"And More" Part II

Here are some things that
You might want to read first.

As stated, this is Part II. I got so into this that, though I split it into two posts, I wanted to get it all out today. I might have to do a part three though. . . . We'll see how it goes.

Threnody stated that she "called upon the name of the Lord" and therefore should have been saved. As I showed in my previous post, obviously something didn't work right. Now, Threnody would say that Christianity didn't work right. But, could it be that there is another explanation? Perhaps, Threnody did not call upon the name of the Lord, or did not call properly on the name of the Lord. Or both.

Technically, a great many unrepentant people "call upon the name of the Lord" in a very general sense. Think of the Jews. How many throughout the years have called upon who they believe is Jehovah God, but never come to believe that Jesus is Messiah? They are not calling upon the God of the Bible. Threnody tried to boil it down to something that it is not. Salvation does not come from crying out, "I call upon the name of God!" Calling upon the name of the Lord MEANS something.

Salvation comes to the broken publican who says, "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" There is a specific Person that we are to call upon, and there is a specific way in which we are to call. The Person is God. This would seem obvious, but, as has been spoken of on both blogs, people tend to make up gods. It would not be terribly difficult to call on the one you've made up, rather than the One Who is. Second, we must call in the proper way. The way is to turn from your sin, acknowledge that there is no hope outside of God, and believe that He WILL save you. This is humility, repentance, and faith.

Now, here is an important point, because we CANNOT call to the right Person in the right way without Him giving it to us. I cannot turn from my sins without God allowing me to see them. Repentance is a gift from God. Faith is also a gift from God, otherwise I could claim some kudos for it. I cannot believe that He is Who He says or that He will save me unless He has given me faith. So, in point of fact, Threnody - being unable to know God for Who He is, and being unable to call in saving faith - did not follow the directions in the Bible to call upon the name of the Lord and thus receive salvation. This is manifested by her claim of "ex-Christianity."

One other thing I must point out: Threnody knew that her faith was not real. She said in this post, "Half of my writing for the last several years has been as much to convince me as anyone else that my faith was real." She kept trying over and over to convince herself that it was, and it didn't work because it wasn't. The problem is her conclusion. Rather than seeing that the fault is not in the Christianity but in herself, she completely turns around and says, "Since faith has failed, Christianity is false!" Faith didn't fail; it was never there.

Here, we get to the crux of the matter. Threnody, looking back, makes the incredibly telling statement: "I never had a relationship with God." To her, this means that God does not exist, and all we who claim to have a relationship with God are either deluded or liars. To the Christian, this simply is one more evidence that she was never a Christian. There is no "ex" to it.

I have a relationship with God. EVERY Christian has a relationship with God. God is my Father and my Originator. Jesus is my Brother and my Savior. The Holy Spirit is my Comforter and my Guide. I am His and He is mine; I cannot be taken from Him and He cannot be taken from me. These are foundational truths of what it is to be a Christian. God loves me - this is the start of the relationship. I love God - this is the growth of the relationship.

Threnody claims that Christianity is false because of the experiences of her life. Were those the grounds that could prove or disprove a thing, my experience would prove it. You think there are scores of people who have left Christianity? How many more have remained? Of all those who have tasted, have the greater part left? If experience were the ground of judgment on the validity of a thing, Christianity wins the day, for far more have come to it than have left it. There are far more who own (not just claim) the name of "Christian" than those who take the name of "Ex-Christian."

I nearly ended there, but rather than make another post, I'll tack on two more things. Threnody referenced something that I said about working for salvation. I never said obeying the Bible was working for salvation. Obeying the Bible is definitely NOT working for salvation. However, doing the outward things that the Bible says to do in order to win God's love, earn His favor or attention, or any other like thing IS working for salvation. What I said was from the words that Threnody used to describe how she sought for God, she was working for it. Writing lines like, "I fought and failed His love to win" (taken from this post) is pretty much the epitome of the idea of working for salvation.

In closing, I want to reiterate that I have no ill will to either of these authors. These two posts could come across as harsh or unkind; I do not mean them in any kind of destructive way. I understand that both of our views necessitate the other side either being deceived or deceptive, and I hope, Threnody and Lalaith, that you know that I have absolutely no quarrel with you personally.

Quotations and More

Due to the nature of the next few posts, I hope to cover more than one today. First up, "Good Quotes" by Lalaith.

Not a lot to say here. I agree with both quotes, though maybe not to quite the same extreme on the second one. (The HEIGHT of ignorance? I think there is probably something more indicative of ignorance than that.)

Moving right along, I'm skipping the post "It's Coming" for what should be obvious reasons. This brings us to the post about me! That didn't take nearly as long as I was thinking it might.

First, I wanted to say that I did go and read all of Threnody's posts on the old blog that she mentioned. Second, I wonder what exactly I've misunderstood (since I apparently misunderstood ALL of the posts (on the Untangling blog), but I'm quite sure the misrepresentation is a matter of opinion and a matter on which we will certainly differ in opinion.

I already addressed in a comment on that post that I would never want them to go back to the lives they were living, so I'll not reiterate that point any farther here. However, I do find it a curious thing that Threnody only believes that parts of the Bible make up Christianity and yet, somehow, she claims it to be erroneous. Considering the quote from earlier - the one about the height of ignorance - this is especially interesting. Let me explain.

