawaii, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we’re in a nice, Suburban 4,000 sq. ft. home with a new SUV, a computer, and two tvs, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we’re in a condo with a cat and two fish and a small tv, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we’re living in a trailer home, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we live in a dumpster, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we live in a cardboard shanty, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we’re in a prison cell, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we’re in a torture cell, we can glorify and enjoy God. If we’re on a stake about to be lit on fire, we can glorify and enjoy God.

When you are worrying, you are neither glorifying God nor are you enjoying Him; you are not fullfilling your purpose and thus are not livling within God’s will. When you are worrying, you are denying God’s power. If you deny God’s power, you are denying His reality. Part of God’s reality is His power. You see, if you are fully and  consciously convinced of God’s all powerful, all discerning, merciful, loving, righteous, Holy, awesome reality, you cannot really worry. To worry means that you forget of God’s reality. It is pushed to the back of your mind and you temporarily forget about God’s existence, or you convince yourself that “God isn’t really relevant in this situation.” I challenge you to keep the truth of God’s reality ever-present in your mind. Keep Him in your conscious mind rather than your unconscious mind. Be aware of his existence while shopping for shoes, while talking with a friend, while playing airsoft, while doing school, while taking your PSAT, while eating dinner, or while you’re sitting on the couch reading a book. And I really mean this in as literal of a sense as it can be taken. Just think about His reality. Constantly. I have found that a lot/all of the problems I have are just a result of pushing God’s reality to the back of my mind.

Maybe it’s that I think I’m well prepared. Maybe it’s that I don’t care about my education enough. Maybe that it’s that I don’t have a specific score that I’m trying to hit. But I can tell you that I’m not gonna worry about the PSATs or SATs. I’m just gonna take ‘em as they come. No, I’m not going to ditch my SAT prep. I’m not gonna close my eyes as I take the test. But I am going to leave what’s in God’s hands to God, and I’m not going to worry along the way. I am going to keep His reality every present in my thoughts.

Posted in Theology | 6 Responses »

« Older Entries