NOTE: The following is a Personal response to an overview of Hindu religion based solely on a reading from the user-generated site, WIKIPEDIA. It is not meant to be an academic discourse nor an analysis based on exhaustive study. For information on Hinduism in full, much more research would be needed. Below I simply give a wholly subjective and unreasearched reaction to my initial, cursory look at the Hindu religion based on a user-generated and edited article.

My initial response to Hindusim is not unlike my response to a an action-packed but highly unlikely sci-fi movie. I am shocked and awed by the effects, the concept, and the overall ride; but the inherent problems of the concept’s fruition and the methodolgy by which the problems are solved slowly but surely creep into my mind and alter my appreciation.

Look, bottom line is that, Hinduism in concept is a beautiful religion of tranquility, tolerance, and self-iomprovement. In fact, one could make an argument that Hinduism is the most harmless and, consequently, “least damaging” religion. Its hisotry as a spiritual systemshows no villainous forced conversion–a sin of which many other religion’s are quite guilty. Furthermore, Hinduism promotes the acceptance of other spritual systems and, at times, adopts them; for its goal is the ever-nebulous attainment of “oneness and spiritual freedom”, an end to which Hindus believe no one religion or denomination has the sole methodology.

In many ways, HInduism is the “capitalism” of spirituality, in that it is driven by an individual’s personal spiritual ambitions and goals which then drive said individual to be a better person and, in turn, benefit to society in ways many other zealots fail to. This aspect of egoistic altruism in the form of spritiual cleansing and awakening is sadly self-refuting for Hindu’s, however, due to Kharma–the system of universal cause and effect.

I must admit, actually, that in the process of my very, very cusory and inadequate research, I was heartbroken at this realization. Hinduism, as a spritual system has three fatal flaws which make its practice more tragic than affirming.

First, the belief in Kharma and egoistic self-involved spritiuality fail to coalesce in a way that I can grasp. Unless one’s spiritual journey is the ultimate, all-encomapssing purpose of the universe, then the egoistic selflessness of Hindus is kharmatically canelled due to its selfishness. I know that sentence was horrible, but I couldn’t find another way to write it. Basically, it’s a three-step catch-22. If doing good to others yields good for oneself; but one is only doing good for oneself and not for others, then no good should come to one as a result; for the good done for another was not done for them but oneself; and one has already received the reward of satisfaction in one’s own actions. This type of circular benefit would not yield spiritual enlightment or good “effect” beyond one’s own happiness over one’s supposed goodness–which is not True goodness in that it is selfishly driven through the use of others to accomplish one’s own spritial goals.

Second, as a bit of an extension of this first problem, is the problem of Hinduism to adequately deal with mental retardation, birth-into-poverty, abortion, and other circumstances. Kharma would suggest that the indivual born into poverty or with a disability or other lacking capacity is there due to the sins of a past life; and, in a way, their placement in a less than favorable life situation is the result of universal justice. If that then is the case, the plight of those in these circumstances becomes more problematic, for aid to said individuals interferes with the judgment cast upon them by the universe and may do more harm than good to the sympathetic party. And this is a major dilemma; for in essence, this is a terrible view of those who have innocently been born into an unfavorable plight, and those who would best benefti from help or need it for survival should not receive it; for that is disrespectful to the impartially fair justice of the universe. This is why the caste system was such an essential part of Hinduism in the past. While it appears that said institution is no longer practiced, the problem in principle is still present.

These two aspects of kharma and spiritual egoism creates what I would dub a “Fundamental Spiritual Paradox” which is not reconcilable without apologetics and excuse-making, which is sad given the possible beauty and benefit of this spiritual system. PLEASE NOTE: Comments following this post have brought new information which have served as apologetic testimony as to the fairness and goodness of Kharma. It will benefit to read the comments in order to better facilitate a full look at the concept. Based on the new information given, the above points of contention I have are arguably dismissable. THANKS

The third and final flaw is not a problem of reason but prinicple. Hinduism has (a) no closed canon nor (b) absolute guiding force for truth. One could argue that the universe itself is said guide; however, unless this universe is personal and sentient in its revelation of truth and law (which some sects believe it is), it cannot define, let alone guide, these things. Based on my look into the religion, I would say that it treats univeral sprituality as more a scientific mechanism of a yet untestable and intangible dimension outside of the material one. It sees the impartial and ever-fair system of consequence as an impersonal “force” similar to gravity. BUT therein lies the problem. IF the spiritual realm, it’s truths and revelations, are universal truths and ideas similar to those in science, but are not testable and verifiable outside of conjecture regarding kharma, THEN it is an ever-nebulous postmodern system which I cannot accept.The laws and truths established thus-far are no more concrete an absolute than the next spriitual guide or leader defines them to be. It is this lack of absolute, “knowable” truth that gives Hindusim a shaky foundation at best.

This is a very sad conclusion for me, not that I was looking to convert to Hinduism; but because I am trying to really discover truth in religion itself. Hinduism simply fails to meet me at a mental, reasonable leve; and therefore, I am dismissing it. There are, however, a few particulars I think are in order:

1) The Hindu belief in the sacredness of cows–a subject of much ridicule and mockery in the west–is due to the historical nature of the cow to living in India. The cow was not only useful for aid in farming but also giving in its constant giving of milk for daiy foodstuff. Ultimately, the cow is a provider; and for that, it is a revered creature. Only Some sects have given it sacred godhood. Others simply view it as a beautiful, helpful creature worthy of respect and good-treatment by its human masters.

2) Hinduism is oftentimes viewed as an idoltrous religion; however, this too can only be said of certain sects. Many Hindus have statues as iconographic symbols and reminders of the gods which they represent. In this instance, the statue, idol, or symbol itself is not beleived to have any power in and of itself (which is the fundamental tenant of idolatry); but rather, it is a tool by which one is reminded of the power of the being in question. This, then, is no different than a Christian’s crucible.

3) Like many other religions, Hinduism contains rituals, practices, and traditions; however, the dogma-free spirituality allows for coexisting, tolerant denomination and sects which rarely bear contention with one another. This, in addition to the fact that none of the above said practices are beleived to be mandatory for one’s spriitual joutney, makes Hinduism a very attractive religion.

4) Hindus tend to be content with the world through the lens of their religion and experiences. While this has caused the aforementioned problematic caste system and lack of compassion for those born into plight, it also has not led to the imperialism, relgious war, and genocide so prominent in religions such as Islam and Christianity. It is, for this reason, perhaps the most accepted form of spirituality in academic, anti-theistic circles which believe religion to be a tool of those power to control those who are not.

