I was having a conversation with a very good friend a few days back, and we turned to the topic of religion, as we sometimes do (I don't really like the idea that certain topics are taboo). He mentioned that he could finally understand why people would accept harsh punishments rather than give in on what they believed to be right. The example that was used was from the Holocaust, where Jews would state that they were Jewish, even though there was rumor going around about what would happen to them.
I was thrilled that, finally, someone else that I routinely converse with seemed to recognize a key truth. Therefore, I was naturally disappointed a few days later when they said that they now had changed their mind. After some simple questioning, I found that the reason for the about-face was they were taking their new-found view to an absurd length, and a mutual friend had corrected them about the extremity. Unfortunately, that also undid the truth from the original statement; that there are some things worth standing up for. Eventually, our conversation rested on two scenarios, one mine and one from my friend.
My scenario was fairly straightforward. In certain areas of the world, it is still very dangerous to be a Christian. One day, a law official knocks on your door and tells you, in no uncertain terms, that they had discovered that members of your family were Christian. They do not know if you are Christian or not, so they are there to ask you. If you state that you are Christian, then you are under arrest and subject to severe treatment. If you deny that you are Christian, then you are free to go, if you fully disassociate yourself from your family members who are Christian and accept the fact that their future is not your concern.
My friend's scenario was somewhat different. You are in a country hostile to Christianity, but with no relatives outside of your household. Someone comes knocking on your door one day and asks if you are a Christian. They give you no reason for their questioning, and you know that they will leave you in peace if you answer no and nobody will question again. If you answer yes, then someone may come by later to arrest you.
Our discussion ended with a polite agree to disagree, but I'm still troubled. In the United States, we are often mocked for our beliefs, but seldom are we put in danger for them. It is easy for us to forget that there are areas, even today, where Christians are brutally murdered for no other reason than their faith. Ironically, they are often the ones who are doing good things for the community in which they are murdered. I am troubled because of the question that I asked of my friend: If you deny that you are a Christian in either scenario, are you, in fact, still a Christian?
The question is still relevant to us, who live in a culture that is openly hostile to the Christian ideal. Are we willing to stand up for our beliefs and risk tribulations, or are we better off keeping our beliefs secreted away, attempting to live our faith in private only? Are we ready to accept ridicule when Christ and culture part ways, or will we join in the throng demanding that the church modernize or die?
I believe that God has great mercy and that He will forgive us if we ask. Perhaps that is why the question is so troubling. Is it better for one to deny Christ, then ask forgiveness and continue the Christian mission, or is it better to embrace Christ and accept what that means for your future? I have settled on an answer, but I am very curious as to what others think about it.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Symbology and everyday life
Another month, another post. Aren't I a slacker?
I've been wondering lately about a great number of matters, which might explain why I haven't written much. Things get all jumbled together and it gets difficult to post about one in particular.
I was thinking the other day about the various symbols that we have to represent ourselves. Most of us have something that we carry with us often, if not every day, to make a statement to the world about what it is that we believe or subscribe to. I suspect for many people, they don't think about these symbols too much, or how they are interpreted. I would encourage everyone to think a moment about what you have on your person, right now, that is making a statement.
Got something? Okay, now what does it mean? How are the people around you interpreting the message from your symbol? Is it common enough that others know what this symbol is, or what it commonly means? Are you aware that, right wrong or otherwise, others are making split-second judgments about you based only on these symbols? Given the opportunity, would these people find that you are not the person that your symbols represent? Do your symbols convey different messages?
That last one is very important, as people will oftentimes have a symbol that they wear out of habit that conflicts with one that they have at the moment. A cross on a chain worn over a t-shirt condoning violence. A promise ring worn with a low-cut dress. Examples abound in our world, from every creed, race, class and gender. This is not always because the people are hypocrites, in fact, I would wager this is very seldom the case. It is because we become so familiar with these symbols that we begin to forget that they are there. Instead of remembering why we took this symbol up in the first place, we have let it fade into the background. However, that is also the purpose of the symbols that we choose for ourselves; that others might see them and, instead of judging us as hypocrites, they might point out our symbol and remind us.
