Debate or No Debate? That Is the Question

Status or picture is posted. A comment is made. A conversation is started. Soon, it becomes a full-blown debate, mostly just becoming an argument. And both sides are trying to convince the other that they are right. The problem is, when's the last time that actually worked?

Normally, it just provides with one or both with anger, even resentment. Not necessarily permanent, though that can happen.

What about Jesus though? He argued too.

Only when He had a bit of wisdom that would shut the people who wanted to argue up. Unless He had a bit of wisdom to share that genuinely left the Sadducees and Pharisees speechless, He hardly said a word to them when they wanted to argue.

Another look at it would be when Jesus stayed with people who weren't exactly known for being totally devoted to Judaism, like Zacchaeus (the short guy who climbed a tree to see Jesus- you probably sing a song about him in Sunday school). When Jesus talked to him (or anyone He was with), He didn't argue or debate at all. In fact, He never gave them any reason to be angry or frustrated with Him.

Now, there may be a right way to argue and debate, but I would think it's better to just steer clear from it. All I really see people doing, even in theological arguments, is like slap, slap back, slap again, slap back again, and more and more anger or frustration building up as it goes on. And, when one returns evil for evil in a tennis ball-like fashion, it just compiles and grows more and more.

I would imagine if Christians stopped trying to make a case for Christianity to every non-Christian they came across and to every Christian who doesn't believe exactly the same way, Christians would be more unified and have a better reputation. (Now don't start getting over-spiritual and say we shouldn't care about the Christian reputation- if someone has a rep for being a liar, are you liable to trust that person? Likewise, if a religion has a rep for nonstop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you and causing hate, fights, and wars, are people going to want to be part of it? Not if they truly want peace and love.) Rather than bouncing the ball back, get the person to slap on the other cheek as well. When person A tries to argue and person B avoids the argument entirely and refuses to let frustration or anger make him slap person A back, person A loses the reason to even argue with B. If one person will not fight or argue, the other person becomes disarmed. And that is probably the best time to share a bit of wisdom God would lay on one's heart, if He does (don't think He will every time- He won't. Not every time.)

The biggest problem is lack of love. I mean, I imagine there's some love between friends and family and others even when arguing, but that love tends to be at least partially forgotten when attacking with arguments. If Christians would love one another rather than stand proudly on their rock of knowledge and gun down those who would oppose them, more people might would be drawn to it. Otherwise, we get hatred, fights, and wars (if you don't believe me, look through history- a lot of wars were fought over religious beliefs- many being Christian ones. The non-Christians aren't wrong when they say that Christianity has caused many wars. While it is not necessarily Christianity that does it, it is the pride of believing one's self to be right and others wrong about whatever issues that causes wars.)

So, in closing, if anyone at all reads this and is a Christian, start loving. If you already do so, continue in His love. Resist the temptation to fight back, and see what a difference it makes in people's opinion of you.

As time goes on and you grow closer to God in love, the more His nature becomes your own, the more natural it will become for you to resist that which He wouldn't say to do. So again, the emphasis is on unconditional love. Show it, and people will be drawn. It's a proven fact- when God showed His full love for the world on the cross, many were drawn.

J-Lindo

God Punishing Prodigal Children?

This belief that God will punish His children who sin is a very traditional belief. What kind of father doesn't punish His child? An unloving one, of course.

Hey, Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, how much truth is there in that?

Larry: Nothin'.
Mr. Lunt: Zilch.
Larry: Nada.

Thank you.

So let's think for a bit- why not punish the sinner for what they've done? After all, they're a Christian yet they've defied God! That ought to be enough for punishment.

Absolutely correct. The problem is, the people who usually make that claim forget the second part: Jesus took all the punishment for the sins of the whole world.

But what about consequences? Are you saying that we can go sin without consequences?

~facepalms~ People, there is a difference between punishment and consequence. Consequence is synonymous with effect; the consequence is the effect resulting from a cause. The consequence, or effect, is what is brought onto the person by their own self. Punishment is brought onto the person by someone in authority (in this case, God). Consequences do happen, like a girl getting pregnant from sex that shouldn't have happened. This happens not by God's doing, but the person's own.

