Heaven

So after blogging about Hell yesterday I felt as though I ought to consider Heaven as well. I mean, who wants to think about Hell and Hell alone? A really cool thing happened in church today: Our pastor at the Chilliwack Alliance decided to speak about Heaven. This is probably the best sermon I have ever heard. I have to share the things that Pastor Leon spoke of today, because it gave me so much hope.

Let’s start from the beginning: In the book of Genesis we learn that God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden before ‘the fall’. After the fall, Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden for their choice of disobedience. Mankind was originally created with “unlimited potential”, so it’s no wonder that we feel so unfulfilled and limited here on earth. Plainly put, mankind was separated from God and the entire World was cursed with him. Pastor Leon biblically suggests that the only way for us to be restored, is through a re-creation of Heaven and Earth. How does this work? Peter explains: “But the day of the Lord will come like at thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:10-13). What is Peter saying here? Leon suggests that since “Fellowship with God was broken in Eden, Heaven is a return to the original Goals of Eden”: It is God’s way of restoring what is broken.

I find it interesting, how our tendencies are to blame God for this present human condition. People get mad and rage against life and God. I have done this myself actually. Whenever something would not go my way or tragedy would strike, I believed that God somehow was messing up or neglecting us. I was too proud to consider that maybe he has a plan for this mess on Earth. Lately I am learning that God sees our hurt and our sufferings: “The Lord is close to the broken-hearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit” (Psalm 34:18) and not only that, but Jesus himself was, “despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain” (Isaiah 53:3). He not only sees our pain, but he came down from his throne and experienced it with us. The Bible is not just a book of wisdom, or an instruction manual of how to live life: it holds the story and plan of the world: “ ‘For I know the plans I have for you’, declares the Lord, ‘Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you’, declares the Lord, ‘and will bring you back from captivity” (Jeremiah 29:11-13). I challenge you to look into the things that God promises us today.

Back to today’s sermon, Pastor Leon expressed the difficulty that we have as fallen beings, to understand the concept of Heaven: Heaven truly is, “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard and what no human mind has conceived-the things that God has prepared for those who love him”( 1Corinthians 2:8). Leon pointed out that even John, the writer of Revelation, probably had great difficulty in explaining what he saw when God revealed his plans of restoration to him. The book of Revelation can still draw us a picture of what Heaven will be like: “Then I saw a ‘new heaven and a new earth’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’. He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” (Revelation 21: 1-5).  These verses in particular give me so much hope and joy. Consider this: we will be who we were made to be in Heaven. We will be the complete beings and will be walking in constant fellowship with our Creator.

What are we to do with all this information? How do we become recipients of the Grace of God? Leon reminds us that, “Entrance into heaven depends on what you have done with Jesus Christ, the Saviour here on earth”. Pursue God with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength and he will not be far away from you. In fact, he pursued you first: “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me” (Revelation 3:20). We can never get to Heaven by being a ‘good person’: In fact, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away” (Isaiah: 64:6). The only way is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved” (John 10:9). Leon’s conclusion was: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).

PS: Thanks Pastor Leon, for walking me through this again. I needed it now more than ever. 

Hell Fire & Brimstone

I will admit, I do not often think of the afterlife until I need to. Generally I live life expecting that I will live forever here on Earth. I have made myself quite comfortable here, and I call it my home. Everything will be going along just as usual until, I am reminded of Death: humanity’s ultimate insult. World religions discuss Heaven and Hell and I will admit there are some pretty interesting beliefs out there. Atheism suggests that our life here, is all that there is. Most religions, I have found, have no guarantees about going to Heaven. This is quite odd to me but a discussion for another day. The main question that I have had return to me over and over again is, ‘What kind of Loving God would be willing to send people to Hell?’ and also, ‘if Jesus so loved the world that he was willing to die, why wouldn’t he just find a way to make it so we can all go to heaven?’ Well, after looking into it further this week, I have taken a 180 degree turn in my thinking about Christianity’s take on Heaven and Hell, and I will tell you why.

First of all it is important to pinpoint what exactly Heaven and Hell are. I have always pictured Heaven as the place floating on clouds with a bunch of naked, baby Angels, and hell being similar to prison but burning up at the same time. These images I had did not come from study, but rather from cartoons I watched as a child on Saturday mornings. A closer look into the theology of Heaven and Hell, opened my eyes to the possibility that Heaven and Hell are not so much punishments or rewards we receive due to whether or not we ‘lived a good life’ and were ‘good people’. C.S. Lewis points out that since God is God, he is the ultimate good and therefore the closer you become to God, the closer you are to Heaven. Lewis suggests that you cannot get heaven without getting God: “God made us: invented us as a man invents and engine. A car is made to run on petrol, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking god to make us happy in our own way, without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.” (Mere Christianity). Therefore, if God is good, wouldn’t it make sense for us to want to be near him and in return, if we do not draw near, doesn’t the result of Hell only make sense?

