Without God.

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.

Who you are.

If I may, I’d like to use this song to help illustrate my point for this post.

I hope this actually plays, but if not here are the lyrics I want to highlight

You can never fall too hard, so fast, so far, that you can’t get back what you lost, where you are. 

It’s never too late, so bad, so much, that you can’t change who you are.

You can change who you are.

I like the whole song, but the chorus is the point of it, naturally.

What I really like about this song is that it acknowledges that someone might want ot change who they are.

There’s a rare movie out ether even now, and there used to be scores of them, where a main character will admit that they want to change who they are. Take Black Widow as perhaps the most famous superhero example.

Not that change isn’t discussed. Usually it’s called getting over it, or moving on, or being true to yourself.

But what of the now-rare character who doesn’t like themselves? who wants to be different?

I don’t mean they are just unconfident. I mean the character who has flaws that keep ruining their life and they want it to stop.

These don’t have to be evil people, just human.

I’ve never been overly fond of the heroes with fatal flaws, it annoys me, but I wonder if our heroes who lack human flaws are always wise.

Not because I have a problem with good examples, but because I see a missing middle ground. Either we love good examples, or inexplicably we love the bad guys, but we don’t love the ones who are in the middle and trying to decide. Well, really we don’t love the good guys who still do bad things.

Heck, if fictional heroes did as many bad things in a movie as most of us do every day, we’d hate them.

But this isn’t about fiction really. I’m just referring to the missing idea of change in our culture. The lack of accountability. The obsession with being so true to ourselves that we are true to the worst parts of ourselves. Your big mouth, for instance. Or our anger.

Our laziness how about?

You know, the non-glamours stuff no one likes to admit.

The sins.

Maybe it’s just me, but one thing that always bugged me about sitcoms and stuff is how little always like that are just played for laughs. Like we’re just supposed to accept that people will always choose to be lazy, or tell “white” lies, or whatever.

In real life, we usually don’t like that stuff about ourselves.

We’ve all done stuff we’re ashamed of. Even me. I try to forget that stuff, but I know I’ve done it. I don’t like thinking about it.

You know why I use the words “we all” a lot? Because I think that real truth applies to all of us. To all humanity.

We all suck.

But we all can change.

That’s the point of the song.

We have to want to change though. That doesn’t always mean we will, but we have to start there.

To me, one of the best hopes we have is that we can change. Most of our pain in life is because we’re messed up. Maybe someone else messed us up, maybe we messed up ourselves, whichever it is we can only get better if we change.

We can’t just decide to change of course, the song is also about how Jesus can change us. That is part of the whole point after all.

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

P. S. (I might be posting a review of Dawn of Justice soon because I’m planning to finally watch it, so all my superhero fans out there watch for that.)

 

 

Valetine’s and Ash.

Insert obligatory Valentine’s Day Post:

Actually it’s also ash Wednesday and I used to go to a Lutheran Church, and Lutherans and Catholics both celebrate Ash Wednesday, so yeah.

Seriously, we joke about observing the holiday’s, but what are holidays for if not to turn our minds to the same good old ideas at least once a year. That is why we have annual celebrations.

So on this holiday devoted to love, but especially Eros, it’s only right to honor that by posting something about it.

As you can imagine, an day devoted to love of any sort is a win for me. I love love. I never get tired of discussing it.

But what does an always single person like me get out of Valentines’s Day?

For us singles, this day either becomes a day for friends and family (including the friend zone people you secretly hope will do something romantic after all on Valentine’s Day) or a day for moping about our loneliness.

I’ve never seen the point of the latter. Truthfully, since I’ve never not been single, it’s just not a bigger deal to me to day then an other day.

But because of that this day also isn’t a huge deal for me at all. My family makes home made Valentine’s, we give each other candy, sometimes my parents go out or get each other candy or a special card. But that’s about it.

Since I’m not on social media, I don’t have to suffer from all the FOMO of seeing my friends’ perfect days and dates.