Now there may be more arguments to counter the idea of no punishment, but I believe the Bible itself has the key to lay them all to rest. Take a look in Luke 15:11-24 (Luke 15:11-24 YLT*). It's the parable of the prodigal son; I'm sure you all know this story. The kid tells his dad he wants his inheritance, the dad gives it to him, he goes and spends it all partying and being an idiot, he ends up broke and starving and feeding pigs, he goes back home humbled, and his dad welcomes him home with a ring, robe, shoes, and a party.

Here's how I look at it. The father is God, and the kid is a Christian. The kid (Christian) decides he wants to go out and sin. So the father (God) willingly lets him go (for God respects the human will; He doesn't force Himself onto anyone). The kid (Christian) goes and spends all his inheritance on Lord knows what. Luke 15:13 (Luke 15:13 RSV) says he wasted it. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing just terrible, ungodly things like hooking up with girls and prostitutes (which is actually confirmed in verse 30), having nightly drunken sprees, rubbing his wealth in poor people's faces, etc. (Keep in mind what you'd think of a pastor or someone in today's world who's supposed to be a Christian but acts like this.) Then there's a famine and the guy goes broke (is that a punishment or consequence? Give you a hint: who brought the state of being broke on him- his father or himself?). He gets so desperate that he takes a job feeding pigs, and is so desperate for food he wishes he could eat whatever the pigs are eating (punishment or consequence? So far, the answer to both looks like consequence. He brought it all on himself.) The son (Christian) finally decides to go back to his father (God), but says he will tell his father that he is no longer worthy of being called His son and will be willing to work as a servant. He was preparing to be punished! You think you're being punished severely with a lecture and a whip? At least you get to keep the family name. This one was thinking he would be denounced as even his father's own son. I doubt that's happened to many. He then trods off back home. When the son (Christian) comes back, however, the father (God) sees him from a distance and runs as fast as his legs will carry him towards His son. But is this father (God) running to punish the son (Christian)? Actually, it says He had compassion, gave him a bear hug, and kissed him. The father wasn't mad at all! He was overjoyed when His kid finally came back! The son tried to say to his father that he will be more than willing to work as a hired servant without being recognized as a son. He agrees to whatever punishment his father may have in store for him. The father (God), instead of lashing out at His son (Christian), telling him how wrong he was to do what he did, punishing him, and denouncing him, yells to his servants to bring out the best robe, a ring, and some shoes. He then orders them to take the fattest calf and kill it for a celebration feast and party.

I'm sure you noticed that the father did absolutely nothing to punish His son. Why the heck didn't He? He knew the son had learned his lesson, for one. Otherwise, he wouldn't have come back! In fact, He even says so in Luke 15:24, 27, and 32 (Luke 15:24 NIV, Luke 15:27 NIV, Luke 15:32 NIV). He says the reason there's gonna be a party is because the son, for this, was dead, but now is alive again. The son was lost, but now he's been found. He's come back home safe and sound. What are God's thoughts centered on? The kid is back!
Of course, there's other Christians, represented by the older brother later on. He hears the music and dancing at the party and asks what's going on. And, like most Christians, is shocked to hear that his dad is not punishing the younger brother at all, but celebrating his return. He talks to his father, and points out how well he's behaved the entire time, yet never got a party for himself. Then, possibly attempting to make the father look like a hypocrite, points out that the other son spent his father's life savings on prostitutes, yet gets a full party and the fattest calf gets killed for a feast for him. I do think he represents the Christians who think the other Christians who sin ought to be punished for what they've done. This is done out of a lack of love for the other brother. Had he loved his little brother with the same unconditional love that the father did, he would have ran alongside his father when He ran to greet His son who'd finally returned. But alas, he acts rather in jealousy and anger than love. After the inquiry, the father says they are partying because there is a good reason- the son, who'd gone away and been an idiot, has come to his senses and has returned. He was dead, and is now alive again; he was lost, but is now found.

With this story, told by Jesus (and therefore, God) Himself, I don't see how anyone could believe God punishes His children who disobey Him. Rather, like in the parable, He waits patiently until His child comes back home, ready to greet him/her with open arms and a compassionate, loving heart. This kind of love relationship between man and God was enabled when Jesus took the punishment we deserved on His cross. Now that the punishment has been inflicted, there is no need for it. Only love. That's what I've discovered about God recently more than ever- nothing His children can do will ever make Him run to the returning child with a whip and chains and a long lecture about how wrong they were. And, as I have implied (or rather, as Jesus Himself replied), it is the ones with no love in their hearts that wish to see the wrongdoers punished. Remember the older brother who was whining about the younger one going out and being an idiot and still gets a party? Had he had the love and heart for his brother as his father had for him, he would have come right alongside his father when running to meet the returning son.