Threnody claims that she was a Christian and she is not any longer. However, according to the Bible (specifically I John 2:19 and Mark 4:1-20), those who do not "remain" in Christ were never actually in Christ. Thus, Threnody and Lalaith, by virtue of leaving Christianity, have proven that they were never Christians to begin with. Taking the rest of the Bible into account, this makes perfect sense why they have both struggled with things like God's attributes of sovereignty and justice, the measure of man's responsibility, how free will actually works, and a host of other things that (as far as I recall) haven't come out in the blog yet. I Corinthians 2:14 states that the "natural man" (men in their sinful, fallen state) CANNOT receive (or, understand) the things of God. Why? Because the things of God are SPIRITUALLY discerned. And the natural man is spiritually dead.

Now, don't get me wrong. This doesn't mean that every Christian automatically understands everything about the things of God. However, it DOES mean, that, since we have the help of the Spirit of God (Who DOES understand EVERYTHING about God), we can grow in knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Having been made alive, we now have the ability to understand by the help of the Holy Spirit, not just with our heads, but with our hearts as well.

There is no such thing as an "ex-Christian." Now, I have no problem with the term - I think it gets the point across just fine - but technically, it doesn't exist. Either you have been saved, or you have not been. Either you have repented and received regeneration and the Holy Spirit, or you have not. There is no, "I was once, but no longer." That just doesn't exist.

This is Christianity. Threnody claims that she was once a Christian, but real Christianity doesn't allow for that. Either she still is now (which, I think she has most adamantly denied), or she never was. I fully believe that she loved something, that her faith in it was sincere, and that she was ardently seeking after it. However, had that thing been Almighty God, she would be saved, and, therefore, she would NOT be claiming "ex-Christianity."

Threnody is not arguing that Christianity is false because of what IT IS; she's claiming it is false based on the experiences of her life. This is like me claiming that California is made of sand because it's sandy in the part of California where I live. Experience is not a solid premise for judgment.

This is getting long, and there's a whole lot left that's worthy of being addressed, so I'm going to postpone the rest into a Part II. Stay tuned. ;)

Why I Write

In this post, Lalaith explains her purposes for posting on the blog. Since, after all, they are HER purposes, there's not really much for me to say about them. I hope she continues in her search for truth until it is found.

Instead, I thought I would take this opportunity to explain, perhaps more fully, why I am writing. Like, Lalaith, I am not writing out of hatred, fear, or anger. I did not start this blog in retaliation, but rather as a scale to create balance. If their blog is one side of a coin, I am endeavoring to make my blog the other side.

Mostly, this is because they are lost, and I would feel remiss if I did not do what I could to bring God's light to bear on the things that I can - both for them, and for any who come to read their blog. I don't expect to change their minds; in fact, I know that I cannot. However, what is impossible with men is possible with God. This goes for ex-Christians the same as it does for atheists and Muslims, Mormons and any other non-regenerated person.

I'm also writing because I see in the Church a lot of the same things that they have mentioned, and it is galling to me to think that Christians have been a force to dissuade others from believing, rather than persuading them by their living to come to Christ. This is the part that makes me frustrated and, sometimes, even angry. Obviously, I am not perfect; it could be things that I have done that have been a part of that - but that is only the more saddening. It does not excuse anything.

And this brings me to the last reason that I am writing. I feel that I need the reminder that people are watching all the time, the nudge that says, "What you do or do not do is seen and can have an impact." They are watching. They are looking. They are struggling. I need to be reminded that my life is not for me. My life is for God's glory. If I am not reminded, I will fall back into complacence, into praying only occasionally or begrudgingly, rather than longing for the time of fellowship with God where I can pour out my life to Him. I will start to read the Bible again, only because I know that I should, not because I long to hear the Word of God. Church on Sunday mornings will be more than sufficient and I will have no desire to serve others.

That is a horrible thought. That is a miserable thought. I have been there. It wasn't guilt that made me miserable; I'm very adept at ignoring guilt. It was the hollowness of it that was miserable. It was living for me that was miserable. It was the lack of relationship with my God and my Father that was miserable.

Lalaith and Threnody talk a lot about how horrible their lives were and how wonderful they are now. I've said numerous times that I am happy for them. However, they seem to be missing something in their blogs, the balance that proclaims what makes them happy would make me miserable. What they feel free without, I would miss so fervently and entirely, because I love it. When I moved to California, I moved from going to four one-hour services of church meetings, to one hour and a half service. Thankfully, there is a Ladies' Bible study that I have been able to attend and a mid-week evening time of study that we go to. But I still miss going to church on Sunday nights. Why? Because I love it. I love the corporate worship; I love the preaching; I love the fellowship we enjoy before and after.

I've often thought about how very cool it would be to travel Europe for a summer; and my next immediate thought is, "But what about church?" I write because I need reminders of what is important.

Persecution and Church Discipline

With this post, I have to disagree right off the bat. I don't know a single Christian who LIKES to talk about persecution. It's not generally considered a fun topic. Sometimes, it can be a necessary one, but not exactly enjoyable. It certainly has not been my experience that people like to talk about persecution.

And this is probably going to be a long post because there's a lot here to talk about. Fair warning.

In general, I think Threnody is right that very few American Christians get persecuted. However, I think her definition of persecution is a bit narrow. According to the dictionary, to persecute is to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently. Synonyms range from things as serious as killing and banishment to something as non-serious as pestering or teasing. The only constant is that it has to be a somewhat regular thing, an aggressive thing.

If every time I thank God for my food when Person A is around, Person A mocks me or gives me a dirty look or something of the sort - that counts as persecution. Is that very MILD persecution? Absolutely, without a doubt. But it IS persecution.

