The Importance of Understanding the Death of Christ

Here's the post. I'm going to dive right into the quotes.

First, it wasn't ONLY a human sacrifice that took place. Christ is God. God died. Try to think about that one for a moment and see if changes your view of things at all. Jesus was God and Man at the same time, and He died.

Pilot was also duty-bound to stop it. The religious rulers of the Jews in that day had been waiting and waiting for their Messiah to show up. Why do you think this is so ghastly? Because all the people who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN were the people who killed Him. No, had you and I and everyone else in the world been there at that time, apart from the grace of God, we too would have cried out, "Crucify Him." It's not that we are held responsible for that crime - no, that crime falls specifically on those who committed it. We are held responsible for the attitude that we have against Him NOW. For looking at what happened and saying it's unreasonable to believe. For doubting that Christ's sacrifice was worth as much as it was, for down-playing what actually happened on the cross, for currently spitting in the face of the Son of God. We did not drive the nails into His hands, but we do the equivalent when we negate what He suffered there or how much we need it.

I think everyone should go through the process of imagining a new fantasy world full of characters and rules and their own system of days and nights and weeks and months. It's a very interesting thing to do. Then, after you have that system created, consider just how silly it would be for one of your characters, that you made up, to say, "This gravity doesn't make any sense. It can't work like that."

This is the arrogance and the folly of people who say that God's system doesn't work because they don't think it makes sense. He's God. His system is the one that is in place; His system works because He is all-powerful and He made it. Questioning that is ridiculous.

In God's system, Adam was a representative of the race of humans. He was given a simple rule, one that was easy to keep. He broke it and humanity gained a sin nature. God is not unjust for putting that system in place. Nor would I be unjust to put a system in place in my created world that only allowed short people, like myself, to be able to jump. It's not unjust because it's mine.

An eternity is Hell is NOT worse than what Christ suffered on the cross. If it were worse, then Christ didn't pay our penalty, and we would still owe something. No, what Christ suffered was so far WORSE than an eternity of Hell that it counted for hundreds of thousands of eternities in Hell. God poured out the WHOLE cup of His wrath on Christ - what do you think those three hours of darkness were about? Just because it was a cool effect? That was when the hammer fall, when God struck His own Son, when the breach in fellowship between the Persons of the Godhead happened.

Consider who has it worse: There are two people, we will call them John and Jack. John has had delicious food his entire life. He's eaten whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. Jack has lived on plain, white rice, sometimes going without for a day or too. Suddenly, all they both have to eat ever again is tasteless bread. Who will that effect more? Obviously, John is going to have a much harder time with that.

Consider the glory that Christ had, the companionship with the Father, the sweet fellowship, the oneness. Think about being in perfect harmony with the person you love most, where everything you do makes them love you more and everything they do makes you love them more, until it is just a boundless swelling of joy and love and admiration. Consider that kind of perfection. Now think if that was the way it had ALWAYS been. You had NEVER been without that.

And then it's gone. How would every second, for the Being that can experience simultaneously so much more than we can fathom, NOT be the equivalent of an eternity? A day with God is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as a day. Do you know that in Gethsemane, Christ was not bemoaning only the physical pain? Honestly, I have a hard time thinking that was on His mind at all when faced with something so much more horrendous. It was the separation from the Father that was the blow, it was the weight of disgusting, putrid SIN being on the perfect Son - not the physical stuff.

And then the author calls it a "pathetic moral spectacle." Christ's death is pathetic? Even if Christ were ONLY a man, how dare you say something about such a gruesome and horrific event? Where is there an ounce of respect in that? This I find offensive and hypocritical because I have heard both of the publishers of this blog talk about respect and tolerance. And then they publish a quote from a man who looks at a terrible event in history and the sacrifice of a Person's life when He had done NOTHING to deserve it and he writes, "Pathetic!"

No, dear readers. THAT statement is nothing less than the same hatred and disdain that the crowds displayed when they cried out, "Crucify Him!" That is lacking in common decency. The lack that is evident in those who are lost when faced with the Light that shines on their sins. That is the backlash of salt poured on a wound.

