Controversy.

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.

Race.

/ toseealife / 4 Comments

So, it’s black history month and I actually did watch a documentary type film about an important black historical figure. So, let’s talk about it.

I happen to like movies of this sort. Hidden Figures, The Help (not a documentary,) and other films of that sort ar really interesting stories.

But it’s only fair to say they have an agenda.

I have no problem with representing the struggles men and women of a certain race went through, when those struggles actually happened. But these movies very often “stretch the truth” about some of the characters.

There was real adversity I have no doubt, but often racism is best expressed in subtlety. I think these movies tend to make it too blatant. It’s actually more maddening to me when racism is a subtle thing because it’s so hard to pinpoint and remedy.

That being said, this movie wasn’t the worst of offenders in that area. It helped that a lot of the problems of the movie centered on the Germans and their ideas. Which cannot be denied since they were documented. And we know the Germans were pretty blatant about it

Funny isn’t it, a nation advancing in technology and athletics subsequently falls into the rut of racism, which America was just beginning to climb out of.

Never tell me racism is the result of only ignorance and stupidity. Some people are willingly ignorant.

I spend so much time talking about racism against white people, that I don’t want to seem like I’ve never given a thought to the real racism against blacks (and others.) Believe me, I’ve read the books and gotten mad over the accounts. A lot of shootings happen because of racism. Not always between whites and blacks, often it’s between Hispanics and blacks, but it’s still a problem.

The whole idea of skin color meaning anything when it comes to how smart someone  is is ridiculous.

These are differences to be sure, but not ones of essentials. It’s also not racism to simply be prejudiced against one kind of people.

Not color-based racism anyway. There are more than one kinds. Racism of color is a lot less of a problem now than racism of culture. You can be prejudiced against a people because you have heard or seen a lot of the same traits in them. That’s called stereotyping. But it’s not always negative.

For example, thinking all black people are good at gospel music is a stereotype, and it may be silly to assume that, but it is not racism. Because in no way dos thinking that make you think they are inferior.

Also a common mistake now is that portraying any race of people as happier then they should be is racist, because it denies their suffering. It’s propaganda perhaps, but it doesn’t imply inferiority to that race, therefore it’s not racist.

We tend to lump a bunch of different sins all into the one of racism.

This movie, Race, is interesting and informative in some ways. I just read a book that talked about how the Nazis wanted touse eugenics (the controlling of mating people and animals to get a more perfect race) to make their own sort of Garden of Eden world.

One of the best scenes in this movie was when the German racer, Luz Long, was talking to Jesse Owens, after being a good sport to him about the long jump. Luz told Jesse what was easily the most horrifying thing in the movie, that he believed the Germans in charge of the Olympics had sent a girl to him who wanted to get pregnant by him…because he was so talented, they want to breed his genes.

Jesse, who was concerned about the bigotry had this cool moment of realizing he wasn’t the only one who had problems.

Another part was when Jesse had to replace one of the Jews who were suddenly not allowed to complete because of the Germans bullying the Americans into it. (Not that it was right.) The scene was a lot more compelling then most of the other scenes regarding discrimination against Jesse.

Nothing against Jesse, but let’s be real, we’ve seen the poor, looked down upon black character a hundred times. It’s true maybe, but it’s no longer shocking. It doesn’t move us. because we expect it. In fact we’re spoon fed it from the media so often that it’s almost impossible to feel shocked. Familiarity breeds contempt.

The reason this movie’s brief touch on Jewish aimed racism and the creepy factor of eugenics is brilliant is because it makes you feel something, it makes you think about it. How racism against one people leads to racism against another, and even leads to misusing your own people, like they were animals.

Germans became obsessed with the strong and talented, and grew to hate the weak and ordinary. Even among themselves. Germans hated half wits, now known as special needs cases. They hated most people actually.

I don’t bear any ill will to modern Germans, I don’t even hate the ones who did what they did, I pity them. But this movie provided a much needed reality check on the situation. It’s not just in America, and it’s not limited to people of a certain color.

I would not get on a soapbox and preach tolerance. That’s not the answer. Tolerance will never eliminate hatred. Eventually it fosters it. I think twitter ought to be evidence of that.

All that can eliminate hatred, as Wonder Woman would say, is love.

The kind of love that will stick up for other people, no matter what nationality they are. I hope, though I have not been tested on it yet, that I would stand up for anyone I saw being mistreated.