Now, on the other hand, Christians should not be surprised, nor should they be complaining or boasting about such things. We should be happy, like the disciples, that we are counted worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ (and yes, I think suffering for my Christian beliefs is suffering for the cause of Christ - living out Christianity is one of the greatest witnesses there is); but that's about all the impact it should have. Really, it shouldn't be of much note to us, except by way of encouragement.

Christians also ought not to hold unbelievers to the standards that they hold each other, nor ridicule them (or persecute them) when they don't. To use an earthly example, growing up in my parent's house, we had certain rules. We were only allowed to play video games for 25 minutes each day. I had cousins who would play video games for hours. It would be ridiculous for me to try to hold my cousins to a rule that my parents had for me and my siblings. It would have been wrong for me to try to impress that on them and it would have only made them unhappy with me for being naive.

In I Corinthians 5, Paul specifically argues against judging those outside the church. Verses 11-13 read: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Christians aren't to judge the world; we're to judge WITHIN the body. Let God worry about the rest of it. We need to take care of OUR house, OUR family.

And this leads me to my last point. We ARE supposed to judge inside the body. So every person claiming to be a Christian IS to be held to that standard. Again, this is one of the reasons, I'm glad that Lalaith and Threnody got out. Now if I were to find out that Lalaith had become a drunk (which is so hard to picture, it's pretty laughable), I would still try to get her out of it because it could really mess up her life, but I can associate freely with her, because she's not saying, "I am Christlike" while her life is saying "I'm a drunk."

See why this is important? It's SO important that habitual sins be dealt with in the Church. Once they come to light, they MUST be addressed otherwise Christ's name will be dragged through the dirt. By not associating with Christians who are in open habitual sin, we, as a body, proclaim that no matter what that person says, they aren't living as part of the family of God.

Also, I wanted to say that if there are people who are claiming to be Christians who are actually praying for Threnody to die, and if they were confronted about it, following the directions in Matthew 18, and they still didn't change, I would not be able to associate with them. That's wicked. Christians ought not pray for God to kill people. When did Christ do that? When did Stephen do that? They were under HEAVY persecution. When did they pray for their enemies to DIE? Had Christ prayed for His enemies to die, every single person would have perished.

Whichever Christian is praying/has prayed for someone to die is forgetting the immensity of the debt that God forgave them. They are the servant in Matthew 18 who is forgiven an enormous amount then goes and finds the guy who owes him ten bucks and starts strangling him. That is not being Christian; that is not being like Christ.

Fortune Cookie

I honestly thought about skipping this one. It isn't well-defined or very straight-forward. It's roundabout and figurative. Figurative things that aren't explained can pretty much mean whatever you want them to. I did, however, want to comment on the second section because I find some very Scriptural things in it.

There's not a statement in 41b that I disagree with; there are some that I'm not sure about, but none that I read and think, "Well, that's just wrong." In fact, it's somewhat ironic to me that an ex-Christian posted that section. What in that can't be applied to the reasons why someone would leave Christianity? The path into light seems dark; true steadfastness seems changeable (the supposed differences between God in the OT and in the NT); the greatest love seems indifferent (the problem with election and free will).

The key word in that entire section is "seems." God's power can seem weak because He allows sin to happen. All these things SEEM - but they're not. They aren't founded in reality.

I also want to address section 72a because I agree with that one, too. I don't generally like the term "religion" because it sounds like what the Pharisees had, but that's not what it is. Pure religion, God-centered religion, is exactly where people should turn if they have no awe. It will cure them. Over and over again, when people see God, they are filled with awe. And rightly so - He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Three in One. That's awing. Seeing Him work? Again, it's something to marvel at.

It also says that when people don't trust themselves, they turn to authority. With this too, I agree, and I think it's exactly what they should do. There's often a very good reason that people don't trust themselves. I do not trust myself to be able to defend myself against a man. I would run and scream and try to get help from anywhere and everywhere before I trusted myself to be able to fight someone off. It would be really stupid of me to think, "That guy is coming at me and he's going to hurt me; I'm not very strong, but I'm going to try to take him, rather than running to that cop across the road." That would be idiotic. I would look for a person of authority - or a person who can call the authorities.

I comment on that section because - it could just be me - but the way I read it, it sounded to me like it was something that ought not to be. Like, "This is what people do - because they're ignorant" or "because they don't know better" or "because they aren't at peace enough within themselves." Or something. I don't know how it was meant because it doesn't pass any judgment (in those sections) on what people ought or ought not to do. But I thought it was worth posting about.

All About The Premise

Here's a tiny post by Lalaith concerning a video game and Dracula (who always makes a proper villain).

There are some things I'm going to lay out that are quite simple truths to help form the premise - because a premise is vitally important. One, you can't steal something that belongs to you. You can take it; you can obtain it illegally (someone stole it from you and you're taking it back without the support of the legal system); but technically, you can't steal it. It's yours.

Two, if there is no deity, there is nothing that can steal your soul. You can be tricked, deceived, or black-mailed into giving it - but nothing can take it from you without your consent. Not even the Devil can steal your soul.

Three, anything that I make out of my property automatically belongs to me. The offspring of any animals that I own belong to me. Anything that comes from what I own at my hand belongs to me. No one else has any claim.

It's probably pretty easy to see where I'm going with this. The authors of the other blog believe in a creative deity; therefore, he/she/it, by virtue of having formed all things, owns all things - including their souls. If they believe that it gave up that right and gave them their souls to keep, then there is nothing else that can steal those souls away. Basically, no matter how you look at that quote, it just doesn't work logically. If it had used the word "deceive" or "beguile" or something, okay. But steal? No. That's mythology.