Until next time,

J-Lindo


*I put the reference a second time in parentheses with another translation's initials there for people who would rather read a translation easier to read than the KJV, which is the default translation if I do not specify another. If you're on a computer, you'll see what I mean when you hover your cursor over both of them.

Calvinism Thoughts

If any Calvinist dares get mad at me or even thinks I'm stupid for posting my thoughts on this, remember, God is sovereign over every last thing that happens, and has every bit of everything that's happened, is happening, and is going to happen planned out in advance. So God predestined and ordained that I would be doing this in the first place.
Then again, He also predestined whether or not you would be mad or think me stupid for this as well, right? ;)

Anyways, just a few thoughts. My Calvinist friend said something about human responsibility (ie if God has predestined who's going to be saved and who isn't, why bother preaching the Gospel? Because He told us to.). Which is weird, because "responsibility" by definition requires free will because when one has a responsibility, one can choose to do or not do what they are responsible to do.

The thing that really caught my attention was this website explaining predestination http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trelect.html. He's pretty thorough, I think. Though it looks like he believes in free will with everything except getting saved. Odd for a Calvinist, who typically believes in no free will whatsoever due to God preordaining everything that's ever going to happen.

He's pretty straightforward and explains everything well, except for the very last parts.

Predestination is intended to be a teaching of the greatest comfort for Christians - but only for Christians. Not predestination, but "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is to be preached to the lost. It is most foolish to talk to non-Christians about predestination, for this teaching is not intended for them. Rather, unbelievers should be pointed to "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," to the Gospel that says that God offers reconciliation, forgiveness, and eternal life, to everyone who believes, regardless of their social status, race, sex, or past life (See John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; Galatians 3:27). "He died for all" (2 Co. 5:15) is the message the non-believing world needs to hear.


To be honest, I find that just a tad bit hypocritical. Believe that God is only going to save some people that He's already chosen beforehand, yet teach non-Christians that Christ died for all? Hide the doctrine of predestination, then reveal it when they're ready? Say, "God died for all people in every nation, His blood can save you today," then, "God only died for a certain group of people, of which you are lucky enough to be a part of. I only told you He died for all so that you would get saved."

Why not tell non-Christians that God only died for those He'd already chosen? I believe it ruins people's want of salvation. When a non-Christian hears God only died for the elect, he can very easily say, "I'm not part of the elect; I am not going to be saved." And the Calvinist is stuck there because obviously God preordained those people to say that. If people started hearing that, much fewer would get saved, I think. And those who would, being young Christians, probably would not go around telling other people about it because hey, if other people are gonna get saved, He's already predestined them to, so nothing I do or don't do can alter His plans! So I think Calvinists want people saved, but know their doctrine is too dangerous for a non-believer to hear, otherwise Christianity would likely fall.

Though to be honest, my biggest problem with Calvinism is that it totally rips love out of the equation. Oh, it tries to keep it in there by saying God choose who He choose out of love. But the problem is, I believe God created mankind so He could have someone to love Him back. Calvinism teaches God created us solely for His glory. But He's got innumerable angels doing that already. I believe God wanted love, not glory. Sure, He gets glory out of it, but it wasn't the main purpose. Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him. What gave Him joy? Knowing He'd get more glory, or knowing that because of what He'd done, He would be able to finally have a bride to love Him? Here's what I think could answer the question: do you find joy in being glorified or being loved? I believe it would come from being loved, and I'm willing to bet the same answer will go for God.
Calvinists (for the most part) claim humans have no free will. If we don't, and we truly have no choice about whether or not we're going to be saved, then we can't really be loving God back. Love implies a choice to either love or not love. Love is never forced. This is also tried to be covered up, by saying we will love Him when we do get saved, but if He decided we will, is it really love?
Again, I ask you: Would you rather your spouse be a robot who loves you but has no choice to do otherwise, or have one who loves you even though they have the choice not to? I think anyone would choose the ladder. Why? Because it's more real that way.

I could be all wrong, but that's how I see it.