I've written a lot, so just one last note about the last paragraph. Yes, the elect were chosen before people existed. Yes, the others were ordained to Hell. However, for any who sit there wondering if they are or aren't Christians, I refer you to the book of I John, which has a list of ways for you to KNOW - either way. Do you love God? Do you love God's people? Have you not remained in habitual sin? The Bible is underrated for having the answers. Oh, lots of people say it has them, but then they have a question, and they suddenly seem confused as to where to go for the answer. Go to the Word. God gave us answers. He's a loving God. The existence of the Bible is probably the second greatest proof of that, next to the sacrifice of Jesus.

Logic vs. Emotion

I really want to skip ahead. Really, really. However, I'm kind of OCD about doing certain things in order. So here we are at a post that doesn't have a whole lot to be said about it - it's another one of those more personal ones.

It's basically about how logic and emotion don't really coincide. But I think that's a misconception brought about by living in a fallen world. Some emotions are VERY logical. Loving your child - logical. Attachment to family - logical. Hatred of evil - logical. These are all emotions, and they all make sense both on a personal level and on the grander scale of humanity.

For instance, feeling extreme disgust and anger at murderers. How is that not logical? The drive to get them out of society comes from both logic and emotions. It's emotional because, duh, they killed someone. Fear, anger, disgust, horror - all emotions that may come from hearing or being witness to a murder. It's logical because, hey, I could be next if something isn't done about it, and it's illogical to let a person be running about who thinks they get to decide who lives and who dies.

Obviously, there are illogical emotions. Staying with someone that has hurt and continues to hurt you is one of the more obvious signs of illogical emotions that comes to mind. People who remain in abusive situations are usually emotionally compromised - they're being driven ONLY by emotion and usually that emotion is fear or some sense of loyalty.

Another example: Marriage is really a logical choice in our nation - you get tax breaks and there are incentives and stuff. (And I'm pretty sure there are statistics that say that people who stay married live longer - not that I'm sure how much you can trust those things.) It's also incredibly fulfilling emotionally. Saying vows, giving rings, walking down the isle - talk about a high. Logic. Emotion. Having fun is logical. Laughing is logical. They're good for you. Therefore - being happy (an emotion) is logical.

But anyway, the point is that God created us with both emotions and reasoning and He intended that we should use both. We're not meant to be robots, neither are we meant to not be able to reason things through. And often enough, the two don't contradict anyway. They've just been made to seem that way because often enough - even when they're logical - emotions get wounded. Just because something hurts, it doesn't mean it wasn't logical. Sometimes getting hurt IS the logical choice.

Long One: Part Two

There is SO much here. For your reading convenience, I've broken it up into two parts.

Check out Part One here.


Threnody then goes on to say that since we can only sin and we cannot do good, God condemning us for it is unjust. If we didn't want to sin and were being made to - then her argument would make sense. But we want to sin. We love our sin. We're not trying to get out of it. It takes divine intervention for us to even SEE it. God didn't make us spiritually dead - we did that to ourselves. God is being holy when He condemns sinners to Hell. Not unjust.

Not only is that wrong, but she's also not taking into account what comes next. We can only do wrong By Ourselves. We cannot do right By Ourselves. But God didn't leave us by ourselves. Why? Because mankind was not created for sin and condemnation. We were created for fellowship with God.

Then there's the part where she basically says that giving birth to something is the same as creating it. Not even close. Because, while her son couldn't exist without her and her husband, her son also couldn't exist without God. She didn't make her son; God made her son. If I write a book, I have ultimate power over that book. It's MINE. I get to decide if it gets made into a movie. I get to decide which stores get to carry it. Why? I own it. I made it. It's mine. God owns us. He made us. But God made EVERYTHING. So God has ultimate power over everything.

But God doesn't want slaves; God wants sons. Ought we to be happy if we are just slaves? Absolutely. Go look at what the queen of Sheba said to Solomon about his servants. They were happy serving him. Why? Because he was so wise and, for a while at least, he was a good king for Israel. And that made his people happy. They benefited from his wealth, his might, his wisdom. How much more would we benefit from Someone infinitely better? Yes, we should be humbled and thrilled to be just slaves for God, to be able to look at Him, to see His magnificence.

