In depth

The Bus Driver.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

You know those moments that people tell stories about? The ones that Christian authors use to impart spiritual lessons, and pastors do it too, to the point where it’s almost annoying. You want to say “Not everything has to be a lesson, man!”

Well, I have one of those stories tonight.

I’ve been taking the bus to college, as you know. (Sounds like the title of an article doesn’t it?) And last night I noticed something as I got on: I tapped my pass and the driver said “Thank you.”

I thought “Why’s he thanking me? He’s the one putting in hours of his life doing a really boring job that no one appreciates him for, though they should because I sure as heck don’t have the patience to be a bus driver.”

I know the driver just meant to be friendly. That was what struck me. He wasn’t being polite, just friendly. Trying to make the rather isolated situation a little more comfortable.

To the best of his efforts, since we aren’t allowed to talk to bus drivers unnecessarily. Of course I know that’s for safety reasons, but what a lonely way to make a living if you can hardly even talk to the people you see all day. And you don’t have a co-worker there to cheer you up either.

I feel awkward just in the 12-15 minutes I spend on the bus not knowing anyone.

I’m pretty sure way back when the public transportation thing got going, there wasn’t a rule about talking to the driver. And I’m certain that other passengers at least used to talk to each other. It’s sad to see all the young students on the bus make awkward eye contact with each other, but bury themselves in their phones rather than strike up a conversation.

We’ve been raised with the idea that talking to strangers is bad, and dangerous, and worst of all, unnecessary. That’s the killer isn’t it? We feel that as long as we have our electronic transactions, we don’t need to talk. even bus passes are just card stickers now, no eye contact is even required.

And I see this, and I think to myself, we’re so lonely. We’re just starving to connect with each other.

It’s not that we want to connect on some soul level with every human we meet. I think we want to feel part of their world, just as they, in a small way, are part of ours. We might never see them again, but they were people, and we were interested in them just because of that.

Though most of us would agree general kindness is a good thing, very few of us stop to think what common courtesy and kindness require, that you care. That you see other people as beings who shape your world and are in it and whom you owe some recognition just as they owe you some, because that’s what it is to be human.

To be ignored is perhaps the most inhuman of practices that we do on a regular basis, and I think we feel it deep down, we know something’s not right.

When I do happen to strike up a conversation with someone I don’t know, I always feel it’s a bit of an awkward trade off. You ask the culturally acceptable small talk questions, (which have been disdained by the more withdrawn folks of society, but are in place for a very good reason) but you don’t really feel like you can trust them. Still you try to make things more comfortable by being more familiar, because somehow we feel less afraid when we know someone, even if it’s just their name. Even if they didn’t tell it to us, we just heard them called by it.

We yearn to know things about each other. I don’t think it’s just busybodies who feel that way. It’s everyone. We’ve all looked at a particular stranger and wondered what their life was like, and we wish we could be in it somehow, because maybe we’d find something there that’s missing in our own world.

I’m not the first to think of this, there’s an insightful essay called Strangers by Toni Morrison that I recommend you check out.

What the bus driver, and myself by my slight smile and nod in response, are trying to do is reestablish something we feel we’ve lost.

My question is, is it just this generation that’s lost it? Or have people felt this way ever since we left Eden? I see something of it it Cain’s plea to God after he is sentenced to wander the earth. “Anyone who finds me will kill me,” as if he doesn’t know who that anyone might be.

Abraham said “I am a stranger in a strange land” but he still tried to have peace with some of the land’s inhabitants.

Being strangers and being estranged don’t seem to be the same thing. One is a fact of life because we can’t know everyone, the other is a deliberate choice to be shut off from the rest of the world.

In that sense, the person like me who has spent most of her days at home may yet be less a stranger to others then the person who closes them-self off to feeling or knowing anything about them.

I think we are hungry as a whole to reconnect somehow, but we don’t know the secret. I think technology has only provided the mask to hide behind so that we no longer know this, people used to know that being strangers was a sad thing.

Until next time–Natasha

(P. S. Watch for a new movie review in the next week or so, I’m planning on doing a DCOM.)

Without God.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I’ve got a douzy for you today, folks.

I’ve been reading some essays for English class, and since I take an interest in other people’s opinions, I’ve read some not assigned to me. That was how I came upon this essay or article by Steven Weinberg cheerfully titled “Without God.”