Grace, Peace, and Thanks to each and every one of you. As a gesture of kindness and goodwill to you all, I shave the fur of a timberwolf during the hot summer months, so that he can feel the cool of the wind on his skin and also look like a crazy ghost wolf.

I’ve been going on and on about YOutube and videos I’ve seen of late, and I know by now you’re all sick and tired of hearing about it. Well, there are plenty of movie and toy links to the side if you want a break. I’ve been hounding the topic because I think that between the Youtubing and checking on sites like Skeptic, I’m getting a bit of a spectrum of the new atheist mindset.

I’ve already expressed that I feel that this mindset, which is becoming a larger movement by the day, is fairly smug in its view of the religious, but I also made a point that Christianity is in a sense very similar given it’s “Christ or nothing” outlook. A new development in my understanding has also arisen lately, and that is the ferocity with which some atheists communicate, particularly when attacking Christianity and Islam. What’s funny is that many of these atheists appear more zealous in mocking and insulting the religous rather than communicating why atheism is a better sytem of belief. There’s alot more “you’re dumb and I hate you people” than “Religion has caused alot of problems, here is a better way.” It’s been a bit of onslaught.

Now, it’d be easy for me to pull the “Shame on you godless atheists” card, but that’d be ridiculous for two reasons. First, the fact of the matter is that WE, the relgious, showed them how to play ball. What? It’s our fault? In no uncertain and literal terms, Hell’s Yes it’s our fault. Nothing has been more convicting to me while watching these videos than seeing people who remind me of me, of how I once dialogued, and how others would dialogue with me about the faith. It’s a sad commentary, really. It says to me, “You wanna play rough, then we’ll play rough.” And that’s a heartbreaking state of things.

The second reason is this. For every anti-zealot who is posting violent hate speech online, I am sure there are a dozen practicing atheists who are not only civil but, seeing that this life is their only opportunity to do something with their existence, kind and helpful. In fact, I would give caution to anyone who has been searching for vids and sites online alone ofr an education in Atheism, because it’s a small population of the globe that actually possess their own websites, and it’s an even smaller percentage of persons who are up on Youtube (we, at the stage, are not). All this to say, It’d be a grievous error for me to look at the elitist, smug, or vitriloic net users as the central core of atheism, just as much as it would be to view The Westboro Baptist Church as the norm for Christianity.

Bottom line on all this (and I think we can agree I try to get to the Bottom line on the stage), the more I look into atheism as a core value system, the more it reflects the religions it seeks to debunk, emulating both the good and bad aspect of this human phenomena we call spirituality and religion. There’s the nice ones and the mean ones, the condescending ones and the encouraging ones (I’m sure). The real issue I think one has to accept is this: Spirituality is a major player in the lives of people. Regardless of what religous sect or anti-reglious sect or non-religious sect into which one falls, we should all play nice–at least, I know I need to. If I ever find a site linking back to me talking about how I’m an arrogant jerk, it’ll be a sad day.

I have had a really fascinating last few weeks looking into these things–spiritually, mentally and emotionally. I’ve been hit with plenty of questions and comments to keep me busy for a great long while. I’m aiming to answer them here. So, keep coming back!

1) If you begin your search for truth with existence, when does it arrive at God? Can you get there with any actual rationale, or is it just an excuse to explain away the
unknown?

This is one of the most important questions in all of philosphy and existence. If you haven’t really asked yourself this question, I can’t imagine how you’ve had any direction in your life. Maybe, that’s judgmental, but I think that having a basic belief about the essence of your existence as a form should and does direct your entire life. Once you go to that place, and really dig into it, it will have a huge effect on your decisions. So, how did I get to where I got–from Me, CJ, to God?

I’ll get to that in a moment, but my first goal is to make three clarifications

1) I have a very limited understanding of science. The conclusions I am coming to here are based on observations more than study; and if scientific fact contradicts me, then new information, depending on what it is, could alter my conclusions and thoughts below. I say this out of fairness because my outlook and understanding may be very limited by my lack of education in this area, and I don’t want anyone to think I am coming at this from the cutting edge of modern science.

2) This argument is not intended to “prove” the existence of God, nor “debunk” other belief systems. All I am trying to do here is say, if I start with “me” as an entity, I can arrive at the idea that “I came from something outside nature as I see it.” So, we’re not looking at my religious beliefs or areligious beliefs. We’re just looking at the process of starting with one’s own existence and arriving at God’s or rather, “a god’s”. When I dismiss a possibility below, I am only saying, “At this point, I don’t buy it.” Not “It’s not true”. “It’s not right” or “It is foolish”. I’m just saying that I personally can’t get around the concept and support it at present.

3) For this discussion, I am intentionally not going through the process of arriving at the Christian religion. That is not the goal. It will be in another “Big Question”, but not this one. So, when I say at the end, “Yeah, it is possible a god exists.” that is intentionally as far as this article is going to go, and that does not debunk or disprove the other possibilities mentioned below, it only contends one simple concept, that I can believe a god exists because I exist. That’s it.

So, shall we?

I begin with this. CJ.
CJ exists. Now, that proves nothing other than CJ. It does not prove that CJ had parents or parents exist, it does not prove that CJ is better than animals. It does not prove that CJ is more complex than glass of Coca-Cola. It does not prove CJ has a destiny. It only proves that CJ is a self-aware entity. CJ exists.

Now, given my self-awareness, I can come to several conclusions. First, I have self-awareness and said self-awareness makes me different than non-self-aware objects or matter. Second, other beings can possibly have self-awareness as I do. Third, if I find other beings with self-awareness, and they have basic characteristics similar or identical to mine (like a human body, language of some kind, etc.), I can connect myself with them as part of a group of beings.

So, I now see others like me. They are also aware, so I decide to classify myself with them, and I will call the group, “Humans”. Now, this is not an exclusive, necessary conclusion. Some people might feel that any living being is just part of a class of “living things”, BUT I am essentially skipping that step to just boil down to “I exist and these others are MOST like me out of all other types of living creatures; hence, they and I are part of a sub-grouping of living things specific and unique to ourselves. There is something that separates us from other living things.”

Ok, I am a human. Now, I am looking at humans, and I see that one type of human, the one with different underware-areas than me, can give birth to both types of humans, and that is how humans continue to exist. Seeing this, I decide,  ”okay, humans come from humans. I came from humans before me,
and they came from others before them and so on and so forth.” BUT! BUT! BUT! then that aching, haunting question, “where did the first humans come from?”  creeps in.  And therein lies the discrepancy, the big question. The one to which NO ONE HAS THE DEFINITIVE TESTED, PROVEN ANSWER,  ”Where did the first parents come from?” Oh, there are theories, maybe commonly accepted ideas, but I have yet to see anyone PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT an answer to this question.