In addition to the style of clothes that I am wearing (a symbol in itself, although often less important), I keep four symbols on my person whenever I am in public, and nearly all the time in private. They serve two purposes: as a reminder to me of what I have pledged to do and a sign for others that I subscribe to a certain code. I found it very interesting that these four symbols, while from different origins and times in my life, all represent consistent beliefs. Thinking back, I have had different symbols that I used to identify myself through the course of my experiences. Over time, I might cover some of them here. A good excuse to blog more often.
Please feel free to comment on the symbols that you have in your own life. Why do you keep them, and what message do you hope that they to convey to those around you? If you had to describe yourself using only three symbols, what would you choose?
I've been wondering lately about a great number of matters, which might explain why I haven't written much. Things get all jumbled together and it gets difficult to post about one in particular.
I was thinking the other day about the various symbols that we have to represent ourselves. Most of us have something that we carry with us often, if not every day, to make a statement to the world about what it is that we believe or subscribe to. I suspect for many people, they don't think about these symbols too much, or how they are interpreted. I would encourage everyone to think a moment about what you have on your person, right now, that is making a statement.
Got something? Okay, now what does it mean? How are the people around you interpreting the message from your symbol? Is it common enough that others know what this symbol is, or what it commonly means? Are you aware that, right wrong or otherwise, others are making split-second judgments about you based only on these symbols? Given the opportunity, would these people find that you are not the person that your symbols represent? Do your symbols convey different messages?
That last one is very important, as people will oftentimes have a symbol that they wear out of habit that conflicts with one that they have at the moment. A cross on a chain worn over a t-shirt condoning violence. A promise ring worn with a low-cut dress. Examples abound in our world, from every creed, race, class and gender. This is not always because the people are hypocrites, in fact, I would wager this is very seldom the case. It is because we become so familiar with these symbols that we begin to forget that they are there. Instead of remembering why we took this symbol up in the first place, we have let it fade into the background. However, that is also the purpose of the symbols that we choose for ourselves; that others might see them and, instead of judging us as hypocrites, they might point out our symbol and remind us.
In addition to the style of clothes that I am wearing (a symbol in itself, although often less important), I keep four symbols on my person whenever I am in public, and nearly all the time in private. They serve two purposes: as a reminder to me of what I have pledged to do and a sign for others that I subscribe to a certain code. I found it very interesting that these four symbols, while from different origins and times in my life, all represent consistent beliefs. Thinking back, I have had different symbols that I used to identify myself through the course of my experiences. Over time, I might cover some of them here. A good excuse to blog more often.
Please feel free to comment on the symbols that you have in your own life. Why do you keep them, and what message do you hope that they to convey to those around you? If you had to describe yourself using only three symbols, what would you choose?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Checking Your Sources
A disturbing trend has been plaguing my attention lately. It began near the top of the year when atheistic activists began decrying the phrase "So help me God" in the presidential oath. However, given more thought, evidence of this trend can be found most places within modern life. The trend is simply, if there is no (consistently) documented proof, then the statement (or tradition, custom, etc) is invalid.
As a general rule, people today like having information. For most, a small article is enough, for others, many lengthy texts. For myself, I've found from experience that scanning articles is fine, but if something seems wrong or if there are holes in the arguments, then more research is in order, especially if I want to discuss the issue. The internet being the wonderful tool that it is, the source can often be found and most lingering questions put to rest. But what if the source is unavailable? What happens when the event happened a long time ago and the author is not available for comment? What does one do when the written record is interpreted differently by many scholars?
In times before our information age, people went to tradition. Religious traditions in particular are very rich, as they tend to last. Even those who disagree with a faith-based mindset have to agree that religions are steeped in tradition and enjoy longevity as a result. However, traditions related to national history are also very difficult to disturb. Why? Simply, because to tell people that their traditions need revising is to tell them that people they revere are mistaken or liars.
Until recently, this would be a horrible accusation to level against someone, especially against parents or other figures of authority. Lies have always carried with them a strong social stigma and rightly so. Someone who has a history of falsehoods obviously cannot be trusted and as such it is very difficult for them to operate in society.
