As there was quite a snow storm yesterday, many of the churches in the area canceled church. My RD, being the wonderful lady that she is, arranged for us to have church in the lobby this morning. We sang some Christmas Carols and then sat down to listen to a sermon from a pastor at MarsHill. The pastor was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven.
He was talking about how instead of the kingdom of God coming, maybe it is already here inside us. An alarm went off in my head, telling me to be careful how I interpreted this. If taken one way it could be seen as very secular humanistic. We are good, but we can be better, build a Utopia. But then I thought about C.S. Lewis’s idea in The Great Divorce. We are in Hell only if we choose to go back there…but if we keep going we get further and further toward what Christ has for us.
The preacher was talking about how Christ is here in us, the Kingdom of God is here, and we are the Kingdom of God to each other. We serve each other and we find joy in how God teaches us, blesses us and uses us to bless others. And if we keep serving we are coming closer and closer to the Kingdom of Heaven.
In my theology class we talked about how several things about the Rapture theory were confused as the words were misinterpreted. The word taken (as in one will be taken, one will be left) should be seen in this way: the word taken was not a happy word for the Jewish people, who mourned when they were taken from the Promised Land that God had given them into exile. Maybe instead of the believers being taken, those who didn’t believe will be taken. Another word that was misinterpreted is “meet.” Instead of meeting God in the air and going to Heaven, the word meet in this passage means to meet Christ as a victorious conqueror and welcome him into the city. Welcome him home. This of course would be the new Earth.
I am not sure what I really think of all this. I grew up believing the rapture and this is something we just recently studied in Theology so I haven’t really come to terms with what I believe yet, but it really interested me. Lewis thinks that once we have decided to not turn back we are on a constant journey in the Kingdom of Heaven, always drawing closer and closer to our Lord. Lewis believes very much that the Christian faith is a journey.
If we are already in the Kingdom of Heaven we could choose to just stay put, be lazy, not care for the other believers, not care for the unbelievers…but then wouldn’t even living in the Kingdom of Heaven be like a Hell? Maybe Hell is just staying put being content with where you are? Not thinking of others what so ever.
Now here is another idea. If you believe in Predestination think about what you believe that means. We are hand picked to go to Heaven? I don’t think so. We are picked to do a job. It’s part of a journey. To be chosen to be in the Kingdom of Heaven is to be sent on a mission. God hands us the task and we go off to carry it out to the best of our abilities. He blessed Abraham so that his descendants could be a blessing to all nations. We are called to live in the Kingdom of God and to accomplish the tasks God has given us to continue to bring the Kingdom of God to others. All this language is about a mission and a journey.
I am sorry these thoughts are not well scripted. They are all bouncing around in my head right now and I am trying to make sense of them. But I wanted to share them…maybe someone will have time to read the blog and let me know what they think. But we will see. In the mean time, I am going to keep pondering this.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Communication
Andrew brought up some interesting questions in his recent blogs. The paragraph that particularly caught by attention was this:
I think this is, at its foundation, correct. That is to say, the problem is our failure to perceive the existence of God(s) and/or to understand what he (they) want for us and from us. There is a lack of or breakdown in communication.
But I can't be so quick to blame humanity.
When it comes to communication between people, it would be preposterous to assert that a five-year-old is at fault for not understanding an astrophysicist's explanation for the motions of the celestial bodies in scientific jargon. The responsiblility lies with the astrophysicist to clarify, one could even say translate, the scientific language into something more comprehensible to the five-year-old.
Every good speaker and writer recognizes this. Know your audience. Use language and illustrations they can grasp.
How can an omniscient, omnipotent being not be "smart" enough to grasp what our partially-evolved primate brains can? I think he/she/it needs a little more credit.
I think Orual and the Fox are right to question the existence and actions of the gods until they have some evidence. Skepticism is in many ways the guardian of Truth. It has been said that the truth defends itself. But what if a "truth" we hold doesn't stand up under scrutiny?
Andrew asked a question: "How can God talk to us until we understand his language?"
I find myself asking a different question: "Why doesn't God speak to us in a language we actually understand?"
When it comes to miss-communication between an all-powerful, all-knowing being and finite, imperfect creatures, how is it intellectually honest or morally justifiable to place the blame on the obviously inferior party?
For some reason, throwing out the question, throwing up my hands and chanting "God is mystery" just doesn't do it for me like it used to.
"Yes, communication is the problem, but we shouldn't see it as God falling short to talk to us, but ourselves--humanity, being unable to understand what God is saying. This would only make sense, I suppose. After all, we are fallen from perfection. God is unable to reveal his majesty through fallible means of human communication. Mankind is too simple to understand God's celestial tongue."
I think this is, at its foundation, correct. That is to say, the problem is our failure to perceive the existence of God(s) and/or to understand what he (they) want for us and from us. There is a lack of or breakdown in communication.
But I can't be so quick to blame humanity.
When it comes to communication between people, it would be preposterous to assert that a five-year-old is at fault for not understanding an astrophysicist's explanation for the motions of the celestial bodies in scientific jargon. The responsiblility lies with the astrophysicist to clarify, one could even say translate, the scientific language into something more comprehensible to the five-year-old.
Every good speaker and writer recognizes this. Know your audience. Use language and illustrations they can grasp.
How can an omniscient, omnipotent being not be "smart" enough to grasp what our partially-evolved primate brains can? I think he/she/it needs a little more credit.
I think Orual and the Fox are right to question the existence and actions of the gods until they have some evidence. Skepticism is in many ways the guardian of Truth. It has been said that the truth defends itself. But what if a "truth" we hold doesn't stand up under scrutiny?
Andrew asked a question: "How can God talk to us until we understand his language?"
I find myself asking a different question: "Why doesn't God speak to us in a language we actually understand?"
When it comes to miss-communication between an all-powerful, all-knowing being and finite, imperfect creatures, how is it intellectually honest or morally justifiable to place the blame on the obviously inferior party?
For some reason, throwing out the question, throwing up my hands and chanting "God is mystery" just doesn't do it for me like it used to.
