The Great Paraprosdokian

I kind of wanted to write about something serious today. Maybe use some brilliant logic to ward off the dangerous "Whys" in the philosophical world. Instead, I'm going to talk about my favorite subject. Yes, that's right. The paraprosdokian.

I don't know how to pronounce that, but I do know what it is. A paraprosdokian is a type of sentence in which the second part is surprising or unexpected in such a way that the reader must reinterpret the first part.

This type of phrase is usually used by mistake or in humor, which is basically the same thing most of the time. It is used by mistake because the author or speaker did not fully think through their statement, and in humor because it's just funny.

Here are some examples:

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I don't know." — Groucho Marx

"If I am reading this graph correctly, I would be very surprised." — Stephen Colbert

"I like going to the park and watching the children run and jump around, because you see, they don't know I'm using blanks." — Emo Philips

"I want to die like my father, quietly, in his sleep—not screaming and terrified like his passengers." — Bob Monkhouse

These things make me smile. I hope that my smile can be shared by you, because also it makes me smile when other people do too. And now my challenge: use a paraprosdokian today in a conversation. It doesn't matter if you rip off one of the above, or if you create your own slice of brilliance. But if anything good comes of it...please, comment and tell me about it.

Better Than Drugs

Today, I got out of bed with the intention of spending my entire morning playing the guitar solo in the song Better The Drugs. I've played it at least one hundred times so far, and my fingers feel like they've been playing with knives. I am so envious of Skillet and their guitar skills.

In case you're unfamiliar with this song or this band, here are the lyrics:

Feel your every heartbeat
Feel you on these empty nights
Calm the ache, stop the shakes
You clear my mind

You’re my escape
From this messed up place
‘Cause you let me forget
You numb my pain

How can I tell you just all that you are
What you do to me

You're better than drugs
Your love is like wine
Feel You coming on so fast
Feel You coming to get me high

You're better than drugs
I'm addicted for life
Feel You coming on so fast
Feel You coming on to get me high

Feel you when I’m restless
Feel you when I cannot cope
You’re my addiction, my prescription, my antidote

You kill the poison
Ease the suffering
Calm the rage when I’m afraid
To feel again

How can I tell you just all that You are
What You do to me

You're better than drugs
Your love is like wine
Feel You coming on so fast
Feel You coming to get me high

You're better than drugs
I'm addicted for life
Feel You coming on so fast
Feel You coming on to get me high

How can I tell You just all that You are?
What You do to me

Feel Your every heartbeat
Feel You on these empty nights
You’re the strength of my life

I like this song, and not just because it has an awesome guitar solo that I can almost play. It also presents God in an unusual way.

I consider this to be a worship song. In fact, if I can learn it, I'll be using this song in a worship service. Most people are surprised by the fact that I think of it as worshipful. They say "how can you talk about drugs and still be worshipful?" Well, it's not really talking about drugs. It's talking about the fact that God is beyond comparison to anything else in the world.

Wouldn't it be cool if there were more songs that don't just say, "You're glorious, o majestic Savior," and said something meaningful? We have these words that we use to describe God in worship. Things like powerful, glorious, marvelous, etc. But "better than drugs?" Yes, this is an awesome worship song.

I have to now quit writing so that I can play the solo a few more thousand times.

Coming Up Short

One time, somebody said the following paragraph:

"The biggest problem with most people is that they won't admit their flaws. I would admit mine, if I had any."

This is funny, because it is obvious that everyone has flaws, and so he really does have something to admit to. I'm sure you've figured that out. Except for the second sentence, this is a true statement. No one wants to admit where they come short of perfection.

Why is that? Well, of course, because no one wants to look less than perfect. But in fact, admitting to a mistake doesn't actually make a person appear less good. Everyone is imperfect, and everyone knows that everyone else is imperfect. So just because you don't mention your imperfections doesn't mean that people think you don't have them.

Here's the truth: if you can humbly admit to the places where you come up short, other people will actually think of you in higher regard because you can admit to flaws.