Okay, so, now what?  Well, there’s a myriad of possible places one can go, and I am gonna list 7. These are not the only possible theories, they are just the only ones I am using here. These are not “Straw Men”, arguments and ideas I put forth simply to knock down. I don’t intend to disprove a single concpept below, just give my response to them at my present place in life. These are also simply the first seven possible explanations of I which I thought.

1) Humans have always been and always will be.
2) Humans as entities came from the earth somehow. Maybe they were birthed from the magic vagina tree. However, they were birthed from the earth itself, a nonliving thing.
3) Humans were birthed from some creature in an anatural fluke. Humans were birthed by a living thing that was nonhuman. This thing may or may not still exist. It might have been the mother whale, or the great dancing walrus. Maybe it was the wise old turtle or the squawking bird of the old oak tree. It could have the undead shark king of deep; but something, some nonhuman birthed the first one(s).
4) Humans evolved from lower beings which evolved from lower beings over time, and the first human was a mutated birth from a very, very, very close relative.
5) Humans were created by something outside of the natural realm. Something beyond nature created nature and humans in it.
6) Humans don’t exist, only awareness exists, and the tangible realm is the only way awareness can understand itself.
7) Humans do not exist. I do not exist. I am self-knowing being that is only the figment of another being.

Okay, so, what’s the big deal? How do I possibly get to a conclusion here. Well, I’m gonna discard the concepts I do not believe are true and
give an explantion of my conclusions for each.

1) Humans have always been and always will be.
No.. Nothing tangible exists from nothing. In my limited experince, I see and observe that all things, great and small have come from something else, both biological and inanimate. I should be able to apply this to the begining of all things in earth and the earth itself. The only way “humans” would be classified outside of that is if “humanity” as a type of existence is infinite. However, I don’t see how this could be since “human” as a classified being, is born and dies. I can’t reconcile the finite nature of all humans, with infinity. If all “humans” are born, and all humans die, then they cannot be infinite. It doesn’t connect for me. No, to number 1

2) Humans as entities came from the earth somehow. Maybe they were birthed from the magic vagina tree. However, they were birthed from the earth itself, a nonliving thing.
No. How can a non-living thing birth a living one? I see no evidence in this world that something which does not live can, in and of itself, breath or give life to something living. Even machines which kepp people living do not birth people. So, I don’t see this happening.  No on 2.

3) Humans were birthed from some creature in an anatural fluke. Humans were birthed by a living thing that was nonhuman. This thing may or may not still exist. It might have been the mother whale, or the great dancing walrus. Maybe it was the wise old turtle or the squawking bird of the old oak tree. It could have the shark king of deep. But something, some nonhuman birthed it.
No.. This might be the case, but again, looking at the earth and the animals and plants in it, I see no reason to think this occurred. Animals and plants reproduce their own kind. You don’t get plants that spawn frogs, and fish that spawn foxes, or monkeys that crap elephants. I don’t see that happening, and nothing has convinced me otherwise. In fact, even if this did happen, even if this is how the first human came to b, it would not explain how the SECOND human, which coincidentally was of a different gender needed for procreation, came to be. Maybe one came out one end, and one came out the other. It’s not really worth thinking about it since I don’t really by this. No on 3.

4) Humans evolved from lower beings which evolved from lower beings over time, and the first human was a mutated birth from a very, very, very close animal relative. No. . Okay, this is a better option than the others, but i am still skeptical. First, am I to believe that my ancestor to the four millionth generation is a fish? I doubt it. What about the nature and order of the universe vs. the nature of mutation. From what I understand of the universe, it is orderly. This is why we have laws of science, which help us Understand its order. This is how we have come to understand things in nature. This idea of lower beings becoming higher ones would have to be based on mutation of some kind. Mutation, by defintion, is an abnormality. So, unless it is the order that abnormalities occur toward progression, progression manifested in capacities such as greater predatory skills and intellect, I have a very hard time with this. Also, where are the links, wherein we see this occur in nature? Wouldn’t it still be occurring? Isn’t the vast difference between even the closest species of animals, still too different to be linked through proceation and birth? I understand this idea of mutations within a species, like birds becoming better birds and snakes becoming cooler snakes but only when manipulated or forced, not out of a desire to evolve instinctive to animals. I think this comes down to the same problem with #3, it’s only more finite. I once heard that the human being and the most developed ape have a 98% similar DNA structure, but the 2% that separates me from him is so vast, I can’t fathom it being connected. Maybe I just hold myself in too high of a place in the food chain; but c’mon, when could the astranomical leap of 2% take place? When did the astronomical leap of anything get to its closet relative of another kind? I can’t fathom it.I am going no on 4.

5) Humans were created by something outside of the natural realm or, at least, beyond themselves. MAYBE WITH A HOWEVER. Okay, the first humans had to come from something else because humans are not infinite, and I am not digging that they come from animals, just like I don’t see animals spawning other, different kinds of animals. Something infinite might have put them here, but I have no idea what that infinite being could possibly be. Frankly, it seems like a cop out. I don’t know how the first human came about, becuase humans as a type of being are born and die. I do not believe that they were birthed of the earth, and I do not believe that some animal–no matter how close to human it is– spawned it. This is the only real way I can make sense of this. Maybe on 5.

6) Humans don’t exist, only awareness exists, and the tangible realm is the only way awareness can understand itself.
No. I know that more than awareness exists because the natural form in which my “awareness” exists, exists. Wait? What?  Yeah.  This “human body” exists, because it is by this human body that my awareness has existence. I cannot remove my existence from this body, so I can safely conclude this body exists. Now, if some future finding alters this evident truth, than I will have to change my understanding; but as of right now, I can safely accept that this body and world exist, if as nothing more than housing for my awareness. They are real, and this realm existed prior to my existence and will exist after my existence. Life and the physical realm are not figments
of my awareness. No on 6

7) Humans do not exist. I do not exist. I am self-knowing being that is only the figment of another being. MAYBE, HOWEVER. This is possible, but since I will never know this to be true without revelation, it is question begging. It says, “Since you can’t PROVE or DISPROVE this, it is very possibly true.” I don’t think I can base my whole worldview around this concept. If it is true, I may never know anyway without direct, fully extranatural revelation, so by virtue of wanting to develop some sort of belief system, I should toss this out. Furthermore, if it is true, it philosphically renders life meaningless UNLESS my choices and actions warrant some sort of outcome on the other entitiy of which I am a figment. If that is the case, and said entitiy has not in any way revealed itself, then I have no way of using it to quanitify value or purpose. Maybe on 7, but we’re gonna dismiss since since it is completely unknowable

Okay, so I am really looking at 5 being the strongest of the bunch.

