To Be Great Is To Be Misunderstood

"To be great is to be misunderstood" ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Who is apparently related to me by blood.)

Yes, you've probably heard it. You've probably laughed at it as silly or narcissistic. Now, let's consider it. I have always said that 95% of people are stupid and shallow. Yes, this seems incredibly arrogant. I apologize for that. It's simply a theory I have formed after being continually frustrated by the people of our society. Frankly, we have too many sheople in this world who would prefer to be shallow and not think for themselves. Now if someone were great (i.e brilliant), 95% of people would either (1) not care or (2) not understand. This makes logical sense. However, another option is that the person is being misunderstood because they themselves are stupider than the stupid people. This goes to show that if you're misunderstood you're not necessarily brilliant. BUT, I would go so far as to say that it may be a solid indication of your brilliance. In short, I think that this saying, in general, holds water. I would like to point out that I do not agree with this statement for the same reasons that Mr. Emerson does. You see, Ol' Ralph was a transcendental optimist. This largely means he was nature deifying relativist with romantic notions about man being good. He believed that you could say something true today and then say something entirely different tomorrow and yet the contradictory statement be true. Thus, the relativism. Truth is changing. Thus, brilliant and great people who understand this concept are misunderstood because they follow the constant ebb and flow of truth. Clearly, this is not biblical yet this is the reason Emerson said what he did. No sane human being can live like that. Thus, I disagree with Mr. Emerson because of the philosophical grounds of his claim, yet I agree with the claim because of my own entirely different reason.

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. Don't be part of the sheople. Think things through. Don't follow a trend simply because it's a trend. Consider others. Just because something isn't immediately pleasurable doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. Learn new things. Have deep conversations. The world isn't about you.

Hear Me, Karma! Oh. Wait.

Per request, this week's post is on the topic of karma. Now, this is a common superstition. It's thrown about frequently albeit generally facetiously. However, since it bears a slight resemblance to Christianity, it may be that Christians can have a hard time defending against this false idea. The concept that good is rewarded and bad is judged is clearly a biblical concept. That much cannot be denied. The ultimate dichotomy between karma and Christianity is the agency. Karma, originating in Eastern Mysticism, is the product of a blind, all encompassing, and transcendent force that guides the universe. This force is often called Brahma. Blessings and curses are administered by this force to doers of good and evil. I struggle with this because I don't understand the eastern mystic's concept of right and wrong. The eastern mystic proclaims that all things are one. One could argue that if all things are one, there are no distinctions such as right and wrong. Despite this, Brahma manages to reward the good and punish the bad without being a personal being. Christians need to fight this idea upon these grounds. The God that Christians worship is not a blind force. Yahweh is a personal and sentient being who creates, loves, and judges. There is an ultimate moral standard we will be judged by on the Final Day, but God is also actively pursuing judgement in this life. A simple example is that bad decision have bad consequences. That is God's practical way of achieving judgement in this world. However, God also weaves much greater and more complicated punishments. These are based upon his creative, personal, and holy nature. We do not and need not always see them, but His holiness demands that they be there. Oddly enough, Christianity is also very different from the concept of Karma because of the Christian concept of mercy. Is a blind force going to experience pity or mercy? It can't. A personal God, such as the one we have, is abounding with mercy and love. The sun shines upon the righteous and the wicked. Christ died to pay for the sins of wicked sinners (Me.) From our God's abounding mercy, we too are enabled to commit acts of mercy. This is an entirely foreign concept to Brahma. It draws no divisions, for there are none.

In short, Karma is a foreign concept from Christianity because it relies upon a far off and impersonal being. Such an identity (if it can be called that) is entirely foreign from our God. Therefore, He administers justice fairly based upon an absolute moral standard and yet His being abounds with mercy too.

God Bless,

Stanley

Mass Murder? Nice Try.

"I don't want a God who would order innocent people to be slaughtered." There's your problem. They aren't innocent.

Have you ever struggled with God's orders to exterminate the people who inhabited The Promised Land before the Israelites? Chapter upon chapter chronicles (pun intended) the destruction of pagan nations. Many modern atheists and liberals have objected to this "barbarism." They raise the same objection written above. "It's not loving. That's cruel." My reply? It's justice. Get over it. So you're going to elevate your mind above the Mind of God and make moral judgements about Him? How dare you be so arrogant! Your finite mind would be annihilated by the vastness of God's knowledge, wisdom, love, and justice.