This doesn't mean you should walk around telling everyone everything you've ever done wrong, but it does mean that there is no reason to be afraid of telling the truth. Of course, that's easier for me to say since I don't ever make mistakes, right?

having nothing (part three)

So if we can't be free by having everything, the only option is to have nothing. This is nearly as hard to do--impossible, in fact, as long as we are alive. Life equals desire and possession. That's why Paul talks about dying to himself.

Basically, freedom comes when we admit that we are stuck in the perpetual mistake, and give it up.

But here's where the next big problem arises. Life is not entirely to blame for our captivity to sin. The imperfections of the body have ruined the soul as well. And so, to die to ourselves, it's the soul that has to die.

However, if a thing is dead, that doesn't mean it's free. It's just dead. It also has to be reborn. And so, the path to freedom is found in being reborn in to a new life, which is life in Christ.

And that is the end of my thoughts on freedom.

freedom (part two)

Only three people in the entire history of the universe have ever been free. Two out of three only stayed that way for a short time. Freedom is an extremely hard thing to get a hold of, but there are two ways to do it.

One: have everything.

Two: have nothing.

These two things are both all but impossible to achieve. To have control of everything is incredibly hard, and only one person has ever attained that: Jesus (by "person," I am referring to human beings, meaning that God is ruled out).

The second is just as hard. A homeless hobo hobbling his way through the streets may look like he has nothing, but appearances are exceedingly deceiving. He still is constantly desiring more than what he has. I know this because it is human nature to want more that the possessions readily available to us. So really, everyone who has nothing actually has a desire.

The other two people who had perfect freedom were Adam and Eve. They had nothing, not even clothes, and didn't know the difference. But then they were confronted with a choice: eat the fruit of knowledge or not? They said yes.

When they took that bite, they lost their freedom. At this point, God gave control of the earth over to Satan; while God brings freedom, Satan brings captivity.

So if they lost their freedom, did they have free will anymore? No. And no one afterwards did either. Everyone is acting out the exact same decision (meaning, the wrong one). But there's more to the story, and I will continue tomorrow.

earth-shaking decisions (part one)

What is a big decision? When we think of earth-shaking decisions, we typically think of things such as large, round tables and concerned middle-aged men in ties debating amongst themselves. We think of the Oval Office, or of Parliament (depending on your country), or even of the executive offices of a large business.

But the decisions made in these places are not earth-shaking or earth-shattering. They help move along the reals decisions, but are themselves not much at all.

The real decisions are made on a much smaller scale, at first glance. The real decisions are made by the soldier on the battlefield--should I pull the trigger or not? That may not, at first, seem earth-altering, but it is. World War One exploded when Gavrilo Princip deciding to pull the trigger and assassinate Archduke Ferdinand. The American Revolution grew from distrust to war when four or five men decided to pull a trigger and shoot some soldiers across the field.

Now, both of these situations were already volatile; both wars were intently seeking a way out of the conference rooms and onto the battlefield. However, who's to say they would have found that way without these men making decisions?

But Gavrilo Princip's decision was shaped strongly by his environment. It's possible that he could truly see no other option but to shoot the Archduke. But someone made the decisions that shaped his environment. And their decisions were shaped by those of their predecessors. And their decisions were shaped by those of their predecessors. And their decisions were shaped by those of their predecessors. And their decisions were shaped by those of their predecessors. And yes I did write that line four times.

The ultimate decision goes back a long way. Even before humanity existed. The ultimate decision goes back to God. He literally shaped the environment in which Adam was created. So everything goes back to God. He made the earth in the way He made it with full knowledge that Princip would shoot the Archduke. So why did He make it that way?

Because He gave us free will. But what does it mean to have free will? What exactly is freedom?

Tomorrow, I will do my best to answer that question.

things that don't make sense

In the town that I live in (Coleman, Texas), there is an interesting thing that has been done with the streets. Intersecting Commercial Avenue, we have First through Thirteenth Street. However, intersecting these streets is Fifth Avenue. Fifth Avenue and Fifth Street intersect with each other. How did this happen?