5) Humans were created by something outside of the natural realm.MAYBE WITH A HOWEVER. Okay, the first humans had to come from something else. Something else might have put them here. Something outside of the world may exist, and that thing had part in humans existing.
Well, this, like possibility 7, appears to be question begging.
HOWEVER, this is significantly different in a variety of ways. This outside entitiy, which I will call a “godform” is very different than the 7 for a umber of reasons. First, the majority of known and studied ancient civilizations point to some sort of
definitive being or existence outside the natural. While modern
scientist attempt to explain away this phenomena as simply man’s attempt to rationalize the unknown, I think the hardwiring of all civilizations throughout history, however different their
understandings may be, as pointing to something “beyond nature” tells us something about the intrinsic understanding of man. Second,  a “godform” has tried to reveal him/herself and give man purpose and some semblance of understanding about his existence. Now, this “god form” can come through writings about the Norse gods, the Greek Pantheon, the Scientologist’s Xenu, Extraterrestrial displacement, or a variety of other, more accepted forms. All of these claim to be the truth, BUT they are ways in which possible “godforms” have attempted to reveal themselves. So, there is a wide possibility of pre-existing “godforms” from which to choose, and one could be a possible explanation for our natural realm. Third, belief in a “god form” does not negate the other possiblities. And I think this is a clincher at a very nebulous, base level.  

At this point of the discussion, no particular “god form” has priority, but the concept of some “god form” has validity in that it leaves a strong possibility open for the other explanations. It simply gives them an acceptable beginning from which understanding can be gained. If a “godform” created earth, that does not mean earth could not have spit man out from the uterus of the volcano. If a godform exists, that does not mean man did not develop from lower beings, it simply implies that lower beings came something, created by a “godform” in some way or another. A “godform” sufficiently answers the question of the infinite which spawned the finite.

Okay, that was alot, and I have established that I have no way to fully NEGATE the options I did not choose. I can’t and do not intend to. None are disproven here. They are simply shown to be possibilties I have not chosen to embrace. Really, all I’ve shown is that I think 5 is a good option. Possibility 5 allows not only for 2 or 3 to be true, but also explains their beginnings should they be so. Furthermore, it explain the finite natural realm on a whole, coming from something else, as all
things do.  I think possiblity 5 is a valid endplace, a reasoned
conclusion. You may feel that the others are more valid conclusions. I think 5 is sound, and I think it helps explain the existence of humanity and this universe.

So, there you have it. that is how I personally have gotten from ME, CJ, to God or, rather, a “godform”. Does that work or did I miss something? Again, at this stage, I am not arguing for any particular “godform” or type of “godform”, I am coming to a nebulous possible conclusion from the beginning, using no religous literature. That conclusion is this: “The
tangible, physical realm we know and study is not all that exists. Something infinite, created that which is finite.”
This leads to alot more questions, which we’ll get in to in part
during this feature. Today, I’ve only established one thing, it make sense for me to get from self-aware existence to some level of creation via a higher power. I can sensibly believe that.  Next time, well look at which higher power we choose.

I was offered some other thoughts from my friends, Phil and Dean:
DEAN (who helped revise and edit the above discuss to a manageable length and scope):  ”I would say that God is evident in Nature. …I don’t know if Nature in and of itself would lead you to know God but I don’t know if that is a fair or legitimate course of logical action.  And for that Reason God made Himself known to us through the Bible, which
is a much better way to know the character of God.
PHIL: The rationale used to arrive at God could be likened in many ways to the rationale used in the science lab or the American courtroom. A scientist begins his work with the observation of a particular phenomenon (in this case, the phenomenon is “existence”).  Based on his observation, he forms a hypothesis (ourhypothesis is that a sovereign Creator is responsible for existence).  He then challenges his hypothesis through a series of examinations to determine if the hypothesis holds true in any imaginable situation (in our case, we need to consider whether every aspect and component of existence could be explained by the work of a sovereign Creator).  The scientist must also
rule out any other possible causes before confirming the hypothesis (e.g., is there any other conceivable, reasonable way existence could have come about?).  If the hypothesis passes the appropriate tests and all other possible explanations have been ruled out, a conclusion is drawn which confirms the hypothesis as scientific law.  People of the modern era are generally very quick to accept these scientific “laws”
with relatively little protest.  The idea that God is responsible for creation, however, is sharply attacked, even though it has endured and withstood much more scrutiny than any law of science.  Additionally, every other proposed explanation for creation has been soundly debunked through scientific rationale.

Another illustration of this rationale can be found in the U.S.
courtroom.  A criminal trial begins with the arrest of a suspect based on “probable cause.”  Technically, this means that there is sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that (a.) a crime has been committed, and (b.) that the suspect is probably responsible for it.  In our situation, the “crime” is the establishment of existence or creation, and a sovereign Creator has been pinned as the most likely culprit.  As part of a trial, evidence is presented by the prosecutor to convince the jury that the suspect is the only one who could have committed the act, and that no other explanation for the act is reasonable.  In our example, a sovereign God is the only one who would
hold the ability to bring the universe into existence, and no other proposed explanation throughout history has proven to be viable.  When a jury convicts a suspect, they are putting their faith in a decision based on analysis of evidence.  This is the same rationale used to assert that God created the universe– faith in a decision based on analysis of evidence.  Many choose not to accept this verdict (though it meets all required criteria), and consequently, other explanations for existence have been “put on trial.”  However, every other “suspect” that has been accused of implementing existence has been vindicated, based on analysis of evidence.

I think what a lot of your “rejected” options reflect is that life and matter cannot be created ex nihilio (from nothing) unless option 5 takes place (supernatural intervention).  There is no other scientifically acceptable way existence could have come about, since any “natural” process would be inconsistent with the first law of thermodynamics (matter/energy is neither created or destroyed), and grosslyinconsistent with reasonable scientific probability methods.  We assert the existence of God not to “explain away the unknown,” but to explain the source of the evidence, based on its agreement with universally
accepted scientific law and mathematics.