Weinberg undertakes in the first half of this piece to explain how religion and science have been at odds, and in what I thought a very condescending tone, he admits tat many attempts have been made to reconcile the two. But he does not apparently think those attempts of much value.

Though he admits that science has as yet not found the answer to everything (such as the origin of life) he does not seem to think that is any reason to continue with religion. Science will obviously find the answer eventually, and religion has been “proven” wrong so many times that it is inevitable it will be proven so again.

But all this was no more than I would expect from an atheist scientist writing about this topic. But it was in part 2 of this piece that I thought it crossed over into the ridiculous category.

First let me address a little of part one. You should read the essay yourself for his full opinion since my paraphrase is imperfect, but it was too long to put the whole thing here.

But as I understand it, the idea of religion being trumped by science was the main point.

He may find the idea that religion and science can be reconciled to be laughable, but I don’t see in what way it is. Even from an objective perspective. If a religion is true, then one would expect scientific discoveries to back it up. Because science is the pursuit of truth, is it not?

IF religion is pure belief in abstract ideas, then science is under no obligation to prove it, though it still may prove certain things about it. (Such as that happiness, an abstract; promotes health, an observable fact.) Religion, at least Christianity and others like it, is not about only abstract ideas. It offers explanations or how the world was made and how thing in it work and why things happen. If there is a religion that does not do this, it does not come to my mind. Except perhaps Post-Modernism.

That being said, science and religion are bound to overlap at some point. hey cannot be separated because in order to pursue truth you must have some sort of foundational belief about what truth is. Even thinking science is truth requires belief.

So the condescension about Poor Christians trying to make the case for a scientifically accurate Christianity is rather hypocritical.

But leaving that aside, I think plenty of science supports Creationism. I suggest researching Quantum Physics and Earth Science for more about that.

I also don’t like the way this man lumped all religion into the same category. Myths trying to explain why the sky is where it is, and where the sun comes from and what not. Putting all religions on the same level. When they aren’t. Religions vary in how much time they spend trying to explain any of this in great detail. Those that base their whole mythos around natural phenomenon (or most of it I should say, they all have a creation story also) are unique.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and I think Buddhism are primarily about addressing inward things, and morality, not explaining trees and waterfalls.

I don’t mean that myths of that sort are less intellectual or interesting or even believable really. I happen to like them. Bu My point is, those religions are built more around nature, while religions like the above four put nature as a secondary thing to the spiritual realities.

I think that difference is important if you are going to knock a religious approach to science. Because, at least in Christianity, a big part of the doctrine is acknowledging how little man knows about the ways of God, or the ways the world works for that matter. And how easily men error. And since science itself is mostly a series of trial and error, nothing in it can be completely infallible. Science is always changing, so it is not hard truth but only part of the truth.

Even if Science did support Evolution, for instance, the idea of evolution is constantly evolving (pardon the pun) so your belief in it has to change every decade or so, probably more often then that. The deeper we get into molecular science and Quantum Physics, the more we realize we know nothing.

And if we know nothing, then science has yet to become a complete source of truth.

Which Weinberg admits, to his credit, but what he seems to miss is that if science is fallible and incomplete, religion is all that is left to run to to understand life. If human effort fails, divine revelation is all that we have left. That or nothing.

And Weinberg sets out in part 2 of his article to show us how “nothing” really isn’t so bad.

But that will take another post to cover, until next time–Natasha.

The Callous Conduct.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

This essay is authored by my sister and is not my work in any way–Natasha.

Thoughts from reading “The Bad Beginning.”

Upon this perusal of the first book in the Series of Unfortunate Events, one thing in particular stuck out to me (in fact, the only thing that really stuck out to me), and that was anger.  More specifically, righteous anger. It was not something that was featured in this series so much as the overwhelming sense of sadness and hopelessness that sticks out in every book.  The very word “unfortunate” speaks of remorse and regret, rather than such an emotion as anger.  Righteous anger really only seems to be felt by one character in this book, and that is Klaus, the middle Baudilaire orphan.  His and his siblings’ parents have been cruelly taken from them, they have not a penny to spend at the moment, and they have been deposited, like so much unwanted luggage, upon the dirty doorstep of Count Olaf.  This alleged relative is cruel and unreasonable; he has taken advantage of their helpless state and thinks of nothing except how he may gain their fortune. Why, indeed, should Klaus not be angry?  The more pertinent question may be, why is he the only one?  Where do the helpless have to turn if no one has righteous anger?  The book, The Bad Beginning, by Lemony Snicket, is, I believe, an example of how the idea of different “truths” and “realities” for each person affects the more vulnerable people in society.