Sure, I could be envious, but actually all the friends I have are single or not dating their crush or already married, so I don’t have all that much to envy.

Like many Christians, I take this day as one to think of God’s love on, and to think of how I should love other people better. One of the best ways to celebrate Valentine’s Day is to just be nicer to people, or do something for someone in your life that you wouldn’t normally do.

St. Valentine (who’s full title is actually the official name of today, we all cut out the Saint now) was a man committed to preserving godly marriage in a day and age when it had been outlawed. At least that’s the account I’ve heard.

So that’ partly why romantic love is the focus of the day, but also godly love. For St. Valentine was a christian (duh), and it takes guts and faith to keep marrying people when it could get you killed.

Sadly I have to wonder how many Christians today would even put up a real fight if that happened. I mean, the definition of marriage has already changed. What next?

But that’s a sad thought, and this is supposed to be happy. However since today is also Ash Wednesday, which among other things, reminds us that we are dust and we will return to dust, the mingling of love and death seems appropriate.

Ash Wednesday is also the beginning of Lent. The 40 days of fasting before Easter that some churches observe. It’s not a bad idea, fasting is a sobering thing, but healthy in the right amounts.

Some folks think it’s obsessive, but it’s not scientifically dangerous to fast 40 days if you are in good health and drink lots of water and even juice. OF course you should know your body before you undertake food fasting.

Lent reminds us to be humble, and to remember Christ’s sufferings and fasting for us before the cross and resurrection of Easter.

Love and Death, as Rick Riordan observed in his books “The Son of Neptune” and “The House of Hades” are oddly often similar.

But I don’t go so far as to say they are the same thing. Death can be a part of love, but it doesn’t follow that love is a part of death.

Today represents all the “dizzy dancing way (we) feel, when every fairy-tale is real” as Both Sides Now puts it, and it also represents the suffering, shadow, and death that the Christian life, and any life really, entails.

I enjoy the fairy-tale part, the giddy feels, the romantic movies, the candy; the dreaming about one day actually having a date on this day…but do I discount the not so pleasant parts?

You might know that one song from Disney’s Robin Hood, that Maid Marian sings (or thinks, one or the other) “Love goes on.”

Love, it seems like only yesterday, you were just a child at play. Now you’re all grown up inside of me, oh how fast those moments flee.

Once we watched a lazy world go by, now the days seem to fly, life is brief, but when it’s gone, love goes on and on.

Love will live, love will last, love goes on and on.

I think that sums it up, love goes on even to death, and today of all days we should remember that.

So if your’e celebrating with someone you know, then just do something a little more selfless. Be willing to suffer. Yes guys, even to watch chick flicks, and girls even to do something that you might not find all that romantic, but he wants to do.

And singles, hey, make the most of today with what you can.

“…and provide for those who grieve… to bestow on them a crown of beauty for ashes, the oil of joy instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair.” Isiah 61:3.

-Natasha.

 

 

Your image.

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.

 

The Christian Movie Atheist.

So, at risk of talking about something no one else is going to know about, let me bring up God’s Not Dead.

It made a big splash in the Christian movie industry. The movie is about a college student, among other characters, who refuses to write the words God Is Dead, for a college exercise.

I’m not reviewing the movie here. I just want to talk about how it portrayed atheists.

I’ve seen both Christians and atheists review the film and complain that the atheist was unrealistic. That there aren’t that many people out there who are out to get Christians. They don’t have an agenda against people of faith.

Is that true?

Well, these same sources have heard people say that it really happens, but they refuse to believe it.

Here’s my position on using such atheist stereotypes, if such a thing exists, in movies; It might work for one film, maybe even for God’s Not Dead. But it does not work for every christian film and it does give some films a false sense of importance. Christianity should be more important from a personal standpoint then from the persecution standpoint. Christians get persecuted; so do Jews; so do Muslims I imagine; that’s not what makes a faith important, relevant, or true.