Song of the Post: “Who Cares” by Gnarls Barkley, from the album, St. Elsewhere

Grace, Peace, and Thanks, dear readers. Today, I hope you see something amazing, like a frog wearing a cape or a turtle moonwlaking–that’d be awesome!!

Pascal’s Wager (so far as I understand it) has been a proposal used by Christians for the sake converting unbelievers to their camp. Apparently, it’s caused a stir over on Youtbe over the last year or so, and I saw some rather vitriolic videos debunking it this last week. As a Christian, do I think it holds up…about as well as a broken bra (zinger!). Here it is in a breif and probably inadequate nutshell.

PASCAL’S WAGER: Two Choices, Three (Four) Outcomes

Choice 1: God Exists.
Choice 2: God Does Not Exist

Outcome 1: You choose Choice 1, and Choice 1 is true. Therefore, you reap the rewards of belief, whatever they be.
Outcome 2: You choose Choice 1, and Choice 1 is not true. Therefore, your belief resulted in nothing.
Outcome 3: You choose Choice 2, and Choice 2 is true. Therefore, your belief resulted in nothing.
Outcome 4: You choose Choice 2, and Choice 2 is untrue. Therefore, you receive the punishment for unbelief, whatever that is.

I’ve heard some very interesting things about this concept, and I just think that it’s too simple. Frankly, there are too many variables for this to be a valid concept around which to build a vaild faith. It assumes that there are only two choices, but in fact there are many. From which religion do you choose your god? What if Alla is the true God, and the God of Abraham was concocted by the Europeans in order to control peasants, adn you take the wager, and you’re wrong? What if “god” has been distant from earth the entire time and all religions are useless? What if the gods of all religioin are real and they are a council of beings, and any belief in any god counts, then it really doesn’t matter which one you choose, and I choose the god of beer because beer is tasty? You can choose “God Exists” (C1), but that doesn’t necessairly mean that you picked the right one…so really I don’t think this holds up.

On top of that, I don’t really think that the wager is FAIR. The bottom line is that if you’re talking to someone about taking a chance on life, and they do not believe in eternal existence after earth–then you are asking them to sacrafice pleasure that they may want for nothing. Look, if someone sees this life as the only plain of existence, then eternal life does not exist, and there will be no reason for them to sacrifice now for a possible existence or non-existence. It makes no sense. These days, you are essentially saying “Refrain from things society tells you is normal, fun, and liberating–primarily sex outside of marriage and drunkeness.” For most people, this is major sacrficie and an attempt to censor personal freedom, which we in modern society is told something we should never do. So really, from a perspective on relevance, this would be a hard sell to a product of modern America, especially given that it’s just a gamble. A GAMBLE? Hmmm…lots of porno now, or possible eterntinty that I don’t believe in and find irrational…how bout NO!

And on top of this, and I think even more importantly is the idea of basing one’s spiritual view of life on a bet. Essentially, and this is never brought up in Evangelism classes, but Pascal’s wager is just a gamble. If you believe in a god and he turns out to exist, you win. If you beleive and he doesn’t exist and this life is it, you won’t know or care. If you don’t believe and he does exist, then you lose. Isn’t it best to just believe? yeah, that’s called, “a gamble”. And what I find fascinating about this ever being used is that the Bible tells Christians not let gambling take importance in their life, AND WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ETERNAL LIFE???? Using this concept to base a belief on the Christian religion means that your whole belief is grounded in sinful behavior…thus negating repentance from sin…thus nullifying your belief…thus being twaddle. I really have no idea how my peers and fellow believers have found this concept at all Biblical or useful, it spits in the face of New Testament teaching like a Saducee on the Sabbath. It’s Balderdash.

This is the reason that I have not attempted to use Pascal’s wager as a means of Christian Apologetics or “reasoning”. Overall, I think Pascall’s wager does not warrant TRUE belief, just defacto-belief out of fear or a desire to be righteous–belief which is actually just a gamble–a gamble on the most important aspect of one’s personhood–a type of gamble which the Bible warns against. Even without throwing the gambling-as-sin issue into the mix, defacto-belief is practially indifference. If the Christian faith is about sancitification, loving God, and having relationship with him, than the wager really fails to even touch the surface of it. It’s as worthless as it is archaic (how you like that, there’s a phrase for the ages!). Atheists and agnostics are tired of this one, and I think we should file it under the, “Maybe this isn’t the best tool” category. Or maybe that’s just me…

Back in high school, when is a bit of a zealot, I remember how frustrated I would get when people didn’t think the way I did–particularly something I felt was as obvious as the existence of God. I would get red in the face trying to hold religion up to the scrutiny of my peers, and I will be the first to admit that this outlook was probably THE WORST response I could have had. I think of Youtubers posting videos and comments why they believe Christianity, and they sound unreasonable and use caps like they’re typing for a drill sargeant. I now understand the anti-religious sentiments I see on the net.

What’s interesting and encouraging to me, however, is the change I have seen in my own heart. I find my heart breaks for people spewing hate speech at my religion and God–a major change in outlook from being filled with furstration and fury. I don’t “feel sorry for them” so-to-speak; but I am sorry that the church as a whole and Christians individually have led people to feel they need to express themselves with such angry and ferocious speech.

I don’t know what this revelation means per se. Maybe the Lord is preparing me for something down the line. Maybe he just wanted me to put up this post. it’s hard to know much of the time, but I think this attitude is more reflective of Christ than returning rage-for -rage and anger-for-anger.

Now to work on those other 464,327,442 issues of sinfulness in my heart and soul.

SONG OF THE POST: “With Hope” by Steven Curtis Chapman, from the album Speechless

Grace and Peace to each of you. This up-and-coming weekend, may you find time to relax and replenish yourself. I hope for your best—for pleasure, fun, and memory-making interaction. Life is an awesome gift, enjoy it!

For believers and non-believers alike, I think the following video will be extremely interesting. To those who are Christians, this is an excellent study in how dangerous misinterpretation or unholistic study can create horrifically un-Christlike beliefs and very damaging Theology. It should also serve as a testament to why we need to seek Christ through study and humble prayer, not just read the Bible and take every passage at face value. To my Atheist or Agnostic readers, this is a very human look at supposed “monsters” who use religion, “divine authority”, and “god” in order to propogate their own hate-filled belief system. The documentary shows who these unbelievably inhumane persons are beyond their media coverage; and it is a fascinating look at psycology and faith. It’s interesting to see how not only a person’s convictions can lead to irrationally cruel behavior but also affect and damage their children.