Whether they were a muslim, an african american, a hispanic, or whatever.

Anyway, check out Race if you can, until next time–Natasha.

Should we have Black History Month?

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Inching my way to 60 followers, it’s hard to believe that for a long time I had 2 or 3. Thanks to all of you who decided to support this blog.

Sometimes I wonder why, when my blog is a lot less flashy and techy then most of the other ones out there, and most of my posts are just my thoughts about things.

But I think it’s great that blogging is one of the few places left n society where people actually seek out each other’s opinions and read them, and hopefully discuss them in a healthy way.

So let’s jump right to the controversial stuff.

My YouTube bar is reminding me it’s Black History Month, and I see it on TV too.

Since I’ve never been to school, these special months or weeks of study devoted to one group or subject are pretty foreign to me (pardon the slight pun) but I do  have some thoughts on just the concept of having a Black History Month.

I’ll preface this by saying I think Black History is an important part of our past, and also highly interesting to delve into. Blacks played a key role in all our Wars, and in plenty of our other movements, most notable the Civil Rights one. None of that is dispensable history.

Bu-u-t, that’s actually the problem. How on earth is Black History a separate thing from White History? OR vice versa. Doesn’t having a whole month devoted to it imply that it’s different somehow? Like they were another set of people in another place doing other things?

It’s like separating World History from American history. You can do it for a while, America is a young country, but sooner or later you have to include it because it became one of the principle countries in world affairs.

I happen to believe that blacks and whites have intermingled pretty much ever since their origin, maybe not all in Africa, but in other places. I think history itself shows it. (There are paintings of darker skinned figures on Egyptian wall accounts.)

But okay, maybe the idea has merit. ATtleast, when it was conceived. Back in the 80’s a lack of black history curriculum was a problem. At least if I can believe the TV shows account of it.

I have nothing against blacks themselves ( a term I am using because it is Black History Month for crying out loud) but I do have a problem with segregation.

As a white girl, it’s awkward for me when all this race stuff comes up. I didn’t used to give a rip what color someone’s skin was. I don’t really when it comes to people I know. But I hate how “minorities” (barely small enough to be that anymore) are pitted against each other.

The way I see it, setting aside a whole month to Blacks, even if it’s in name only, is more likely to promote envy and jealously among whites, or other races, then it is to promote understanding. In a perfect world maybe everyone would get it, but that’s not this world.

I think history should be taught as it happened. Mingling different aspects of it as the topic calls for. The best history books I’ve read have covered various parts of it, and how it affected various peoples.

You can’t study the American Revolution with any thoroughness unless you also learn how France and Germany were involved, how slaves were affected, and how the Spanish came in at one point. The Native Americans were a part of it too.

And it’s unfair to disregard all that. No country is, metaphorical, an island. Other countries are always involved in their affairs. Much like in person to person interactions.

I think one objection that might be made to not having a black history month is that black pride would not be raised, because our history would be taught as primarily white in important figures.

Well firstly, that’s not true, as I said.

Secondly, if that was how it actually had happened, then…that’s the history isn’t it?

Even if blacks had had  nothing to do with this country until recently, the history still matters.

Besides, if we are all equal, why doe sit matter what color someone is? Can’t we still learn from their life?

Can’t I be inspired by Harriet Tubman as much as by Harriet Beecher Stowe? Or maybe more.

Would you tell me that black Americans are incapable of being inspired by white historical figures.

What does that sound like to you? Equality?

Give me a break.

Now hold on, I am not saying I think black Americans are incapable of being inspired by white ones. I am only saying that would be the implication if we used color as a measure for how crucial it is to learn about a person.

Which is the problem with Black History Month. I want to be inspired by all worthy people, but in the proper context. Not separated as if I have to feel differently about each one depending on their race.

I may make someone mad by saying this, but I don’t give more credit to Martin Luther King Jr. for his stance against bigotry then I give to George Washington for his fight for freedom.

Because both are important. Yet in our public school system, Martin Luther King Jr will be given his fair share of attention, but Washington will likely be misrepresented or swept under the rug.

Why should white students be made to feel excluded? Why should any students?

You see how it comes full circle?

Well, If there’s a point I didn’t cover, feel free to comment below and share your thoughts.

Until next time–Natasha.