But, nor would I say those stereotypes are never true. There is a reason they exist. Christians have their faults, but they rarely make things like that up. It’s based on things that have happened, and do happen still.

I personally knew a girl who went to a non-christian highschool, and her teacher of biology told the students up front not to talk about any religious opinion that differed from his own, that being evolution.

That’s what he said, and I doubt this girl would have exaggerated that, she didn’t seem the type to me.

For further evidence, I have heard other people tell stories of how their teachers would mock them and try to discredit their faith. It’s never happen to me, naturally because I’ve never had a nonchristian teacher.

 

Very few atheists I know would get offended if you mentioned your faith to them just in passing. But when it comes to making a point, atheists and christians are equally likely to get riled up.

And Atheists are capable of having an agenda against people of faith. (It was called the 3rd Reich.) There’s a new book out called Faith vs Fact which is described as using the “clear-eyed, rational methodology of a world class scientist [to dismantle] every claim to explaining the physical world that religion proposes” and my favorite part “irrefutably demonstrates the grave harm that mistaking faith for fact can inflict on individuals and on our planet.” (Bargain Books catalog.)

Assuming this accurately depicts how the author of this book feels, it really is almost as cartoony as a movie version of it would be.

I don’t mean to come down on this author. I don’t doubt they probably have some real reasons to be concerned. Faith is a powerful thing, and when it is misdirected, or founded on shaky premises, it is dangerous. Maybe even to the planet.

Bu-u-ut, that doesn’t mean the way they put this wasn’t insulting to any religious person’s intelligence. It also doesn’t mean that religion based explanations for how the world works are all unfounded. Plenty of them have a good scientific basis.

The flood of Noah for example. There’s hundreds of evidences for it in the earth. And if the Flood happened, it gives the Bible a bit more credence.

The bible also lines up with science on issues like the earth being round, light being a moving thing, and life being in blood. All stuff we know now, but at one time people didn’t understand.

So it might be fair to wonder if the Bible, or any other religious texts, could be right again. Maybe whoever wrote it knew what they were talking about.

Why are religious texts immediately discredited as reliable sources of information? I don’t assume that just because someone is an atheist they have no grasp of accurate science, if their bias doesn’t prevent them from being right, why should a religious bias?

In fact if it comes to that, bias really has nothing to do with whether your’re right or wrong, fact will stand for itself. Bias only effects what facts you’ll admit.

I don’t know what religion the person who wrote the above book is concerned about.But probably Christianity. It’s rarely any other religion. (Do you see a lot of books trying to discredit Buddhism?)

If so, then I wonder why they think having a faith based view of the physical world is somehow dangerous to it?

I wonder what people are so afraid of that they won’t let creationism be talked of in classrooms?

Basically I find both the view that Anti-Theists don’t exist, and the view that all atheists are anti-theists to be extreme. One is naive, the other is paranoid.

Many many people hate the bible, many hate God and hate Christians.

Many are indifferent.

But a Christian can never be sure they are safe from that sort of hatred. And we shouldn’t be. It’s always been so.

But I don’t want to seem like I’m making atheists the bad guys here. I will admit Christian can be bullies, they can use their religion like a weapon, and they can be just as adamant about going after people who don’t believe as they do.

It’s a sad fact of human nature that we cannot believe anything strongly without being tempted to hate those who dsiagree.

But, I don’t go so far as to say we should all be less passionate. Passion is a good thing. And I also don’t think  Christians should never speak up for their faith. Sometimes, as Wonder Woman would say, it’s not about what other people do or say (deserve) but about what you yourself believe. A person has to stand up for their convictions or they will never know if they are real.

I won’t be glib and say we all just need to try to understand each other better. WE actually can’t. We’re too different.

But we do need to treat each other like human beings. I think both sides should keep that in mind when we’re debunking the opposition. That’s all I’m saying,

until next time–Natasha.

What we believe-3

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.