I just want to offer one point of clarification before you jump over to the vid. I don’t know the hearts of the Westboro Baptist Church members, but I can say their message and teachings are not at all representative of Jesus Christ, whom Christians call Lord. This group is a fringe sect of the Christian religion but they do not represent its fundamental principles or teachings.

So, what is this video? It’s an hour-long BBC documentary hosted by Louis Thoreuax, a very entertaining and funny British journalist, as he explores the values and lifestyle of the Westboro Baptist Church–a church in the United States of about 100 members dedicated to a “Christian” message of God’s wrath pouring out on America for her “wicked” ways. I haven’t been to their website, www.godhatesfags.com; but I have given alot of time to seeing their videos on youtube and appearances on Fox News. Essentially, the group has received attention for their blind hatred of not only the United States but the sinners who live there, from practicing homosexuals to religious folks that tolerate such behavior. Westboro’s members take signs and placards that read “God Hates Fags” and “You Eat Your Children” to funerals of dead U.S. Soldiers and murder victims. They interpret the hatred returned to them as a verification from God that they are doing the right thing and being hated by a wicked world. They speak very openly about their hope for the life to come, and they are incredibly passionate about their faith. This is who they are on and off the street corners…This is the Westboro Baptist Church.

Check it out HERE

Grace, Peace, and Thanks to you. I hope today finds you well and in good spirits. If you’re not, I recommend having a “spirit”. Sometimes a little alcohol goes a long way toward relaxing. Just don’t drive after.

Earlier in the week, I mentioned that some of the primary participants in the modern atheist movement are a bit smug and arrogant about their beliefs. Well, I’ve run into a problem of late. Christianity, by virtue of its tenants, appears to also be an arrogant belief system. No. Seriously. It is. Think on the words of Christ, “No one comes to the Father But Through me” (somewhere in the New Testament) and consider his constant berating of the Pharisees. He punked them like crazy. Paul is always like that too. It’s our way, and our way only. That’s pretty elitist, huh? Oh, and none of the founding fathers are apologetic either.

As a result of this no-punches-pulled message, Christians communicate the religion with a certain amount of smugness (at least, as much as the atheists I cited earlier in the week). I’ve heard alot of “Well, the Bible says it, so accept it, and don’t argue becuase we’re right cause God’s right” and so-on-and-so-forth–particuarly from those studying to get to the pulpit. Nothing puts off seekers (that is, people looking for spiritual truth) than hearing someone tell them to shut-up and accept something cause this author or that exegetical commentary said so. That type of outreach gets the twin gong award from the stage. But, hey, it’s been the attitude from the beginning, right?

Well, maybe. Maybe not. One has to remember that when Jesus came out and lit up the Pharisees, he was responding to their subtle and underhanded attempts to trick him. They were trying to get him to stumble over his own message, and he continually showed them to be the fools that they were. They weren’t actually seekers; they had made their decisision and were just being jerks. So, his apparent or perceived smugness when dealing with them had more to do with their underhanded attempts than their curiosity. Also, Jesus is Jesus. He can get away with saying things his believers couldn’t–stuff like, “I am the way…” since he was. If he was the only way, then he had the right to make that clear to his listeners. As for Paul, one has to remember the context from which his epistles come. Paul was writing as a mentor to believers in all of his books. The epistles are for the churches of the anceint times, not for people questioning the faith or seeking it. The works of Paul are reiterations of things Pual has already tried to teach and communicate, so he comes with frustration and superiority because they are neglecting the teachings he already brought to them. Just something to think about.

Now, as for the arrogance of the relgious teachings of Christ himself, I am actually going to say something really unpopular. Christ’s teachings could not make Christianity more accessible and easy for ALL to believe. One problem I have with many religions is that repentance and belief are not enough. Many of the reglions make a strong point of action-based tenants in their fundamental philospohies. Frankly, for Christianity, the eliteness of “The saved” is solely determined by those who choose it. Let me try to word that better. Christianity as a belief system is available to all. In fact, the Bible speaks of believers having faith as children, and from the scriptures we see that Christ was beloved by children that believed in him. children. The mentally inept and uneducated could accept Christ. They simply had to choose it. For me, this creates a huge problem with science becoming the ultimate and definitive explanation for all things, for at its core, it is dependant on human understanding for “enlightnement”. Scientific Humanism really neglects the inclusion of the mentally deficient, the unintelligent, or the undeveloped in its available set of “believers”. I would say this an arrogant outlook because it essentially says, “those who know the truth are those who know and understand the sciences and our place in them are the truly enlightened ones who are living right. Everyone else is holding to archaic, nonrational belief systems and is an idiot.” For me, that’s a problem. But I digress.

The real issue for this article is the arrogance of Christianity is that Jesus says he is “THE ONLY WAY” to heaven or rather, salvation from redemption. Well, I have expressed several times that, from my perspective, sin and death is the status quo for human beings and life in general. I even think atheists and agnostics would agree with me that the NATURAL state of things is that we are born and we are headed for death. It may be a few decades before we get there, but death is ultimate destination, whether or not there is something beyond, death is the inevitable end for human life. As far as I’m concerned, Christ just happened to offer the cure, and that’s not really as arrogant as it is compassionate. Now, this opens up questions like “then why does God let other religions exist?” or “Why didn’t he give us proof of his existence?” And those are both valid questions, ones worth engaging further in upcoming articles. BUT for the sake of this article, from my understanding, even from a naturalist viewpoint, the fact that Christ offers anything good beyond death is an act of goodness, not arrogance. To carry this thought further, when doctors discover or engineer a vaccine against a disease, people don’t say, “What an arrogant jerk that he thinks his vaccine is the only one, let’s go develop our own.” They accept it as a gift; and I think that maybe–imperfectly, yes, but maybe–this same principle can be transferred to Christianity. But that’s just me, and I am sure alot of people will think I’m a moron, and that’s fine. That’s why I can’t be a humanist.

Grace, Peace, and Thanks, to each of you. Today, I invite you to watch the end of The Two Towers, when a bunch of Ents punt-kick trolls and destroy a wizard’s ore mine. Then be thankful Ents aren’t real, cause they’d be rocking us in the same fashion–with punt-kicks. And I don’t know about you, but being punt-kicked by a tree is one of the last things I want done to me.

Since I was a teenager, I’ve always thought that the topics of or related to the environment were worthless. “The Planet’s fine.” I’d say to myself. I’d throw out the term, “Treehugger” as an insult and stand by the fact that scientific processes tend be cyclical and the earth will recover from whatever we do to it. Then I read the Bible (or rather, heard a sermon and then looked into the Bible) and my whole outlook changed. Conviction can be a real pain in the booty. I’m not necessiarily gonna start riding a bike everywhere or celebrating Arbor Day, but my outlook on this topic has developed, and I know I need to be a bit proactive (so, maybe I will be celebrating Arbor Day). Anyway, I thought I’d share this with all of you.