Well, however it happened, it did. When I first encountered this, I was shocked speechless. Both signs said "5th" in large letters, and I failed to notice the tiny letters saying "st." and "ave." After a while, I got used to it. I don't really notice the strangeness anymore, I just keep going.

Christians tend to do that also. There will be some incongruity that doesn't quite fit, that doesn't make sense with the things we've been taught. However, our lives are much to busy to spend all our time trying to think through these things, and so we just push ahead. Eventually, we just forget about it.

Here's one of them:

Look up at the stars. These tiny points of light are massive balls of flame billions of lightyears away. A lightyear is the distance it takes light to travel in one year. So if the earth is only a few thousand years old, as it is according to the Bible, how could the light have reached us yet? How can this be?

At some point in the future, I will write about my theory as a comment to this post. However, in the meantime, I would like to hear your ideas, because they could (probably) be better than mine.

A Story

Today I'm going to tell a story.

Once upon a time, there was a little boy named Jimmy. Jimmy, when he was very little, went to church every Sunday. In Sunday-school he learned all about Jesus. Jesus was a friendly-looking man dressed in bright colors who lived in drawings populated by other bright and colorful people. For some reason, every once in a while, those pictures were less bright and more gray. The Jesus person looked sad in those pictures, and was usually nailed to the wooden thing at the top of the church steeple.

Then, Jimmy got bigger. He moved up to the next Sunday-school class, were he began to memorize verses from the Bible. He memorized things like, "for God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten son, so that whosoever believed in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life." He didn't really know what it meant, but it sure sounded nice. It was often abbreviated with things like, "God so loved the world," when the pastor noticed people getting bored.

Jimmy kept growing, and one day he realized that he was supposed to be actually doing something, and not just memorizing Bible verse. So he found one of his friends in school, and invited him to church. He was immensely proud of his good deeds, and decided he should do even more.

When he got into his teenage years, he graduated from Sunday-school to the Youth Group. The Youth Pastor there was always talking about "witnessing to the lost." So he decided to try it out, since that's what a godly person should do.

So Jimmy told one of his friends about Jesus. This friend was an atheist, and told Jimmy so. "But why?" Jimmy asked.

His friend had lots of convincing arguments. Jimmy just laughed and said, "well, you're wrong. The Bible says that--"

"Wait, I don't believe in the Bible," his friend said.

Then Jimmy was confused. Now what should he say? So he went to his Youth Pastor, who showed him several verses in the Bible that demonstrated how true it must be. Jimmy, once again armed to the teeth with knowledge, went after the unbelievers once again. But once again, he was conquered. The fact that he was using the Bible to prove itself for some reason didn't work.

So Jimmy began to have doubts. If there was no good reason to believe in the Bible, why should he believe it? He also started to realize how much better life could be if he didn't have to follow all those silly rules. This, of course, meant the end of Jimmy's time in church. He looked back upon it as his "religious phase," and laughed at all those people who actually still believed such an old-fashioned idea.

The big question is, why is this story so common? What are we doing wrong? I think the answer if fairly simple: the church is only teaching the easy things. We say, "this is what the Bible says," because that's easy. But we don't explain why we should believe the Bible, which is a necessary piece of knowledge in order to survive in this world.

Maybe it's time to figure this out.
Mitchell

The Final Three

I am now on my final post of this whatever-it-might-be on various possible truths. This will be the largest and most complex of them all--Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I have put the three together for a good reason: Christianity and Islam are both derived from Judaism, and thus the proving-wrong of Judaism would cancel out both of those. Their purpose, essentially, is to complete Judaism in some way (this is less accurate of Islam than Christianity, but more on that below).

So, to begin, Judaism must go under the lights. Let's look at what it is first of all:

Judaism was the first strictly monotheistic religion in history. According to their beliefs, God existed when there was nothing. He then created the universe out of nothing. This God, according to their belief, is actually three in one. This is characterized in the use of the word "Elohim" to describe Him. This is a pluralized word, in Hebrew, meaning that there is more than one.

