God's Voice #2

From early on, I sensed God moving me here and there from time to time, though everything was fairly subtle compared to my experience in High School. After that experience, I continued to have periodic stirrings in my soul, especially in worship, but never stopped wrestling with the challenge he posed to me.

Three years of silence was frustrating. When the word "love" came up in a worship song, I would stop singing. It was a strangling disability. At one point, during my junior year of college, after recalling the phrase "We love him because he first loved us," I demanded that God prove his love for me. I devoted myself to an hour of prayer a day, hoping for some kind of breakthrough.

At the same time, I was just starting to date Laurie, though we hadn't been seeing each other long enough to define our relationship. In February of 1995 she came down from Sacramento to LA to visit me for a weekend. On a Friday night, while I was at a rehearsal, she made dinner for us transforming my college bachelor kitchen in a romantic dining area complete with Italian food and candles. After we ate, we decided to drive up into the mountains to pray together.

Okay, I admit it, it was a move, like telling a nice Christian girl that you want to be a youth pastor. We all know that girls want to marry youth pastors (spiritual leader, good with kids, fun) What's not to like? Anyway, we found one of those movie spots with the lights of the city far below, and parked. Then we talked for a few hours before we finally decided to pray. I took her hand. Isn't that what people do when they pray? Yeah. Nice move.

We prayed back and forth for a couple of hours. As usual, I prayed about the love question, among other things. Then, about three in the morning, we stopped and just sat in that post-prayer silence where no one wants to be unspiritual and speak first.

It was God who spoke first. It all came in a moment, like before, but could be summarized into something like this: "My love is romantic. Your life is like a meal, and all of its phases are like progressive courses. The food, settings, and candles are like the people, places, and events that you experience. They are there to draw you to myself, the person sitting across the table. Then, when all of the food is eaten and the candles have died, it will be just you and me."

With the message came a powerful sensation. It was so strong that I began to tremble and I felt that if it became more intense, it would kill me. It was a love that made every other love (romantic, paternal, platonic) feel limited and small. It changed me. To this day, I will never doubt how he feels, not just about me, but about humanity. Despite any evidence to the contrary, I cannot doubt his benevolent intentions.

Just as I was about to say something to Laurie, she blurts out, "John, God is romantic!" He told her the same thing in the same moment. Isn't that just like him?

Since that day, I am not easily intimidated. I used to be very skittish, especially when it came to demonic situations or dark alleys at night. No longer. I am confident in his ability beyond mine, allowing me to smile or even laugh when situations seem desperate. I am not afraid. I feel solid inside. I really do. But it has nothing to do with my own abilities. I'm not that great.

But who cares? He is.