See, our problem is that we are trying to fit God into our little framework of "fair." God is not bound by human convention or foolishness. You know what He IS bound by? Himself. He is perfectly holy and righteous. That is basic to who He is and He cannot deny His own nature. God's holiness defines morality. We have rebelled against and offended this holy God who defines morality by His very essence. His justice then becomes manifest. His just nature demands a sufficient restitution. What is the proper punishment for offending an eternal God? Eternal punishment of course. Now, the fact that we aren't all burning in hell this very instant is a testament to God's immeasurable grace. But when He decides to withhold His grace and do what is just, we criticize Him for it? God forbid! He giveth and He taketh away. When God decides to righteously bring judgement upon an entire nation, no man can raise objection.

I like to explain our understanding of God in this way. Imagine a small cube. Now, envision a massive vortex spiraling to a single point within the cube. That cube is our finite minds. God has revealed an accurate but condensed version of Himself to us. That is the single point within our minds. The vortex begins to spread from that point, but quickly passes out of our comprehension. That is our understanding of something greater, beyond our comprehension. It is the surety of the entire massive vortex that exists entirely outside of the small cube, that is, God's infinite attributes we can only trust rather than understand.

Another interesting point, is the parallels between the journey of Israel and the journey of the Church. You remember the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness? Perhaps you would consider them sojourners? Exactly. The Bible tell us that we are sojourners in this world. The Israelites were sojourners in the wilderness just as we are sojourners on this earth. When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the land was purged. This directly parallels God' judgement and purging on the last day. Then, the Israelites' entrance into the Promised Land is a fulfillment of God's promises that directly parallels our entrance into Paradise. Clearly, in the midst of God' righteous bloodshed, there was an even bigger picture plan in store. We can take comfort in the wisdom of our God to plan and the justice of our God to judge.

God Bless,

Stanley

Republican Presidential Race Analysis

I apologize for a prolonged time of silence. School comes first and it muscled it's way into my blog writing time. That time of silence is over.

I finished all my papers and obligations last night and so I flopped down on the couch and stayed up until 11 watching the Republican Presidential Debate. THAT was entertaining. My initial reactions to the debate are that (1) Michelle Bachmann is on the war path (2) Ron Paul's foreign policy is incredibly naive. I stayed up late and watched Bret Baier and Co. asking candidates, Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman, and Bachmann about issues like economy, leadership, judicial branch, Iran, and also about addressing allegations brought against the candidates. I had a good time. Now, it's the next day and the dust is clearing. Fortunately, the two initial impressions stand firm. Bachmann was on the war path. She called out Gingrich multiple times and came head to head with Ron Paul on Iran. Michelle is fighting for her life there in the Iowa caucus. She means business. She is pushing her ultra conservative views hard. That's going to be her downfall. I'm sure of it.

Ron Paul's views on government regulation and economy are so spot on. This man is a genius. But don't let him anywhere near foreign policy! Don't make Paul Secretary of State or Secretary of War. That wouldn't end well. Secretary of the Treasury? That's more like it. His naive belief that Iran will somehow fit into the Cold War model of mutually assured destruction is absurd. His blind faith in "diplomacy" betrays an underlying misunderstanding of human nature and of the Islamic zeitgeist! Bachmann rightfully called him out on this in no uncertain terms. Sadly, Paul did himself a disservice because his responses were weak and he appeared to be losing his cool.

A nuclear Iran is a global nightmare that is incredibly complex. War is not the automatic answer, but war cannot be ruled out. I feel that we don't understand the ramifications of a nuclear Iran and that leads us to a soft reaction. The Iranian Government (not the people) hates America. Iran hates Israel. Their religion is founded on extermination of infidel and martyrdom of their people. Such a radical regime having access to nuclear weapons is simply not an option. Frankly, Mr. Paul doesn't understand this and he's too biased against war to understand that sometimes the best solution isn't always the prettiest one. Because the Iranians sure aren't going to back down!

Mitt Romney was strangely silent throughout the night. He continually reminded us of his business successes. I think those are important, yes. However, I have observed that he leans very heavily upon saying "learning lessons from success and failure" than actually providing a plan. He's currently combating Newt Gingrich in Iowa and yet Bachmann and others went after Gingrich instead. Mitt was a seasoned veteran who showed restraint but his talking points became old after a while. Don't get me wrong. I feel that Romney is one of the most level-headed and electable candidates in the race. That is, if people can get over the fact that he's a Mormon. Please Christians, get over it and don't be so close minded. He may be a Mormon, but he shares a lot of the same basic values. Certainly, he's not saved, but that doesn't change the fact that, through God's grace, Mitt Romney is, in many major ways, our ideological ally.