But God makes us His kids. We don't have to look from a distance like the servants who stand in the corners of the room waiting for a job from their master. No, He beckons us forward and we get to look right into His face. Imagine seeing your spouse at the airport after a month of being apart and not being able to get to them. When I was dating my husband, we experienced this quite a few times. We would see each other, but we'd have to get through a line of people before we could get to each other. It's just not good enough seeing them from a distance; in fact, it tends to make it worse for those minutes before you can get to them. You miss them MORE once they're so close, but not close enough. You want to embrace them and look in their eyes. You want to hold them and talk to them and hear their voice.

God doesn't want unwilling slaves; God wants cheerful family.

We disagree on the whole AI thing, so I'm not going to bother with it. From Scripture there is no reason for us to believe that Man will ever have the power to create a new race.

Lastly, God never says, "I don't care." God says, "This is what I want. Do it and live. Don't do it and die." God never says He doesn't care. God makes it very clear that He does care. And God says what He expects from us. But if people don't believe that the Bible is from God, then they can pretend that God didn't tell us and therefore, He can't hold us accountable for not knowing.

Well, two issues with that. One, little kids who pretend they didn't hear their parents still get in trouble. And the pretending just adds on the offense. Second, the Bible tells us that Creation itself, the world around us, shows us - if we will just look at it - that there is a God. Creation shows us enough, that were we not rebellious and wicked we would see God. Therefore, whether or not you believe the Bible - even if it weren't God's Word, though it is - you're still condemned. Because you've experienced God's grace every day of your life in being allowed to live on the world that He created.

Were you happy for even a second today? Did the sun shine? Did rain water the earth? Did the wind blow? Did you experience good health? Did you partake in medicines for your ailments? Did someone say something nice to you? Did you eat something yummy? Did you have food to eat? Did you have clean water? That's all from God. Every good thing - little or big - that happened today all around the world, EVERY good gift is only and always from God. And He sends His rain on the just and the unjust. God is not only JUST; God is love and He shows it to EVERYONE. And so many either spit on Him or ignore Him. And then they wonder why He sends them to Hell?

Long One: Part One

There is SO much here. For your reading convenience, I've broken it up into two posts.

Let's just start with the beginning - the part about the Titanic. Threnody makes one rather large error that throws the entire thing off. If God sunk the Titanic - which, ultimately, yes He did, but humanly speaking, I would imagine we could say that the captain of the Titanic sunk it by ramming a giant iceberg - then He did not do it ONLY because of the ship-builders and their pride and NO ONE on board was innocent. So, the illusion that God would be unjust to sink a ship Just Because the people who make it were proud doesn't hold up. God doesn't ever do anything for just one reason - unless you're going to say He does everything for the one ultimate reason that is For His Glory.

So, first off - God doesn't kill innocent people. No one is innocent. If He chooses to use the punishment of some people to punish other people at the same time, what is that to us? We all deserve the punishment.

Now, the whole paragraph about how God put man in his awful state of sinfulness. . . . God did create man with the ability to fall. But why? Because if man couldn't fall, man wasn't free to begin with. God doesn't want worship from robots. God wants the worship and love of PEOPLE - people have a will. Why do we have a will? Because we're created in the image of God and God has a will. So if God hadn't given Adam and Eve the choice, they wouldn't have been people.

What God didn't do is MAKE Adam sin. He did not MAKE them fall. Oh, He planned it - but He didn't make them choose that. They chose it.

God did not arbitrarily make up rules and say, "This is sin; this isn't sin." We have a number of statements in the Bible about God's character. God is perfect - therefore, anything that is not in line with God's character must, by nature of it, go AGAINST God's character and that is what defines sin. For instance, God is truth. Therefore, lying is sin. Why? Because He just decided that He didn't like it? No. Because it is an affront to His person. It is saying that He is not perfect, that He is not best, that I don't want to be like Him, that something else is more valuable than He is. That's sin. Anytime we say that something is more valuable than God, we are defaming Him and that is what sin is.

Man is absolutely NOT what he was created to be. Man was created to be in fellowship with God, to be with God and enjoying God. Man was created perfect and he was created to be perfect. And he will be again. That is and has always been the end of Man - perfect fellowship with God.

Rebelling is not going against the norm; rebelling is going against authority. God owns us. He is our authority. Therefore, rebelling is anything that goes against Him.


This seemed like the best place to break off. Click here for Part Two.