God's Voice #1

God's voice doesn't sound like mine. I want to be comfortable, smart, and successful. God wants me to grow. When he speaks, it usually feels like the world goes on pause for a moment, as if I just remembered something that I never knew. The message is often clear, though I usually ask for some kind of confirmation. That's because he's asking me to do something uncomfortable. At other times, it comes as the revelation of a concept, which always makes me feel a combination of excitement, humility, and gratefulness. It is very unlike the feeling I get when I solve something with research or logic. The first time I clearly heard God's voice was in my senior year of high school. I was sitting in my home church when the pastor posed the question, "How can we be salt and light on the earth?" I looked across the room and saw this kid who was obsessed with Sacramento Kings Basketball. He knew every player, every stat. He listened to every game on his little radio and never failed to pack my ears full of commentary every Sunday. When I saw him, the Holy Spirit spoke to me. It was not a voice in my head. It was not a voice anywhere. It was a sudden realization that seemed to come more from my chest than my head. The message was imposed, not extrapolated from previous information. I wasn't even seriously considering the question when the answer was given. That was Sunday. On Monday and Tuesday, I preached to the interior of my car as I drove to school in the morning. I coudn't help it. It was a compulsion. Like an itch. My sermon was something like this: That boy was a "light" to Kings basketball. Why? Because he loved it. Do girls need to be compelled to pull out a picture of their boyfriends? Do experienced singers need a gun put to their heads before they'll sing? No. They love it. Why was I not a light for God? I didn't love him. The secret to the Christian life is to fall in love with God, not try harder. Otherwise the relationship is forced and contrived, leading to hypocrisy. I would find myself acting more like the Devil who "masquerades as an angel of light" than God who is the true light of the world. On Tuesday afternoon I was sitting in a little bible study at school and the leader of the Student Council was complaining that he had to speak in chapel in just two days but could think of nothing to talk about. I quickly offered to take it for him. You need to understand something. I had a reputation for being negative and argumentative, especially in spiritual conversations. Also, this was the Student Council chapel. I wasn't even on the Student Council. By some miracle, he gave it to me without hesitation. When I sat down to prepare on Wednesday night, I had so many ideas I was just notating the avalanche of information in my head. It was like a spiritual download. Then, on Thursday morning, I was standing in front of my entire high school preaching the very thing I had heard from God on the previous Sunday. That chapel was my first preaching experience. I was nervous in front of my peers, but also confident in what I had to say. When I was finished, I saw that some of the students were crying. One teacher said that it was the best chapel of the year. I was a little freaked out to be honest. That was my first experience with the voice of God. I have had many since. In most cases, he does something physical to confirm his word to me, just as he did on that first occasion. I have also noticed that the message is rarely given for my own personal benefit. Though he loves us individually and speaks personally to us, he often works in such a way that, at the right time, the message can be given to others. We are not meant to be spiritual sponges, but more like tubes. When we put fuel in our bodies, it is for the entire body, not just one small part. God seems to fuel his body in the same way. What is your first experience with the voice of God?

Body, Soul, and Spirit

Okay Frank, enough of this "God spoke to me" garbage. Let's hear some proof. What does God sound like? Does he use a booming megaphone from heaven? A still small voice? A feeling? How do you know it's not just your own thoughts or emotions? When does it happen? How often?

I'll get to that in the next post, but before we can analyze the activity of soul and spirit, we need to know the difference between them. Our belief systems, right or wrong, can generate true feelings of guilt, peace, joy, and so on. These feelings cannot be trusted. A sense of peace can come from any number of sources, one of which is Vodka. How can we sort the subtle voice of God from the clutter of our minds and emotions?

Hebrews 4:12 states, "The Word of God is living and active (This is not the written word, but the activity of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes this activity is written down, but not always), sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit...

Hold on! What's the difference between the soul and the spirit? In the Old Testament, the difference is not as clearly pronounced as it is in the New Testament. The Hebrews tended to group the soul into a more general "inner man" category, mixing thoughts and emotions together like a casserole. The Greeks took out the individual ingredients, named them, and described their functions.

The analogy that is used in the next part of the verse helps us to differentiate the two: "...the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow..."

What do joints and marrow have to do with anything? Christians will often glaze over these kinds of phrases, assuming that the author just meant to emphasize that it was really penetrating, but why use these words? Who divides the marrow of a bone from it's joints?

If we draw a parallel between soul and joints, and spirit and marrow, the answer becomes clear.

A bone is being compared to a body. The marrow of a bone produces blood and fat cells, making it alive and healthy. Apparently, this is what our human spirit does for our bodies. When our spirits leave, our bodies die. I once sat down with a Bible teacher that showed some insight in these matters. When I asked him what the human spirit was, he said, "The spirit is you. It is the core of your being. It is the part of you that can interact with the Holy Spirit, the part that makes you different than an animal."

So animals have souls?

What about joints? They allow the bones to move. Our soul is the expressive part of our inner man whether by thought, emotion, or the activity of our will. Our soul can be motivated by the urgings of the body (often called "the flesh" in scripture), causing us to act like an educated animal, seeking only food, shelter, pleasure, procreation, and self preservation. Or it can respond to your spirit.

Animals have personalities. They can think. They emote. But everything is based in their flesh. They don't ponder the future while staring at sunsets. Well, dolphins do. And Sun Bears. But that's it.

A proper understanding of these concepts reveals three kinds of creatures:

Plants: Body only

Animals: Body and soul

Men: Body, soul, and spirit

So how can we consciously sense the difference between our souls and our spirits?