Next point I thought was important to look at was, ‘Why would God send decent people to Hell?’ Well, for myself I only have to look at human relationships: if in my friendships I come across somebody who is a ‘good person’ and I happen to really love them, in fact I was so in love with them that I was willing to die for them, how do you think they would react? You would think that they would love me in return. Now let’s suppose that they heard from our mutual friends the depths of my love for them and they chose to both reject and ignore me. How would I react? I guess I would give them the distance that they wanted. Now let’s suppose I was God (I like doing this more than I would admit), and I was the Ultimate Goodness, the natural result would be that their rejection would turn into Hell, not because I sent them there, but because they chose separation/rejection of my love.

Thirdly, I have always wondered why God would be willing to create beings who would reject his ultimate act of love. Why not just create creatures who were prepared to accept me? Well I’m sure we’ve all heard that God desired beings who chose him with their own free will. Lewis explains this in The Problem of Pain: “In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside…” In this statement, Lewis comments on the matter of free will suggesting that it is not so much God who sends us to Hell, but rather it is ourselves who willingly decide to remain as far away from the Ultimate Goodness that we lock ourselves away in our own selfishness for Eternity.

Lastly, is there any solution to this problem of Heaven and Hell? I’m not perfect and I’m not sure that God will always see me pursuing Him. What then? “In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out [everyone’s] past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.”(Lewis, The Problem of Pain). In the end, God will not force anyone to be with him. Hell, by definition, is complete and total separation from the Ultimate Good: God himself. If people will not accept God, then they get what they want. The real question is, what do you want? Are you unwilling to surrender? Or do you believe that, “To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:/ Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.” (Milton’s, Paradise Lost)

P.S. Jesus Himself cried out about those who reject him in Matthew 23:37 : "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together,as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing"

Bible Thumpers

Don’t you just love it when Christians use the bible to back up their claims? I mean, those are almost 2000 year old documents, and who knows how many times they’ve been modified and lost in translation? I used to wonder these same things. Recently I decided to take a closer look into the New Testament: its accuracy and the motivation behind the writer’s decision to document these stories. What I’ve found is quite shocking.

In History and Literature classes we look at many documents of Antiquity, however, we rarely question their authenticity or reliability. In Josh McDowell’s “Evidence for the Historical Jesus”, McDowell suggests that we put the scriptures through 3 tests. The first test is called the Bibliographical Test, where we look at the amount and quality of the earliest manuscripts. By doing this, we can compare it to the copies we have today and see how accurate they remain. In comparison, the History of Thucydides (which was written around 460-400 BC), has only 8 manuscripts that have been dated to about AD 900 (nearly 1300 years after the originals were written). The same is true for most writings of Antiquity, and the Professor of Biblical criticism, F.F. Bruce comments: “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.” McDowell adds, “When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast… Over 22 000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 manuscripts and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament. Also the dates of some of the earliest manuscripts are not dated to the late 2^nd century but as early as AD 130 (the John Rylands Papyrus) which is only a generation away from the life of the apostles.

The second test suggested by McDowell, is the Internal Evidence Test, which involves actually looking at what the document says. I found it quite strange that the New Testament authors actually claimed historical legitimacy. Luke 1:1-4 boldly states: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” This sounds like a note I would attach to a research paper. Luke, although not an eyewitness himself, decided to take the project on, and interview all the eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and resurrection. Another instance that is similar occurs in 2 Peter 1:16 : “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty”. Unlike the researcher Luke, Peter and James and John were all eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, ministry, and resurrection. Peter is actually addressing the situation we find ourselves in today: questioning the authenticity of the Gospels. Lastly, In the book of Acts (generally attributed to Luke), we find Peter speaking to a crowd: “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22). F.F. Bruce points out that, “One of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things’; but also, ‘As you yourselves know’. Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective”.

Lastly, we must ask ourselves, Why would the disciples both devote their entire lives for the Gospel (good news), and then die brutal deaths for a Lie? Consider Peter: on the day of Christ’s death he denied associated with Jesus and his ministry three times. After the resurrection Peter was out preaching Christ’s resurrection even after being threatened by death. Peter was eventually crucified upside down. What changed Peter’s mind and life so drastically? Did he die for a lie devised by him and a few other men? What would be the motives for creating such an extravagant hoax? The famous French Philosopher, Pascal states: “The allegation that the apostles were impostors is quite absurd. Let us follow the charge to its logical conclusion: let us picture those twelve men, meeting after the death of Jesus Christ, and entering into conspiracy to say that He has risen. That would have constituted an attack upon both the civil and religious authorities. The heart of man is strangely given to fickleness and change; it is swayed by promises, tempted by material things. If any one of those men had yielded to temptations so alluring, or given way to the more compelling arguments of prison [or] torture, they would have all been lost” and I would like to add, the entire Christian Faith would have died on the spot.