These children are being abused and mistreated.  Of all people who plead for the law’s protection, surely they are the most deserving of it.  Why has no one helped them?  Why does nobody listen when they try to explain their situation?  Why are even those who care what happens to them rendered ineffectual?  These are questions that occupy the reader’s mind for the whole of the series, and it gets very frustrating to have to witness over and over.

It is not logical or realistic that every single time the Baudilaires are in danger, no adult can or will help them, and the only ones who really seem to notice or mind this are the children themselves.  True, it is

  Gardner 2

kind of this series’ thing, but one must admit that if something like this happened today there would be outrage.  There would not be a snowball’s chance in hell of Count Olaf escaping the long arm of the law.  The public would despise him and offer pity and support to the three orphans.  Mr. Poe would be fired.

Yet it is not so in this book’s world.  Our heroes just can’t get ahead.  They are friendless, penniless, and helpless.  The only people they can rely on are themselves.  Why is that? Because the books do not follow the rules of logic and reality, and because every  single adult is incurably Stupid.

Each one has a nonsensical idea of what they think life is which they adamantly refuse to give up in favour of the reality the children are actually facing.  Mr. Poe doesn’t believe anything is wrong with Count Olaf.  He chooses to believe that it is merely the children’s grief or petulance that causes their discontentment.  Count Olaf and his theatre cronies refuse to see themselves as bad and evil, instead labeling the children as the nasty and unpleasant characters of the story.  And everyone absolutely will not see how it is completely illegal for a guardian to marry his 14-year-old charge.  Except for the orphans themselves, each person believes what is most convenient for the sake of himself, herself, or the plot.  Violet, Klaus, and Sunny are the only characters who have even a remotely firm grasp on reality and justice.

This is  a literary example of one of the downsides the belief in different realities for

different people can have.  It brings to center stage the utter helplessness of those who depend on justice to save them, when no one around them “sees things” the same way they do.  They have nobody to fight for them, nobody to get angry for them.

We see that they are being treated unfairly, but in the book’s world, who knows?  Perhaps that’s only how they see it.  Perhaps what is outrage to an obvious injustice to them really is only an overreaction to Mr. Poe.  Maybe Count Olaf really is a devilishly handsome hero, just trying to obtain his just desserts.  Who’s really right?  Yet we cannot help but root for the orphans.  We see that they are good-natured, heroic, and resourceful people.   It defies our sense of right and wrong to think otherwise.

 

  Gardner 3

What would it look like if reality and absolute truth were subjective to each individual–if people only saw what they wanted to see?  There would be those, just like the three children, who slip through the cracks, who get abused and mistreated because no one can or will stand up for them in righteous anger.

Your image.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

You know how celebrities have whole teams of people in charge of PR? Or at least one agent, (it probably depends on just how big a deal they are,) you likely also know that these people are said to be in charge of the image of the star.

Or if some celebrity is getting a bad rap, they need to work on their image.

That’s the idea I want you to keep in mind.

What about us ordinary people? Don’t we worry about our image also?

We just don’t call it that. But we all think about how people see us. It’s like some pop songs say “The world is watching you” and we all feel like that sometimes.

Or maybe we feel invisible.

I think I tend to feel more invisible. I’ve been that person that nobody really talks to, or just waves or says a superficial hello to, but no one is really interested in my company.

I actually have a friend now who just became my friend pretty much because they actually liked talking to me, which shocked me considerably.

Not that people don’t say I’m interesting but you get the idea.

I know that I’m not the only one, I’d say at least 50% of humanity feels ignored a lot of the time, event he ones in the spotlight at their job, or in their family, or in the eyes of the world, when they aren’t performing, they feel ignored. That’s why a lot of people perform, it’s too get attention.

How does attention effect our image? Image is all about what kind of attention we get. Negative attention means a bad image, positive means a good, and no attention means…bad pretty much. Who likes being ignored?

Maybe those who have learned to like it as a means of self defense.

There are those souls who just seem self sufficient. You probably know one or two, or you are one, they seem happy by themselves. They’re introverts. They could go on singing their merry song without interruptions.

But I guarantee that even those people blossom out when someone takes a special interest in them.

How much of what we think of people is based on what we see of them? Tabloids rely on photos to influence our perceptions of people, commercials rely on images to affect our emotions, we post pictures of ourselves to give the impression that we are having a good life. OR maybe to plead for sympathy. It depends.

