I have often heard people (even Christians) poke fun at various religious beliefs which seem to be especially outrageous. Reincarnation (Hinduism), the third coming of Christ (Unificationism), virgins awaiting the newcomer to heaven (Islam), Xenu and evil extra-terrestrials (Scientology). And sure, like any religion with a supernatural element, any objective, unfamiliar assessment (which may well not exist) of it will lead one to scratch their head and think how silly it sounds.

But while most Americans don’t seem to bat an eye at the basic concepts of Christianity, I submit that Christianity would be, in fact, the craziest.

When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God’s son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed – whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions – is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross — how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?

from Nietzsche’s Human, all too Human

“Sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god.” This is the cornerstone of Christianity’s would-be madness. Though none of us bats an eye, or even wonders at it.

If the statement “It’s so crazy, it must be true”, were ever true, it would be so of Christianity. In this way, Christianity is completely unique among world religions. Of course, it has its similarities as well. The core principles are absolutely all its own and unlike anything else.

Man would sin against God and lose all hope in himself for reconciliation, but in the face of that, God himself would become the reconciliation for man.

In the climate of the many world religions out there, For me, and many others, the uniqueness and, in a sense, the absurdness of Christianity adds a drop into the bucket of evidence which helps to strengthen my faith. Ironically, quite the opposite of Nietzsche.

All my life growing up a book sat on my parent’s shelf called The Story of Philosophy. It’s written by Will Durant. I know nothing else about this book besides that. Two days ago, a friend noticed the book and pulled it off the shelf.

I haven’t read this book, except for the dedication. It’s honest, insightful and beautiful. I thought it worth sharing.

To My Wife…

Grow strong, my comrade.. that you may stand
Unshaken when I fall; that I may know
The shattered fragments of my song will come
At last to finer melody in you;
That I may tell my heart that you begin
Where passing I leave off, and fathom more.

Maybe one day I’ll read the whole book. Maybe one day.

By now, most people know that I don’t care too much about the convention of ‘bad words’. Most notably the four big ones. I thought about whether or not to list them, but I decided it probably just wasn’t really necessary. We all, for the most part, know what I’m talking about.

The church, or people who’ve been brought up with traditional church-ish values usually turn their noses up to these words. They’re offended by them and often will even instruct others not to use them because it’s ‘wrong’. Of course, biblically, that’s a pretty hard made case—and even when it is made it’s flimsy at best. But that’s not what I’m getting at today.

It’s actually something that I think is a much bigger deal. Many people in my geographic church community have an adverse reaction to the traditional set of ‘bad’ words. Yet there are other words that are used with a level of regularity that could probably make a sailor blush.

I’m talking specifically about two words: ‘Retarded’ and ‘Gay’.

These words have worked their way so well into regular conversation that the original meaning has altogether vanished from the speaker’s mind. But in the ears of people close to those issues, there stands massive potential for pointless, albeit perhaps subtle division.

Consider these two statements:

“That movie was so fucking shitty.”

Were you offended by that? If so, how come? It’s most likely not because the word ‘fucking’ makes you think of the ‘offensive’ act of sexual intercourse. And it probably doesn’t have anything to do with fecal matter. More than likely, it’s social convention. Now consider this one.

“that movie was so retarded.”

Now, how about that one? Were you offended by that? Probably not. But if you were, there’s a good chance that someone you know or are close to suffered from some serious set of difficult mental disabilities.

To try and really drive the point home, lets try a quick hypothetical:

“That movie was worse that 9/11.”

Get the idea?

So, my question is for the church. Why such reaction over ‘foul’ language? They’re words with virtually no offensive meaning in and of themselves. Whatever offense people experience is probably simply because they were taught to take offense.

Meanwhile, no one bats an eye as new words are adopted that really do have an intrinsic offensive nature to them, to someone. Someone I’m sure the church would someday like to preach the Gospel to.

If a Christian feels strongly that he shouldn’t ever use ‘foul’ language. I respect that and he should do it. But only pending a personal ban on the more popularly accepted, significantly more offensive substitutes. Anything less lacks everything resembling logic.

I’ve been thinking over this verse for a couple of days now. I’m not sure why, I’ve probably read it a hundred times. I guess it’s just resting on me with some fresh reflection. James 1:12:

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

Although it’s phrased funny, the verse is in perfect sync with the rest of James’ message, and the whole bible for that matter.

James stresses that faith and works are not mutually exclusive elements, of which a Christian may hold one or the other. Rather, they are two ends of the same thing, which every true Christian will exhibit, if in fact they are true.

What’s so weird about this verse is that it would seem to reverse that message. Saying ‘remain steadfast so that you’ll receive the crown of life’. But James continues, explaining that the ‘crown of life’ is something that has been promised to those who love God.