One last food for thought: Couldn't Calvinism be refuted entirely if one could prove God doesn't actually know the future? ;)
(Not to say God can't make extremely educated guesses or can't know whether His prophecies will come true or not. His prophecies will come true because those are special events that He wishes to happen and will happen because His will is dominant and can override anyone else's.)


J-Lindo

Everything Changes... Not!

Heard a little quote somewhere on this vast internet thats simply put as, "Everything changes."

Is this true? I'm sure people have plenty of arguments for why or why not it is. But the only logical conclusion can be is that it is a false statement. And the argument is very simple. The statement "Everything changes" is given as an unchanging statement, and any argument supporting it is given as an unchanging argument. The statement itself and any argument made to support it ultimately defeats it. Therefore, there are some things in the world that do not change.

As a Christian, I believe God's nature never changes. As a person with reason, I believe the statement "Not everything changes" is unchanging.

Y'know, "everything changes" sounds like something out of a movie. Did it come from some movie outta Hollywood?

Update 06/02/2012: That movie Ratatouille!!! One of the main moral points came out in a talk with Remy and his dad, and Remy said, "Change is nature, dad! And it starts when we decide." What's wrong with it? If it's true, shouldn't the two things he said naturally change (if change is nature)? Oh wait, we can't say that in the movie- it'd defeat the purpose!

People, think about what you put on your statuses! I will comment on them to point out their stupidity and write a blog about it. :D

Not filled with much to chew on, but wanted to write something for fun. Until next time,

J-Lindo

Forgetfulness and Youth Pastor Pressure

There was something I wanted to blog my thoughts on, but for the life of me, I can't remember what!!

Was it a KJV-only argument?
Was it something I thought up?
Was it something someone said?
Was it something I read?

What was it?!?!?! Grr.

Well, this isn't it, but a friend I'd just met recently had this conversation with me:

She goes, "I'm Methodist. My dad is a youth pastor :D"
Not incredibly impressed, I say, "Cool. Bet that's fun."
Then the truth comes out as she says, "Sorta..."
Betting I already know what she's gonna say, I say, "Not really?"
She then admits, "It is, but there are downsides to it... Everyone expects me to be perfect, and be a little angel... at church I can't be myself.."
I then say a bit of info I'd learned somewhere, "Ah, I see. Yeah, it's always the pastor's kids/youth pastor's kids (or any kids of the ones in church authority) expected to be perfect angels. Which is why oftentimes they're actually the worst kids- because so much pressure is put on them to be perfect angels.
Not saying anything about you specifically, I'm not saying you're bad just because you're the daughter of a youth pastor :P"
She then goes, "Yeah. Im not bad I don't usually let it get to me."

Then she says what I think is a bunch of poop that's been shoved down her throat, prolly most of her life: "God doesn't want it to. He wants me to try to reach the expectations. But yeah."

Bull.
Bull.
Bull!

I then say, "He wants you to try to reach the expectations? Someone's given you some messed up theology.
I say He simply wants you to love Him like a bride loves her husband. With a relationship as deep and loving as that, He'll take you through anything with ease."

To which she replies, "I have been told by my dad that I should try to reach expectations even though I may not fully reach the level of them . He said its the right thing and what God wants."

So that's where it's coming from. The pressure to be an angel in church is coming straight from her father. And why not? What youth pastor wants to be known for having a "backslidden" or "fallen away from God" kind of daughter? In fact, the youth pastor's daughter oughta show everyone what a wonderful dad he is and  remind them of the reason he was chosen for the job and they weren't. Right?

This is the kind of corruption I'm really growing to strongly dislike, especially since the more I look into it, the more I see. I bet it's been in church since day one and has since passed on down to our generation.

In the words of Stan Lee...

'Nuff said.

J-Lindo

What Christianity Is

I considered titling this "Mere Christianity," but sadly, it's taken.

So, I've got to do a 2-page essay (whew, not too long) on what I believe Christianity is. This is really ironic, having to write a long essay I'd rather keep short about C.S. Lewis and having to write a short essay I'd rather have long on Christianity. Anyways, here I go.

...Well, now that I'm trying to think about it, it may not be that long xD I must do it anyway!

Oh, I just looked over it again, and all I need for tomorrow is an outline. Alright, I can do this... I think.

What's the "main thing" about Christianity? What's the core?