More on the complications of Time
In the last few chapters of The Great Divorce, Lewis discuses Time in relation to us as well as Heaven and God. On Earth, we can only experience what is happening as it does. The past is gone and the future is a mystery. As Lewis describes the gigantic beings around the chess board the narrator sees at the end of the book. He suggests that the chess pieces are but representatives of our eternal souls as they appear and are perceived in this world, and that the giants are the whole, eternal culmination of those souls, without the hindrance of Time. MacDonald notes that our souls are meant to be seen without “the lens of time”, and that man can only view such a small segment of his existence at one time because he could not bear to view the entirety of every decision, action, and attribute of his life at the same time.
But is this how God views our existence and the handicap we call time? Does God really dictate everything that happens in the world, or does he just know exactly what will take place because he resides outside of time? In his 27th letter, Scretape advises that God “does not foresee the humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in His unbounded, Now.
Of course, we can’t take Screwtape’s word for it. But this is an interesting way of viewing predestination and free will. Is that how God’s plan works? He knows everything and exactly how it will occur in our time all at the same time? Does God’s knowledge of our actions prior to our knowledge or performance of them do anything to the free will that we so frantically cling to? Are we meant to view our existence in the way MacDonald describes it, without the lens of time?
This is so perplexing to me.
Oh, Poetry
Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising, but the height of the pedestal upon which William’s placed poetry frankly shocked me.
Pauline believed that Stanhope would, of course tell the truth because he was a poet and poets could not lie. He could, she confessed, be mistaken. But because of his profession, she would consider everything as true from his point of view.
Mrs. Anstruther, who can face the possibility of death without fear, is not brave enough to recite Stanhope’s poetry. “When she was dead, she might be able to say Stanhope’s poetry properly. Even if there were no other joy, that would be a reason for dying well” (67). What sort of thing is poetry, then, that the idea of just reciting it well will bring a joy worth all that?
How did William’s come by this high opinion of poetry, a subject which almost all school children dread? I find myself wanting to read some of Stanhope’s poetry.
Puddleglum
I was listening to The Silver Chair the other day, and was reminded of just how much I love Puddleglum. He really is the best of the Marshwiggles.
He often seems to be a contradiction: He is the one who wants to go to Harfang the least, yet shows most courage upon arrival. He is the most pessimistic, yet in the worst of times he manages to remember the best.
Perhaps because of all of the times he has expected the worst and been wrong, when he finally gets one right, the children won’t take him seriously. They are too tired, too cold, and too hungry to consider the possibility that Harfang might be a bad idea after all or that the lady in the green dress might not be as sweet as she appears. Pole has started to forget the signs and the Aslan’s warning that things might not be quite what they appear. They have found something they want, and decided it is something they need while the best course of action would have led them in quite the other direction.
They make it out alright in the end, but everything would have been much simpler if they had just remembered the signs, the warnings, and maybe taken Puddleglum a little bit more seriously.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: an Epic Tale?
I would like to spend my last blog talking about the film The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I know this blog isn't very Philosophic, and I apologize. This is a class about C.S. Lewis too.
I always leave the theatre asking myself, "Why did you even bother seeing this movie?" I would just like to state for the record, my childhood crawled into the fetal position and died after I saw this movie. What a horrible interpretation of such a beautiful story.
If you haven't seem the movie yet stop reading.
* * * Spoilers * * *
Apparently Hollywood was convinced that Lewis didn't create a strong enough objective to accomplish throughout the story. What did they do? Write one in.
What a bunch of bull...
What happened to the spontaneity of adventure? What happened to the curiosity of a child? Why must we spend our time searching for swords and elixirs that will disenchant the evil green "mist" of the dark island? Good Grief.
My biggest problem with this movie is, I feel, a problem with MOST movies.
Why must a beautiful moment of honesty be bogged down by overt speculation, expensive CGI, and Epic battles of do or die?
Aristotle claims that spectacle is the least important aspect of art. He's on the right track.
Beautiful moments in this movie were overloaded with unnecessary spectacle.
As Professor Jeff Barker often tells me, "Just tell the story."
Just tell the story Hollywood. Just tell the story. Quit appeasing our eyes with fireworks and invoke our souls with truth. Why must Reepicheep rise epically into Aslan's country, soaring over a giant gravity defying waterfall? Can he not simply sail into the east and disappear from sight? Does this not evoke a more emotional response?
Not everything in life is as epic as we make it out to be.
Just my two cents, I suppose.
I always leave the theatre asking myself, "Why did you even bother seeing this movie?" I would just like to state for the record, my childhood crawled into the fetal position and died after I saw this movie. What a horrible interpretation of such a beautiful story.
If you haven't seem the movie yet stop reading.
* * * Spoilers * * *
Apparently Hollywood was convinced that Lewis didn't create a strong enough objective to accomplish throughout the story. What did they do? Write one in.
What a bunch of bull...
What happened to the spontaneity of adventure? What happened to the curiosity of a child? Why must we spend our time searching for swords and elixirs that will disenchant the evil green "mist" of the dark island? Good Grief.
My biggest problem with this movie is, I feel, a problem with MOST movies.
Why must a beautiful moment of honesty be bogged down by overt speculation, expensive CGI, and Epic battles of do or die?
Aristotle claims that spectacle is the least important aspect of art. He's on the right track.
Beautiful moments in this movie were overloaded with unnecessary spectacle.
As Professor Jeff Barker often tells me, "Just tell the story."
Just tell the story Hollywood. Just tell the story. Quit appeasing our eyes with fireworks and invoke our souls with truth. Why must Reepicheep rise epically into Aslan's country, soaring over a giant gravity defying waterfall? Can he not simply sail into the east and disappear from sight? Does this not evoke a more emotional response?
Not everything in life is as epic as we make it out to be.
Just my two cents, I suppose.
A Poorly Constructed Blog About the Mystery of Morality
I'm not a biology major, I'm not a psychology, I'm not a religion major. I'm not a philosophy major.
I'm only a theatre major.
I depict the world. I strive to reveal some sort of truth about life through my work. However, theatre artists cannot merely show the glorious truths of God's perfection--that isn't the world we live in. How can you portray good, without an understanding of bad? How would that educate us? How would that instill awareness within us?
This semester I've wrestled a lot with morality.
What is it? Some kind of shot injected into in us at birth? Is it something we grow into, as we are nurtured into society?