How could the ‘crown of life’ be a reward for fulfilled duty and promised to those with earnest love for God? Simple, I suppose: Steadfastness is not the condition. Love is the condition for which the promise is given, while steadfastness is the symptom of that love.

In Have you ever read Romans 14:13? It goes like this:

“Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother”

I think I hear this verse (and others like it) way too often. It’s usually used as kind of a blanket verse. A trump card to avoid tense situations. Billy is drinking a beer and Betty thinks it’s wrong. Rather than Billy and Betty having to deal with the tension of holding differing convictions, it’s argued that Billy shouldn’t drink beer because it’s causing Betty to ‘stumble’.

Is it? Or is her sense of right and wrong taking offense at Billy’s differing opinion? They’re not the same thing.

Admittedly, this is not a topic that I have thoroughly thought through. There are still quite a few questions and points of contention in my mind over it. But the overarching issue, I think, is relatively clear.

Consider the verse, Proverbs 27:17:

Iron sharpens iron,
and one man sharpens another.

Is it possible for iron to sharpen iron without friction? No, of course not. Friction is more or less why iron can sharpen iron. Likewise, I can’t think of too many times that a brother refined me apart from my own convictions rubbing against theirs. For us to benefit from one another as believers, our sense of right and wrong must be offended some times.

In Romans 14, Paul does not want to cause a brother to stumble by eating meat. After all, many of his Jewish brothers would be violating their conscience by eating meat. But eventually, they did eat meat. There are very few Christians today who refrain from eating meat for biblical reasons. How’d this happen? At some point someone’s convictions must have been offended causing them to reconsider their resolves, ultimately allowing them to change their views and eat meat with a clean conscience.

In the situation with Billy and Betty, Billy shouldn’t entice Betty to drink beer, nor should he drink beer if Betty is feeling the urge to do so—thus violating her conscience. However, I don’t think Billy has much obligation to Betty’s preferences beyond that.

If we allow the definitions of ‘stumbling block’ and ‘offended’ and ‘conscience’ to be convoluted, then we’ll be restricted from just about everything. There aren’t many topics that Christians unanimously agree on and how specifically to live this life is far far far from being on that list. That’s okay. But it means that topics like this one shouldn’t be carelessly understood and hidden behind.

It usually results in more irritated conflict and threatens to stunt our spiritual and relational growth.

Romans 9:19-24:

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

It is interesting how much time people will spend arguing with God’s justice over people lives, rather than attempting to come to terms with what it actually says.

Just reminded me of the Shai Linne song I posted about some months ago, In Adam All Die. There’s a verse that goes like this:

Adam’s guilt was imputed to his descendents
Global calamity
Major debt, pain, regret, the reign of death- total depravity
And yes, I’m aware that cats were not there
Which opens the door to charges of “that’s not fair”
But God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness
Besides, when it comes to God’s glory, most could care less
We can’t measure how we chase sand treasures
And banned pleasures- similar to our ancestors
So instead of saying if you were there what you would do
Seek your refuge in Adam number two

You can listen to the song here.

In Edwin Palmer’s the Five Points of Calvinism, he writes the following on the notion of “free will”:

“And just because a man is free, man is a slave. Just because man does what he wants to do, man has no free will (which is different from saying that he is free); that is, man is totally unable to choose equally as well between the good and the bad. A compulsive drinker—an alcoholic—is not free. Technically he has the external choice of drinking or not drinking. But really there is only one thing he can do. He can no more stop drinking than he can stop breathing. He has to drink. He is a slave to alcohol. And yet he is free. He does exactly what he wants to do. Nobody is compelling him to drink.”

This proves to be an apt explanation as to why the term “free will” is a mythical idea. It’s not that man isn’t “free”. He is free to do as he pleases. But his will places him in bondage to himself. He makes no unbiased decisions in reference to good and bad. In fact, he makes only the most biased decisions toward bad.

The term “free will” implies that a person is able to make moral choices without bias of will. If this were not so, what is the higher decision making power in a person’s mind that governs the will? There is none. It stops at the will. We have to act according to our will. Whether it be our direct will, “I want that piece of cake, so I will eat it”. Or, our indirect will, “Even though I want to eat a piece of cake, I want to fit into my jeans more, so I will not eat the piece of cake.”

No matter how we look at it, we must act according to our will. Therefore, for our will to be “free”, it must not have a moral bias. But as any person aware of their sin knows, it is definitely biased.

Paul eludes to this in Romans chapter 6; more specifically verse 19:

“you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.”

According to Paul, the notion of a truly “free will” is unheard of. It’s not that people are bound to do evil by some force outside of them, but the very will people claim is free is in fact what keeps them in bondage. And, since there cannot be a higher decision making power in the person’s mind, then the will itself will remain not free until something or someone frees it.

Which Paul gets to to only two verses later in Romans 6:22:

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.”

The will is not free. It is in bondage to itself.