However, this attitude has begun changing. After many political leaders and other public figures have been caught in one scandal or another, perjury seems almost cliche. The public has become jaded about our leaders, almost expecting them to lie. As a result, other long-held beliefs based in tradition are being opened to attack. If I can't believe what my political leaders are telling me today, why should I believe my historical leaders, or religious leaders?
Which brings us back to verification. If something is documented, then at least we have some "proof" that we have not been lied to through the centuries. Best to check that several sources exist, just to make sure that one wasn't a mistake. We modern people often rely on scraps of information to "prove" large theories, or discount important points that, at the time, would have been considered as common or base knowledge, not something that needed to be spelled out for posterity. Somehow, a written record, something that can be seen and touched, makes the past and its traditions real. Without that evidence, those traditions are completely invalid, unless someone can take them on faith.
Interestingly enough, the only area where physical, historical evidence is not accepted as evidence that the tradition is valid is in the area of faith. People on both sides of a religious debate can attain a great deal of information that proves or disproves their points, but those who counter them are seldom moved. The birth of most religions is so far removed in history that there are only a rare few individuals who can even comprehend such a large span of time. The traditions of those religions got to the present somehow; the believers will say from a particular source, the non-believers from a misconception that got out of hand.
In the end, people either believe or do not believe in traditions, religions, or whatever else, for their own reasons. Maybe the opposition conflicts with their worldview. Perhaps the person is a natural skeptic, or naturally trusting. For those who must have everything empirically or scientifically proven to them, faith is a mystery, mere arguments for validity need not apply. For those of faith, proofs are nice, but are not required.
As a general rule, people today like having information. For most, a small article is enough, for others, many lengthy texts. For myself, I've found from experience that scanning articles is fine, but if something seems wrong or if there are holes in the arguments, then more research is in order, especially if I want to discuss the issue. The internet being the wonderful tool that it is, the source can often be found and most lingering questions put to rest. But what if the source is unavailable? What happens when the event happened a long time ago and the author is not available for comment? What does one do when the written record is interpreted differently by many scholars?
In times before our information age, people went to tradition. Religious traditions in particular are very rich, as they tend to last. Even those who disagree with a faith-based mindset have to agree that religions are steeped in tradition and enjoy longevity as a result. However, traditions related to national history are also very difficult to disturb. Why? Simply, because to tell people that their traditions need revising is to tell them that people they revere are mistaken or liars.
Until recently, this would be a horrible accusation to level against someone, especially against parents or other figures of authority. Lies have always carried with them a strong social stigma and rightly so. Someone who has a history of falsehoods obviously cannot be trusted and as such it is very difficult for them to operate in society.
However, this attitude has begun changing. After many political leaders and other public figures have been caught in one scandal or another, perjury seems almost cliche. The public has become jaded about our leaders, almost expecting them to lie. As a result, other long-held beliefs based in tradition are being opened to attack. If I can't believe what my political leaders are telling me today, why should I believe my historical leaders, or religious leaders?
Which brings us back to verification. If something is documented, then at least we have some "proof" that we have not been lied to through the centuries. Best to check that several sources exist, just to make sure that one wasn't a mistake. We modern people often rely on scraps of information to "prove" large theories, or discount important points that, at the time, would have been considered as common or base knowledge, not something that needed to be spelled out for posterity. Somehow, a written record, something that can be seen and touched, makes the past and its traditions real. Without that evidence, those traditions are completely invalid, unless someone can take them on faith.
Interestingly enough, the only area where physical, historical evidence is not accepted as evidence that the tradition is valid is in the area of faith. People on both sides of a religious debate can attain a great deal of information that proves or disproves their points, but those who counter them are seldom moved. The birth of most religions is so far removed in history that there are only a rare few individuals who can even comprehend such a large span of time. The traditions of those religions got to the present somehow; the believers will say from a particular source, the non-believers from a misconception that got out of hand.