Is it relative? Applicable depending on the person?
Is it situational? Applicable depending on the topic?
Is it absolute? Applicable to every person in every situation?
As Heidi mentioned in a previous blog, there seem to be so many shades of gray in this world, and as she concludes, that's OKAY.
But what about pertaining to morality?
What makes me go "Oh, that's acceptable behavior!" or "Oh, that's unacceptable behavior!"
Is morality a social construction? Has this myth of morality just become another NORM that I casually submit to?
I feel as though I'm articulating my thoughts horrendously.
What is morality?!
The ability to discern good conduct from bad conduct?
Pursuing good moral - when someone's motives are carried out with good intentions?
Good intentions? How is anyone to know? How is anyone to know?
We often talk about how complex God is. Try interpreting human intentions.
Gah.
I'm only a theatre major.
I depict the world. I strive to reveal some sort of truth about life through my work. However, theatre artists cannot merely show the glorious truths of God's perfection--that isn't the world we live in. How can you portray good, without an understanding of bad? How would that educate us? How would that instill awareness within us?
This semester I've wrestled a lot with morality.
What is it? Some kind of shot injected into in us at birth? Is it something we grow into, as we are nurtured into society?
Is it relative? Applicable depending on the person?
Is it situational? Applicable depending on the topic?
Is it absolute? Applicable to every person in every situation?
As Heidi mentioned in a previous blog, there seem to be so many shades of gray in this world, and as she concludes, that's OKAY.
But what about pertaining to morality?
What makes me go "Oh, that's acceptable behavior!" or "Oh, that's unacceptable behavior!"
Is morality a social construction? Has this myth of morality just become another NORM that I casually submit to?
I feel as though I'm articulating my thoughts horrendously.
What is morality?!
The ability to discern good conduct from bad conduct?
Pursuing good moral - when someone's motives are carried out with good intentions?
Good intentions? How is anyone to know? How is anyone to know?
We often talk about how complex God is. Try interpreting human intentions.
Gah.
Show yourself!
Death--the unknown. I often question the authenticity of the afterlife. I frequently find myself doubting that the "eternal bliss" (which my grandmother raves about) actually exists. Perhaps I died tonight and discovered that heaven and God really do exist. What would I say to him?
"Why the hell weren't you more obvious back there?!"
I think that's a fairly plausible answer.
In "Till We Have Faces" Orual eventually discovers that Psyche is unable to look upon her husband, and that he only reveals himself in darkness.
She wonders (a question similar to my own), what sort of god is this “that dares not show his face”?
Orual persuades Psyche to bring a lamp into her husbands room and discover the truth. Psyche does and is sent into exile. I would say that Orual is filled with anger toward the gods. After all, if they made themselves known, couldn't all this exile and suffering be avoided?
I relate to this.
Seriously, God, talk to me. Communication, ever heard of it?
Perhaps I'm not looking at this from the right perspective (once again I find myself caught in my own realm of humanity). Yes, communication is the problem, but we shouldn't see it as God falling short to talk to us, but ourselves--humanity, being unable to understand what God is saying. This would only make sense, I suppose. After all, we are fallen from perfection. God is unable to reveal his majesty through fallible means of human communication. Mankind is too simple to understand God's celestial tongue.
Eventually, Orual understands this.
"How can the gods meet us face to face till we have faces?"
How can God talk to us until we understand his language?
"Why the hell weren't you more obvious back there?!"
I think that's a fairly plausible answer.
In "Till We Have Faces" Orual eventually discovers that Psyche is unable to look upon her husband, and that he only reveals himself in darkness.
She wonders (a question similar to my own), what sort of god is this “that dares not show his face”?
Orual persuades Psyche to bring a lamp into her husbands room and discover the truth. Psyche does and is sent into exile. I would say that Orual is filled with anger toward the gods. After all, if they made themselves known, couldn't all this exile and suffering be avoided?
I relate to this.
Seriously, God, talk to me. Communication, ever heard of it?
Perhaps I'm not looking at this from the right perspective (once again I find myself caught in my own realm of humanity). Yes, communication is the problem, but we shouldn't see it as God falling short to talk to us, but ourselves--humanity, being unable to understand what God is saying. This would only make sense, I suppose. After all, we are fallen from perfection. God is unable to reveal his majesty through fallible means of human communication. Mankind is too simple to understand God's celestial tongue.
Eventually, Orual understands this.
"How can the gods meet us face to face till we have faces?"
How can God talk to us until we understand his language?
Not What I Expected
I have always known C.S. Lewis to be an author of the beloved children’s literature and as one of the best theologians and philosophers of his time. But after taking this class, I have realized that Lewis has a lot more to offer, and not an offering that is expected of most Christians today. Before taking the class, I thought that he had many of the same views that I had grown up with, but after reading many of his works, Lewis is far from what most Christians (who haven’t read Lewis) expect from him. And I must say that I am thankful for Lewis not meeting my expectations because I have been challenged beyond belief through what ideas he has brought to the surface. Lewis has helped me to finally overcome many of my legalistic beliefs, and cleared my eyes to see that being a Christian really isn’t all that black and white. Christianity is gray. But the one thing I do know, and Lewis knew, is that Christ came to save us. He loves us and He calls us to love others. Every other idea is extremely fun to think about and wrestle with, but they all fall under these two commandments. In all, Lewis has challenged me with ideas that I never thought I could actually take into consideration. He has provided me with prime conversation topics. He has me taking sides I never thought I would be on. He has helped challenge me in my faith. And he hasn’t been what I expected. He outdone my expectations.
The Four Loves. The Love of Nature
It's a classic case of Enlightenment verses Romanticism. As a theatre major / art minor at a liberal arts school, I often find myself caught in the middle of such debate.
Intellect vs Nature / Mind vs Life / Academia vs Art.
Yet, I'm always baffled by people's radical stance on either subject. And after reading The Four Loves, I think it has become quite clear where Lewis stands. Honestly, I was a bit saddened by his convictions.
"Nature is not a teacher." I've wondered about this quote. Is Lewis disregarding the importance of general revelation? Without it, how can one even BEGIN to understand special revelation?