Back on Track

Well, since I've gotten few (as in, one) comments about the clarification, I'm going to move on. As always if you have more questions/comments, feel free to post or email.

Here we have another post by Threnody claiming her previous Christianity. The title asks two questions, Was she a Christian? And, Does it matter? The simple answers are, respectively, No and then Yes.

No, she was not a Christian. Biblically, she could not have been and I went into this with quite a lot of detail previously, so instead of reiterating those two posts, instead I'm going to take this from a different angle. Threnody offers as proof the things that she desired, asked, prayed for; the things that she experienced and felt. She says that at times she had a relationship with God.

As a counter example I offer up King Saul - King Saul who was chosen by God to lead Israel. King Saul who prophesied on, if memory serves, more than one occasion. King Saul started out well. He started out humbly. King Saul had a type of relationship with God - we know this because the Bible says that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him. King Saul was also the guy who tried to kill David, the man after God's own heart, MANY times. King Saul was the guy who wouldn't let the kingdom go. King Saul sought for God and God did not answer because Saul was not His. King Saul went to a witch for help after he had previously tried to destroy them all.

Saul repented more than once for what he did to David. Saul sought God's help, His direction and God was silent. And in the end, Saul always went back to the wrong until God took him out of the picture. King Saul felt God's direction and moving, but as far as we can tell, he died without ever knowing God.

Does it matter? Not if Christianity isn't true, as Threnody claims. If, however, Christianity is true, it is of the highest importance.

I don't have a proof for Christianity. I believe it; I've experienced it. But it would seem strange to me if God allowed us to prove something that requires, at it's very basic level, faith. Romans 8:24-25 says, "We are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But, if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."

That kind of hope is faith - it's not the hope where you say, "I really hope I get a puppy for Christmas!" It's expectant. It's trusting. It's the hope of seeing your loved one come home from work after a really long day. You expect it and you're just waiting for it to come. If we could prove Christianity, why would we need to have faith? If you can prove God, you don't need to believe that He exists. There's no trust in proof.

This doesn't mean that Christianity is illogical or doesn't makes sense. It just means that we can't prove it. I can't prove the wind. I feel it; it makes sense; but I don't know where it comes from. I can't see it; I can't prove it, but it IS logical. Such is Christianity.

Some Clarification

So my last post caused quite a stir, and at first I was dumbfounded to how it was disturbing so many Christians. It seemed obvious to me that the things I said - though possibly a bit harsh - were true. Thanks to discussion with a friend, I think I get what a large part of the problem was. So I'm going to try to clarify that for you.

The post was never meant to be directed at specific people - or even at people in general. I was not ranting AT people. It came about BECAUSE of people, but the post itself was not about the people or about the specific things that they had said. It was about attitudes that I had observed from various folks that struck me as being wrong and all the more so because those folks claimed to be Christians. I was not clear about this distinction and that is my fault. I apologize for that. I never intended for it to be against PEOPLE - rather against improper attitudes that I was finding to be prevalent.

Hope that helps clear it up.

Related but not Responding

So this post is going to take a step away from the norm and instead of dealing with Lalaith and Threnody's posts, deal with some of the other responses they've received to their blog. This may turn into something of a rant. . . 'cause it ticks me off and with good reason.

You know that saying, "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all?" There should be another one that says, "If you can't say something SMART don't say anything at all." Not, if you can't say something that you think makes you LOOK smart - something that is actually smart. So if you don't know the difference, Shut up. When in doubt, don't say it.

Don't respond to their blog acting high and mighty. Don't respond to ANYONE that way. Just because they left and you didn't doesn't make you better. You're NOT better. I'm not better. So get off your high horse and realize that without God's grace that would be all of us and none of us would care. You can't treat people like they're idiots and expect them to listen to you. It doesn't work. All you do is make things worse. Again, SHUT UP.

Stop acting like, because they left, they're suddenly dummies who don't understand anything. They didn't lose intelligence in the transaction. They don't need you to talk down to them like they're little kids. So many things I've seen posted that make no kind of sense and just make Christians all look ridiculous. When you say something stupid and attach Christianity to it, understand that you are making CHRIST look stupid. Please think about that for a good long time.