In the end, people either believe or do not believe in traditions, religions, or whatever else, for their own reasons. Maybe the opposition conflicts with their worldview. Perhaps the person is a natural skeptic, or naturally trusting. For those who must have everything empirically or scientifically proven to them, faith is a mystery, mere arguments for validity need not apply. For those of faith, proofs are nice, but are not required.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Aaaand, we're back
Welcome, everyone, to the year 2009 AD.
After some time off to research and decide where I want to take this little site of musings, I'm finally back to writing again. In truth, I've had so many different subjects that I've had difficulty deciding what to write about.
I've been musing a lot lately on a particular question and I'm curious if anyone else has some insights on it. So far, net searches have been unfruitful. I want to know what a pro-choice person can say to someone who is dealing with a miscarriage.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that pro-choice people are bad. I'm not saying that they're unintelligent or uncaring. I just don't know what they can say to someone (a friend or co-worker) that is trying to cope with a miscarriage.
The most common statement that I've seen so far is a pro-choice person stating that, if abortion is outlawed, then miscarriages will become legal issues, with possible criminal charges. They like to cite this article to emphasize the point. Again, I want to be clear. In cases where a woman miscarries, it does not and should not involve the police. However, it should involve a doctor and, depending on the woman's age, her parents or spouse. And the situation where a fetus, clearly identifiable as human, is flushed into the sewer should be disturbing to anyone. Many funeral homes and charities will donate to a proper burial for miscarriages (I've known a number of people who've needed that service).
Another argument is that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. This is citing a statistic, not what is a morally acceptable way to proceed with any particular pregnancy. The argument continues by declaring that because God does not protect all pregnancies to term, we shouldn't have to either. This objection is flawed on a number of levels. It is like saying that, because God allows people to contract diseases and die from them, we are morally justified if we inject people with those diseases with the intent that they die. God does things for reasons that are far beyond what we can know, and we are not exempt from any morality if we rationalize our position with "well, God does/allows it."
Others point to Exodus 21:22-25, or other biblical verses to state that God is most definitely pro-choice. This argument is largely based on poor translations. Going directly from the original Hebrew, the real meaning is much more clear:
Ultimately, the argument arises that, in the case of the miscarriage, the baby was wanted by its mother/family, but in the case of abortion, the "fetus" was not wanted for some reason. Reasons for abortion will be covered in another post at a later date, as it is a very large discussion. Personally, I find this a very poor argument, not only from the strength of persuasiveness, but also due to what it says about the value of life to a staunchly pro-choice person. Again, they are often wonderful and caring people. The general conclusion I draw from such arguments is that they do not understand what it is that they are arguing for.
I simply must become somewhat better at posting here. That can be a New Year's resolution.
After some time off to research and decide where I want to take this little site of musings, I'm finally back to writing again. In truth, I've had so many different subjects that I've had difficulty deciding what to write about.
I've been musing a lot lately on a particular question and I'm curious if anyone else has some insights on it. So far, net searches have been unfruitful. I want to know what a pro-choice person can say to someone who is dealing with a miscarriage.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that pro-choice people are bad. I'm not saying that they're unintelligent or uncaring. I just don't know what they can say to someone (a friend or co-worker) that is trying to cope with a miscarriage.
The most common statement that I've seen so far is a pro-choice person stating that, if abortion is outlawed, then miscarriages will become legal issues, with possible criminal charges. They like to cite this article to emphasize the point. Again, I want to be clear. In cases where a woman miscarries, it does not and should not involve the police. However, it should involve a doctor and, depending on the woman's age, her parents or spouse. And the situation where a fetus, clearly identifiable as human, is flushed into the sewer should be disturbing to anyone. Many funeral homes and charities will donate to a proper burial for miscarriages (I've known a number of people who've needed that service).
Another argument is that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. This is citing a statistic, not what is a morally acceptable way to proceed with any particular pregnancy. The argument continues by declaring that because God does not protect all pregnancies to term, we shouldn't have to either. This objection is flawed on a number of levels. It is like saying that, because God allows people to contract diseases and die from them, we are morally justified if we inject people with those diseases with the intent that they die. God does things for reasons that are far beyond what we can know, and we are not exempt from any morality if we rationalize our position with "well, God does/allows it."