In conclusion, not only is the New Testament one of the most reliable documents of Antiquity, the writers also strongly believed in what they wrote. The were so committed to the Gospel that they were willing to die brutal deaths for the cause and preservation of the Good News of Jesus Christ so that you and I can be certain of his purpose here on Earth. Ultimately, “If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity” (McDowell).  The Gospels are both intellectually sound documents as well as existentially meaningful: Take a look for yourself. 

-Rachel S.

P.S. If you are curious about the accuracy of the Bible, as well as translation, look into the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will again, be amazed at how accurate the versions are that we read today.

A Parable on Empirical Proof

* This is a very thought provoking story regarding empirical proof for the existence of God
                                               

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion’.  The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure!  God's good. '

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!  He considers for a moment.  'Here's one for you.  Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him?  Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that?  You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.  Most of us would if we could.  But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues.  'He doesn't, does he?  My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him.  How is this Jesus

good?  Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.  'No, you can't, can you?',  the professor says.  He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.  'Let's start again, young fella.  Is God good?'

'Er.. yes,' the student says.  'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters.  'From God'

'That's right.  God made Satan, didn't he?  Tell me, son.  Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir..'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it?  And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?'  The professor continued, 'If God created  everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness?  Immorality?  Hatred?  Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question.  'Who created them?' There is still no answer.  Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.  'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.  'Do you believe in Jesus  Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing.  'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.  Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not..'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?  Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God.  There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '

Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.  The room suddenly becomes very quiet.  The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat,  white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called  'cold'.  We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.  There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.   Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy.  Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.  You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.  We cannot measure cold.  Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room.  A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.  'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. 

In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.  'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

 'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is

going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this

process is an on-going endeavor, are you not  teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room.  'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?'  The class breaks out into laughter.  'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?  No one appears to have done so.  So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due  respect, sir.'  'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent.  The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.  Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers.  'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'   Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it every day.  It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man.  It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world.  These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this, the student replied, ' Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself.  Evil is simply the absence of God.  It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.  God did not create evil.  Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.  It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when  there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

True Seekers

As “Spiritual Seekers” or “Seekers of the Truth” do we really want to ever want arrive at something? Is the point of Seeking to actually Find? I have noticed that it is very popular to state that you are a ‘seeker’ however, it is looked down upon to state that you have found something. Weird hey. Isn’t ‘seeking’ without the end goal of ‘finding’ equivalent to closing our eyes, shutting our ears and remaining lost? It seems to me that the post-modern world is running away-scared to death- of Truth. Stop saying that you are searching for Truth when you really have no intentions of finding it.

Lots of people will tell you that ‘faith is blind’ and that there is no way to prove God, or his existence. Okay, well since God is not in the world it is hard to test his existence. End of discussion... but wait a minute, what about Jesus Christ- the man in history who claimed to be God in the flesh. In order to understand this Jesus Christ, we must look to both his claims and His history. Since we already looked at his claims last time, lets investigate the Historical Jesus. Philosophy Professor Charles Anderson asserts that, “It cannot be stated too strongly that Christianity is an historical religion, and that it is so intimately tied to history that if the historical credibility of its sources were to be proven false, it would at once collapse as a possible claimant for our loyalty.”

What is this historical credibility then? Well there are four main historical elements that we must look at.

1)              Jesus existed. He is documented both in the Gospels which date back to AD 70 (about 40 years after Jesus’s death) and also documented in Flavius Josephus’ The Antiquities of the Jews (AD 93), in Thallus’ works (AD 52) for example.  Gary Habermas (Philosophy Professor at Liberty University) comments: “While some believe that we know almost nothing about Jesus from ancient, non-New Testament sources, this plainly is not the case. Not only are there many such sources, but Jesus is one of the persons of ancient history concerning whom we have a significant amount of quality data. He is one of the most-substantiated lives in ancient times”

2)            

      People believed his claims and his miracles. Not only did Jesus have followers convinced of his divinity and that he was the promised Messiah, but even his closest friends (the disciples) were convinced. What is even more crucial to understand was that these were not just any people group that believed him: these were first century Jews. First century Jews were taught to believe in only one true God that is separate from Earth. To the Jews, this is a big deal. If they were wrong about Jesus and about the incarnation, they knew that this was the ultimate sin.

3)      

               Hundreds confessed to seeing Jesus alive, resurrected from the dead. Ultimately the Christian faith is hinged upon this single ‘historical’ event. The apostle Paul admits how pointless Christianity would be if the Resurrection never happened: 1 Corinthians 15:14-16: "And if Christ has not been raised [from the dead], our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead”.

4)      

          These same followers of Christ died for their faith. Pliny the Younger describes the persecution of the Christians in his letters to the emperor Trajan dated to AD 112. He describes the process: “The method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were in fact Christians; if they confessed it, I repeated the question twice, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed”. In his Annals (AD 116), Tacitus also confirms the persecution: “Therefore… Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus…”.