There’s that saying that no man is an island after all. We don’t want to feel like Robinson Caruso in our lives.

People are deeply lonely, that may be one of the defining characteristics of humanity. even career women and successful men who love their jobs feel lonely.

Often our success is just our way to compensate to ourselves for our personal pain. WE decide that if we can’t have what we really crave, hen we’ll at least have an impact in another area.

It’s been observed by others that we all wear masks, that we hide our true self.

But even if we were true to ourselves, I think the loneliness would remain.

I mentioned in a recent post how pain and suffering can make me feel lonely. My dad is getting over a bad cold, and he said the same thing about getting lonely just lying around being sick.

But I think human pain itself makes us lonely. I think knowing how much other people are capable of hurting us makes us lonely, we have trouble trusting them.

IT’s terrible to not be able to trust, it makes us insecure.

You’ll find pretty much all your issues can be traced back to someone breaking your trust at one point, or you breaking your own trust. I know all my issues do back to those two things.

How does that effect your self-image?

Here’s where we get to the part where all this comes together.

A celebrity’s obsession with their image to the public is just a manifestation of their obsession with self-image. They only get to parade it around for the rest of us. Get to? More like we make them do it. Society can be cruel to its idols.

But is there a way to stop this? Can we ever cease to be lonely? Can we get over our mistrust?

Well, the world’s answer is no. You can manage your junk, but you can’t get rid of it.

The religious answer is that you can get rid of it someday if you do the right things now.

The Christian answer is the only one I know of that gives three different answers that don’t contradict each other.

The Christian answer is first of all that we need to realize our image is supposed to be reflecting God. Genesis 1 says we are made in His image and likeness.

This means that we are literally God-like.

But obviously our image has been screwed up.

The second thing we need to do is recognize that in this life, we’ll never be perfect. SO in a way the world is right, our junk does stay with us all our life.

But, and that’s a big but, thirdly, we know that there is a next life.

It’s actually part of Christian doctrine to believe that heaven effects earth even now. In other worlds, our eternal life bleeds into our mortal life.

Our junk, our pain, and our sin, they happened. Nothing changes that. But Jesus can take those things and transform them. Use all of them to drive us to him, and to redemption, instead of separation. The more we embrace that, the more our eternal life impacts our here and now.

In a sense, our junk is removed even before we really feel different.

Our image can change.

Personally, I think it’s a relief to not have to worry about my image anymore. I do get hurt still, but I have a way to bounce back.

That’s all for now, until next time–Natasha.

 

A lantern in our hands.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

I just read another great book titled “A lantern in her hand.” This isn’t a review of it, but I want to credit the book with inspiring this post.

The book is, as it turned out, about love. And I am a sucker for any story where love is the focus and the savior as it were. I say sucker, but I don’t believe it’s really naive to think so.

Love gets a bad rap when it comes to making it the saving grace of a story, but I would wonder what else is better?

So I have a question to put to you, viewers, what makes life worth while? I mean, what makes anything we do important?

You see the main character of the book has dreams to be an artist, a singer, a painter, and an author. She wants to put something fine into the world. As a modern woman (or man) we can all empathize. Almost all of us aspire to greatness at one point in our lives, whatever we may settle for later, and movies and popular stories have certainly helped drive it into our heads that any life that doesn’t change the world is common and ordinary.

I personally relate. I think I tend to see life as wasted when you aren’t doing something big.

The point this book made is that being a mother and a wife is a big thing.

Now, to even suggest that motherhood might be enough of an aspiration is resented by most women.

I won’t say I haven’t seen it that way myself, but I know better.

It’s not that motherhood is all a woman is good for. That’s not it. The point is that what is done in love is done well.

If someone dreams big dreams, it’s a good thing, but they have no failed in life if at the end of it, they fulfilled different dreams.

Some women dream of doing big things, and also of being mothers. Is it a failure if they fulfilled the latter, and fall short of the former.

What if it’s not wrong when a parent’s dream of the finer things is fulfilled int heir children’s lives?

It seems hard on the parents. But if there’s one thing the age of pioneers and pilgrims should have taught us it’s that one generation has to light the lamp, or the lantern, and dare to dream, even if they will never see the completion of the dream. Because sometimes one lifetime isn’t long enough for us.

Back in the Bible when folks lived to be 900 years old, they could have all lived to see their dreams fulfilled, but maybe now that our lives are shorter, we have to learn to be more content with less.