Later on he calls Wordsworth Philosophaster. Then again, Wordsworth's opinions on Lewis' type of study is equally as outspoken.
Wordsworth clearly has a strong opinion on academia.
I suppose my question is as simple this:
Why such hostility?
Cannot Academics and Artists work together?
Collaboration of such polarized "skills" might enable humanity to unearth the most nuanced and thorough understanding of life.
Coming from my own perspective:
Theatre asks us to represent life. Life is not limited to philosophy. Life is not limited to nature. Life is everything. My desire is to study life--everything.
Intellect vs Nature / Mind vs Life / Academia vs Art.
Yet, I'm always baffled by people's radical stance on either subject. And after reading The Four Loves, I think it has become quite clear where Lewis stands. Honestly, I was a bit saddened by his convictions.
"Nature is not a teacher." I've wondered about this quote. Is Lewis disregarding the importance of general revelation? Without it, how can one even BEGIN to understand special revelation?
Later on he calls Wordsworth Philosophaster. Then again, Wordsworth's opinions on Lewis' type of study is equally as outspoken.
"One impulse from a vernal wood may teach you more of man, of moral evil and of good, than all the sages can."
Wordsworth clearly has a strong opinion on academia.
I suppose my question is as simple this:
Why such hostility?
Cannot Academics and Artists work together?
Collaboration of such polarized "skills" might enable humanity to unearth the most nuanced and thorough understanding of life.
Coming from my own perspective:
Theatre asks us to represent life. Life is not limited to philosophy. Life is not limited to nature. Life is everything. My desire is to study life--everything.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Demons or Depravity?
I've been intrigued by this idea ever since hearing it brought up the first day we discussed Screwtape, because it can completely change your perspective on the book and on life depending on how you choose to see Wormwood and Screwtape. It's a curious thought: did Lewis write this book about demons or as a commentary on the complete depravity of our human condition? The first question must be whether or not you believe in literal demons that mess with our minds and are out to capture our souls. Maybe you believe in a literal Satan and demons, but don't think they really work this way. Maybe you think this story is totally possible. I could honestly make a case for either way of looking at it as I'm not certain where I stand just yet. My one concern about joining the intense and literal spiritual warfare camp is that I think circumstances in life can be over-spiritualized. If my car didn't start today and it made me so mad that I said a nasty word, is this the work of Satan? If my stomach growls during church and I'm just a tad distracted for the rest of the sermon, is this the work of Satan? However, there may also be the danger of under-spiritualizing things. We talk about being the hands and feet of Christ to the world. An unbeliever may look at someone serving in a soup kitchen and say they are a good person, but that is all. Whereas I'm more inclined to say that the "fruit" of our lives is the product of God's work in us, not our natural "goodness" as a person.
Lewis notes in the preface that it is a grave mistake to disbelieve in the existence of demons/the devil, but he also has a very "unliteral" view of hell. I think that both ways of looking at this book are useful and incredibly interesting, even if they are very different. Many of the weaknesses preyed upon by Wormwood in the story exist in our lives, quite probably without the help of demons. The story can be as much an account of our fallen humanity as it is a mocking portrait of evil spirits. Either way you choose to see it, there has to be at least a few situations in the book that make you pause, consider, and then evaluate the many ways we are so very human and so very in need of Christ.
Lewis notes in the preface that it is a grave mistake to disbelieve in the existence of demons/the devil, but he also has a very "unliteral" view of hell. I think that both ways of looking at this book are useful and incredibly interesting, even if they are very different. Many of the weaknesses preyed upon by Wormwood in the story exist in our lives, quite probably without the help of demons. The story can be as much an account of our fallen humanity as it is a mocking portrait of evil spirits. Either way you choose to see it, there has to be at least a few situations in the book that make you pause, consider, and then evaluate the many ways we are so very human and so very in need of Christ.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
learning curve
I do have to say that this class has probably been one of the most challenging classes thought process wise that I have taken in the past 3 1/2 years at Northwestern. My different beliefs that I have had, struggled with have been rocked again by the different perceptions that C.S. Lewis presents throughout all his books.
One of the main things I have had to chew on is the concept of potentially damning self to hell or well choosing hell. The time of when someone becomes so consumed with self, they forget about everything and everyone else. They are overcome with whatever temporarily makes them happy and then continuously searches out for more and will do whatever, simply to fulfill this desire. I look at the American society and this is what I see. I see people becoming so consumed with themselves, this very individualistic society. I see this even in Christians. Yes they give money to the poor, to most likely make themselves feel good. But what about being right there with the poor? Struggling with them? Getting to know them? Helping them? This obviously leads to the different perceptions of love that Lewis gives. How each love cannot fully function without charity. Otherwise they become so inward that they blow up in their own faces and are not the loves that God intended them to be. Love can be a bad thing I have kind of decided if it is not used for its intended purposes and if it is not in check with the love with Christ proportionately. It's silly to say that one can love too much, but can it be dangerous to a person if Christ is not in that love?
These are just some of the things that I have struggled with this semester. There are definitely more struggles and thoughts that have been rambling through my mind and that have been regurgitated on my notes for different classes, in my journal and in conversations with my friends. C.S. Lewis, you're a tricky one, but a good one.
One of the main things I have had to chew on is the concept of potentially damning self to hell or well choosing hell. The time of when someone becomes so consumed with self, they forget about everything and everyone else. They are overcome with whatever temporarily makes them happy and then continuously searches out for more and will do whatever, simply to fulfill this desire. I look at the American society and this is what I see. I see people becoming so consumed with themselves, this very individualistic society. I see this even in Christians. Yes they give money to the poor, to most likely make themselves feel good. But what about being right there with the poor? Struggling with them? Getting to know them? Helping them? This obviously leads to the different perceptions of love that Lewis gives. How each love cannot fully function without charity. Otherwise they become so inward that they blow up in their own faces and are not the loves that God intended them to be. Love can be a bad thing I have kind of decided if it is not used for its intended purposes and if it is not in check with the love with Christ proportionately. It's silly to say that one can love too much, but can it be dangerous to a person if Christ is not in that love?
These are just some of the things that I have struggled with this semester. There are definitely more struggles and thoughts that have been rambling through my mind and that have been regurgitated on my notes for different classes, in my journal and in conversations with my friends. C.S. Lewis, you're a tricky one, but a good one.