So, Jesus, his resurrection and the formation of the early Church are either True, or it is all a big hoax. Ultimately, it would require more faith to disprove the secular and Gospel accounts. *side note: for those who think that perhaps the Gospels were just lies that the disciples made up, we have to consider their intentions, their writing methods and the dates to which they are set in (being close enough to the crucifixion that many people would have proved these testimonies false). What kind of power would they have gained for creating a false Faith? Why would they have died for their hoax? Why did they write in the historical style rather than the style associated with fiction at the time? Why did they make reference to people as if to use them as eyewitnesses?

Let me ask you this: Are you a Spiritual Seeker who intends on actually finding the facts? Or are you a Spiritual Seeker who never plans on actually finding anything? Let’s not flatter ourselves and say that if there was enough evidence for Jesus and his claims, that we would wholeheartedly accept it. We all have our own biases in the case for Christ. The evidence is there. Let’s realize our own biases: Truth is too important to not seek it earnestly.

-Rachel S.

 “You’re so proud of saying you’re a seeker

But why are you searching in the dark

You won’t find a thing until you soften your heart”

-Keith Green

For Further Reading:

-          “Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A compelling Case for His Life and His Claims”- Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson

-           “Annals”- Tacitus

-          “The Antiquities of the Jews” –Flavius Josephus

-          The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

-          “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” Richard Bauckham

-   

Who do you say I am?

       Well, now that I have focused on a central truth claim, I must look at Jesus' truth claims. One of the biggest issues people have with Jesus, has to do with his identity. Was he a Rabbi? Was he the leader of a dangerous cult? Whenever I bring Jesus up in discussion most people get very uncomfortable. I always found this to be odd, as nobody gets uncomfortable when I talk about Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi or Buddha, and surely most people believe Jesus is a good guy. One of the most common claims people have about Jesus goes something like this, "Jesus was a great moral teacher, but certainly not God." It got me thinking, if Jesus was just a moral teacher then where did we ever get the idea of him being the Son of God. If Jesus was just a moral teacher, then why do people get so uncomfortable. I started reading lots of books about Jesus to find out who he really was. Eventually I decided to look at the Gospel of John to see what He said about himself.

Here is what I found:

“I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58

“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My father who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE”. John 10: 27-30

“Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does, but if I do it [miracles] even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” John 10: 37-39

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him” John 14:6,7

When being questioned by Pilate about his ‘kingship’, Jesus asserted: “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” John 18: 37

Read any of the Gospels, and you will find Jesus claiming over and over again to be the Messiah, The son of God and One with God the Father. 

       I began wondering why God, would have to come down from heaven in the flesh. What was the point? Philip Yancey made a great suggestion: “I learned about incarnation when I kept a salt-water aquarium… I had to run a portable chemical laboratory to monitor the nitrate levels and the ammonia content. I pumped in vitamins and antibiotics and sulfa drugs…You would think, in view of all the energy expended on their behalf, that  my fish would at least be grateful. Not so. Every time my shadow loomed above the tank they dove for cover into the nearest shell. The showed me one ‘emotion’ only: fear. Although I opened the lid and dropped in food on a regular schedule, three times a day, they responded to each visit as a sure sign of my designs to torture them. I could not convince them of my true concern. To my fish I was deity. I was too large for them, my actions too incomprehensible. My acts of mercy they saw as cruelty; my attempts at healing they viewed as destruction. To change their perceptions, I began to see, would require a form of incarnation. I would have to become a fish and ‘speak’ to them in a language they could understand.” 

       Well, after reading some of Jesus’ statements about himself it is impossible not to come to a verdict. Lewis words it much more gracefully than I can: “I Am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”


So, who do you say that He is?


-Rachel S.

The Human Condition

       We all have been wronged in our lifetime. Our hearts, minds and souls cry out for Justice and we try to find ways to cope with this evil in the world. I have often heard that forgiveness is the best way of letting go and moving forward with life. I never did ‘forgive and forget’ in order to restore what was lost. No, I did it for myself. I forgave because I believed that it would help me. Instead of finding peace, I found bitterness. Instead of restoration I became destructive. According to Ghandi, “the weak cannot forgive, because forgiveness is an attribute of the strong”. My forgiveness was false. When people hurt me or I felt an injustice, I felt it was my duty to point out their wrongs, and to offer them my 'selfless' forgiveness. 

     Ironically, rarely do I find myself living up to my own personal standards of morality: Perhaps I am not among the ‘strong’ that Ghandi speaks of. I know I have wronged others in the past as well. How much more have I separated myself from my Creator? Perhaps I am truly fallen. Could I ever try and pay back the moral debt that I owe? Will I ever be accepted through being a good citizen and trying my best to ‘forgive and forget’? Religion says probably not, but try harder. Christ says no, but I have a solution. 