Is the Bible Trustworthy?

We put a lot of stock in the reliability of scripture. In fact, we base our entire belief system on it. The strongest assertion for most Christians is that each word is inspired by the Holy Spirit and preserved for all time by the same authority and power. We base this assertion on a single verse (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness." Wait . . . we trust the Bible because of a verse in the Bible? That sounds like circular reasoning to me. Besides, Paul would not have been referring to his own letters but the scripture of his day, the Old Testament. How can we know that the New Testament is equally inspired? The Old Testament was meticulously copied to maintain its authenticity. In the 10th Century, a group of Jewish scribes called Massoretes demonstrated the kind of care that was taken with the writings of the prophets. A group of them would copy the same book at the same time. When they were finished, they would total the number of letters in the book, then search for the middle letter. If the letters didn't match, they made a new copy.

Comparisons of the Massoretic texts with earlier Latin and Greek versions have revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 BC to 900 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Josephus only add to the evidence that the Old Testament books we have today are the same that Jesus and Paul studied and quoted two thousand years ago. But how were the New Testament books preserved? How were they selected for the canon? Were there other worthy candidates that could have helped us to understand Jesus from a more diverse and balanced perspective? Were the texts manipulated at all during the turbulent centuries where the church basically abused and dominated the world? I'm just starting a book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman to look deeper into these questions, but for now, these are my initial thoughts and research: The canon of the New Testament was not officially set until 367 AD when Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, came up with a list of twenty-seven books which was later deemed "set" by the Councils of Carthage in 397 under the authority of St. Augustine. Most of the books were natural fits because of their direct association with the apostles (though no originals existed at the time), but there was some debate over the inclusion of certain books. Some believed that Paul used the teachings of Christ to create an unorthodox hybrid between the Hebrew and Roman religions, making a sort of Jewish Mithraism. The Gnostics of the day used the teaching of Jesus and the apostles to support their own beliefs, calling Jesus the embodiment of a supreme being (his Father) who became incarnate to bring special knowledge to an earth that had been created and subjected by the corrupt designs of a malevolent god, the Jewish god of the Old Testament. There was also a lot of debate about the book of Hebrews because of the questionable nature of it's authorship. Ultimately, the issues were settled in councils, and the New Testament was published as twenty seven books. How do we know verses were not changed over time? Well, verses are changed every day. How often does a preacher read a verse of scripture then say, "What Jesus is saying is..." or "What Paul would tell our church today is..." We always extrapolate meaning based on our personal belief systems. Why would the interpreters do any different? There is always a danger in putting things into our own words. That's why I'm not a huge fan of The Message or any other translation written to make things easier for modern readers. I would much rather put my faith in the exact words of the apostles than the seeker-friendly rephrasing of some recent translations. That's just me. When I was in Bible school, my Greek teacher told our class that, in his opinion, the translation closest to the Greek texts was the New American Standard. I bought one. Mine has little underlines of common words so that I can look up the Greek meanings in the back. I like it. For me, accuracy is very important, even though none of the original documents remain (which bothers me in a way).

As I read the New Testament, I recognize that each author is a unique individual with unique spiritual experiences. These men did not write the scriptures in a trance-like state. They were writing memoirs. They were teaching. Preaching. Peter didn't always agree with Paul. Even Paul himself will differentiate his thoughts and opinions with those given to him by the Holy Spirit. But I do have something in common with both Peter and Paul. I have a relationship with Jesus. I want to learn as much as I can from them, inspired or not.

The main reason I trust the scriptures is because the Holy Spirit always leads me back to it. My next few posts will have to do with exactly how that works. I will try to explain what it is like to be led by the Spirit and to hear the subtle voice of God. I will also be eager to hear your own stories.

But for now, I'd like to hear if you believe in the authority of Scripture. If so, why.