That’s not bad, I think on the contrary a shorter life leaves less time to get too comfortable in this old world. Which isn’t where we all belong.

I guess I’m rethinking my goals. I still hope to make an impact on the world, but if I end up in some corner of the globe with a small circle of friends and family to take care of and help and inspire, my life won’t be wasted. If I only get tot ell my stories to my children they are still worth telling.

Some parents, like the father in “Little Britches” and Casper Ten Boom from the writings of Corrie Ten Boom (The Hiding place; and In my Father’s House.) shine out most in when they leave behind in their children.

The Bible knew that parents are reflected in their children, not always, not every time, but often. I think today we’ve lost that.

Actually, we’re ashamed of it. We hate being like our parents because we feel it makes us less ourselves.

But the truth is, humanity is interconnected. When I went to Cambodia, I felt a common bond with the people there who couldn’t even speak English, it had nothing to do with how similar our lives or personalities were, but in that we’re all human. WE all share certain things.

In spending a few days in their lives, I expanded mine. For I became a part of theirs, and they a part of mine. I don’t mean that they influence what I do over here a whole lot, but there is a connection.

It’s hard to describe, some people have already hit upon the idea that humanity is all connected with each other, and I believe it’s true.

Even more so in families. We are a part of each other.

I believe strongly that we are all unique. But sharing our traits with others doesn’t take away from that. I resemble both my parents according to some people, but I don’t look exactly like either of them simply because I resemble both.

People are like those math problems where you have to figure out how many different way you can arrange the numbers. Only our numbers are limitless and we all have our own special part.

But what we share is, when you think about it, what enables us to love each other.

That’s why there’s so much hate now over he areas of racial tension both in America and all over the globe. It’s because the politicians are focusing on our differences. We should enjoy our differences, and I do, but inflaming them makes them more important than they really are.

Just like in any family where the parents or children puts too much emphasis on being alike or unlike each other. It’s just not important enough to fight over. (I mean of course, to ever begin to fight over. If one side is being unfair about it, I do think sometimes it has to be fought out.)

I might be white, privileged, young, and geeky, but it’s never bothered the people around me, no matter what their background is, and why should it?

To bring it back to the idea of accomplishment, I think the big things are kind of life the differences between people. Important, but not more important then things like love, wisdom, and nurturing and protecting and dreaming.

A wise man leaveth an inheritance for his children, the Bible says. And it’s no shame if in your whole life, what you accomplish benefits someone else more than you, some might even call that selfless living.

Until next time–Natasha.img_1549-4

What we believe-3

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

So what  we believe is that Sin is bad, God is good, Jesus is unique, and righteousness starts on the inside.

I might as well call this part Hard things the Bible teaches.

Let me go back now to the person claiming the Bible is too old to shape how we do things.

This person wasn’t a Christian, or even an orthodox Jew from what I could tell, but they aren’t alone. Christians have said that too.

Most specifically about how we discipline children, and view sexual immorality. Both between same sex and opposite sex couples.

They claim that the Bible’s advice to spank children is outdated and part of the mindset back then. They claim this, even though that advice comes directly from Solomon, who was the second wisest man to ever live, according to God Himself. And whose proverbs prove true in every other circumstance. No one argues that laziness leads to poverty, a nagging wife is worse than no wife, and fools can’t be cured by stripes or sound reason.

But we chafe at the idea of hitting Children.

Okay, I’m not a monster, I know it sounds sick. And if I wanted people to agree with me, I could pick almost any other point of contention to discuss and get more open minded responses.

But in true Jesus fashion, I’m going for the most problematic thing.

The reason is, if we discredit God’s view, then we are saying God can be outdated.

The complete arrogance of us, if we claim that God is real, to say that we could be more progressive than Him, is beyond belief.

But people will support gay marriage and ignore what the Bible clearly teaches on it in favor of what the world says, and they will ignore what the Bible says about children.

Now to be clear, the Bible does not say Children are wicked. Jesus encourages us to become like children, but be adults in understanding. And that is why discipline is encouraged. Because Children do not start out wicked. But if neglected, all human nature tends towards it’s worst parts, because we can’t help it. We are born into sin.

I’m going to be fair and admit that thousands of people have been physically disciplined by parents, and it made them worse off, and bitter, and left a scar.

But the only time I was ever mad at my parents truly for spanking me was when it was for something I didn’t do. Injustice is what stings.