The next part is that this God takes part in the lives of humanity, by giving them laws to obey, and then rewarding or punishing them according to their obedience to these laws. Because no one is able to follow the law perfectly, sacrifices must be made in order to appease the wrath of God and take the punishment deserved by us.

No problem, so far. No flaws so far, but also no evidence in favor. So let's compare it to life.

First of all, the idea that we are imperfect. This is not a strictly Jewish belief, but it lines up very well with what we can see in our own lives. Where do you think the phrase "only human" came from? We recognize without being told that we are missing something. But if we are imperfect, there must be a standard.

What is that standard? The standard, according to Judaism, is the Law. Interestingly, upon looking at the book of Leviticus, everything makes perfect sense. For some reason, it seems natural to us that it is wrong to kill. Why? If we came about by chance, we would need to kill simply to survive. Yet this makes sense. Or how about this: the Sabbath. Although some say the Sabbath is no longer relevant, this doesn't matter. The Sabbath makes perfect sense.

In the Soviet Union, at the height of Communism, their leaders decided to change a week to the length of ten days. The seven-day week comes clearly from the Bible, and they wanted an atheistic country. To make a long story short, they had to go back to the seven-day week. Nine days between each break doesn't work. Neither does it work to have four in between each break. The only system that works is a seven day week.

So the law fits with what works in our lives. This fits with the fact that the designer of the law is the same as the designer of humanity. So this is a rather strong point for Judaism.

As it turns out, this is not the last post in this set. Due to the current length, Islam and Christianity will be brought up tomorrow.

Myths

A few days ago, I talked about Hinduism. I was going to talk about Buddhism next, but there's really no point. Buddhism is merely another step in Hinduism. It came from the other religion in a way not entirely unlike Christianity coming from Judaism. It's the completion of an earlier religion. However, since Hinduism is problematic anyway, Buddhism has no foundation.

So next was going to be Islam, but that will be saved for later. For now: how do we know that the gods of various ancient civilizations weren't the right ones? These are what we refer to as "myths." Most cultures had some kind of god, all had some kind of creation story. Also, all that I have ever heard have possessed two major flaws.

1. The world existed as it was created.

If an egg hatched and out came the world (as one African culture believed), then something already existed before the world. Where did it come from? What is this egg that the earth hatched from? On a similar note, their beliefs conflicted strongly with what we know now. If the world were a flat disc resting on the backs of five elephants who stand on a giant turtle, then something is wrong somewhere.

(However, to this I will add one thing: in the Middle Ages it was commonly believed by Christians that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun orbited around it. This is not a part of Christian belief, however, and was added later. Therefore the second point is not necessarily accurate. These ideas could have come along later and we just don't know.)

2. Every aspect of the world is ruled over by a different god

There's a problem here as well. A god is an ultimate power that rules everything. This means that the various little gods can't be gods. Some cultures solve this by refering to them instead as "spirits," and by having a "great spirit." I'm using Native American terms, but the same idea is in several other religions. However, this leads us to the original problem: where did the world come from? There has to be a god, not merely spirits. Spirits can't create a universe--that takes a god.

So upcoming is the largest of the challenges: Judasim, Islam and Christianity. The three largest religions in the world.

Mitchell

Hinduism

I was going to post this yesterday, but I never finished it. Instead, I ended up looking at expensive guitars. I want this one. I don't know if I'll get it or not. What do you think--is it worth getting?

Basically, my next task, in order to show which religion is correct, is to go over all major religions and analyze them. I'm going to begin with Hinduism, because it's the easiest.

Hinduism has never been standardized. It's basically a term that describes a very large collection of religions. It generally contains at least one god, and more often hundreds. The atheistic aspect of it, of course, doesn't work because there must be a god. However, the theistic part has a problem too.

Like I said above, Hinduism has no standard belief. One of their traditional stories is as follows:

Five blind men are standing in an empty courtyard. As they stand here, an elephant is brought in. They here it, and decide to figure out what it is. One feels the tusk. He says, "it is like a spear." The next feels its tail. "No, it is like a rope," he says. The third feels its leg. "You're both wrong," he says. "It is like a tree." Then the next feels its ear. "It's like a fan," he said. Finally, the fifth feels its side. "You're all wrong," he says. "It's like a wall."