Gray?
The other day we talked about having things in Christianity be cut and dry. Black and White. However, isn't it ok to have things be a gray, to not have answers to everything? Should we focus on the arguments that arise in theology of should we focus on living the life that scripture calls us to live? To care for people and love others and love God. Yes, I do agree that it is important to know where you stand in your believes and to have reasons of why you believe what you do. If you cannot stand behind and support those ideas then what are you really standing for? How can you share your faith?
However, I struggle with the idea always arguing the fine points of theology to the point where you lose the love that Christ has given us, you forget about the commission of going out into the world. Reading through scripture and the gospels, Jesus doesn't argue whether the Earth is old or new or if evolution occurred. He preaches about loving your neighbor as yourself, taking care of the poor and the widow and the alien. Giving your everything to serving the Lord, living a radical faith. Not living in complacency.
So as we stated in class, its ok to have a little gray in your faith as long as you know your reasons behind your beliefs and you continue to live that life that Christ has called us to live, which is not necessarily how America lives their faith.
However, I struggle with the idea always arguing the fine points of theology to the point where you lose the love that Christ has given us, you forget about the commission of going out into the world. Reading through scripture and the gospels, Jesus doesn't argue whether the Earth is old or new or if evolution occurred. He preaches about loving your neighbor as yourself, taking care of the poor and the widow and the alien. Giving your everything to serving the Lord, living a radical faith. Not living in complacency.
So as we stated in class, its ok to have a little gray in your faith as long as you know your reasons behind your beliefs and you continue to live that life that Christ has called us to live, which is not necessarily how America lives their faith.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
I Like My Soup Thin
In Till We Have Faces, Lewis develops one of my favorite characters in all of his fiction, the Fox. On the scale between thin and thick religions, he falls on the thin side. He holds to rationality, rather than to superstition. Lewis says he is right, but not completely. Perhaps there are some things that happen in our world that defy logic and explanation.
But why? Why can't Lewis accept a wholly rationalistic view of the world? To quote Patrick Star, "The machinations of [Jack's] mind are an enigma." Half the time he's off concocting logical proofs about the nature of God, and the other half he seems to be throwing logic out the window.
Too often I feel as if Christianity is supported by saying God does all of the things we can't explain. This is referred to as the "God of the gaps" argument. This isn't a stable foundation to 'prove' God. As understanding increases, God diminishes. Because of this, the church has resisted intellectualism and inquisitiveness for centuries. Indeed, the church has consistently opposed advances in our understanding of the world. It's really incredible how ideas based on reason and observation have been shot down because they don't line up with what the Bible says. Heliocentrism, uniformitarianism, and evolution have all been opposed by the established church, and evolution is still "controversial" in evangelic circles.
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to stop questioning when someone says they know the truth. "I believe because (blank) said so" is not my personal motto. Something like, "Do I have to believe that?" is much more fitting. Unfortunately this has brought me into conflict with many people I love. They see critical thinking as a sort of disease that corrupts the soul and leads a person away from the truth as they see it. The "thick" aspects of religion should be accepted at face value, and not explored to see if there is a "thin" explanation.
But what if there are "thin" explanations? If the faith community keeps setting itself up to be in conflict with scientific thought, it will continue to lose as it has in the past. As Stephen Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
But why? Why can't Lewis accept a wholly rationalistic view of the world? To quote Patrick Star, "The machinations of [Jack's] mind are an enigma." Half the time he's off concocting logical proofs about the nature of God, and the other half he seems to be throwing logic out the window.
Too often I feel as if Christianity is supported by saying God does all of the things we can't explain. This is referred to as the "God of the gaps" argument. This isn't a stable foundation to 'prove' God. As understanding increases, God diminishes. Because of this, the church has resisted intellectualism and inquisitiveness for centuries. Indeed, the church has consistently opposed advances in our understanding of the world. It's really incredible how ideas based on reason and observation have been shot down because they don't line up with what the Bible says. Heliocentrism, uniformitarianism, and evolution have all been opposed by the established church, and evolution is still "controversial" in evangelic circles.
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to stop questioning when someone says they know the truth. "I believe because (blank) said so" is not my personal motto. Something like, "Do I have to believe that?" is much more fitting. Unfortunately this has brought me into conflict with many people I love. They see critical thinking as a sort of disease that corrupts the soul and leads a person away from the truth as they see it. The "thick" aspects of religion should be accepted at face value, and not explored to see if there is a "thin" explanation.
But what if there are "thin" explanations? If the faith community keeps setting itself up to be in conflict with scientific thought, it will continue to lose as it has in the past. As Stephen Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
You Better Pray
Screwtape talks about twisting prayer, and I know some people have written on the topic of how we should pray, but why? I mean, why should we tackle the issue of how we ought to pray when we haven’t even established the purpose of prayer? Prayer, like many other aspects of the Christian faith, have seemed strange and counter-intuitive to me as of late. In The Problem of Pain, Lewis establishes that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and in many of the books we’ve read, we are told that God exists outside of time and views everything through the lens of eternity. This raises some important questions:
1)If God knows everything, why should we bother praying in a specific way?
2)If God has a plan already, how can anything we say through prayer do anything to change it?
The problem with the first is a smaller hurdle in my eyes. Prayer might be for our benefit, in that it is an act of intentionally acknowledging God’s omniscience. Maybe God wants us to take the posture of humility. These don’t wholly satisfying me.
The second question spins off some pretty massive questions about God’s nature and questions his power. It really comes down to this:
1)If God is going to do something, He’s gonna do it whether we pray or not.
2)If prayer can change God’s mind, humans are elevated to a position above God. We might not have the power of God per se, but we can tap into it. We have trained God to do as we wish.
Frankly, both of these suck. I don’t have any answers, only questions. Honestly, the confidence in the Christian community scares me a little. We have spent centuries building on the foundations of the faith without enough critical thinking about the foundation itself. Oftentimes when talking to people about Christianity, they go off on a rant about election without first defining their terms. Most are content to just assume the starting point is correct. This doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. In examining my own faith, I have taken the position that if a belief can be broken, maybe it ought to be.