My main problem is not his religion, but that he seems a little moderate on some things. He's by no means as ultra conservative as Santorum or Bachmann, nor does he have glaring political errors that have me leery of him. Largely? He's just vanilla on the issues. Yes, he may be pro-life, for true marriage, and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that he puts as much stock in these beliefs as, say, Santorum or Bachmann. I think he's attempting to run on a ticket of getting the country's financial and economic state back on track. That's certainly a smart strategy and it's what American needs! However, if he's going to emphasize economy over social issues, he needs to be the clear choice in that category and I'm unconvinced that he is.

Santorum was also strong on conservative principles, but you could tell he clearly wanted to say more than he was allowed. Frankly, Santorum isn't going to win this. Not enough Republicans like him and he is hated by liberals as a homophobe and racist. That is just a losing combination. I feel that Bachmann largely follows this formula. She is ultra-conservative and is thus hated. I suggest searching Bachmann on YouTube to see the ire that she has aroused in many people in the country. She has become an easy political punching bag. I am 100% sure that neither Bachmann nor Santorum will receive the Republican Nomination nor could they possibly win the presidency.

Gingrich will kill the Republican party's chance of winning this election. This election is almost being handed to us because of how badly Mr. Obama has performed, but we can still lose it with a poor candidate! Mr. Gingrich's electability is so bad, I don't see why so many Republicans like him. They are going to shoot their election chances in the foot. He's been around too long. There is too much dirt to dig up. Plus, his name is Newt! Now, we have to look at this from a purely aesthetic point of view. Is it close minded of me to think that I don't want a president with the first name Newt? Just think of the international mockery. I'm sorry, Mr. Gingrich. It's not shallow. It's pragmatism. To me, Newt is a career politician and he's not a good choice for this country. He's simply been part of the problem for too long.

I was actually impressed with Rick Perry's performance. I was afraid he was going to be some ultra conservative hick, but he comes of as an accomplished and experienced man who knows what he's talking about. His real strong conservatism will prevent him from winning, but I would certainly vote for him over Bachmann or Santorum. From what I've heard and seen, he has improved greatly from the last debate. Apparently he's not much of a debater and that's apparent in the clips I've seen from the last debate. However, he certainly has improved and he impressed me.

At this point, I am endorsing Jon Huntsman for President. Jon Huntsman exudes confidence, experience, knowledge, and wittiness. Mr. Huntsman has a fantastic track record as governor of Utah (yes he's a Mormon.) He lowered taxes, abolished regulation, and improved business in his state. What he did with Utah, he can do with this country! It's fantastic to see a man who has a vision and yet we can look at his track record and see that his vision is something that is successful and works. Another fantastic skill he brings to the table is his position of US ambassador to China for many years. He understands how to deal with this incredibly complex and important foreign country. That is such a valuable and unique skill!

Mr. Huntsman puts a large emphasis on the economy and deregulation. In this election, that is the biggest issue. Social issues take back seat. Yes, he's pro-life (However, my quibble with him is his exceptions in case of rape or threat to mother's life. Even then, that is an incredibly delicate issue.) He believes that homosexuality is wrong though he wants to reduce discrimination and is for homosexual unions. He's largely consistent with my beliefs in that regard. I'm not happy with his acceptance of evolution and global warming, however throughout his campaign, he has made it abundantly clear that these are not the things he is seeking to focus on. For me, him believing evolution is a side comment. This man has the leadership skills, the experience, the know-how, and the professional attitude to lead this country where it needs to go. That's why I'm endorsing Jon Huntsman. I hope you'll do your research and made an informed decision. Maybe, you'll even come to the same conclusion as me. I can't vote yet, but I want to sway the opinion of those who can!

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. I have a ton of material that I have been working on in fragments. There is more to come throughout the week!

A Brief Defense of the Indefensible

Christians need to stand by the Puritans. As non-Christians hate them and laugh them to scorn, we need to defend them. Admittedly, not everything they did was praiseworthy. However, ultimately, we need to stand by their fundamental attitudes and beliefs. When pagans denounce Puritans and their "prudery" or "tyrannical morals", they are really rejecting an absolute standard of morality! Stop and think this through with me. The Puritans had the Word of God and they knew exactly what He had told them concerning how to live. God had laid out an absolute moral code. The Puritans took sin very gravely. This is fantastic on their part! Sin is serious! The world wants a Law that is flippant and bends to their whims. That is not the Law that the Puritans would adhere to. They would not waver. For this allegiance, they are hated. Christ said this would come. He said that we would be blessed if we were hated for his sake. Ultimately, we need to stand by the Puritans' strong stance on an absolute morality that is established by a Holy God. It does not bow to our wishes.