Others point to Exodus 21:22-25, or other biblical verses to state that God is most definitely pro-choice. This argument is largely based on poor translations. Going directly from the original Hebrew, the real meaning is much more clear:
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for lifeIn other words, if the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby does not die, then there is a fine. Should the baby die, more serious consequences will follow.
Ultimately, the argument arises that, in the case of the miscarriage, the baby was wanted by its mother/family, but in the case of abortion, the "fetus" was not wanted for some reason. Reasons for abortion will be covered in another post at a later date, as it is a very large discussion. Personally, I find this a very poor argument, not only from the strength of persuasiveness, but also due to what it says about the value of life to a staunchly pro-choice person. Again, they are often wonderful and caring people. The general conclusion I draw from such arguments is that they do not understand what it is that they are arguing for.
I simply must become somewhat better at posting here. That can be a New Year's resolution.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Hail to the Cheif?
Well, the elections are finally over, and Barack Obama will be our 44th president.
Since Tuesday evening, some backers of John McCain have begun to complain when conservative leaders congratulate Sen. Obama on his election. Comments such as 'traitor', 'idiot', and other unmentionables have been thrown at those who are graciously accepting the reality that Sen. Obama will lead this country for the next four years.
I commend and applaud those who are wishing Sen. Obama well on his presidency. Why should we not? We have many reasons to not like the policies that Sen. Obama has claimed to support, but we also do not have any record of his presidency at this point. Give the man a chance to lead before he is condemned for his poor leadership.
In his victory speech, Sen. Obama set many ambitious goals. I was looking for one line in particular, and was not left wanting: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." This is a very admirable statement, and one that I sincerely hope he means. He deserves the opportunity to earn our support.
Yes, Senator, you will be our president. Like it or not, that is a reality. It never appealing to grouch about the fact that your candidate was not victorious and it does not help the cause of conservatives to bemoan the fact. It damages our reputation to stand up and declare that we will not accept him as the president. Rumor has it that a similar tactic was tried by certain democrats when George W. Bush was elected. It leads to a dividing of the country and a weakening of us as the American people. That divide is also seen by the rest of the world, which, I believe, leads to some of their dislike of our country. We are grown-ups, our United States are heralded as the leader of the free world, and we should act as such.
In this respect, George Bush himself should be looked to for our example; offering to help the Obamas in their transition to the White House and keeping our president-to-be in the loop in all important decisions. Make no mistake, the man who has been most condemned and mocked by Sen. Obama stands ready, as a leader, to train his successor, the very person he has every right to hold in great disdain. President Bush has been called every name imaginable over the past eight years, most of those titles are not deserved. Yet, he is ready to bear, gracefully, the duty of handing over his job to someone he greatly disagrees with, because the citizens have directed him to do so. If that is not someone concerned with putting country first, I do not know what is.
Note that this does not mean that we abandon our principles and lie in wait of whatever comes. Conservative values will certainly be under attack, as they always have been and always will be. We must accept Barack Obama as our president, but that does not mean that we must idly let him or anyone else tear down or dismiss what is dear to us. A popular phrase among Christians is "hate the sin, not the sinner." Likewise, we should defend our president, regardless of party, against undeserved attack, but also be ready to fiercely defend our values, even against that president. I most certainly will.
Senator, I congratulate you on your victory. I do not know what you will do, or attempt during your term as leader of our great country. That path has not been walked yet. I do believe that you are sincere in your effort to lead well. I will pray that God guide you and give you the wisdom to not divide us as a nation. United we must stand; divided, we will fall.
Since Tuesday evening, some backers of John McCain have begun to complain when conservative leaders congratulate Sen. Obama on his election. Comments such as 'traitor', 'idiot', and other unmentionables have been thrown at those who are graciously accepting the reality that Sen. Obama will lead this country for the next four years.
I commend and applaud those who are wishing Sen. Obama well on his presidency. Why should we not? We have many reasons to not like the policies that Sen. Obama has claimed to support, but we also do not have any record of his presidency at this point. Give the man a chance to lead before he is condemned for his poor leadership.