1)If God knows everything, why should we bother praying in a specific way?
2)If God has a plan already, how can anything we say through prayer do anything to change it?
The problem with the first is a smaller hurdle in my eyes. Prayer might be for our benefit, in that it is an act of intentionally acknowledging God’s omniscience. Maybe God wants us to take the posture of humility. These don’t wholly satisfying me.
The second question spins off some pretty massive questions about God’s nature and questions his power. It really comes down to this:
1)If God is going to do something, He’s gonna do it whether we pray or not.
2)If prayer can change God’s mind, humans are elevated to a position above God. We might not have the power of God per se, but we can tap into it. We have trained God to do as we wish.
Frankly, both of these suck. I don’t have any answers, only questions. Honestly, the confidence in the Christian community scares me a little. We have spent centuries building on the foundations of the faith without enough critical thinking about the foundation itself. Oftentimes when talking to people about Christianity, they go off on a rant about election without first defining their terms. Most are content to just assume the starting point is correct. This doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. In examining my own faith, I have taken the position that if a belief can be broken, maybe it ought to be.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Who's to blame?
One of the very many interesting parts of The Screwtape Letters is aspect of devils being assigned to each human in order to attempt to steer them away from God. I think Satan and his minions do tempt us and tell us lies, but I don't quite know to what extent. I don't know that it's as much as we would like to believe. As Screwtape alludes to, work like his is not all that difficult. All they have to do is twist a few words and point us in the right direction, and we do a pretty fantastic job of destroying ourselves. So our enemies can tempt and twist words, but are they really to blame for our mistakes and rebellions? Lewis is always talking about how the opposite of running to God is curling up inside ourselves and shutting everything out. So if devils have even some part in our misdirection and turning away from God, then what's our part? Where does Satan's blame, if he has any at all, end, and where does ours start?
I haven't the slightest idea where I'm going with this, I'm just thinking any typing. I can suppose that maybe it doesn't matter whose fault it is. I don't normally think God plays the blame game, and as long as we turn to him in the end (whenever that is) that's what he wants.
Be aware
I am having a tough time reading The Screwtape Letters. I read it, but not truly embracing it because there is so much to think about in each letter. However, what I really am struggling with is the fact that it is hard to switch perspectives. Some books you read from the perspective of application. Many books that I read, especially C.S. Lewis, I read in a way where I want to take in and apply to my life or totally reject. In Screwtape we have to look at it in a different way. I had to keep reminding myself that this is possibly how Satan reacts to us. He finds our weaknesses and totally thrives off them to ruin our lives and brings us farther away from God. It was difficult to understand his point of view, because you had to differentiate between what God wants of us and what Screwtape want Wormwood to make his person think. However, we always think of what God wants of us, but the Bible tells us that we have to stand guard of the Enemy (Satan). I guess that is kind of what the Screwtape Letters are a warning to the readers of ways to defend themselves. But like I said before, it is important to understand what perspective you are reading from, because it can be confusing
There is one thing that I really had a tough time dealing with in most of Lewis's book and that there is so much to take in one sitting. It was really hard for me to truly understand everything that Lewis was trying to say, because he had so much to say. What I found really interesting and awesome at the same time, is that Lewis had so much to talk about. I feel that he talked about many difficult subjects and that is what he truly enjoyed talking about. It is amazing how much he did in a short amount of time. This class really helped me understand a lot of things that Lewis may have been trying to say. I would love to read the books again, but with more time and with someone to discuss again to hear their opinions.
There is one thing that I really had a tough time dealing with in most of Lewis's book and that there is so much to take in one sitting. It was really hard for me to truly understand everything that Lewis was trying to say, because he had so much to say. What I found really interesting and awesome at the same time, is that Lewis had so much to talk about. I feel that he talked about many difficult subjects and that is what he truly enjoyed talking about. It is amazing how much he did in a short amount of time. This class really helped me understand a lot of things that Lewis may have been trying to say. I would love to read the books again, but with more time and with someone to discuss again to hear their opinions.
Being Content
I wanted to take some time to share a little bit from my paper. I've done this for two reasons, first because only Mr. Jensen will get the opurtunity to read it and it is pertty easy to write a blog on the same subject as my paper. So, what does being content look like? Although we may not know what God has in store for us, we know that he is in control and we continue on with our lives with this in mind. If he is truly the one leading us then we will learn to be content with the outcome. Being Content is not saying that we need to be satisfied with everything around us, but we need to approach concerns with the attitude that if Christ wants to fix it he will and not us. This idea I think is very Calvinist since God has the ultimate control. We often may be displeased with what that outcome is, but at some point we need to pick up and move on. As the apostle Paul told the people of Philippi, “I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4:11-13Throughout his works Lewis writes and alludes to the idea of being content. The idea of being content refers to two things for Lewis; first there is your faith and second there is everything else. As a Christian there is only one true way of being content and that happens when we have our priorities straight; when we let passions that our not God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit become the center of our lives than we will never be content.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Sloth and Pride
And Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tines that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and befuddle to shake off.
This very long sentence is from the end of Letter 12. This nothing that Screwtape refers to, I suppose, would be known as sloth. Never accomplishing anything, never wrestling with problems, never even enjoying the things which you ought. God is calling us to live productive lives: to learn, to think, to fail, to get back up again. So it is a sin then to not accomplish anything, to not use the gifts God has given us.
This is also in conjunction with the chapter that is talking about talents. What does this have to do with humility? God gave us talents to use them. Each person has different talents. Some have similar talents to complement the talents of others. We work together as a body. But each part is unique. If it doesn’t do its part the body cannot function properly.
If we are letting our minds wander aimlessly then we are not acting as the part of the body that God destined us to be, that God designed us for. He gave us passions and talents to use and when we don’t use them we are hindering not only our own faith, but also the work of the body of Christ. But too much recognition of our talents will also hurt the body. Our pride in our accomplishments will be putting us on a pedestal instead of God, without whom none of the things we do would be possible.
This very long sentence is from the end of Letter 12. This nothing that Screwtape refers to, I suppose, would be known as sloth. Never accomplishing anything, never wrestling with problems, never even enjoying the things which you ought. God is calling us to live productive lives: to learn, to think, to fail, to get back up again. So it is a sin then to not accomplish anything, to not use the gifts God has given us.