I think I've dealt with the slave part pretty recently; I get the feeling it will come up again before too long.

Unconditional Love

Lalaith poses quite the question here. What is unconditional love and who can/has given or received it? Most loves in this world are not unconditional. I love you ... unless you cheat. I love you ... unless you lie. I love you ... unless you don't love me. You get the idea.

If unconditional love equals perfect love (taking angels out of the picture for the time being), God is the only One Who can love unconditionally. All humans sin. Does this mean that humans can't love? Of course not. Have you ever seen a little kid with the puppy that he's wanted for a long time? He LOVES that little puppy. Have you ever had someone very close to you die? Why is there grief and loss? You loved them. Everyone loves someone or something.

There is an enormous difference between "tainted and false" and "incomplete." Love doesn't have to be tainted or false to be incomplete. A puzzle doesn't have be messed up and put together all wrong for it to be incomplete - it just has to have one piece missing, or even one of the little nubs from a piece missing. It's not tainted; it's not dirty or soiled. It's just not what it could be. It can even still be beautiful; it's just not best.

Unconditional love is the completed puzzle. Unconditional love is when God loved us before we existed, before and after the Fall, and while we hated Him; and He loved us so fully and completely that Christ came down and died so that the ones that God loved could be with Him forever.

It is sad when Christians fail to live up to their calling to be known by their love - however, there is an interesting point here that most people completely skip. The Bible doesn't say, like the song, "They'll know you are Christians by your love." John 13:35 says, "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another." One to another. People are supposed to know we're Christians by how we love each other - NOT by how we love the unsaved. Are we supposed to love the unsaved? Absolutely. But the sign that people are supposed to see that we belong to Christ, is the love we have for each other.

Lalaith talked a lot about things that I have no reference point for, and there weren't a lot of details, so it's hard to get into any of it. But I will say that people and things being rejected on the basis of not being Christian should not be applied to very many things. Aside from belief systems, spouses, and possibly business partners (I'm not really sure what I think about that one. . .), I don't know what else that there's a Biblical reason to simply disregard because they're not Christian. And even then, listening to or discussing other belief systems can be very good for you. Questions are good for Christians and non-Christians. Questions help a person solidify their beliefs, either in what they currently believe or in something else which they find easier to understand.

To My Parents

Before getting into this blog post, I'll address some interesting happenings. Threnody has discovered that I exist, so now there are posts addressed specifically to me. I tried commenting but due to something - computer errors, them not liking it, or who knows what - it didn't go up; maybe it will later. I'm not going to reiterate the important stuff right now - I'll get to that (and so much more!) when I get to that particular post. Suffice to say, I'm excited. I mean, the reason I started this blog was to show an alternative to their belief system, and that Christianity isn't all that they are claiming - open discussion is good for that.

Now, back to our regular programming. :)

This is a very nice poem. Something I've discovered from reading Threnody's blogs is that she is an accomplished poet. I relate somewhat because whenever I am particularly emotional about something, it comes out in one of three ways - poetry, music, or cleaning. Plus, poems are cool. On a smaller scale, I also relate to the content of the poem. I thought about giving my background and explaining why, but honestly that's just not what this blog is about. I think it's enough if I say that at one point, I could have penned a poem very similar. (If you want my back story, send me an email.) And since there isn't really anything else to discuss on this one - I guess we finally get a short post! Woot, woot! Maybe I'll cover four posts this week.

Freedom To Do Good

I have a feeling this is going to be a lot of fun. I especially like this topic.

I was going to write a huge paragraph about the lack of logic behind the thinking that says, "There is a creator, but he's not the one who gave me a conscience that tells me to some extent what I ought to do, or ought not to do." But I get the feeling this is going to be long enough as is, so I'll leave it at that. Email if you want more.

Once again, Threnody is approaching her topic from the direction that says, "I must earn; I owe." It's extremely clear from Scripture that this is not the proper attitude that a Christian ought to have. Do we at times? Yes. We sin, and as much as we hate sin, the motions of sin - the habits, the thought processes - are still there with us.

The Bible says that God loves a cheerful giver, not one who gives grudgingly, or out of necessity. In the context of the NT, this is talking about offerings - generally monetary - given to the church for the welfare of the believers. However, the principle is universal. God wants our hearts - not just our mouths or our hands and feet. He wants all of us. This is the beauty of salvation. God doesn't MAKE us surrender, doesn't MAKE us give our all, doesn't MAKE us offer up our lives in service. God changes us so that we WANT to surrender. There's a funny old song that says, "God does not compel us to go against our will; He just makes us willing to go."

God shows us Who He is, and we feel overwhelmed that He would even allow us to serve Him - but He goes so much farther than that. He is the father in the story of the prodigal son, who, when the son comes and begs to just be a servant, the father takes him in again and restores him completely, celebrating him. God doesn't just take us and make us slaves - though that would be more than gracious and hugely merciful - He makes us His children. Heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. How can a person see all that God has done for them and not do everything they can to further His glory, to further His goals, to spread the good news?

We aren't MADE to serve because we're Christians. We're ABLE to serve because we're Christians - we're allowed to serve because He changed our outlook, changed the reason behind the action. Since God asks for our heart, anything done without the heart in it is as worthless as if you did nothing. But something as simple as eating - with the right heart - can be to the glory of God. Think about that. I can eat good food and if I do it with a right heart, it pleases God. How is that not the lightest burden ever??? Like little kids who have it so simple. Their parents are happy if they eat their food and go to sleep. I eat and thank God for food and glorify Him by acknowledging that it's only by His grace and love that I have it; and He's pleased. I eat with the right heart and God is happy. That is just incredible.