For Christians like myself, earth is (or should be) a big deal. If I truly believe that God created the earth (regardless of how or when), and we believe that we are here by his divine action, then the earth could be likened to a house God built for us. Yes, we believe we’ll live eternal life elsewere and earth itself is going to be destroyed, BUT we’re still here NOW and this IS God’s creation for us NOW. This fact alone should call us to view earth as not just “earth” but rather more specifically as the environment which God built for us to enjoy while we are introduced to him and continue to grow in our relationship with him.

I’ve begun to think on this and, as I said, liken the earth to a house that God built for us. A shelter from the cold, unlivable environs of space. I’ve had to ask myself, “How am I treating the house?” and “How SHOULD I treat the house?” Now, when this concept first came to my attention, I took a step back from it; and I thought about how I would treat a home built by another person for me. I’d take care of it, but I’d make changes where I felt necessary. Put up shelves here, maybe paint over this wall to match my furniture. I’d keep things the same for the most part. I’d keep it clean, and I would thank them for it each time I saw them. I’d clean up any messes I made.

Okay, but God’s more than a random, equal co-existing peer, so let me think how I would treat a house built for me by a king. If the King of the earth built me a house, how would I treat it. Probably like it was HIS house, and it was on-loan to me. It’s interesting that the authority of the king significantly alters my outlook on the house. When I view “the house” as a gift given to me by someone high above me, someone who had no reason to give it to me and blessed me greater than I could have imagined, it changes everything. Now, I see the house as something to be held in the greatest respect, for I relate it to the true owner and creator of it (the king) and I see just how blessed I am to have it.

So, what am I doing with this outlook? Well, not much. I’ve taken one initial step, and I think it will be the first of a few. last week, after my wife and I through a party wherein we threw away dozens of soda cans, beer bottles, and water bottles, I spoke with my wife about recycling as a new feature of our lifestyle. It’s a very, very small step; but it is a step in the right direction, I think. Frankly, I’m unsure of what I can do further initally. Our cosumer society is so built upon disposal of wanted materials, regardless of effect on the earth, that I don’t know what else we’ll be able to do without a radical alteration to our lives. Anyone with ideas, please let me know.

Oh, and a quick addendum. Please, Please, please, please, please, please–and I typed all those, not copied one and pasted it, so you know I mean business–please, do not feel like I am preaching to you or demanding that each of you recycle in order to be right with God. That’s not the meaning of this at all. This is a lifestyle change to which I feel called, and as leader of my household, have put into play in our home; but if you do not recycle or do not care for our environment, I think no less of you or find you guillty of some sort of identifiable sin. I am just speaking my piece. If it moves you to take a similar step–that’s great. If you think I’m a ludicrous pissant idiot, then get in line and post a comment.

SONGS OF THE POST: “Earth Song” by Michael Jackson from HIStory Part 2, and “Share the Land” by The Guess Who from the album of the same name.

Grace and Peace to you all. Based on your arrival at this site, I can assume you are using the internet for more than pornography. For that, I applaud you.

So last Friday, I was doing my daily check-in on the sites I’m linking to, and I realized that on Jason’s Blog, some new links were up, one of which was to Skeptic magazine, a publication dedicated to scientifically debunking the myths of our time and the archaic belief systems of primitive cultures. Yes, Christianity is incuded in that–but so is Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, so I won’t take it too personally. After looking at a few offerings from the Skeptic web site, I searched for “Michael Shermer” (creator and editor of the mag) on Youtube and found a few vids. This then led me to coming across the name of Richard Dawkins, a staunch scientist believing God could not exist. After viewing several of his vids, I then found some videos with random posters throwing hatred at Christianity, with some responses from so-called Christians offering vitriolic diatribes at damnation and hellfire. On top of this I came across a few interesting pieces from propaganda reagarding Creationism as well as a few arguments against paranormal or supernatural experiences of any kind. It was a full day.

I gotta say, there’s a wealth of information I don’t have; and I found much of the discussion to be incredibly engaging, even if I disagree with it for the most part. I’m actaully making that an aspect of my weekly surfing rotation, hoping to find more various views of the world and our existence–there’s alot of them. Anyway, I was struck with one unanimously consistent aspect of all the anti-religous speakers I found. This is not to say they are bad or even rude or discourteous people, but I found this part of their delivery and communication to be very interesting. There was a great deal of arrogance in the tone and demeanor of each of the speakers. Whether it was a well-educated author, random Youtuber, or scientist trying to de-bunk old religious ideas about science, each of them really held an aire of pride in themselves and their knowledge. I don’t mean the “I am very smart” style of arrogance but rather an “I am smarter than you, and I always will be; and your faith makes your opinion irrelevant” style of arrogance. Now, some may agree with that feeling of superiority, and that’s fine; but to me it was highly off-putting–particularly from a scientific or Humanitarian outlook. I would assume that sceintists would be much more open to possibilities beyond their sphere of knowledge, not so dismissive. I would assume that questions would arise, such as “What is it about spirituality as an aspectof personhood that is so inherent in cultural civilization?”; “What in the brain fuels this?”; and most importantly, “WHY does that fueled ’spiritual belief’ trump so many ‘obvious’ facts about the nature of the world?” Maybe it’s just me, but I found the individuals I ran into to be rather smug.

Then I took a personal inventory, as I oftentimes do, and I realized something. Christians are pretty much the same. In fact, Christianity is arguably the most elitist and smug of all religions, for it is the belief system that says, “It’s our way or the highway, and by the way, the highway takes you to eternal damnation.” Yeah, that’s arrogance. I won’t try to play that off. In fact, that’ll be an issue I write about to some extent in the upcoming weeks. I haven’t decided how to format the issue, but I think it’s an important one to address-particuarly since I saw it in others and said, “What a turn-off, that they think they are so much better than me simply becuase I hold a belief—oh, wait, that’s what I do, too. Dang I hate it when that happens–thinking someone else is doing something wrong only to realize I do the same thing. This sucks…. I want to go watch Aqua Teens, particularly episodes with the Mooninites or Plutonians. ‘Universal Remonster’ sounds pretty good.” I actually didn’t watch “Universal Remonster”, but I did watch the first episode with the Mooninites. I felt better, and I will address this “Christian Arrogance” issue in the coming weeks.