Why I Believe in God

God spoke to me during my senior year of high school, and I would never be confident in my own logic and reasoning again. In college, he met with me in a much more dynamic way. From that day on, I would never again doubt His existence, character, or power. It changed me. I was more secure. More free. More giving. More confident. It was not the faith of my parents that convinced me of God's existence, or the testimony of scripture, or the evidence of creation, or the complexities of science. It was the undeniable contact with my creator. It is hard to prove that any of my experiences were genuine. They were, but how could I convince a skeptic? As a child, I remember being stirred in my spirit, like an astronaut staring at something beautiful and overwhelming in space. The feeling would happen at random moments and would draw me into simple worship, even when I was just riding in a car or lying in bed. From the moment of my conversion (age six) I was a fanatic. I read my Bible every night. I made my own tracts and carried those and a box of Bibles through my neighborhood. By third grade, I had the read the Bible from cover to cover three times in three different translations. By the time I graduated high school, I had read it twelve times. But all of that reading, though beneficial for facts and stories, only led to arrogance. I used knowledge like a weapon. I complained. I boasted. I argued. It wasn't until the Holy Spirit actually spoke to me that I realized I was in a relationship with a being that wanted to interact. This is basically what he said to me: You will never be an effective Christian until you learn to love me. As I continued to grow, I struggled with many of the issues I listed on the previous Skeptic Blogs, but more than anything else, I struggled with the challenge that God gave me. How could I love what I could not see or understand? I prayed constantly about it. I refused to sing or talk about God's love until He proved himself. In February of 1995, he answered my prayers in a way that left me trembling and forever changed. Ask me about it sometime. I have had many stories since, many of which will creep into these blogs, but for now, this will have to do. However, I do have one logical argument, though I hate to use it. There are smart people on every side of every argument, making truth seem unreachable. Thank God for the Holy Spirit! But if you don't have much personal experience with God, I can offer you at least one logical assurance. The law of cause and effect demands that something must pre-exist everything in order for anything to exist. Simply stated: nothing comes from nothing. It doesn’t matter how far back you go in the chain of cause and effect, there must be an ultimate cause that has no beginning. We may not understand a creature like that, but we don’t need to understand it. We just need to accept the necessity of it. If logic demands that something eternal exists, whether it is a tiny germ floating on a space crystal, or a conscious alien being, scientists should be looking for that eternal “thing” that started it all. Thankfully, we don’t have to look far. A spirit that claims to match this exact description has been revealing itself to men and women for as long as history has been recorded. Isaiah, a Jewish prophet, claimed to speak for a being that is "the high and lofty one, inhabiting eternity.” When Moses asked for God’s name, he was told, “I am,” which seems to speak of a creature in an eternal present. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am,” designating a contrast between a time-based creature and an eternal creature (was versus am). There is also quite a bit in scripture talking about how God’s power and character never change, another quality of someone living in an eternal present. God’s ability to speak of future events with exact times and places also suggests his ability to see the future as if it were just sitting there in front of him. God is known to challenge men with statements like, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” Decent question. My answer would be: “Uh . . . in Doc Brown’s time mach---” NOTE: This sentence would be cut short by a bolt of lightning. d In the historical record of God working with people (AKA the Bible), we see his creative power in the miraculous. There is a difference between being a manipulator of matter, and a creator of matter. Walking on water, calming storms, causing fish to obey, or healing a human body can all be replicated by any spiritual power. But to turn a boy’s lunch into a meal for 5,000 men requires creative power. To give life to a dead man requires creative power. These powers were on display in Jesus, who claimed to live as an expression of God. I am definitely intrigued by these arguments for the existence of God, but my personal experience with God is what puts everything to rest. Bottom line: I believe in him because I know him. Why do you believe?