Threnody has not been freed to do good - she's been freed from trying to please God, which Romans 8 tells us is impossible for the carnal mind (which, in the context, is juxtaposed with the spiritual mind; the mind set on God). Hebrews 11:1 tells us without faith it's impossible to please Him. Threnody CAN'T do anything good, and neither can anyone else who denies the God of the Bible. This makes it completely understandable though, why she would feel such relief. She's been trying to do this list of "good" things for the wrong reasons, pleasing neither God nor herself. Now, she doesn't have to worry about trying to please God. She can just do whatever makes her happy.

Can't unsaved people do nice things? Give cookies to their neighbors, make a meal for someone ill? Of course. But they can't do it with the right motives. They could live outward lives that were completely in line with the Bible and never do anything GOOD because good is defined by God; and God requires the heart. God requires motive.

The freedom to do good comes from loving God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. We don't serve Him out of trying to repay Him for our failures, or because we're trying to earn His favor. We already HAVE His favor - that's why Jesus came to die for ME - because God already loved me. I'm not part of a chain-gang where the Warden's wrath comes down on me if I fail. I'm a beloved child. He's not my warden; He's my Daddy.

I'm a daddy's girl. When my dad told me to come help him with something around the house, I would be there there as fast as I could! I loved helping him with things. I have small hands and he'd often ask me to stick them in places where his larger fingers couldn't get to. (Makes me happy just remembering, hehe.) My dad wasn't ASKING me for help. He would call and I would come, but if I hadn't come, I'd have gotten in trouble because he was the authority. But that didn't make my happiness to help any less. I was THRILLED if I could do what he wanted, and so disappointed with myself if I couldn't.

That is what God wants. He tells us to do things, to go places, to stay away from things. That doesn't mean I'm forced into it with a ball and chain. I WANT to do what He asks. Because I love Him. Because He loved me. He saved me from Hell and sin; and He saved me to eternal life forever with Him. God is not a warden; and I am no longer in chains to sin. God has made me free to please Him - and pleasing Him is good.

I Have Nothing To Prove

This post is . . . interesting. In it, Threnody claims she has nothing to prove, and then immediately dives into why she thinks that basing things on faith is silly. I'm not about to say that Threnody was subconsciously trying to prove something - but I must admit, it is interesting.

Mostly, I want to talk about the ideas that are put forth about faith. The idea that faith is illogical, that faith is blinding, that faith stubbornly holds to something in the face of "irrefutable truth."

Faith is about as logical as things get. This is proved on one hand because everyone believes something that they themselves have never proved. For instance, I'm terrible at chemistry. But if my father-in-law chemist told me that mixing two cleaning chemicals would be dangerous, I would have faith that mixing the two chemicals would be dangerous. I can't prove it myself with math or logic. I will probably never see it proven. I believe him. I put faith in what he said. This is a very minute example, but that is faith. Trust. Everyone trusts someone - even if it's themselves that they trust. Everyone has faith in something or someone.

People have faith in construction workers that they built sturdy houses or workplaces; people have faith in their vehicles that they will get them to where they need to go; in the grocery store, in the restaurant, in the internet, in the news, in the rain clouds, in their coat, in their umbrella. Why else would people get so upset when those things fail them? If you were expecting your umbrella not to work, why would you ever use it? Why would you get upset when your car doesn't start if you didn't believe that it would? Why would you be unhappy when your foot slips on the stairs and you fall if you didn't trust yourself?

Trust is logical - without it, people wouldn't function. It's just as logical to believe in a Creator; that God, once He'd formed everything, wasn't about to leave it all alone; and that He has a definite standard for us to live by. There's absolutely nothing illogical about any of that. The artistry of the world demonstrates a personal touch; the fact that we enjoy it demonstrates that it was made with us in mind; the fact that we are marring so much of it, demonstrates that we have fallen from where we once were.

Faith is not blinding. Faith doesn't hide from the facts, it just interprets them. It rained today - that is a fact. Faith interprets why. It rained today because God wanted it to. Your faith interprets the original reason.

Something that I've gleaned from talking to Lalaith and reading Threnody's other blog is that they both believe in some deity that created. So ultimately, the reason it rained today still goes back to a god, if not the God. As far as nature is concerned, eventually, either everything is happenstance (evolution), or everything was put in motion by a Person (some type of creation). So the reason for the rain? Someone instituted the water cycle.

I'm Free

Freedom is an interesting thing. So is perception.

To Lalaith and Threnody, Christianty was bondage, a set of chains that held them back and held them down and impressed upon them unhappiness. So they left, which is only natural.

The interesting parts are the theological things that bothered Lalaith when she was a Christian. In this blog, she talks about feeling the pressing weight of being forced to share the gospel with everyone that she came in contact with because God required it of her; there's also reference to the ever-popular question, "If God is good, why do bad things happen?"

There is a large misconception here right off the get-go. Jesus said, "If you love me, you'll keep my commandments." He never said, "If you keep my commandments, you'll love me." The love pre-dates the keeping. You don't keep His commandments and GROW to love Him. You love Him; therefore, you keep His commands. If someone feels they're being forced, cajoled, or blackmailed into doing something, they AREN'T doing it out of love. If I feel like my husband is forcing me to make dinner, I may make dinner, but I'm not doing it 'cause I love him.