This is also in conjunction with the chapter that is talking about talents. What does this have to do with humility? God gave us talents to use them. Each person has different talents. Some have similar talents to complement the talents of others. We work together as a body. But each part is unique. If it doesn’t do its part the body cannot function properly.
If we are letting our minds wander aimlessly then we are not acting as the part of the body that God destined us to be, that God designed us for. He gave us passions and talents to use and when we don’t use them we are hindering not only our own faith, but also the work of the body of Christ. But too much recognition of our talents will also hurt the body. Our pride in our accomplishments will be putting us on a pedestal instead of God, without whom none of the things we do would be possible.
The Tactic of Subtlety
I know we discussed in class the possibility that Lewis may not have intended to write the Screwtape Letters as a depiction of demons interacting with humans but that he could have written it merely as an example of how the human mindset is depraved and is easily led astray. While I agree that we often stumble on our own two feet, this book has led me to think more about the “schemes of the devil” and of the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly place” and about what exactly their interaction with us really looks like (Eph. 6).
I actually know someone right now who is possibly struggling with possession by a demon. His name is Justin, and he is my brother-in-law’s brother. Ever since he was a young child, his mother said he has had a very dark side to him. Of late, very strange things have been happening to the people who are around him. A tenant who lives above him in his building has mentioned that her covers have flown off of her in the middle of the night several times, and one of his other brothers witnessed a scene in which Justin’s huge English bulldog was flailed across the living room. These instances, among many others, have led to several long meetings with church pastors and to lots of prayer regarding how his family should confront Justin about the evil that seems so obvious in his life. Justin is not a Christian, so he’s definitely not tapped into God’s defenses, but I struggle with the idea of literal possession by a demon. I know it happened while Jesus was on earth, but I feel like we don’t hear about it very much today. It’s seems to be an issue more prevalent in developing countries where there are local witch doctors and where people practice voodoo. However, maybe this thought is just my mind being stereotypical.
Maybe spiritual warfare looks different in different places though. As Screwtape says periodically in his letters, the goal of the “Father below” is to do whatever it takes to get people further away from the “Enemy.” I think the tactics of the “Father” are different for us here in a country like America than in, say an indigenous tribal group in Africa. The thought of literal demon possession happening to someone here in America is really disconcerting for a lot of people. It almost turns them off to the belief that demons even exist. The person who is supposedly possessed is thought of as crazy, their issue psychological. Or, on the contrary, maybe demon possession is not heard of as much in America because it does the opposite of what is intended by the “Father,” in that it makes people more aware of the fact that spiritual forces do exist and could potentially lead people into the arms of the “Enemy” for protection. As Justin has been confronted by his Christian family members in the past few months, his heart is softening slightly to the thought that something is not right in his life.
Possession might be a more potent drug in other places where superstitions are high and where demonic activity might be mistaken as the work of a mystic or magician. In such a case, people are led astray from the truth, so success is achieved by the “Father.” These men are “veritably worshipping, what they vaguely call ‘Forces’ while denying the existence of ‘spirits’” (32).
The tactics of the “Father” in our lives, I think, are typically more subtle. We might be led into the arms of the “Enemy” through something as blatant and physical as possession, so perhaps why the “Father” doesn’t use that tactic on us. Instead, one of the “best weapons” against us is “contented worldliness” (24). Such subtlety, when you think about it, is just as scary as things that are literal and physical like possession. Perhaps even more so because it is so easily concealed from our eyes. Screwtape says on page 31, “Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. . . when humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and skeptics.” This statement seems to me to be the tactic of the enemy in our lives, subtle concealment.
I actually know someone right now who is possibly struggling with possession by a demon. His name is Justin, and he is my brother-in-law’s brother. Ever since he was a young child, his mother said he has had a very dark side to him. Of late, very strange things have been happening to the people who are around him. A tenant who lives above him in his building has mentioned that her covers have flown off of her in the middle of the night several times, and one of his other brothers witnessed a scene in which Justin’s huge English bulldog was flailed across the living room. These instances, among many others, have led to several long meetings with church pastors and to lots of prayer regarding how his family should confront Justin about the evil that seems so obvious in his life. Justin is not a Christian, so he’s definitely not tapped into God’s defenses, but I struggle with the idea of literal possession by a demon. I know it happened while Jesus was on earth, but I feel like we don’t hear about it very much today. It’s seems to be an issue more prevalent in developing countries where there are local witch doctors and where people practice voodoo. However, maybe this thought is just my mind being stereotypical.
Maybe spiritual warfare looks different in different places though. As Screwtape says periodically in his letters, the goal of the “Father below” is to do whatever it takes to get people further away from the “Enemy.” I think the tactics of the “Father” are different for us here in a country like America than in, say an indigenous tribal group in Africa. The thought of literal demon possession happening to someone here in America is really disconcerting for a lot of people. It almost turns them off to the belief that demons even exist. The person who is supposedly possessed is thought of as crazy, their issue psychological. Or, on the contrary, maybe demon possession is not heard of as much in America because it does the opposite of what is intended by the “Father,” in that it makes people more aware of the fact that spiritual forces do exist and could potentially lead people into the arms of the “Enemy” for protection. As Justin has been confronted by his Christian family members in the past few months, his heart is softening slightly to the thought that something is not right in his life.
Possession might be a more potent drug in other places where superstitions are high and where demonic activity might be mistaken as the work of a mystic or magician. In such a case, people are led astray from the truth, so success is achieved by the “Father.” These men are “veritably worshipping, what they vaguely call ‘Forces’ while denying the existence of ‘spirits’” (32).
The tactics of the “Father” in our lives, I think, are typically more subtle. We might be led into the arms of the “Enemy” through something as blatant and physical as possession, so perhaps why the “Father” doesn’t use that tactic on us. Instead, one of the “best weapons” against us is “contented worldliness” (24). Such subtlety, when you think about it, is just as scary as things that are literal and physical like possession. Perhaps even more so because it is so easily concealed from our eyes. Screwtape says on page 31, “Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. . . when humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and skeptics.” This statement seems to me to be the tactic of the enemy in our lives, subtle concealment.