The Power of Belief

We don't give Belief enough credit. There is nothing more potent in our lives, for good or for evil. Belief manipulates our emotions. It dictates our actions. It prompts our will. Children, spouses, friends, culture, politicians, the media, and all kinds of spiritual forces battle to influence our belief systems, but that is one thing that they can't take by force. It is yours to surrender. But what about God? Does he have the ability to manipulate belief? If so, when and why? Go to http://www.biblegateway.com/ and do a word search for Believe. If you read through the New Testament references, you'll find that Jesus teaches a lot about the consequences of believing and not believing. In John 6, when the people asked him, "What shall we do, that we may do the works of God?" Jesus told them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he has sent." Jesus did miracles, spoke of things before they happened, and prayed aloud specifically so that people would believe his message. He complained about people that refused to believe despite the evidence. Why not just make them believe? Why not manipulate their hearts? Well, that has happened. Romans 9 gives a few examples. Apparently, at times, it is necessary for God to manipulate hearts to accomplish his work. It seems reasonable to think that God would prefer not to manipulate the free belief systems of man, just like a parent would prefer a child to obey and participate freely in a family. But sometimes, for whatever reason, a kid needs to be taken by the arm and forced. Apparently, God is the only being with the ability and authority to do that. Most Calvinists believe that every conversion is a result of soul manipulation. God calls, men must respond. Most Arminians believe that God calls, and they can decide whether or not to pick up the phone based on the evidence provided and whether or not they had enough sleep the night before. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Skeptic Wrap-up

Have I mentioned how much I'm enjoying this? I hope that you continue to visit in the months to come as we move away from questions and start working toward answers. The plan is to have a weekly topic, set up a poll, and write three or four related posts. I will try to generate discussions that anyone with an interest in spiritual things can join. If you think I'm wandering off the path of orthodoxy, let me know. But be ready to back it up. And please, try to avoid Christianese.

The poll for this past week shows that there is approximately a 2-to-1 ratio of people that feel nervous or terrified in evangelism versus those who are okay or confident. Why do we feel so nervous? If I discovered a cure for cancer, would I feel nervous divulging that information? If I was single and getting engaged to a world-famous celebrity, would I feel nervous about advertising that union? We should feel eager and excited.

So why are we so nervous? Here are a few possibilities:

We believe the gospel, but we don't understand it well enough to share, afraid that a skeptic will ask a question that we can't answer.

We are muzzled by our own sinfulness, and do not feel qualified to share.

We don't want to impose our beliefs on others, recognizing that everyone has the freedom to live by their own convictions.

We hate the anxiety associated with those awkward conversations.

We are so saturated by Christian culture, we don't even talk to non-believers.

It is important to widen our view of Christianity so that we can approach issues from all different angles, seeing the concepts so clearly that our explanations are completely comprehensive. I feel that the gospel message has been packaged into a neat little formula that gives humanity a limited view of the larger picture, like trying to look at the Grand Canyon through binoculars.

I feel that, with such limited understanding, we settle into our God marriages in a way that is anything but world changing. We attend church every Sunday, pan for devotional nuggets every morning, pray when something bad happens, and maybe attend a mid-week Bible study. It seems like Christians tend to tread water until they die, waiting for the afterlife where things are really going to get interesting. If that's true, this whole Earth Experiment seems dumb. Why not just create humans in heaven and hell and forget all the drama in between?

In Hebrews 6:1, Paul encourages his people to leave the elementary teachings about Christ and press on toward maturity. I feel like the elementary principles are all we know. If we knew what maturity looked like, we might try harder to get there. I think most Christians walk around with an attitude that says, "We'll never really understand anything until we get to heaven, so we might as well just focus on sin management until then."

Not only is this unbiblical, it mocks Christ's sacrifice. What if I had a baby that never grew up? It just drank milk and cried all the time. Sometimes it would spit up, but that's okay. Daddy loves to clean it up, right? Abba? Abba? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Spiritual maturity brings confidence, power, and wisdom. The desire for sin fades naturally, just like the appetite of a child changes over time. We get to know God in ways that are more familiar, but also more challenging. If you're tired of feeling spiritually weak and ignorant, it's time to move forward. It's time to start growing up.