Secondly, though Christians are commanded to share the Gospel, we're not supposed to be shoving it in everybody's faces. Sometimes, you have to be very careful about how to present things if you don't want to needlessly give people a negative impression.

Thirdly, God never put the weight of saving people on His children. Christians don't save; Jesus saves. We can tell people about Him, we can exemplify His love; we can't save. Jesus paid the price; the Holy Spirit is the One that regenerates them. Yes, God uses people to tell others and people get saved only after hearing the Word of God; BUT, Christians aren't held accountable for the saving of souls. If I told every person that I met about Jesus and His salvific work on Calvary and none of them got saved, that's not on me. I can't save them; it doesn't matter if I say things eloquently or if I trip over every other sentence. If God is going to save them, they will be saved. If He isn't, they won't.

This doesn't diminish my responsibility to know what I'm talking about, or to be careful to answer questions correctly or anything. I still need to be studying and praying and seeking God's face. It just means that a person's never-dying soul is not my responsibility. God never put that on us.

The second point: If Almighty God is loving and good, why do evil things happen? Basically, because God is more than just love and more than just good. God is holy; God is just; God is merciful; God is gracious; God is humble. If we had never sinned, God would never have had reason to show His mercy to us. If Jesus had not come to die, we should have never known the extent of God's love or the immensity of Christ's humility. If God never judged, we could not witness His justice and wrath and hatred for sin.

It's not God's love alone that makes Him perfect or makes Him God. In order to show His Person more fully, God allows sin to happen. The really fun part is Romans 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." The thing that glorifies God most is also the thing that is best for His children.

Last of all, I want to mention the name of the post. Is there freedom outside of Christ? In a way. God created people logically. That is, we cannot go against certain logical things that are built into us. One such thing is the fact that whatever choice we wish for most is the choice that we will always take. For example, if I see strawberries in my fridge and I want them more than I want to leave them there, I will eat them. Something else would have to come and displace that desire in order for me NOT to eat the strawberries. I will always choose that which I most desire.

This is as true for the unbeliever as for the believer. The difference is that the unbeliever cannot ever desire Christ more than themselves; the Christian can. This is because, in being made alive, we can see Who God is, and every time we look at Him, we will want Him more than anything else. I can do that which is right now; not by my own strength, by Christ's. Now I can leave the proverbial strawberries in the fridge for Him, rather than eating them myself, and I can do it out of no other reason than because I love Him. This is the freedom that I have in Christ - freedom from bondage to sin, from having to always choose something less than perfect, something less than God.

To whatever you love, you are a slave. Whether it be Christ, money, physical pleasures, etc. Whatever you love most will be your master. The question is not, "Are you a slave?" The question is, "Who do you serve?"

For Those Who Seek

My heart is very happy right now. I just finished a good and interesting conversation with my friend, Lalaith. I feel I have a much greater understanding of her reasoning; and we have once again parted good friends. Much to be happy about!

On to the post!

I wasn't sure how to answer this one at first. It's a motivational speech to those who are thinking about leaving Christianity, a pep-talk of sorts. In one way, I admire the writing - it's well done. Really, all of their posts are. There are things that I agree with and things that I disagree with. But this time, something overall struck me.

Threnody is appealing to people who feel constrained by Christianity, who want out, who are unhappy and discontent with their lives. She's preaching freedom out of a desire to see all those who felt as she did become loosed from bondage to the God they don't love. Honestly, on that count, I'm right with her. I don't want people in Christianity who hate it there or who don't love Jesus Christ. They'll be miserable. In fact, GOD doesn't want people trying to hide inside Christianity who don't love Him. (They can't hide from Him; He knows, of course; but they can hide from other people.)

So, please, by all means, if you don't love God, leave the church. You will be happier; the Church will be healthier.

On the other hand, Threnody seems to miss something. Her message is one of hope and overcoming hardship and fear, a message of making your own way. What she doesn't seem to understand is that some people run TO Christ because they don't want to make their own way, because they've been trying that for years and it's hard, and, in the end, it causes pain. All the things that she deplores about true Christianity (as opposed to the religiosity that can easily get mistaken for it), others find reassuring and comforting. The rules that she hates, are not confining or laborious; they're a pleasure. When someone you love asks you to do something simple, that's not confining; that's not difficult. It's easy; it's happy - being able to do something for the one that you love.

Trying to make your own way? How is that freeing? Making my own way sounds like a good deal more work than following the way that God has already made. Think about that for a minute in terms of a massive jungle, wild and overgrown with underbrush. Make your own way, or follow the path where the brush has already been cleared away?

As for being accountable only to your own conscience, that simply isn't true. We live in a nation governed by laws. No matter what your conscience says, if you break those laws, you may very well be held accountable to something other than your conscience. Anyone who's been pulled over for speeding can attest to that - for most people, speeding does NOT bother their conscience, but they're still held accountable for it. Aside from the laws of the nation, people hold each other and judge each other to their own standards all the time. Maybe that's not how Threnody thinks things should be, but it is how things are. Person A judges Person B by Person A's standards. This is not peculiar to Christianity or any other religion.

So here is the counter-offer to Threnody's. Come to Jesus. His yoke is EASY; His burden is LIGHT. Yes, He has a yoke and a burden for you, but He doesn't make you bear them alone. He will be with you forever to help you along. He's already cleared the path and He'll help you walk it. You don't need to fight with the underbrush; just trust Him. It doesn't matter how far you've gone your own way or how deep you're stuck in the brush; He is God Who made it all; it's not hard for Him to pull you out.