Transforming Dust into Diamonds
“You make beautiful things. You make beautiful things out of the dust.
You make beautiful things. You make beautiful things out of us.”
We’ve sung these words in Praise and Worship numerous times this semester, and I think they resonate perfectly with Lewis’ belief of God’s redemptive work in every aspect of our lives – especially in God's redemptive work in transforming the parts of us that are ugly. God doesn’t just take away our selfishness. He transforms the ugliness of it into something beautiful – selflessness. He doesn’t just help us overcome our jealous, warped love for others. He transforms it into a beautiful love – like the kind he has for us.
While we were singing the words of this song one night at P&W, a thought popped into my mind about a website I had recently seen called Lifegem.com. It’s a website through which you can get the ashes of your loved one made into a diamond. No joke. Very bizarre, but it led me to think of God’s redemptive work in our lives as the transformation of ashes into diamonds. When we die to things of our selfish nature, there’s really not a whole lot left of us. We’re made of dust, and to dust we will return. However, God can make beautiful things out of us, out of our dust. After all, that’s where diamonds come from – the compression of carbon particles under intense pressure over long periods of time. God takes our ashes, the ugliness of our sinful nature, and compresses them to form something new and beautiful!
This thought is similar to the one Lewis proposes in the Great Divorce, when the Ghost with the lizard on his shoulder finally allows the Angel to kill the lizard. Not only is the Ghost transformed into a new and brighter being, but his lizard is also transformed into a great stallion. I think Lewis’ imagery in this scene is fantastic! He shows how God can take the ugly burdens that are riding down upon and controlling us and can transform them into something glorious that we can ride upon.
Just as the Ghost was transformed into a new, sturdy being like the bright figures, I think Lewis would say that God can transform the ugly dust of our lives into something new too, into something hard, indestructible and beautiful – like a diamond.
You make beautiful things. You make beautiful things out of us.”
We’ve sung these words in Praise and Worship numerous times this semester, and I think they resonate perfectly with Lewis’ belief of God’s redemptive work in every aspect of our lives – especially in God's redemptive work in transforming the parts of us that are ugly. God doesn’t just take away our selfishness. He transforms the ugliness of it into something beautiful – selflessness. He doesn’t just help us overcome our jealous, warped love for others. He transforms it into a beautiful love – like the kind he has for us.
While we were singing the words of this song one night at P&W, a thought popped into my mind about a website I had recently seen called Lifegem.com. It’s a website through which you can get the ashes of your loved one made into a diamond. No joke. Very bizarre, but it led me to think of God’s redemptive work in our lives as the transformation of ashes into diamonds. When we die to things of our selfish nature, there’s really not a whole lot left of us. We’re made of dust, and to dust we will return. However, God can make beautiful things out of us, out of our dust. After all, that’s where diamonds come from – the compression of carbon particles under intense pressure over long periods of time. God takes our ashes, the ugliness of our sinful nature, and compresses them to form something new and beautiful!
This thought is similar to the one Lewis proposes in the Great Divorce, when the Ghost with the lizard on his shoulder finally allows the Angel to kill the lizard. Not only is the Ghost transformed into a new and brighter being, but his lizard is also transformed into a great stallion. I think Lewis’ imagery in this scene is fantastic! He shows how God can take the ugly burdens that are riding down upon and controlling us and can transform them into something glorious that we can ride upon.
Just as the Ghost was transformed into a new, sturdy being like the bright figures, I think Lewis would say that God can transform the ugly dust of our lives into something new too, into something hard, indestructible and beautiful – like a diamond.
Distractions
Screwtape talks about getting humans to think ahead to the future, especially concerning things that don't have meaning. In order to get Wormwood's patient's mind off "dangerous topics", Screwtape advises " Keep him comforting himself with the thought of how much he will enjoy his bed next night" (166). Or Screwtape talks of his own patient starting his thoughts down a risky track and of redirecting his patient's thoughts in adding "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind" (3). This is scary to think about. It is in ways such like this that people start to think of themselves over others, leading them away from God's working in serving outwardly. We need to be very careful in our thoughts. It's so easy to let our mind take whatever direction we please, but this takes us away from what God desires of us.
We also need to be mindful of giving ourselves rest. Screwtape and his minions dislike our taking a walk, as on page 64 through the mill, or reading a book just for relaxation. This gives our mind time to come back to why we're here, and they're no longer able to distract us from "real life". The empty cycle of sin is also a distraction, taking our focus off others. Is there a way to escape all these distractions? None other than Jesus. We'll lapse back into habits, but we can trust Him to give us strength through them.
We also need to be mindful of giving ourselves rest. Screwtape and his minions dislike our taking a walk, as on page 64 through the mill, or reading a book just for relaxation. This gives our mind time to come back to why we're here, and they're no longer able to distract us from "real life". The empty cycle of sin is also a distraction, taking our focus off others. Is there a way to escape all these distractions? None other than Jesus. We'll lapse back into habits, but we can trust Him to give us strength through them.
Grey Areas?
In class we also discussed grey areas. Very briefly it was mentioned that there is scripture to back up both the view of pro-gay theology as well as those who oppose homosexuality. Although I am not disagreeing with grey areas in the bible, I do disagree with this statement on homosexuality. A friend of mine back home shared with me this summer that he struggles with same-sex attraction. He also shared with me that he is choosing to fight these feelings because he believes that God calls him to. Since this conversation with my friend I have been reading a decent amount of literature on this subject. One book I read was on a man who for most of his early life was a leader in pro-gay theology, as well as lived the homosexual lifestyle. This man is now happily married to his wife and has kids of his own, as well as a leader in Exodus International, which is a Christian organization promoting “the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” In his book he discusses many of the views on pro-gay theology that he once preached, that he now disagrees with very strongly. He says that in the Bible, “not once is a homosexual relationship mentioned in anything but negative terms.” He goes on to list many of the most debated scriptures in the bible on this subject, sharing his previous thoughts as well as his beliefs today. The goal of this blog is not to anger anyone, rather it is to discuss a belief of mine that I have done some research on, and still am doing research on today. So I would love to hear other views on this subject as I continue to work at testing my beliefs and why I believe them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)