Skeptic #4

Statement #4: To experience God's love and plan, we must individually believe and accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There is no controversy in this statement, just a moment of truth. Will you decide, based on the urging of your mind and heart, to make this eternal commitment? Like Magnus VonHayden mentioned in one of his comments, this is a contract, like a marriage. For many, even those who are moved by their own sin and the offering of divine forgiveness, there are still a few questions to be answered before they pick up their soul pens. To stay with my skeptical stance, I am purposefully ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism, though most of you would probably see this as ignoring the sugar in a batch of sugar cookies. What about the billions of people who never get the chance to hear the terms of the contract? I'm talking about children, the mentally ill, people in third world countries, and so on. Are they subject to the penalties of rejection? In other words, do they have to burn in hell for an eternity for their ignorance? What about all of the violence and injustice that God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament? If I am to believe that God is loving and just, I must have a resolution to these concerns. Christian history is filled with stories of arrogant men fighting over doctrine and leadership resulting in cheating, stealing, lying, abuse, and murder on a massive scale. If the gospel does not have the power to change its people for the better, why should I sign up? There are many more reasons. If you want them, just go to exchristian (dot) net and spend some time getting into the heads of some former church goers. The testimonies may frustrate you or make you angry, you also might get a little depressed, but I hope, at the same time, it challenges you. What can you say to defend the questions of skeptics? Is your faith strong enough to stand on its own two feet, or do you prop it up against the company of like-minded individuals? I'll save my personal feelings for the final post of this week, but for now, I would be interested in hearing yours.

Skeptic #3

Statement #3: Jesus Christ is God’s solution for sin, making it possible for believers to connect with God and experience his love and plan for their life.

Imagine yourself as a movie-goer, stepping out of The DaVinci Code, wondering whether your should stop by Starbucks, grab some Macho Nachos, or believe that Jesus had consensual relations with Mary Magdalene. As you exit the theater, a college guys with sunglasses on his head asks if he can have a moment of your time. At first you think he's looking to sell you his self-made demo CD or handing out discounts for Fuddruckers, but instead he wants to talk to you about Jesus.

He asks you about the movie, nods at your answers, then starts to pry into your belief system. Soon he's targeting your conscience, trying to get you to see what a terrible person you are. The moment you admit to some weakness, a solution is posed: the death and resurrection of Jesus. He might open a Bible and read something like: "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." He might call you a lost sheep. He might tell you that you need to be washed in the blood of Jesus. He might ask if you want to ask Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior.

For Christians, these phrases seem harmless and helpful, but for an outsider, they must sound like cultish nonsense. Washed with blood?

The death and resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most important event in human history, but to a skeptic, there are some serious problems with it. I'll mention a few:

If I truly love someone that has hurt me, and they come to me with an apology, I don't demand a blood sacrifice to restore that relationship. Why does God, who should be more loving and reasonable that his creation, require a human sacrifice to forgive sin? Besides, Jesus was forgiving sin before He died.

Thanks for the invitation to join God's family, but if God is in the habit of killing his own children, I would prefer to opt out of the adoption process.

Why should we believe the record of the New Testament when there are so many gospels and letters left out of the canon? Besides, after such a long and questionable history, and so much translating and retranslating, can we even trust the Bible?

If Jesus and God are the same person, then the Biblical account of his death and resurrection is insane. God was so angry at man’s sin, that he became a man himself, killed himself, then brought himself back to life. He felt much better after that and forgave everyone who believed. Was Jesus praying to himself in the garden, asking himself to let himself off the hook? While dying on the cross, did he ask himself why he had forsaken himself? Did he commit his own spirit into his own hands? It defies logic.

Would you have a reasonable answer to these questions?