I fear this is slowly becoming another Christian cliché, but I believe it's falling totally in love with Jesus, like a bride and groom. There is a Christian cliché going around, in which people reply, in response to being asked what their religious views are, "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with Jesus Christ." (Which I've found to not always be a truthful answer.) As cliché as it is, it's what true Christianity is- a relationship. That's exactly what the main thing is, but it's much deeper and better than what that sounds like. Here's a comparison I like to make: I'm sure most everyone has had or does have someone they absolutely love. Someone you know so well you could tell what they were thinking and feeling. You absolutely hate it when they're anything but happy. You wanna be the best boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse you can be. You'll do anything to keep them happy. You can't stand not talking to them. You dread every second away from them. Whatever they like/dislike, all of a sudden, you like and dislike the same thing. I'm sure this sounds familiar to a lot of people.

I believe that's the kind of love God wants with Him and every human. In fact, you look at Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 6 when He said to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. In order for her to even be a bride, is that not precisely what she must do, love her betrothed with all her heart, mind, soul, and strength?

What's so good about being a Christian?


Going with what I said before about love being the main thing about it, it's also what's so good about being one. I've not met anyone who loves to be hated. Even if they're hated by some, they're loved by others. Suppose even those others started to hate that person? The person would be in misery. No one to love, confide in, talk to, anything. In fact, it's a reason there's so much suicide (particularly among teenagers)- they feel alone, left out, like no one loves them or cares. One even gets a renewed spirit with a brand new nature, both different than the original. One that enables the person to truly love God and every last human being around them.

What's so different about Christianity?


As far as I know, it's the only religion (if one can call it that) that doesn't require good works to outweigh bad works in order to get to the good place. Instead of mankind attempting (and failing) to ascend to where God is, God came down to the level of mankind, even making Himself into the form of a man. Any other religion has mankind attempting to reach God's level, which does not work out, since no one is perfect (supported even in Christianity by Romans 3:23).



If I could have someone comment and tell me how I could do better, do so please.

Transliteration: Baptizo and Hades

There's another KJV argument that goes something like this:

Some modern translations use the word Hades instead of Hell! What is Hades doing in the Bible? That is of ancient Greek mythology, not the Bible. The KJV correctly uses the word Hell.


I wasn't too sure about this until a couple days ago, when it randomly hit me. (I kinda wonder if it's God just giving me random thoughts sometimes.) Hades is indeed the god of the underworld in Greek mythology. (In this case, the name of the god probably became used as the general underworld. We do that in English too. For example, the word scrooge was made up after Ebeneezer Scrooge, the old miser in A Christmas Carol.) So lemme ask this- what language was the New Testament written in?

Indeed, Greek. Perhaps the word for hell is hades?

If that's so, then they have merely transliterated the word rather than translated it! Only goes to show what a terrible translation it is, because obviously the people who made it don't want people to know where they're going without Christ when they die.


In that case, you've condemned your own KJV. It also has a transliteration- the Greek word baptizo. The translation is something like "to submerge, esp. in water".

So what? They obviously knew what that meant.


Nope. Remember, the KJV was going to be under King Jame's name, and the translators- and everyone in Britan- didn't wanna offend or contradict the king and his beliefs. Otherwise, off with your head. Short history lesson- the tradition was to merely sprinkle water upon the person's head, rather than submerging them. (It probably came from one of the ancient pagan traditions when Rome tried to convert England to Catholism.) One knows long-held traditions are not easily broken. If they made a Bible that contradicted the tradition and beliefs of the king, imagine what trouble they'd be in. So what'd they do? Made up a new word. Baptize! So if one condemns other Bibles for transliterating, one must also condemn the KJV for it.

I just checked it out with a KJV Bible program, in which I can click on a word and it shows me what its original was. In the Old Testament, I find that the only word for Hell is Sheol. (We've heard that one before, another transliteration.) It's the Hebrew word for Hell. Then in the New Testament, I've got Hades (told ya) and Geena, which I have never heard before. I'll have to check that out.

These three words do seem to be able to translate as Hell, but their definitions vary a bit. I'll have to look into them a bit more. I've found (I think) Hades and Sheol seem to be equivalents.

Oh, I found another one. Tartaroo.

Y'know, since the New Testament has a bunch of different words all being translated into one Hell, I wonder if they mean more than what the consolidated English word appears to say. I do think I'll be checking this out.