God Bless,

Stanley

AJSUFHNGYQIODKMCNDHGYU!

The topic that I spent the day reading about was that of speaking in tongues. I read an article where a supporter of speaking in tongues brought his arguments for it and attempted to deflect arguments against it. Frankly, while it was a well intentioned attempt, he fell flat in many respects. His assertion that tongues can be a spiritual language was founded on two passages and one of which, does not support his claim. The other one is shaky at best in supporting his claims. It felt lacking and full of bashing the other side as opposed to proving himself. However, after reading some good stuff about cessationism (the opposite side of the argument) I was still unsure. The ultimate problem that I have with cessationist theology is that I just haven't found a sufficiently strong logical basis for it! My titles asks, is the foundation of cessationism as sure as we think it is? Looking at the scriptures, I don't think it's as set in stone as we think it is. Both sides still have left me unconvinced.

I spent a lot of time reading 1 Corinthians 14. It's an incredible passage and frankly, it's confusing in light of cessationist theology. Am I to believe that this passage merely no longer applies? I am at a crossroads. Where I currently stand, is here: what is commonly thought of as tongues is not tongues. Confusing? I'll explain.

Let's take a look at Corinthians 14...

¹Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

²For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

³But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

⁴He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

⁵I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

⁶Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

⁷And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

⁸For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

⁹So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

¹⁰There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

¹¹Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

¹²Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

¹³Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

¹⁴For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

¹⁵What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

¹⁶Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

¹⁷For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

¹⁸I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

¹⁹Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

²⁰Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

²¹In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

²²Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

²³If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

²⁴But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

²⁵And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

²⁶How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

²⁷If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

²⁸But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

²⁹Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

³⁰If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

³¹For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

³²And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

³³For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

³⁴Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

³⁵And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

³⁶What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

³⁷If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

³⁸But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

³⁹Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

⁴⁰Let all things be done decently and in order.

Let's look at this in context. What is Paul saying about tongues? He says that tongues are to be translated! If they are not translated, you are speaking into the air and it profits no one. The gibberish that passes for tongues now a days cannot be translated! If it could be and it was, then churches practicing speaking in tongues would be in accordance with this passage. Clearly, that is not happening. Now, if we view tongues as a foreign but real language. Then this passage begins to make sense. At Pentecost, tongues was mentioned. Yet, in that instance, those tongues were foreign languages. This is how tongues appears throughout the NT. It appears to me that tongues are not gibberish. (which even pagan religions practiced before Christians.) God is a God of communication and order. He does not sow chaos. Corinthians 14 provides a clear guide for how tongues are to be practiced, yet the church is not adhering to this passage. Regardless of whether cessationism is correct of not, the church is not following the guidelines that the Bible lays out to practice speaking in tongues. This needs to be corrected .

I will continue to read about cessationism. Many men I respect and look up to hold to this view. There must be something to it. I did find a fantastic article by Mark Snoeberger on this topic. It's well written and extremely helpful. Over the next week, I am going to re-read it and analyze it. I'll get back to you on it. As a side note, I recommend reading the article titled "Tongues - Are They for Today?" (http://ccggrockford.org/wp-content/uploads/Snoeberger%20-%20Tongues.pdf) and I also recommend Mr. Snoeberger's blog. (I'm putting it in my links.)

God Bless,

Stanley

Kurt Vonnegut's 8 Rules of Short Story Writing

1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
4. Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.
5. Start as close to the end as possible.
6. Be a Sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
8. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages

I quibble with the last one, but Kurt Vonnegut sure knows more about story writing than I do.

God Bless,

Stanley

It's Too Late to Be Thinking...

Yeah, it's kind of late. I don't really have the mental capacity right now to write anything long. My suggestion to you would be to go to White Horse Inn's page ( http://www.whitehorseinn.org/white-horse-inn.html ) I highly recommend their newest podcast called the Gospel of Pragmatism. In it, Mike Horton and Co. discusses the emphasis in American Christianity on experience and testimony. It is an interesting discussion on the relationship between truth and experience. Perhaps a little bit of John Keats is in order?