Also, Special Thanks to Jason for his recent encouraging e-mail about the “Faith vs” articles.

SONG OF THE POST: “Ataraxia” by Team Sleep, from the Album of the same name. It doesn’t really have relevance to the post, but I just got this album, and I enjoy this song.

Grace, peace, thanks, and all manner of blessing upon each and every one of you for venturing here today. May your paths be adventurous yet well guarded and secure as you seek all of your dreams and goals in this world. To each and every one of you reading, I hope you get all you want in life.

Jeremiah 29: 11, from the NIV Bible, reads “‘For I know the plans I have for you’ declares the Lord ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future,’” The quoted word of the Lord continues after that, but for many people, the message ends there. Most people read that verse, feel good, and see no point in going further. For this discussion, I will. Verses 12-14 read, “‘Then you will call upon me and come and pary to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,’ declares the Lord “and I will bring you back from captivity . I will gather you from the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”

Now, I don’t have the Hebrew text or the histories of Jospehus in front of me, but the general theme of “Jeremiah” is that God sent a prophet, Jeremiah, to tell the Lord’s people to turn from their evil ways, lest they be delivered into the hands of their enemies and placed in captivity. At face value, the above versus were intended for the Lord’s people, from God, through Jeremiah. While verse 11 offers a very encouraging message of hope, the verses which proceed it give a bit more contextualization and, really, stipulations for “the plans” to be completed. Verse 11, in and of itself, is not even a complete sentence, but a fragment of a larger declaration by God– and, frankly, to hold onto it alone as a source of encouragement and hope, in essence, interrupts God mid-thought for the benefit of one’s own need to FEEL a particular way. Okay, now, that I’ve given a very brief and inadequate overview of the text, I will get to the real issue at hand.

The issue is this: Jeremiah 29:11, this fragment of a much larger declaration, this message intended for Israel, is perhaps THE most-widely held verse of Christian people during times of pain, trial, and tribulation. Believers will say, “I can deal with the death of so-and-so, becuase like Jer. 29:11 says, God has a plan for my life, and this is a part of it.” They will proclaim, “It’s okay that I lost my job, for God has plan for my life, like he says in Jer. 29:11.” I have heard numbers of individuals, many of whom did not know one another or receive similar Christian education claim this as their “life verse”. This is a verse, that when taken as its own message, without context, helps people through the hardest of times, the most difficult or circumstances, the harshest blows life has dealt.

We’ve established from my brief and inadequate overview that, even at face value, this verse, taken alone, is NOT the full declaration of God, and that it IS contextually meant for Isreal–God’s People–as a WHOLE PEOPLE GROUP. Now, above, I’ve presented the fact that some hold to this verse alone as A declaration from God, and hold to it, WITHOUT CONTEXT. Okay, so here’s the question. What is the best response to these believers?

Yes, that’s what this article is about. It’s not a study further into the text, not an exegesis. It’s not a defense for WHY this verse is still applicable to the church today. It’s not even an exploration of why this verse brings people hope. Right here, right now, I am not concerned with exegesis; I am not trying to discover its applicatoins today; I’m not worried about why people find hope in it as I have established that they do. My concern circumvents all these and gets to a different point of interest, How should one respond to the people that hold to this verse for hope if one believes, based on even a face value reading, that this verse is part of a larger, whole, with a possibly different or, at least, more complicated meaning.

Well, I am gonna be frank about my opinion, and it has bound to piss off any scholars reading. I think the BEST (not only, but best) response, is to encourage the individual, affirming the truth of the verse without disparaging their faith itself. I know, that’s kind of complicated, so I’ll explain. If a person brings up this verse as their “life verse”, or it is getting them through something, let them find comfort in THE TRUTH of the verse. Tell them, “Yes, God knows his people, and for his people, he has a plan.” That much is definitively accurate from even our most surface reading of the verses; and Christians, God’s current people, should find great solace and peace in that. There is nothing wrong there. Should you try to educate them–maybe tell them to read the verses before-and-after and encourage them to seek God for discernment and guidance?? Absolutely, you should. BUT. BUT. BUT. BUT. If a person is vulnerable with you about their faith, their most deep convictions regarding their very soul, and they use this verse to help anchor that, don’t take that from them–at least not like a band-aid. Love the person and direct them toward further truth.

I explain this for a very important purpose. KNOWLEDGE is not BETTER than FAITH, when it comes Christianity. That is the reason that children and scholars can both repent and hold to belief in Christ. It is the faith. Knowledge enhances the faith, it affirms it, it strengthens it, and helps the believer understand the source of it better. But make no mistake, for Christians, faith is much, much more important than knowledge. Knowledge is the icing on your cake.

That being said, if you are a scholar of the word (to any degree), and you attempt to throw your KNOWLEDGE at someone, fully knowing it could damage or destroy their FAITH, particularly in a time of crisis or tribulation, then you are a jerk, and I hope I meet you so I can punch you in your face. Yeah, I’m that serious about it. I went to a Christian University, and I cannot tell you the number of times that so-called “Christian Scholars” saw fit to use any disagreement as a pulpit from which they could throw around knowledge in order to show their superiority over others. Guess what, we’re all sinners in need of grace, and whether you are Franky the Five-year-old or Sammy the sevetny-year-old-with-three-doctorates-and-four-studiey-Bibles-credited-to-your-name, in the end, it’s your reptnace from sin and faith in Christ that save you. So, knowedlge doesn’t make you a better Christian than the uneducated 8 year-old praying for his mommy to be healed from cancer. That being said, love people, strengthen their faith and your own, encourage them to love God and love him yourself–don’t use your scholarship as a means to prove YOU ARE smart and right, and they are weak and wrong. Use your knowledge for the building of the saints, for the loving renewal of their faith in a God muhc bigger than you.

I retierate this point becuase I am as guilty as anyone of the reprehensible “I-know-more-than-you” behavior. But I have hurt others more than helped with this bevhavior, and I cannot see how it could have glorified God, so I am saying this to myself as well. If someone holds to a verse, ignorant of its deeper or grander, meaning, love the person, validate and affirm the truth they know, then build upon it. Don’t piss in their cereal and then tell them to like it. Love them, lead them, walk alongside them–even if your studies have led to you an arguably deeper and more full meaning. I say, “arguably” because, in all honesty, the individuals I know who have held to Jer. 29:11 for hope have a much deeper meaning to it than those who view it as just another declaration by God to Isreal, solely about his plans for her, only meant for her people. Now, there’s something to think about.