All were, to an extent, correct. But they only felt a part of the elephant. In this way, according to Hinduism, everyone is right but no one is completely right. But there's a problem with this.

Hinduism itself, because of its non-solid nature, often is cantradicted by the beliefs of two different Hindus. For example, one may believe that there are no gods, and another believes in two hundred different ones. How can both be right? The two cannot exist simultaneously.

So basically, Hinduism is a collection of mysticism that no one really understands. It's not nearly organized or coherent enough to bother applying much logic to. If you (the reader) happen to be a Hindu and I have drastically misrepresented your religion, let me know. This, however, is Hinduism to the best of my knowledge.

Mitchell

Cause and Effect

One of the more important aspects of logic is the idea of cause and effect.* In case you don't know, cause and effect is when one thing causes another to occur. For example, if I type the letter E on my keyboard, an E appears on the screen. If I play an E on my (musical) keyboard, the resulting sound will be the E note.

However, there's more to cause and effect than is commonly realized. Basically, it proves the existence of a god. Not necessarily any specific god, but simply that there must be a creator. It does that in this way:

In the above example, I press an E on my keyboard, and so it appears on the screen. Pressing the E is the cause. However, I pressed the E for a reason. This means that the cause had a cause of its own. For example, I want to finish the word "the." Why do I want to write that word? Well, because it's part of a sentence I want to finish, which is part of a paragraph, which is part of a chapter, which is part of a book that I want to finish. So why do I want to write the book?

This can keeping going further and further back, all the way to the beginning of time. This is the clue: "the beginning of time." All of reality had to have a cause. That means something had to intervene in the middle of all the emptiness in order to cause the world to exist. Several qualifications are required to do this.

1. that thing must have existed perpetually, therefore having no cause.

2. that thing must be powerful enough to be a cause

Coincidentally, these happen to be two important attributes of a god. So there must be a god. The question is, what god? Is it possible for us to begin to grasp this god, or does our perception make sense?

More on that tomorrow,
Mitchell


*If I get "effect" and "affect" mixed up, I apologize. Just go ahead and comment on it so that I can be publicly embarrassed.

Illuminating Shadows

I heard a song today on the radio. In the first verse, there was a line sort of like this: "it's hard to shine/when the shadows are closing in." The point of the song was how much we need Jesus, but this particular line. . .isn't quite accurate.

Think about it for a second. Imagine you have a flashlight. You're standing outside on a clear day, in full sunlight. You turn the flashlight on, and because it's so bright outside the flashlight makes no difference.

Then, you take the flashlight outside on a cloudy night. There is no moon, and the clouds dim even the light of the stars. Now turn on the flashlight--suddenly, it makes a tremendous difference. In the daytime, the world is so saturated in light already that the flashlight does nothing. In the night, the flashlight stands out more than anywhere else.

So, the point is this: we (christians) can't make a difference surrounded entirely by other Christians. The light has already filled this place. This isn't a bad thing, of course, which is not to be implied in any way.

But, there's more to this parable. The flashlight will make a larger difference if it's outside, but not if it's turned off. The object itself is as darkened as everything else, until it's turned on. Until an electrical current is running to and from the bulb, there will be no light in the night.

Point 2 is this: we can only make a difference among the lost, and only if we choose to reveal our light. The question is, what's the best we to reveal our light?

Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

Our Problem

Below is a quote from an interview with Luis Palau, a South American Evangelist, who is now a missionary to the USA.

"When I was in Chicago doing launch rallies for 'Say Yes Chicago,' a taxi driver took me to a press conference at Grant Park. The driver was a Muslim from Sudan, very talkative and eager to make me a Muslim. He was trying to convert me in the course of a ten-minute drive. I told him I was a Christian, which began a quick discussion about Jesus Christ. After a few minutes, he said, 'Islam is going to win in America. And we're going to win in the world. You Christians do not really believe Jesus Christ is the only answer and the only One.'