       Here is a very relevant illustration: consider the riots that occurred after game 7 of the Stanley cup playoffs. What will happen now?. Either the city of Vancouver can devote all its time to finding out the kids that have caused the damage or the City can absorb the debt and pay the price. There can also be a middle ground where both the City and the perpetrators pay, however we cannot say that the damage can be forgotten or quickly fixed: it must be dealt with. We are like the rioters who rebelled and continue rebelling every day. Damage has been done. When it comes right down to it, an offence has been committed against God. Humanity stands in Judgement. According to Timothy Keller, when someone has wronged you only have two options: “The first option is to demand [payment] for the damages. The second is to refuse to let him pay anything. … Notice that in every option the cost of the damage must be borne by someone. Either you or he absorbs the cost for the deed, but the debt does not somehow vanish into thin air. Forgiveness, in this illustration, means bearing the cost for his misdeed yourself”. Forgiveness itself is not easy either. The taxpayers will be paying for a long time, they will be paying with the money that they have worked very hard to earn. Forgiveness always comes at a great cost for the one who has been wronged!

       Religion then, would be like making the rioters- who probably do not earn a very high income- pay for all the damage that they have done. All over Facebook, people are demanding for Justice, they are demanding that those who have wronged our City pay.  Jesus Christ, in the same sense of being the City, decided that there is no way for these rioters, to ever be able to pay for the damage done. Instead, he pays- even though he never wronged anyone, even though he deserves a crown of Gold, he chose to wear our crown of thorns. I find this truly amazing. I do not understand even. I always envisioned an angry God, one who is old and grey and judging the world and asking them to pay the price for the injustices caused against him. A God who made the Ten Commandments and demanded that we clean up our lives before we can even consider looking at him. I never thought that he would want to step down from his throne to pay for our misdeeds. This is true Grace, this is not religion. This is unlike anything I have ever known. This, is the Gospel. This is the Good News. 

       Ultimately, our human condition screams out at us that we will never be perfect. This is true. We probably won’t stop violating our City, or our God. Although we will try over and over again to be good people, to be good citizens, brothers, sisters, friends, and to make up for the damage we have done, we will always miss our mark. That is okay though, if what Jesus said about himself is true, then the price has already been paid. The debt has been absorbed. Our chains are gone. We've been set free. What is so amazing about grace? It is unlike anything we've every known.

Losing My Religion

       So in our quest for Truth we have come to Crossroad: Knowledge and Wisdom from Science and Philosophy do no permit us to fully grab hold of any kind of ‘Truth’, therefore I have a serious decision to make. Do I dare look to faith? Do I dare stop, and ask for directions? Let’s see what happens!

       Lately I have been seeking wisdom and knowledge in various places including the Tao Te Ching, which was recommended to me by a friend. Indeed it does contain much wisdom with regards as to how to live your life. The three key concepts to this wisdom are; moderation, compassion and humility. Awesome! If I can keep these concepts in line, then I will not only be wise, but I will be able to live out this wisdom.  It got me to thinking though: what is the point of achieving such wisdom apart from finding God. If this wisdom shows me how to lead and exemplary life and how to become a great moral citizen then that is good, however I know my own weaknesses and at the end of the day I still have 100% chance of mortality. At the end of the day, wisdom does not offer me purpose. Wisdom is becoming more of a concept than a reality. Wisdom is not the be all and the end all of truth, Wisdom should however, be an aftereffect.

       The Tao is not the only place that offers such wisdom or ‘Truth’. In fact, many world religions would offer you a similar moral code of conduct. From what I have learned over the last few years, religion is man’s approach at ‘righteousness’ in order to find acceptance with God. Religions, offer you a path way to God through morality and rules. However, many would agree that religion is not really a good thing. I would have to agree with them. Religion, legalism, dogma: call it what you will, does not bring you closer to God. We know this through our own observation of religious people in our lives that are a far cry from perfection. “Go easy on them Rachel” you might say, “For we all make mistakes”. Yes, you are right. Indeed we have all fallen short of even our own personal standards. Also, I want to add to some of your surprise, that I have been reading Christopher Hitchen’s  work, “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons everything”, and I have to admit, his critique of religion has a lot of valid points to consider.