God Bless,

Stanley

Sculpt the Earth

Do you ever just read about random stuff on the internet? Well, today, I decided to type "avant-garde" into wikipedia. Interesting article, but at the bottom there was a list of related articles. This list was composed of a long list of experimental art, music, and literary movements. I found this to be exceedingly interesting. However, the one that interested me the most was "land art." Land artists sculpt the earth to create works of art. Picture the Nazca Lines only more recent and generally having to do with geometric shapes. Cool right? That's what I thought too! Sounds like a beautiful and amazing medium of art! Now, I'm brainstorming on how to do it. The American River "wilderness" is very close to my house, perhaps that will be my canvas? Such new ideas really excite me! Google "land art" and enjoy some of these works for yourself.

Another idea that was planted in my mind is the concept of "mail art." Mail art is the art of decorating envelopes, postcards, and custom "artistamps." Then, you send it through the postal system. Sounds like a fun way to make art and share it! The lines between normal people and artists are being blurred so normal people like me can partake in the joy of art!

It's come to my attention that I need more extracurricular activities to be attractive to colleges. So, I've been searching for things to do, ways to volunteer, and ways to take leadership. On Tuesday I applied to volunteer at the library (fun!! :D). I am planning to be a camp counselor over the summer; I want to get a job at some point next year or the year after that. Now I have my eye out for ways to improve my status in the eyes of universities. btw, I've also considered finally taking up Tai Chi. I've always wanted to and I plan on finding a place to take classes for that...

Right now, I'm listening to a new band that I like called "From Atlantis." They're re-releasing their ep "Echoes and Answers" in a few days. It's really awesome! It's just typical post-hardcore, but I'm enjoying it quite a bit. Next to me is "Orthodoxy" by Chesterton, "Apocalypse Not!" by Bolch and Lyons, and "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. My grandma made me promise to read "Liberty and Tyranny" so since she's coming for Christmas, I have decided to start now so as not to disappoint her.

I have not started on Part 3 of TIAOMEIAS because I need to sufficiently flesh out the next progression. However, I have been thinking about topics for a short story that I will write in one piece.

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. This month, my blog has had 46 hits from Russia. If you're in Russia and reading this, I appreciate your viewership!

10 Questions Intelligent Christians Must Answer (Psst. I have answers!)

Watch this video before you read my post. Hopefully, it will make you a bit angry, but I also hope it gets you thinking. After you've watched it, feel free to read my answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related

1. Why won't God heal amputees?

First off, their argument that we need to "rationalize" is exactly paradoxical to what they want. They are assuming that we're wrong and so any attempt to, through our belief system, rationalize our beliefs means that we're making excuses. This is preposterous.

Second, I have to admit. This IS an interesting question. My "excuses" (:P) are these. God does not answer every prayer and God does not heal everyone. Absolutely, God is intimately involved in His children's lives, but often He uses very ordinary means. Sometimes, believers are not healed. It's all part of God's plan. Personally, I can't imagine what it must be like to be an amputee. However, God draws close to Christians who are in this situation. He draws close with His promises and love. Yes, maybe God does have a special plan for amputees. Who are you to plumb the mind of God? God is not a cosmic vending machine. Put in prayer, get out healing. That is not how He works.

2. Why are there so many starving people in the world?

The simple answer is the effects of sin. God created a perfect creation that fell with man in his act of rebellion. Now, we live in a world that is subject to decay and that is ruled by wicked men (aka, all of us.) This is why starving occurs. Starving is a lack of resources and, in almost all cases, is the product of tyranny and corrupt government. Why does God not hear their prayers? Many are not praying to God! Once again, God is not a cosmic vending machine nor does everybody have the ability or desire to commune with Him. The existence of evil and starving is not God's fault, but man's! The question "How can a loving God allow evil to exist" is age old and quite tiresome. Operating from within a biblical viewpoint (aka, reality), it involves some mystery, yes, but the Bible is also quite clear on the point. So, it makes logical sense. However, from a humanistic viewpoint, it makes no sense and cannot be accepted. So atheists sit smugly while we hand them truth and yet they cannot accept it because of their presuppositions about reality.

3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

I hope this one really raised some red flags. Let's consider the verses that he points to. These are all from the justice system of the Israeli state that were instituted by God. Is God somehow not allowed to institute laws that He sees fit? Also, I would point to this covenant being fulfilled in Christ. This was a type and shadow of Christ's fulfillment of the covenant. As my teacher Mr. Uttinger would put it, the Jews were like kindergarteners with lots of rules. Now that the new covenant has been revealed, these rules have been simplified. We are "adults." The bottomline is that these are laws instituted by God and thus these people are not innocent. The only innocent person in the Bible to die is Jesus Christ.