Also, take stock of WHY you're posting and make sure it's for good reasons. Don't dare to do it for yourself. Don't do it to "spread the story." Do it because you think it's right; do it because you want to be helpful; do it because you care about them or other people; do it because you want God to be magnified. Do NOT ever post anything for you. You will be the opposite of helpful EVERY time.

You know what it does to their thought process when you say really stupid things and act like those things are somehow spiritual? It just gives them confirmation that not being a Christian is the exact way to go. Please, PLEASE, be careful what you say. Please THINK before you open your mouth (or release your fingers onto the keyboard). Some of us are praying for them; some of us are their friends; some of us want so badly to see God save them; and to put it bluntly, you are pushing them the opposite way. You aren't just "playing Devil's advocate" - you're BEING the Devil's advocate. So please, PLEASE - shut up.

What Is Sufficient?

"Isn't This Enough?" Threnody asked.

There are a few ways to answer, and it's hard to pick one. Isn't what enough? The world? What is the world without someone to share it with? Friends? Family? Really, what is enough?

How many people are searching for "enough?" They look for it in drugs, in alcohol, in food, in relationships, in health, in stuff, in sleep, in peacefulness. The search for contentment is everywhere. The search for just a little bit more, just one other thing and then I'll be satisfied.

Why is that? Because the world is not enough. We were created for more. We were created for fellowship with God Himself. The world cannot compare to that. It is beautiful and glorious and enjoyable and lovely and desirable. But God is more beautiful, more lovely, more glorious, more enjoyable, more desirable than anything this world contains and all of it put together. How can I know that? One, I've experienced both. Two, because He made the world. You can't make something that is greater than you by virtue of that fact that without you, it could not exist. You are automatically greater than anything you make. How silly if you listened to Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" and thought that the music was greater than Vivaldi himself. It's an impossibility.

No, the world is not enough to satisfy us, but it is enough for something. The Bible tells us that the world, what it declares to us about God (Psalm 19 - "the firmament showeth HIS handiwork"), is enough to condemn us. We OUGHT to be able to get it from looking at the world around us, but we can't. We're blind and dead, and so we look at the world and say, "What a beautiful world!" and think nothing of the One Who fashioned it with the word of His mouth. We're spiritually dead. That's why He spoke in the OT; that's why Christ came; that's why He gave us the Bible. Because without His intervention, the world is only enough to condemn us.

It's not that people must go searching for something higher, something better. It's that the entire world is yelling at us that there IS something higher, something better. It would be like a ten year-old only ever eating rice cereal like they have been since they were a baby and their parent is saying, "This is better; it tastes better and it's better for you." And the child just keeps eating only the rice cereal. It's not that the rice is bad - it's good! - but there's so much more, so much better.

The world is incredible; the world is a gift from God that can tell us so much about Him. But only God is enough. Only God satisfies; only God is sufficient.

A song and a term

I think I've mentioned before that I don't like commenting on things like poetry or artwork because they can have so many interpretations. So I'm skipping another post. Is there stuff that I could say? Yeah, I'm sure. But if I really feel that it needs saying, I can always come back to it later.

So instead, I'm going to comment on the post about the label "spiritual, but not religious." The term, as I would define it, means a personal religion. What is religion in the simplest sense? It is the means by which you worship something. And EVERYONE worships something. Therefore, to "be spiritual" but not identify with any major religion is to simply have your own religion that's personalized to you. It is to come up with your own set of "how to"s and "do"s and "don't"s.

I think the biggest danger about this is the lack of accountability. Almost every major religion has some kind of discipline for those who claim to be a part of it but don't follow it's rules. Whether it's excommunication or something more mild, the fact remains that there is a standard that you must adhere to or you will feel consequences.

If you, however, are making up your own rules as you go along, not only is it unlikely that anyone else will be able to understand your rules, they will never be able to hold you to them. Honestly, I would imagine that the phrase came into being because of the multiplying of irresponsible young people in America who don't understand what they believe and don't really care to define it. They don't want to be held accountable for anything. (I DON'T think this is why it appeals to Lalaith in particular.) The younger generation always wants to be independent of the older. What better why to go about that than to throw off the constraints of organized religion, while at the same time, staying in the good graces of as many of the older generation as possible by claiming to retain a level of spirituality?