Which is why many people do find spanking traumatizing I believe, it’s not the spanking itself. If pain itself equaled trauma we would all hate our siblings who slapped us, or even our friends or our pets.

But when trust has been broken between parent and child, physical discipline, or any discipline at all is fanning the flames.

The issue is trust.

The Bible says that God disciplines those He loves, using suffering often far worse than a spanking, to teach them not to sin, or to teach them patience. It’s not fun.

And people hate it, possibly more now than they ever have. Life is too easy for some of us, and too hard for others. Both types of people will find discipline form God a disheartening idea, and will likely resent it from their parents.

But, and please hear this with an open mind, that doesn’t mean it’s bad.

We need to adjust our idea of bad. To the modern mind, if it is painful; if it produces tears; if it’s upsetting; then it is bad.

But that’s a fairly new, and not an enlightened idea at all.

Because how many more people need therapy now because they think all painful things that happen to them warrant trauma. Things have come to a pretty pass when electing the wrong president is enough to throw people into an emotional tailspin.

Furthermore, spanking is one thing, but people who have a problem with corporal punishment, often (not always) were actually beaten or other wise abused. Spanking leaves no real damage. And a good rule of thumb is, if it damages, it’s too far.

But I’m no expert. To me that is what makes sense.

I’m not saying that every parents needs to spank. Some children can be ruled by other means. But some can’t.

The Bible expects parents to use their heads when it comes to that sort of thing. Jesus once said “if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children; how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to you.”

The point is, would God tell us to do it if it wasn’t good?

And that leads to other complaints people have about the old testament. Like why would God command entire nations to be wiped out.

And Christians would never argue that that’s okay now (I hope.)

Any why would God condemn homosexuality? (Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s in there.)

There are two options, maybe three.

Some say God has changed over time. That is, they say that things were different back then, and harsher, and it was a different world. It was, but it’s not because God changes. It’s because we change.

Others say it shows that Christianity is uncivilized in its origins, and that’ is why it can’t be taken seriously now. But they are going by a definition of civil that was ironically created by the spread of Christianity. (until the idea of brotherly love got about, the idea of killing people over religion wasn’t ever considered ridiculous, it’s why Jesus was crucified to begin with.)

The third option, aside from choosing to say some parts of the Bible aren’t real, and not many will go there (I hope;) is that God does not change, but He can change the rules.

C. S. Lewis explained it best in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” Certain laws have been in place since before time itself. Time itself is a law that was in place before the law of Moses was given.

And those laws supersede the laws that were given to tide us over till Christ came.

The Law itself is universal, when it comes to how we should treat each other and how we should treat God. But the part about dealing with Sin was never meant to be the way things were forever. And we know that because in the prophets, God speaks often of a time when sin will be gone forever, and forgiven forever, and we will never be separated form Him again. No more sacrifices, no more death, no more suffering.

He also says He takes no delight in animal sacrifices in of themselves. Only preferring them to destroying people. (Wouldn’t’ you?)

This may sound like a broken record, but remember, we are the guilty party here. We are the ones who deserve death. God could justly destroy the whole world, and he almost did once. But he promised never to do it again and He won’t destroy this earth till the end of time.

The only reason we see things differently now is because we’ve had Jesus’ work in place for 2000 years. And the world’s viewpoints have altered. But in the time Jesus was here, they still view all sin as worthy of death.

The point is, though God allows us to question His decisions, it is because of His mercy. Because we don’t have the capacity to understand Him.

But lest this sounds like a cop out when my whole point was to lay out what we believe, let me say that this is what we believe. That no man can understand God unless God enables Him to.

If you understood anything of what I’ve been saying, it’s the grace of God. Because let me tell you, I didn’t use to get it. Often I still don’t.

I have days when it all seems clear to me. But most days, I have the merry go round of opinions spinning through my head. I think about what the world says about God and I wonder what basis I really have for disagreeing.

And the thing is, my doubts prove nothing. Nothing except that men are easily swayed by each other’s opinions. Which is true whatever you believe.

But the fact that sometimes I can see how the pieces fit together, that gives some pause. Because it’s hard to be sure of anything in this chaotic culture of ours.

But I am sure.

And I will continue to be sure, whether or not people think it’s crazy, outdated, or even morally wrong to believe what the Bible teaches.

If a little fall of rain can drown you faith, it didn’t have deep roots to begin with.

Until next time–Natasha.