Next, notice this quote, "It doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters?" There are so many problems with this, I don't know where to begin. First, God's laws need not make sense to man's sinful mind. Second, just because He's loving, doesn't mean He isn't just. God isn't this fuzzy bunny rabbit in the sky. He is a righteous and just being. Third, it isn't murder if it is instituted by God and is justified. Last, and this is the main problem, these things are NOT trivial. God has instituted them and they violate His holiness. To call that trivial is blasphemy! I cannot stress how wrong this is! God's laws are many things, but trivial is not one of them.

4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

This question is stupid, because it doesn't. The Bible does not contradict Science. Where Science contradicts the Bible, it is wrong. Yes, miracles occurred, but they were just that, miracles. Miracles are a special act of God in His creation. God made the world! He can do anything He wants!

The things this video's creator lists? They all happened because the Bible says so and science does not contradict 6 day creation or a flood. Now, crap masquerading as science called the theory of evolution does, but that's fiction, not science.

5. Why is God such a proponent of slavery in the Bible?

The Bible was written at a time that slavery was a common and economic practice. People sold themselves into to slavery to pay debt and conquered peoples were placed into slavery. Now, to my knowledge, the Bible never portrays slavery as a good thing. It merely acknowledges it's existence and acts within a society where it is present. Clearly, the slavery of the South (what people think of when you say slavery) was wrong not for the simple fact that it was slavery, but it was morally wrong because of the racism, hatred, abuse, and hypocrisy that had become part of it. God uses slavery as a punishment for His people. Obviously, this is not being a proponent of it, but rather, acknowledging the sadness of such a state. It's not portrayed as something lovely, but it's portrayed in it's stark reality.

6. Why do bad things happen to good people?

Oh, the classic question. Will this question ever stop coming off the lips of snarky atheists? I doubt it because it once again allows them to curl up in their false presuppositions and thumb their noses at reality. This question largely hinges upon a misunderstanding of God and a misunderstanding of the word "good." No one is righteous. Not one. Therefore, the only bad thing to ever happen to a good person was the suffering Christ endured on earth. Now, by worldly standards of good, I can even explain this. God never promises that things will be lovely and rosy for His followers. In fact, just the opposite is promised! We must take up our cross and we are to expect to be hated and mocked. The prosperity Gospel is a lie. Being "good" doesn't earn you a nice life. Bad things happen to people for a variety of reasons. All are because God ordains them, but they tend to have a variety of reasons. One is that it's a logical outcome of their actions. Another is that God is teaching someone to trust Him or to come to Him or maybe even He is testing an individual. Ultimately, God makes the call and God's calls are the best calls. End of story.

7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind any physical evidence?

My initial answer would be that I am physical evidence of Christ's miracles. His work on the cross has effected a real and physical change in, not only me, but Christians through all time. The more practical (from a rationalistic point of view) is that the nature of the miracles themselves would not leave evidence. (Other than the Bible, of course. :P) Miracles like healing a sick man or giving sight to the blind would not leave behind physical evidence. These men would later go on to die. Clearly, we can't tell what happened to them in these respects based on their bones. What are you looking for? A newspaper article? Take it from the men who were there and just read the Gospels.

8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never personally appeared to you?

Because he never said he would. Again, prayer is not a token we put into the God machine and we receive something we asked for. Christ never said he would appear to me, thus I do not expect him to. Plus, who am I test God and order Him to come down and present Himself to me? That's unfaithful and incredibly arrogant.

9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Well, this is another question born of a poor understanding of Scripture. Jesus DOESN'T want me to eat his body and drink his blood. Cannibalism is wicked. Christ was using this imagery figuratively to explain His death. He was instituting a sacrament whereby we may commune with him. We partake only through faith.

10. Why do Christian get divorced at the same rate as Non-Christians?

Now, I would really like to see where he got this statistic. I admit that divorce takes place in the church, but I find it highly improbable that it takes place at the same rate as non-Christians. How come I don't know more divorced Christians? Also, the real power of God is present with His people and thus would not allow this to happen. However, Christians do get divorced. Christians are still humans and they are still works in progress. Christians sin and they still make mistakes. But, the point is that they are not bound to sin and that they are being guided by God in a sanctifying process.

I hope that this interested you immensely and it prepared you to give a defense of your faith.

God Bless,

Stanley