"I said, 'Of course we believe that.' He said, 'No, you don't. I've been here for six years, and I've hardly met a single American that believes Jesus is the only One and the only way and the only answer.'

"I was amazed, moved, rebuked, and ashamed. Here was a foreigner in America unashamedly trying to convert me in ten minutes. And meanwhile, we Christians beat around the bush. We are not convinced that people without Christ are truly, truly lost forever. If we did, we wouldn't be able to rest. We would jump at the chance to be part of a citywide crusade. If we believed that people were irrevocably lost without Christ, we would take advantage of every chance to preach the gospel."

That's a frightening thought, isn't it? That's all I have to say, since it's getting late and I need to sleep. By the way, I hope you had a happy Leap Day. As far as I'm concerned, it's definitely the best of all the holidays. Thanksgiving doesn't hold a candle to it.

Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

Part 2

Yesterday I was talking about a big question that comes up due to John 1:1-5. Why, if we must die to ourselves to enter Christ, would anyone want to enter Christ? If everyone in the world were to become Christ, that would be the end of individuality, right?

Well, not really. The question is somewhat flawed, as I will explain. First of all, let's be consistent. Let's continue to refer to Jesus as the light, and us as the darkness. When He illuminates us, we cease to exist. This is how the question came up in first place, but I have to admit that the premise is all because of a mistake.

I said that we are the darkness. This isn't quite true. We are in the darkness. For my initial purpose, this didn't matter. However, because this question came about, I must correct myself. Regardless, the question still remains from other sources. When God looks at us, for example, what He sees is Jesus.

To explain why th question is flawed, I will use a simile. Imagine that there is a world with an atmosphere so thick with clouds that only the tiniest amount of light can enter. The people on this world can only barely see, and so of course no one can clearly see what other people look like. They have never seen a bright light, however, and so they don't know how poorly they can see.

Then, one day, a hole breaks through the clouds, and full sunlight shines down. One curious darkness-dweller steps into this beam of brightness. Several others follow behind him. When they look at each other, they are shocked to find that they all look nearly identical. They quickly return to the darkness, where they have their own faces again. The light, they decide, just makes everyone look the same.

They thought they all looked the same, but this is because their eyes had not adjusted to the light. If they had stayed for a little longer, they would have discovered that the light clarified their features. Jesus, in the same way, clarifies our lives. When I entered into Christ, I became more myself than I was before.

But we have been living in the darkness of the world. We believe that individuality is acting unlike other people, and Christianity seems to destroy that by forcing everyone to live by a single code of laws. What we don't realize is that it gives us boundaries in which to create ourselves. God's laws are like the structure of a building. We have a sturdy, well-tested frame, but beyond that, the architecture is up to us.

That's all I have to say.

Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

The Flood

It is commonly believed among Christian communities that, at some point in history, God caused a flood to cover the entire world. Everyone on earth was killed--with the exception of a man named Noah--because they were evil. Noah, Noah's wife, and his three sons survived because they built an enormous boat.

I'm going to add a little to that story. First of all, the flood came because of water pouring from the sky in the form of rain. This is commonly accepted by those who believe in the flood in the first place. But this has deeper meaning. Preceding the day of the flood, it had never rained before. Noah had never seen rain before. Also, at this time, the world consisted of a single, massive continent which is referred to as "Pangea." The flood broke this apart into the continents as we now know them. Noah lived in about the center of this continent.

So Noah had never seen rain before. He'd also never seen an expanse of standing water. Water came up from the ground in a fine mist, which gave life to the plants. So maybe, at the best, he had seen a puddle.

I would speculate that Noah rarely even looked at the sky. Because the globe was surrounded by a giant ice canopy (which compressed the atmosphere to create the enormous plants and insects found fossilized today), and so the light of the sun would be dispersed such that it wouldn't seem to be a single ball of light. If Noah ever looked up, he probably saw nothing of interest.

So when God said "Build an ark, it's going to rain," that's the equivalent of Him saying today "build a jugrin, it's going to bezhrull."

Noah had no clue what was going to happen, but he did what God told him. That's the first point.