Last of all, I must point out that there is no active spirituality outside of Christ. Outside of Christ, everyone is spiritually dead. So if you want to be actively spiritual, you must be religious; but don't worry - you're religious anyway because you're already worshiping something.

Close-minded

So today I find another post about a journey. Apparently, trips are very popular this time of year. ;) (It's a joke, people.) There's not much here to hit on for the same reasons as the other one - the reasons are personal.

The one thing though that did jump out at me was this section, "Why do you believe anything? If " because God/The Bible says so" is sufficient reason for you to believe something, then I cannot reason with you." She then says that everyone who can't consider the idea that the Bible is wrong cannot be "open-minded."

This basically sounds like the whole "ultimate truth doesn't exist" thing. Which is so dumb, because in saying that, you're declaring an ultimate truth. Even if nothing else were true, that one thing would be. But that's a different topic.

There is always something that is true; there is always something that is trusted; there is always something that is believed right. Here's the thing, Lalaith says that if (we'll use me for an example) I don't allow for the possibility that the Bible is false, that I am therefore close-minded. However, that's kind of close-minded. Because she's not making any room for the person who has done their study and come out on the other side believing even more firmly that the Bible IS true.

Lalaith has seen things and has come to the conclusion that the Bible is false; in her mind that is the only logical choice. However, from what I have heard, I have seen all the same things, done my research, and come to the conclusion that the Bible is true. Is one of us being close-minded because of that? Do you think that there are no Christians who have considered whether or not the Bible is false? There are people who have come to Christianity by trying to PROVE that it's false! By trying to disprove God, they have come TO God!

Were they close-minded? Are they now because they no longer need to think about the Bible being false?

The only reason to question your beliefs is if you're not sure why you believe them. If you don't know what you believe or why, question what you believe. But understand, that no matter what your beliefs are, they have to measure up to something.

I don't believe the Bible just because; I don't believe the Bible because I was raised that way; I don't believe the Bible because it tells me to. I believe the Bible because of what it is. I believe the Bible because of what it has done. I believe the Bible because of what it contains.

That is not close-minded. That is logical. And if I believe the Bible, then "because the Bible says so" is a perfectly sound reason. If the Bible is already proven, there is no need to question it as a foundation.

Trying it again

I tried to write a response to this earlier in the week, but it just wasn't coming. Here we go again.

It's kind of a hard to understand, probably due to the jumping into the middle of an argument thing, but I think the gist of the idea is that the author believes that religion has caused a lot of fighting, but not a lot of war. I think religion has caused a lot of both. Economics have also caused a lot of both. Prejudice (that has nothing to do with religion) has caused a lot of both. These days, I think that governments are more prone to starting wars over economics, but in the past? Eh, I think religion was as good a reason as economics back then.

The only other thing I want to mention about this one, is that the Bible does not condone slavery, like the author so flippantly asserts. The Bible does not approve of slavery. Read the Bible; look at the principles of mercy, kindness, gentleness, and the whole of, oh yeah, love my neighbor as myself. That's not slavery.

And that's all I will say, lest I ruin this attempt as well and I only get one post out this week.

Journeys

My journey has brought me back to this blog on this gorgeous Wednesday morning. But today's topic isn't my journey.

Honestly, this whole post makes me wonder how much Threnody understands about why OTHER people are writing. (By the way, I know of two other blogs now that have addressed the Untwisting blog; kind of interesting that, but it's a different topic that perhaps I'll get into on a different day.) I can't speak for them, but my reasons for writing had very little to do with Lalaith and Threnody at all. That's why I didn't announce my blog to them, post comments on their blog (I've posted one response to the one that was addressed to me), or anything of the sort. I informed Lalaith about it simply because she's my friend and I didn't want her to find out about it another way and feel like I'd been secretly raging against her or her new beliefs.

But Threnody seems to think there is some other reason. Like I said, maybe for others there is. You can check out my reasons on my "What This Is All About" page. For me, I don't expect her to explain herself. I never expected her to write whole posts about what I had said. It never even occurred to me that that was a possibility. I expected to be entirely ignored.