Skeptic #2

Statement #2: You are a sinner, separated from the loving plan of God. My skeptical self would have less trouble with this statement, at least at first. Most of us would admit that we aren't perfect. Who is? Christians would say that Jesus and Adam were perfect, but does that mean they were really good at Calculus? Did they ever trip or jam a finger? Did they ever get sick? Did they poop? If so, did it smell like garlic mashed potatoes? In evangelism, when we talk about "perfect," we're talking about going through life without a single bad thought or selfish act. But what if we don't act on those natural impulses? Are we still sinners? What if we act on them, but our actions harm no one? It's easy to tell a convicted criminal that they are a sinner, but what about a moral person with an honest and caring heart? There are many of these people working in world, saving lives, helping people, and many of them are not Christians. What makes the Christians any more pure than the well-meaning non-Christians? My skeptical self would respond to my Evangelical self by saying, "I'm just as much of a sinner as you. Why do I need your salvation?" In other words, if salvation is innefective in a tangible, practical sense, why should I believe in the rest of your gospel message, including the parts about heaven and hell? The Reformed tradition emphasizes the Total Depravity of man as the first pedal of their TULIP (their five-point summary of the Christian faith). This depravity is sort of like a virus, a curse, that humans contract from Adam. If you could see it, it would probably look like the black tar that turned Eddie Brock into Venom, but on your soul. Jesus takes the tar out when you're saved, but the stain remains, which basically means you'll act the same, but he won't hold it against you. I plan to blog on sin and depravity at another time, but for now, I just want to stir the pot. Remember, I do believe in the Christian faith, but faith is not blind. Let's not ignore these things and use "faith putty" to fill our gaps of logic. That dishonors God, and it makes Christians look foolish. I have another problem with telling people that they're sinners. If the skeptic is logical, he will realize that a faulty product is not to blame for it's own faultiness. If I buy a new car and the steering wheel comes off while I'm driving, I don't get angry at the steering column. If I survive the inevitable wreck, I'd go straight back to the manufacturer and demand a refund. I think you see where I'm going. If God is perfect and man was created perfect, how could the human race go wrong so quickly? I recognize that we have a free will, but why, in her freedom, would Eve choose the wrong thing before the tar-like depravity kicked in? Was she created with a propensity toward rebellion, or was she just naive? Why did Adam go along with it? The spiritual being that deceived her was another example of one of God's creatures gone wrong. We all know he wasn't naive. If God's creatures, left to their own devices, have a tendency to rebel against their Creator, it seems like there is something wrong in the programming. It would seem that sin was God's intention from the beginning. Besides, wouldn't God have foreseen all of these rebellions and done something about them? He wasn't even present at the Fall of Man. He knew it would happen. He knew they would sin. It almost seems as if the Fall was God's intention from the beginning. Thoughts?

Skeptic #1

I'm going to play a skeptic. Then I'm going to witness to myself and get defensive about it. I'll use the Four Spiritual Laws as a progression to confession, keeping my feet firmly planted on the Romans Road. STATEMENT #1: God loves you and has a plan for your life. Despite the nice sentiment, my skeptical self is bothered, not encouraged, by this statement. These are the kinds of questions that immediately come to mind: 1) If God is so loving, why is the world such a horrific mess? 2) If God is so loving, why would he kill his only son under any circumstances? 3) If God is so loving, why did my mother die of cancer and my uncle lose his arm in an accident? 4) If God has a plan for my life, why doesn't he share it with me? 5) Did God have a plan for my next door neighbor's life? He's a loser. He'll die a loser. 6) Why would God make a plan knowing that I would blow it anyway? 7) Why would God make a plan for my life if, in the grand scheme, it's all pointless anyway. 8) With so many people in the world, why would he even want to know me, much less care? Imagine an ant farm the size of the Grand Canyon. Now imagine God as a zealous ant farmer, naming every ant and paying attention to each and every one of them. He loves them enough to keep tabs on their journeys to and from the surface, making sure there are no leaves or sticks in their way as they carry lumps of mud and dead things to their queen. Sometimes he puts a rock in their path to see what they do with it, or even squashes a few, but it's all part of grand scheme that no ant could understand or imagine. Most Christians like to answers these kinds of questions with big words. We explain that God is omnipresent, which is how he can pay attention to each one of us. He is also omnipotent, which is how he can plan each life and imbue each person with the skills and talents to accomplish those plans. But why would he use all of his omnis on little old you? Are you that lovable? As for the human chaos, we may use a parable to explain: Think of each human life as a thread in a great tapestry which God is patiently weaving throughout history. All we see in this world are the tangled mess of threads in the back, but some day, in the next world, He’s going to turn the tapestry around and show us the beautiful and complicated finished product. It's a nice parable, but is it true? How would you defend these questions?