Here's the second: As most people know, God left a symbol that He would never flood the earth again. This is what we now call a rainbow. But He also left another symbol, which is not actually one He mentioned but one which is there just the same.

The rain is a symbol, just like the rainbow. Whenever you see a rainbow, remember that God will never flood the world again. When it rains, remember that He can.

God is going to keep His promise. But He doesn't have to. He can destroy us all, if He wants to. He can flood the world again, and the best we could do is tread water as long as we can. He can destroy every human being on the planet with a thought.

But He doesn't. He continues to be patient--infinitely so. So next time you think that God is being unfair, or just allowing evil to run rampant, remember the flood and the mercy he has shown us by not doing it again.

God is love, and love is merciful. He will give grace to anyone who asks--and this will be needed by all, because the world will be destroyed again. But this time it will be by fire, instead. I hope these dark thoughts have brightened your day.

Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

The Theory. . .

There is a new theory floating around this planet that many people have taken firm hold of. It isn't actually new, but it's far more pervasive than any other time in history. This theory is that there are no moral absolutes. It's a completely atheistic idea.
To start with, it is founded upon the premise that there is no God. If there is no God, then several other things must go. First of all is morality. See, God is the source of morals--or at least, that's the claim made by all religions (except Buddhism, which is atheistic). So if there is no God, who says morals are true?
No one, except for the religious people. But if the religious people are just people, what makes them right? Nothing. So, their morals are fine for them, but that doesn't mean they're true. From this, it follows that there is no truth.
So all this is built on the fact that there is no God. So to refute this theory, all that must be done is to prove the existence of God. This is really hard, however, but not because there are no proofs. It's hard because the people who don't believe in God will cling to any tiny thing that could possibly be a difficulty for religion.
Since I'm not sure how to go about proving God, I'll just refute the idea of no absolutes.
Here's the first thing: There are absolutely no absolutes. I emphasized "absolutely" for the convenience of the reader. My view of the universe is only true for me, and yours only for you. Well, but my view of the universe states that there are absolutes. So that one isn't valid? Doesn't that mean that the only truth is that there are no truths? That's self-refuting.
Also, there's another big problem. What makes moral laws so different from the laws of physics? Just like the laws of physics are a vital part to the behavior of the universe, moral laws are a vital part of human behavior.
So here's an illustration. Right now, it is winter, and therefore it is cold. I don't like the cold. So, if physical laws are as malleable as we say that moral laws are, I can just say that it's mid-summer and 100 degrees outside, right? But if I decide to go swimming to ward off the heat, I'm going to freeze.
Moral laws are the same. Even if I don't like that I'm not allowed to kill, I'm still breaking a law if I decide to murder, both moral and civil laws.
If I applied this s upposed flexibility to anything but morality, it would cause some tremendous problems for me. Every sane person understands that. So it's just insane to apply such looseness to morality.
I don't know if any of my readers believes in the personalizing of morals, or knows someone who does, but I thought I'd write about it anyway.
Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

Infinity

When was the last time you thought sat down for a minute and thought about eternity? I say "sat down" because it's hard to do standing up. Eternity is a big amount of time. It's really big. It's so big, in fact, that there is no end.
Think about it like this: there is a robot that is programmed to repeat the words "hello, how are you?" He repeats it at five-second intervals. He is also absolutely indestructible, because who would want such a friendly thing destroyed? This robot was built a long time ago, so he's been saying those words for a long time.
Now, to complete the story, imagine that he keeps on saying this forever. Try to imagine this.
We have a hard time with this, because if he started at some point, he has to stop eventually. What goes up must come down. What begins must end. That's what we think, anyway. But he doesn't stop. Just goes on and on and on and etc.
Now imagine a little more. This robot has always been repeating this phrase. Always. Since before you or anyone you know was born. Before, in fact, the universe ever existed. How many hours has he been speaking? How many days? Years? Centuries?
We can't measure it. We can't even begin to measure it because something like this is so far beyond anything we can conceive of in our brains. Maybe if we were able to use 100% of our brains, rather than the 10% actually available, this would be a comprehensible thing. But maybe not. Like I said, this is a big amount of time.
God rules over it all. God absolutely and totally controls every part of this massive amount of time, and has existed through all of it. I know this has been said a million or more times (probably a lot more), but I'm still amazed every time I think about it.
So think for a while about eternity, and then think about God.
"Wow" is such an understatement, don't you think?
Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