       Ironically, the protestant minister, Timothy Keller also agrees with this argument somewhat, stating that religion is and has been a very bad thing in the world: “religion, generally speaking has a really strong tendency to divide people. It has a very strong tendency to create strife amongst human beings, in fact I would go so far as to say that religion tends to create a slippery slope in the heart that tends to move all the way down to even oppression and violence. You see, if you tell a group of people, ‘You have the ‘Truth’ and you are saved by preforming that ‘Truth’, that has to lead to a feeling of superiority to the people who are not preforming that ‘truth’. In turn, that leads to a separation, you tend to pull away from those impure people, and then you become unfamiliar with them. Then you are able to believe the worst of them. You begin to have stereotypes and caricatures in your mind about them. This finally creates a condition for you to passively or actively participate in the marginalization or oppression of other groups of people with different beliefs. You can dehumanize them in your mind…”  Unfortunately this is very true of ‘Religion’. I only have another problem now: Although I believe that legalism, religion, and dogma have brought much strife into the world, I cannot get over the sense that I have a creator, and that we are not here by accident. I am still waiting for Truth "to set [me] free"

       Growing up in a Christian home, I did not think that it would be okay to come to any of these conclusions. I thought that I should just accept religion and keep on ‘fighting the good fight’. This became a big problem for me though, and I began to ask, “what if I am fighting for the wrong side? Is what I believe in even Truth or is it just another religious institution? What if I, as a religious person, am really the bad guy?” A few years ago I proposed this to my father, even though I was very nervous to do so. I was astonished by what he had to say. He told me that he agreed with me 100% (and this is coming from yet another minister). Both my father and Timothy Keller agree that ‘religion’ is and has been a bad thing in the world. I then asked him how it was that he was able to maintain his faith and his beliefs. My father explained to me that Jesus Christ is the difference: Jesus Christ came to the earth to announce that no one can ever be saved through their own morality. He came to crush all the preconceived notions we had about God: instead of giving us more rules to follow in order to reach him and gain acceptance, Jesus (God in the flesh) came from Heaven to earth to reach us and offer acceptance freely. This doesn't sound like the religion to me. If Jesus did indeed walk this earth as God in the flesh, in order to restore our acceptance before God, then it is truly revolutionary and not religion at all.

       After this little chit chat with my Dad I realized that although I have more direction, I only have more questions. I am not going to just believe what he has to say about Jesus on blind faith. First of all I want to figure out who this Jesus was: Was he even real? What exactly did he say about himself? How can we trust what the Bible says? This must be worked out!


Ultimately, if Jesus really is Truth personified, then IT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

-Rachel S.

In the Absence of God

       Today in my History of African Slavery class, I read an account of how Thomas B. Chaplin was called to court after the death of one of his slaves named Roger. Due to the harsh punishment inflicted upon Roger by Chaplin, for being physically incapable of fulfilling the task ordered of him, Roger died. The punishment he received was extraordinarily brutal: he was “placed in an open out house-the wind blowing through a hundred cracks-his clothes wet to his waste-without a single blanket- and in freezing weather, with his back against a partition-shackles on his wrists, and chained to a bolt in the floor, and a chain around his neck-the chain passing through a partition behind him, and fastened on the other side- in this position the poor wretch was left for the night… The verdict of the jury was, that Roger came to his death by choking by a chain put around his neck by his master-having slipped from the position in which he was placed” * (Thomas B. Chaplin, Manuscript diary, South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, S.C.)

       Why is the (true) story I just told so repulsive? Well for one it goes against our western belief system that  all men (and women) are created equal. There is a problem with this though, and the problem is that while we believe that we are all entitled to equal rights, we have no reason to explain WHY we are all entitled to equal rights. If “God is dead and we killed him” according to Nietzsche, then all notions of ‘good and evil’ are unjustifiable. 

        Some have argued that our notions of morality are simply social constructs that are passed down from generation to generation.  C.S. Lewis takes this statement head on: “I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference… I need only to ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.” Ultimately then, there can be some differences in minor details of morality , however, similar concepts of ‘good and evil’ are still very much present in our world.

        Do you not find it odd then, that we have these notions of ‘good and evil’ and that they are in fact cross-cultural? Why are they there? Yale Law Professor, Arthur Leff also questions this: “When would it be impermissible to make the formal intellectual equivalent of what is known in barrooms and schoolyards as ‘the grand Sez Who’? In the absence of God... each... ethical and legal system… will be differentiated by the answer it chooses to give to one key question: who among us… out to be able to declare ‘law’ that ought to be obeyed? Stated that baldly, the question is so intellectually unsettling that one would expect to find a noticeable number of legal and ethical thinkers trying not to come to grips with it… Either God exists or He does not, but if He does not, nothing and no one else can take His place…As things are now, everything is up for grabs. Nevertheless: napalming babies is bad. Starving the poor is wicked. Buying and selling each other is depraved… There is such a thing as evil. ALL TOGETHER NOW: Sez Who? God help us.” 

       Finally, Timothy Keller (in reference to Annie Dillard) suggests, "We inescapably believe it is wrong for stronger human individuals or groups to kill weaker ones. If violence is totally natural why would it be wrong for strong humans to trample weak ones? There is no basis for moral obligation unless we argue that nature is some part unnatural. We can't know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some supernatural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong".  So what is it then? Do we deny our moral obligations because God is dead? No, although many would say that they do not believe in a higher power, those same people never really follow through in fully leaving moral obligations in the dust. What is it then? Where does this conscience come from? 