In his victory speech, Sen. Obama set many ambitious goals. I was looking for one line in particular, and was not left wanting: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." This is a very admirable statement, and one that I sincerely hope he means. He deserves the opportunity to earn our support.
Yes, Senator, you will be our president. Like it or not, that is a reality. It never appealing to grouch about the fact that your candidate was not victorious and it does not help the cause of conservatives to bemoan the fact. It damages our reputation to stand up and declare that we will not accept him as the president. Rumor has it that a similar tactic was tried by certain democrats when George W. Bush was elected. It leads to a dividing of the country and a weakening of us as the American people. That divide is also seen by the rest of the world, which, I believe, leads to some of their dislike of our country. We are grown-ups, our United States are heralded as the leader of the free world, and we should act as such.
In this respect, George Bush himself should be looked to for our example; offering to help the Obamas in their transition to the White House and keeping our president-to-be in the loop in all important decisions. Make no mistake, the man who has been most condemned and mocked by Sen. Obama stands ready, as a leader, to train his successor, the very person he has every right to hold in great disdain. President Bush has been called every name imaginable over the past eight years, most of those titles are not deserved. Yet, he is ready to bear, gracefully, the duty of handing over his job to someone he greatly disagrees with, because the citizens have directed him to do so. If that is not someone concerned with putting country first, I do not know what is.
Note that this does not mean that we abandon our principles and lie in wait of whatever comes. Conservative values will certainly be under attack, as they always have been and always will be. We must accept Barack Obama as our president, but that does not mean that we must idly let him or anyone else tear down or dismiss what is dear to us. A popular phrase among Christians is "hate the sin, not the sinner." Likewise, we should defend our president, regardless of party, against undeserved attack, but also be ready to fiercely defend our values, even against that president. I most certainly will.
Senator, I congratulate you on your victory. I do not know what you will do, or attempt during your term as leader of our great country. That path has not been walked yet. I do believe that you are sincere in your effort to lead well. I will pray that God guide you and give you the wisdom to not divide us as a nation. United we must stand; divided, we will fall.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I'm gonna go to the place that's the best
I read a book over the weekend by C.S. Lewis titled "The Great Divorce." It is written in the style of a novella and is thoughts on Heaven and Hell. The story is masterfully done (Lewis always is, in my experience), with the reader able to clearly pick out key arguments about the existence of a Heaven or Hell, as well as why people end up in one or the other.
One thing stuck out for me as I read the story, and has stayed in my mind since. In the story, there are many characters, each of which has their own hangup about something with the afterlife. Some are upset that a certain individual made it into Heaven. Others are frightened. Others attempt to seduce those in Heaven. Some are unwilling to forgive past transgressions. What struck me was, though each character had their own reason for being wary of Heaven, all were tied by a single thread: inability to put God (or anyone) before themselves.
After I finished the book, I pondered on it for a long time. The idea that people condemn themselves to Hell because they are incapable of accepting that something is more important than them is a very powerful one. Take a look at the so-called "seven deadly sins":
Lust - "I want that person for my own gratification";
Gluttony - "I don't have to control myself. I can consume whatever I want";
Greed - "I want more";
Sloth - "I don't have to work, others will do it";
Wrath - "How dare you! I am right!";
Envy - "I want what you have";
Pride - "I am more important"
If we go into Christian doctrine, time and time again, we see that we must abandon the self in order to recognize that God must come first. When Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, his response is the core of the faith: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). Browse through the Ten Commandments, and you will find the same sentiments. Go to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, the "Love Chapter" in the Bible and you'll see it there too. We are told to love our enemies and to forgive those who sin against us, because in doing so, we are letting go of our pride and anger and whatever else. Forgiveness, therefore, is a willingness to put aside our selfishness to gain something greater.
While the story points out in the beginning and again at the end that one should not take its view of Heaven and Hell literally, I believe that the points it makes are still valid for determining how one would attain Heaven. Essentially, our lives here are to gain experiences and build ourselves. Once we die, we do not gather more experiences, so we must rely on what we know. If all we know of in our lives is selfishness, then we cannot enter Heaven, because we don't know how to love God above ourselves. However, if in this life we can learn how to remove ourselves from the position of ultimate authority, and instead trust God, we are already preparing ourselves for eternal life.