So it strikes me as funny every time she says things like, "I don't need to prove anything to you" or "I'm not writing for you." When you say things like that, you're basically defending yourself. It's not in a argumentative way; it's in an evasive way. If she cared so little about what anybody thought or why anyone was reading the blog, why the need to keep clarifying that she's not doing it for us?

Maybe she hates people misunderstanding things and gets a little OCD about it or something; but still, that would mean that she DOES care. If the opinions of people on the internet that she doesn't know don't matter, why would she need to write an entire post that's addressing our apparent misunderstandings?

Hopefully, you can see from this how I have a hard time believing her claim.

However, my husband has taught me something that I try to practice: giving people the benefit of the doubt. It's not something I'm very good at. I'm a suspicious person; I don't trust people easily. I have to work at it. Reading Threnody's post, I find it very hard to believe that she wrote that only for her benefit; I can't see how that could be; BUT, that's what she said it was for. It's not for us; it's for her and Lalaith.

So, at this juncture, I'm going to choose to believe her as much as I can, to think that there is another way of looking at things that I haven't seen, and that's how it all makes sense. Because this is all a matter of opinion and perspective. As she has previously pointed out, I am not God and I cannot know all her motives. As far as I recall, the Bible doesn't speak directly to this kind of situation, so I can choose to believe her or choose to believe my logic. I'm going to choose to believe her.

Wherein I Quote God's Bible

How much faith does it take to....?

That question is kind of like the angels on a pinhead question. Honestly, how can humans quantify faith? We can't measure it; it's not physical. We can sense when it's growing or lessening, but we can't say, "I have X amount of faith." Faith doesn't come in liters or pounds. You have enough or you don't. That's about the only measurement there is.

So when Threnody asks, "How much faith does it take to be a Christian?" there isn't really an answer. Faith the "size of a mustard seed" isn't referring to something measurable; it's a metaphor. A mustard seed is very small. A very small amount of faith is enough to move a mountain. Now, I don't know about everyone, but I'm pretty sure that I don't know ANYBODY who thinks they could tell a mountain to move and it would move. There are differing reasons for this, but basically, we all have REALLY small amounts of faith.

However, the problem was not the size or amount of Threnody's faith; the problem was the nature of it. There are two kinds of faith. They probably have theological names, but I don't know them, so I'll refer to them as such - saving faith and nebulous belief. You can have all the nebulous belief in the world and it's not going to save you. But you only need a pinch of saving faith to be a Christian.

Threnody also claims that "by the Bible's standards I was a child of God" even though in the previous post she said she had no relationship with God. There's a disconnect there. She then claims that I can't know that she wasn't because I'm not God (God, Whom she doesn't believe exists. . . .). However, God has made some things very clear, so that even the most ignorant, unlearned people (like me) can know some things. For instance, I KNOW that lying is wrong. It's sin. God tells us that.

In I John, God tells us, through John, that the reason people leave the church (not leave A church, leave THE Church) is to manifest (or make known, make clear) that they were never PART of the church. Threnody left. Thus, Threnody wasn't part of it. I don't need to judge her heart; some questions, God already gave us the answers to. "...If they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with us..." - I John 2:19

Honestly, had she JUST left, I might not be quite as certain (since I would have practically no knowledge of her and how far her departure went), but considering the purpose of the blog, the things that she has written since her departure, and a host of other things (like verbally denouncing God and calling Him a liar), it's abundantly clear that Threnody was never a Christian, no matter how much she believes she was. Biblically, she could not have been.

As for the allegations that I am twisting her posts, that's not at all my intent, and I've yet to read of something specific that I've twisted. At the very least, everything I've written has a basis - even if some things may have been misunderstood.

The Bible has never asked anyone to believe anything that is opposite or illogical. There are things that on the face of them may SEEM opposite or illogical, but they're not. Also, God MADE the world, so He's obviously made a difference in it. Therefore, even if He were completely silent, by virtue of there being a Creator Who set things in motion and determined beforehand which DNA would go where, He had to have orchestrated everything already. God cannot be a moot point.

Threnody claimed that for every difference that Christians would claim God is the cause, she could come up with a nonreligious explanation. A nonreligious explanation for creation??? There is no such thing. A full explanation consists in two parts: the how and the why. There is no nonreligious explanation that can say WHY the world exists. Because without a creator, it's all random and purposeless. There is no why without God.