Maybe, just maybe, God is not dead after all...


-Rachel S.

Science and Skydiving

     Many would agree that Truth is a touchy subject. In fact I think it is near the top of the list for touchy subjects. However, if I am going to find truth anywhere, I will find it in Science. Surely we can rely on Science as an ultimate informant of Truth… Right?

     After conversation with my super smart scientific friend (Greg Webber), on the subjects of Truth and science, I have discovered that I strongly believe in the scientific method. According to the Philosophy Professor, Alexander Moseley, the scientific method is described as “one of testing a theory by experimentation and being able to replicate that experiment and get the same results; [but] conclusions drawn are tentative …” We use science every day in most everything we do. For example, I pour coffee into my mug assuming that it will land in my mug and not fly up into my face. I know this to be true of gravity; however I cannot scientifically prove that it will never fly into my face. Moseley continues; “Nonetheless, the immense quantity of work that has been based on controlled and repeatable experiments builds up to an impressive edifice-not one that is dogmatic though, for the scientific method demands a healthy scepticism to ensure that what is understood today is always up for revision tomorrow”. That being said, Scientists can never come to final conclusions, they can however, come to probability. According to Greg, the knowledge of science works in a circular motion that spirals towards a centre, but never fully arrives at the centre (the centre being Truth).

IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED…

     Greg explained to me that Scientific evidence is based on Empiricism + Rationalism. Well, According to Moseley’s “A to Z of Philosophy”, “The empiricist rejects any possibility of innate knowledge- all knowledge that we gain is based on what we perceive with our senses so what our minds are working with when we make scientific conjectures; create imaginative stories and comprehend what is around us, and is gained absolutely from the senses” and the Rationalist says, “I can be uncertain of the validity of my senses, I may be fooled by what they offer, but I can never doubt that I am thinking. Thus the initiating premise becomes the principle of the workings of the mind: given that I know that I think, my duty, as a rationalist, is then to proceed logically, maintaining a grip on the terms that I use and the connections between them, then a system of thought may be deduced”. So, the path to Truth can begin with Science and Philosophy, however it will not end with either because neither discourses will allow it.

DO NOT WORRY, THERE IS STILL HOPE!

     I will not lie, all this made me even more confused than ever. While referring to all I learned from Greg to my Father, he suggested that in order to come to Truth, one must not just dance around it in a circular motion (as Science and Philosophy allow). In order to grasp it, you must become intimate with what this “Truth” says about itself. However, if you never try to become intimate with any Truth claims, you will never ever get closer to Truth. If you only stick with what Science and philosophy permit then you will remain seriously limited to attaining any “Truth”. Consider this: You are in an airplane that is plummeting to the ground. You see others jumping off the plane with parachutes, but you do not know for sure that your parachute will open or that you will land safely. If you stay on the plane you will continue falling and eventually you will die. Discussing with others the probability of your parachutes trustworthiness is a good idea. It’s also a good idea to ask a little bit about how the parachute works. Ultimately though, you will have to choose whether you will place your faith in your parachute, or continue questioning its reliability or just ignore the whole situation altogether. So, what will you do? Will you follow the path of Science and Philosophy and then just throw in the towel when they have nothing left to offer?

-Rachel S.

The Elephant In The Room

     Often people find truth in Religion, but at the same time, religion just opens a whole new can of worms: Are all religions equally true, or actually equally false? This question has been debated by philosophers for many years. While discussing world religions with a friend of mine last summer, my friend explained the story of the Elephant and the 5 blind men and suggested that this is a good way to view world religions. In his address to Berkley students, Tim Keller explains this argument: “Imagine 5 blind men and they come upon an Elephant. Each one grabs the Elephant from a different place one says ‘oh the elephant is-he’s grabbing the trunk- long and flexible” but another guy has hold of the leg and says ‘he’s not flexible at all, he’s kind of stumpy” so every one of the blind men tends to think that they sense the whole Elephant but they only sense a little part of the Elephant … [Therefore] No religion ought to say it sees the whole thing… etc”. This narrative at first seems very humbling. In fact when I first heard it I thought, yeah, this is the truth! I see a lot of wisdom in all religions and a lot of similarities too. However the response that Newbigin comes up with completely changed my thinking.

     Lesslie Newbigin’s response to this argument is, “In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant… the real point of the story is constantly overlooked.  The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of it.  The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmations of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth.  But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite.  If the King[narrator of this story] were also blind, there would be no story.  What this means then is that there is an appearance of humility and a protestation that the truth is much greater than anyone of us can grasp.  But if this is used to invalidate all claims to discern the truth, it is in fact an arrogant claim with the kind of knowledge which is superior that you have just said no religion has”.