Note that, if this observation is true, Christians are not given a free pass. We, too, must continually be reminded that we are not to live selfish lives. Becoming Christian is not enough, you must live it. Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is not enough, you must follow Him.
One thing stuck out for me as I read the story, and has stayed in my mind since. In the story, there are many characters, each of which has their own hangup about something with the afterlife. Some are upset that a certain individual made it into Heaven. Others are frightened. Others attempt to seduce those in Heaven. Some are unwilling to forgive past transgressions. What struck me was, though each character had their own reason for being wary of Heaven, all were tied by a single thread: inability to put God (or anyone) before themselves.
After I finished the book, I pondered on it for a long time. The idea that people condemn themselves to Hell because they are incapable of accepting that something is more important than them is a very powerful one. Take a look at the so-called "seven deadly sins":
Lust - "I want that person for my own gratification";
Gluttony - "I don't have to control myself. I can consume whatever I want";
Greed - "I want more";
Sloth - "I don't have to work, others will do it";
Wrath - "How dare you! I am right!";
Envy - "I want what you have";
Pride - "I am more important"
If we go into Christian doctrine, time and time again, we see that we must abandon the self in order to recognize that God must come first. When Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment, his response is the core of the faith: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV). Browse through the Ten Commandments, and you will find the same sentiments. Go to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, the "Love Chapter" in the Bible and you'll see it there too. We are told to love our enemies and to forgive those who sin against us, because in doing so, we are letting go of our pride and anger and whatever else. Forgiveness, therefore, is a willingness to put aside our selfishness to gain something greater.
While the story points out in the beginning and again at the end that one should not take its view of Heaven and Hell literally, I believe that the points it makes are still valid for determining how one would attain Heaven. Essentially, our lives here are to gain experiences and build ourselves. Once we die, we do not gather more experiences, so we must rely on what we know. If all we know of in our lives is selfishness, then we cannot enter Heaven, because we don't know how to love God above ourselves. However, if in this life we can learn how to remove ourselves from the position of ultimate authority, and instead trust God, we are already preparing ourselves for eternal life.
Note that, if this observation is true, Christians are not given a free pass. We, too, must continually be reminded that we are not to live selfish lives. Becoming Christian is not enough, you must live it. Proclaiming that Jesus is Lord is not enough, you must follow Him.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Salutations
Welcome to my little experiment in blogging. To those that do not know me, I hope that my thoughts are presented clearly. To those that do, I ask that you keep an open mind.
I've started this blog as an outlet to the thoughts that rush through my head during much of the day. I get very passionate about the issues important to me and this seemed a good way to keep my thoughts in order and see how they grow over time.
I want everything that I post here to be factually accurate. I truly detest lies, because if I can't trust someone, there is no basis for a friendship or even a good debate. If I should post something that is not true, please inform me and I will correct it. Please note that this condition only applies to factual information. I make no apologies for my opinions, though if you wish to discuss the point, I am willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments.
I will range through a number of things, though it will center around what I consider are important current events and my hobbies of writing and programming.
Again, welcome. Here's hoping that you and I find Three-Cycle Thoughts to be a ponderous adventure.
I've started this blog as an outlet to the thoughts that rush through my head during much of the day. I get very passionate about the issues important to me and this seemed a good way to keep my thoughts in order and see how they grow over time.
I want everything that I post here to be factually accurate. I truly detest lies, because if I can't trust someone, there is no basis for a friendship or even a good debate. If I should post something that is not true, please inform me and I will correct it. Please note that this condition only applies to factual information. I make no apologies for my opinions, though if you wish to discuss the point, I am willing to listen to well-reasoned arguments.
I will range through a number of things, though it will center around what I consider are important current events and my hobbies of writing and programming.
Again, welcome. Here's hoping that you and I find Three-Cycle Thoughts to be a ponderous adventure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)