In defense of Orison Scott Card.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

Maybe it’s me. Maybe I need to take a look in the mirror.

I was on YouTube the other day and I discovered there’s been some controversy over Ender’s Game, the movie and book, because the author Orison Scott Card is against homosexuality.

Now I’m not at all surprised that he made a lot of people mad with that, but what does bug me is the eye-roll and sarcastic tone that accompany these people who were talking about it.

They imply that Card’s fatal flaw is this, and you have to take it or leave it, but they never seem to entertain for a second the idea that maybe Card has a good reason for what he thinks. No, he’s just a Mormon blindly following his doctrine.

Because obviously an intelligent man who could write a best selling book and have it made into a hit movie has no basis for his beliefs…right?

Ugh. I guess he could, but I’d hope not.

Now the truth is, I don’t like Card either. For widely different reasons that I’m surprised no one else is mentioning. I hated both the movie, and the sequel/parallel series Ender’s Shadow.

I have actually never hated a book more then that one.

But whatever my opinions are of his writing, I wouldn’t say the man is stupid or even conventional. Among other Mormons he has quite a few who are dubious about him.

But I should try to be fair here. If I were in the place of the people criticizing his beliefs, and I thought homosexuality was normal, then he would seem archaic to me.

But here’s the thing, I can’t actually just change my beliefs on a dime.

You see, contrary to what the country at large seems to think now, I don’t find it rational to change your beliefs just to match the times. Not every “new” discovery can be trusted. Not all theories are justified and proven. And a lot of what is dubbed science is based on what people want to think is true.

Back when the country looked down on homosexuals, the AIDS crisis was seen as God’s judgment. And as incurable, untreatable, or else too much trouble to fix. The people got what they deserved, in the majority’s mind.

I think it would be a mistake to rule out God as the cause, but it also would be a mistake to assume he caused it. Either way, I believe in helping people.

It’s not like if a gay person was drowning you’d refuse a life-vest because of your worldview. Right?

Well, that’s how I see it.

But there is a line. We can’t pretend it’s not there.

Just because the country now holds the opposite view of homosexuality doesn’t mean any actual facts about it have changed. It proves nothing.

But I suspect those who are attacking Card, or rolling their eyes, don’t care about facts or proof. Their self-avowed thinking is that you should let people do whatever they want and ignore it if you don’t like it.

Which sounds good for about two seconds until you apply it to just about any crime you can think of.

My point is not that these people are evil. But that they need to check their logic. IF we dismiss everything as dependent only on our point of view, then what becomes of things like protecting ourselves from criminals? Or from each other. How do we stop children from doing stupid things?

The reason this bothers me so much is not because I have a political axe to  grind. It is because I don’t like how we shield ourselves from truly learning and seeking out truth by these phrases and attitudes that really mean nothing.

If a hater was to claim Card was a hater himself, but have no basis other than that it’s accepted that homosexuality is normal and good, then that person has no real grounds except their own opinion.

But what about the non-hater? The person who feels uncomfortable with Card’s beliefs, but still thinks he’s a good writer.

Which category I fall into by the way, since I loathed the ideas in his books, but I won’t deny he draws you into the story…in a bad way.

Well, my solution was to to read them. But if you enjoyed it…still don’t read it, please.

But if they are determined, then the only thing they can do is accept that Card has reasons for what he thinks. Now if they are good or bad, I can’t even say. You can believe the right thing for the wrong reason. And the wrong thing for the right reason.

In the end it’s up to the person what they’ll tolerate.

But anyone could have pointed that out.

I guess my defense of Card is that his beliefs don’t have to be popular to have merit. Popular beliefs rarely have real merit. Because if everyone believes something, it’s generally been too twisted around to have real weight.

Believing the earth is round has no weight now, because it’s no longer in controversy.

I just wish that the myth that some beliefs are unimportant would get debunked. Plenty of beliefs are stupid, but the stupider it is, the more important it is. Because beliefs matter. They change the world.

We can roll our eyes, but we are in denial if we think it won’t make a difference how we handle this problem.

I care what Card believes because I know it’s important, especially considering how many people he influences.

If you’re reading this you must care a little bit about what I believe. And I obviously about what you believe.

Frankly, we couldn’t have much of a conversation if we didn’t.

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

 

The Christian Movie Atheist.

/ toseealife / Leave a comment

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

/ 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.