     Ultimately saying that all religions are equal, or equally untrue is a truth claim in and of itself. This got me thinking of my own ignorance to different world religions as well as my own partial agnosticism. I used to say things like, “there can be no way of finding absolute truth”, in order to appear enlightened, progressive and tolerant while at the same time I was really just doing what I didn’t like: I was making another truth claim. I was coming across as though I had it more figured out than religious leaders, when really I just did not take the time to consider what these leaders/ “blind men” were saying. In regard to the blind men and the Elephant, I am also blind and the only difference is, is that I am not trying to grasp the Elephant at all. In order to even know if it is an Elephant, you would have to be more insightful than everyone else. Newbigin’s suggestion has humbled me greatly.

     At the heart of this story is mankind’s desire to explain away the possibility of absolute truth. In our post-modern society we are afraid of truth, because we know that it will challenge us to change. We are afraid of truth because we feel that it will limit our freedom somehow. We suggest that there is no way to find truth, and when others claim to have found truth we “explain it away”. In his piece, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis suggests, “But you cannot go on ‘explaining away’ for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too?... a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as to not see”.

     I want to challenge you to get up off your throne of infinite post-modern wisdom, and search for the Elephant in the room. Humble yourself a little. Ask for help. Seek Truth and Knowledge with all your heart, because at the end of the day what could be more important?

-Rachel S.

PS if you have the chance, watch this video. I got most of my information and quotations from it!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiWeohEBdPo

The Problem With Absolute Truth Claims

What is truth? Pontius Pilate and Aristotle asked this question and we are still asking it today.

At my university we are taught to question all Absolute Truth claims. History students especially are encouraged to search for the bias behind all statements. Everything is subjective. In the same classroom, I learn about how political and social structures have used their Absolute Truth claims in order to seek power; King James I claimed he was divinely ordained by God to rule over England and Scotland, Hitler declared that the Aryan race was the master race and deserved Lebensraum. Timothy Keller asks the question, “Is belief in absolute truth the enemy of freedom?” My history professors would probably answer “yes”.

 The problem most have with truth claims is not usually whether or not these claims are in fact “true”. The Problem is the manner for which those who believe themselves to be enlightened with the “truth” choose to broadcast it. *No I do not believe that all claims to absolute truth are in fact true (especially in the cases where it has brought oppression to others), however I do believe that truth is out there* Absolute truth claims often do lead to fanaticism. Timothy Keller explains fanaticism as: believing that you are superior to others because you have the “truth” and are morally and/or intellectually surpassing others. Keller states that what you need is not to rid yourself of absolute truth claims, but to find an absolute truth that humbles you.

The Christian faith for example, is not free from claiming absolute truth and manipulating its truth in order to seek power. However, Keller suggests: “Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer Grace is profoundly humbling. The people who are fanatics then, are so not because they are too committed to the Gospel [or their truth claims] but because they’re not committed to it enough… They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are not fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding-as Christ was.” Keller suggests that, “the antidote is not to tone down and moderate their faith, but rather to grasp a fuller and truer faith in Christ”.

Ultimately, manipulation and oppression are definitely things to be cautious of and if we’ve learned anything from history it should be that. Many absolute truth claims are power grabs, but this is also how you know that they are not true. Jesus Christ said “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:31-32). The problem with an absolute truth is not that it cannot exist because we have seen many examples of truth claims gone wrong, the problem with it is that we have given up and have major trust issues. Winston Churchill wisely asserted, “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance my deride it, but in the end; there it is” Truth may be twisted by some and smoke may blur our vision from past experiences, but the truth is still out there waiting to be found.

Mahatma Gandhi got it right when he said, “Whenever you have truth it must be given with love, or the message and the messenger will be rejected”

-Rachel S.

P.S.  “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them” –Galileo

new beginnings

"BELIEF DOESN'T CREATE TRUTH. 

UNBELIEF DOESN'T DESTROY TRUTH"

What does this mean to you? See what I did there? I asked you for your version of the true meaning of this quote. hmmm.

I have noticed that truth is not something that is very popular these days. Truth divides people. "Truth" creates wars. Truth is not politically correct. Truth also changes lives. Over the years I have avoided truth because I realized that it would challenge the way I thought and the way I lived. I wasn't ready. 

As a university student I am often told that we all have our own truth, and our own reality. Well to be quite frank, I think that this is just a sad and lazy excuse for not searching. I am sick and tired of living life without adventure and without purpose. I want to blaze a new trail and discover  something genuine: I WANT TRUTH. I also happen to believe that this truth is attainable: "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." (Matthew 7:7-8 NIV). 

Here is my Game plan. I am going to read philosophy, search the word, sift through apologetics and open my mind to learn from others. As Solomon stated, "He who walks with the wise grows wise" (Proverbs 13:20 NIV). 

Don't sit back, Don't relax. Brace yourself. Join me.