If you have any questions, please send me an email.

Thoughts on God

Lalaith's post is shorter, so hopefully my answer can follow suit. However, there is a lot here that deserves mention. In fact, as was pointed out to me by my husband, I've been skipping over a lot of things already. So, for anyone reading, please understand that just because I don't counter something, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm in agreement, nor does it mean that I'm not. I just can't go over everything here. These are deep topics.

Moving right along. The question "who is God" is both complex and simple. God is that He is. It's the answer He gave us and it's really the only one that can actually answer the question. It's somewhat like asking "what is color?" For someone who has always been blind, they can't understand color. There is no color. They can't understand blue or red; they are words that have no real meaning. So someone who does not know God can understand things about Him, but they cannot know Him.

To be sure, no human - because we are finite beings - can fully understand God. Adam and Eve did not fully understand God and they were perfect. How much less can we, who are so tainted with sin, hope to understand Him? This is one of the major blessings of Heaven. We will be able to understand God more, and, in understanding Him, we will enjoy Him more.

Lalaith is completely right that people tend to make their god what they want it to be. There are a thousand thousand gods. There are gods who hate homosexuals BECAUSE of their homosexuality (rather than because they denied His deity); and there are gods that love all people no matter what they've done. It is true that people have a tendency to compose a god of what they perceive to be perfection. Even Christians do this. If they perceive that it would be unjust of God to save people without them having a choice in the matter, then they would be Arminians. (I wonder how many of them would find it unjust for me to pull a drowning child out of a river even if the child didn't want to come though. Food for thought.)

Something that is misunderstood terribly is the love, mercy, and grace which dominate the Old Testament as well as the New, as well as the love, mercy, and grace that are prevalent in the doctrines of predestination (which by the by are also known as "the doctrines of grace"). The will in unsaved people is not free to do good. Our wills are bound in slavery to sin, because sin is in our nature now. Given a choice, we will ALWAYS choose to do wrong - even if the action is right, the motivation for it is not because our minds are on ourselves, not God. This is abundantly clear from the book of Romans, especially chapters six, seven, and eight.

Regeneration is when God takes us, who are spiritually dead corpses, and brings us to life again. This is somewhat akin, at least in imagery only backwards, to when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil. Before that time, they had only known good. Then they ate and they knew evil. We were dead in our sins, only knowing evil; then God raised us to life and now we can know good.

Predestination is not harsh or strict, nor in the least bit at odds with God's love and mercy. On the contrary, predestination - God's choosing us - is one of the highlights of His love and mercy. If Christ had died, but God did not raise us from our spiritual death, there would not be one who would call Jesus "Lord." The "harshness" of predestination is the idea that God chose SOME, and not others. In the case of this, allow me to draw a parallel.

Say you are a married person rich beyond imagination. You have a family; you are perfectly content. You own an orphanage for 300 homeless children and you are tirelessly providing them with food and shelter and clothes. If you adopt eight of them, are you being unjust to the other 292? Are you being unloving? Are you lacking in mercy? Not one of them deserved your love; not one of them had anything to offer you; not one of them could earn anything. AND, to add to all of their unworthiness, you've already given them of your wealth and goodness.

No, not only is it perfectly just for God not to adopt them all; He's already shown His goodness and love and mercy in providing rain and seasons and food to all those who are not His children. God sends HIS rain on the just and the unjust. God provides HIS animals for food to feed those who hate Him. God owns all the world and allows us to inhabit it. God is not unjust for limiting how much love He pours out upon each person. He's already given them so much more goodness than they could ever deserve.

Does Belief Matter?

On the surface, this post seems to make a lot of sense. It's true that most religions are exclusive and say that their way is the only way - but to what? To happiness? Or to ULTIMATE happiness? This is the difference. The phrase "true happiness" is terrible. It doesn't explain what it means at all. It doesn't mean that Christians are actually happy and everyone else isn't. The phrase people use should be Ultimate Joy; not "true happiness."

I fully believe that the followers of Buddha, Islam, Hinduism, all the different factions of Christianity, etc. find a measure of happiness. If they didn't find happiness in it somehow, what would be the point? The teachings that they follow resonate with them in some way and bring them happiness.

Happiness is never the point. Giving a child candy will make them happy. Happiness has an end; happiness does not endure. Joy does endure. Joy is found in something lasting; joy can be there when you're nothing close to happy. People are capable of experiencing JOY in the middle of grief.

Her second point is that Christians should be the happiest (or, using proper terms, most joyful) people in the world. This is saddening - because she's right; and from her experience, Christians aren't joyful. See, if Christ hadn't risen, we would be of all men most miserable; but since Christ has risen from the dead, we should be the most joyful people in the world. We should have the most peace; we should have the longest tempers; we should have the most self-control, the most confidence, the most common sense, the most wisdom.

Now, please understand this as well. As much as we OUGHT to be the most joyful people, we are still sinners. We will not be perfect in this world. We will lose our tempers; we will worry; we will be arrogant; we will be stupid; we will do things wrong; we will hurt others. The gift of joy has been given to us, but we still sin, and so we are not always joyful.

To answer the question: the beliefs of other religions are perfectly valid in that they grant a measure of peace, happiness, and direction to those who believe. The problem is that the peace is false peace. Unrepentant sinners are not at peace with a holy God; any peace they receive outside of Christ is deceiving them, lulling them to sleep until they die and their sentence is sealed. Their happiness, which I do not begrudge them one bit, is only in this world. It only lasts until they die. The sense of direction, of purpose, points them away from Christ, points them straight down the road to Hell. Oh, yes, they receive things from their beliefs, but it's nothing good for them.

Yes, it matters what you believe - maybe the Buddhist will be happier than the Christian in this life, though it shouldn't be. It could be that way. The Buddhist is at peace with himself, calm and secure in his beliefs; the Christian is fighting, struggling his entire life not to sin, to wrap his head around the things that are uncomfortable to believe and then to live them out. The Christian is grieved when he fails, because that failure was another sin that Christ had to pay for on the cross of Calvary. The Buddhist is content with himself, happy in his way of life; the Christian cries every night because he sees the sin in his heart. Let's say that all their lives, this is the way. But then they die.

Standing before Christ, the Buddhist looks at himself and finally sees what he was content with, what he was happy with - charred and blackened tatters of clothes that cover a thoroughly muddied body that can never enter the golden city of New Jerusalem. He spends eternity in Hell, unable to produce a shred of happiness, a moment of peace, a breath of contentment with his lot. And the Christian looks at himself and sees the whitest robe that ever was, the righteousness of Christ Jesus, covering him completely. He's able to spend hours and years and forever with the Person that he loves the most, his God, the One Who gave Him all good things.

Even if, IF, the unsaved have a happier life in this world, the Christian is going to have the greatest joy for all eternity. Lalaith was only looking at the here and now; but the greatest joy of the Christian is yet to come.

October 3, 2011

My goal is to post at least three times a week until I get caught up with the other blog. So here I am, about to talk about what was one of the hardest things I've ever read. Very sad, but very much able to be explained.

Here's the post.

I think, for every Christian, reading that ending is rough. It should be; we love our God and hearing someone speak about Him in such a way is offensive. It's also saddening because it's obvious that Throendy worked very hard to try to do what she thought was right; she read the Bible, she prayed, she even sought help from the leadership.

But even in her words, you can find the error. She WORKED for it. She was trying to WIN God's love. She fought for it and she failed. It's sad, very sad. But the fault is in the theology, not in God. No person can WIN God's love; that's why Christ had to come and die. If we could earn it, win it, work for it, the sacrifice of Jesus would be the most unjustifiable waste imaginable. Why would an Infinite God die for finite people, if the people could earn salvation themselves?

There's a warning here for everyone who is living the life that Threnody and Lalaith did for so long. They were indeed wasted years for them and no one seemed to see the real problem. If you are calling and calling and God is not answering, you should probably reevaluate some things. Are you really a Christian? Are you calling improperly, pridefully, as if God OWES you an answer because you've done your Bible reading that week and gone to church (or whatever good thing)? Are you calling only because you're in trouble right now, but last month when everything was fine, you wanted nothing to do with talking to God?

That isn't Christianity; that's religiosity; that's works-based. Christianity is Jesus-based. Jesus paid the price; Jesus already bought God's love with His blood; now He gives it to us free of charge with the understanding that we can do nothing to ever earn it. No amount of time that we give Him, no amount of energy can ever begin to pay Him back. His sacrifice was infinite because He is infinite; anything we can give is finite because we are finite.

Back to the questions. Those are a few things that you can ask yourself as to why God might not be answering you. The Bible says, "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me." If you have sin that's just sitting in your life and you're not doing anything about it, why should God listen to you? You're already not doing what He's said to do. Why would He give you more directions if you're not taking the first step? What parent tells their two year old five things they have to do when the two-year old isn't doing the one thing that they have to do every day?

Repent and believe. Repent of your sins (this isn't saying, "I'm sorry I did X"; repenting is turning away, it's wanting to leave them all behind; it's running the opposite direction. If you were a drunk, it'd be seeing a bar and immediately turning around and RUNNING the other way. That's repenting; taking action to leave it behind. Repenting doesn't mean you never sin; it means at that moment, you never want to sin again); believe in Jesus (believe that He is Who He says and that He's done what He said; He is God; He died to save sinners). This formula works for Christians and non-Christians alike. It's what happens when we're saved; it's what happens when we fall down afterwards.

If we repent as Christians but don't believe, we get depressed. We fall into despair because we hate our sin and want nothing to do with it, but we're not believing that Jesus can help us. If we believe but never repent, we also get depressed because there's no relationship; we have sin in the way all the time.

The other thing I want to touch on is the reasoning behind religiosity (works-based religion). People look at Christians who are DOING things, good things, and they see it as working FOR acceptance with God. There are two possible reasons for this: One is that the people just can't imagine NOT having to work for it; the other is that the Christians are doing good things for the wrong reasons. Like the Church at Ephesus, they've left their first love. They're doing all the good works, but they're not doing them out of love for Jesus anymore.

What people should be seeing is something that they don't understand. They should be seeing Christians who are serving God happily, not because it's their duty or their job, and definitely not because they're trying to EARN some favor with Him; but they should be working for God because they love Him. We don't serve to get saved; we serve BECAUSE we're saved. It's just like a job. You don't work in order to get hired; you work BECAUSE you were hired. We don't serve to get God's love; we have God's love so we WANT to serve Him.

One last thing that deserves being mentioned. The Bible says that God is love. What people don't understand is that what they want is not real love. Without the saving work of Christ Jesus people are addicted to sin; feeding their addiction is what they want; it is not what they need and it is definitely not what is loving. In not giving them what they want, He is being loving. They just can't see it - because they're addicts.