Question Number 3

The answers to questions 1 and 2, as we saw, basically came down to free will. So does question number 3. The question was "Why does God allow sin?" It could be phrased a little better by replacing the word sin with the words free will.
All sin and all pain come down to free will. So let's look at what is meant by "free will." What exactly does it mean?
Well, if you want to study something, you should go to the place where it began. To understand the meaning of a word, study the root, not the prefix. To study free will, look at the first time it was ever exercised--the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve were the first people that God created. In the book of Genesis, He is described as creating the entire universe in six days, and then resting on the seventh. There's a debate among Christians whether these six days of creation are literal, or whether they actually span millions or billions of years, therefore including the theory of evolution in the story of creation.
It doesn't matter right now. The important thing is, Adam and Eve were the first people ever to live on this planet.
They lived in a beautiful garden, with trees bearing fruit of every kind. It was pretty much paradise. They were happy, and it seems that they were even a little childlike in some ways. For example, the Bible says that they were unaware of their nakedness. When the snake came to talk to Eve, she saw nothing strange in a talking snake. Everything was perfect.
But they were not childlike in one way. God put a tree in the middle of the garden, which they were not allowed to eat from. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They knew they should not eat from that tree. But they did.
Anyone who's made it this far probably already knows the story, so I'm not going to outline the rest of it. Here's the question that has arisen in my mind:
Why did God put the tree there? Did he want them to sin?
Adam and Eve had free will. They didn't have to eat the fruit, but they were capable of it. So this tree is the beginning of free will. It all comes down to the above question. Why did He put the tree there?
There are several possibilities.

1. He wanted them to eat the forbidden fruit. I really doubt this one. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit, the Bible records great disappointment from God. He did not want them to eat it. It just doesn't fit with His nature. Scratch off number one.

2. He was testing them. I've heard this theory stated from several sources, but it also doesn't fit with God's nature. Satan is the tempter. If God tempted us, one of the lines of the Lord's Prayer would become entirely void. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One." God does not tempt us with evil.

3. It had a purpose later on. This is the most complex. Let's see if I can explain it. . .
Not for no reason is this the tree of knowledge. Knowledge is something that just happens. Anything thay has a fully functioning mind gathers knowledge. Anyone who's been around small children knows that it is important to humanity to gather knowledge. They constantly ask questions (like "what is that thing for?" "Why do you want to do that?" "But why would that happen?" etc.). They also tend to ask questions beyond their capacity to understand (i.e. "where do babies come from?).
Maybe Adam and Eve were the same way. Maybe God was waiting for them to be ready to understand good and evil before he allowed them to eat the fruit. Toddlers aren't taught about the source of life, because they aren't ready to understand it.

All this is just speculation. It may be none of the above. But the third possibility, to me, seems to be the most likely. So here's the answer:
God allowed sin into the world because the option had to be there, because the Tree of Good and Evil was there. It's as complexly simple as that.
Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

Question Number 2

Today, I will do my best to answer the second question. If God is a loving god, why does He send people to Hell?
Don't worry, I'll be quoting C.S. Lewis again. There are really only two kinds of Christian authors: the kind that quotes C.S. Lewis to further prove his point, and the kind that quotes C.S. Lewis because his point is really just a rephrasing of the one made by Lewis. I'm not going to tell you which one I am.
So, on to the answer.
This question is frequently asked, but often it's asked in the wrong way. See, there are two big problems with the phrase "why does God send people to Hell?" First of all, the problem is with the word "people." This word is too neutral. When people hear the word "people," a crowd of blank-faced folks without personality or life fills the mind. They aren't necessarily good, but certainly not bad. "People," we think, do not deserve to go to Hell.
Right there is the problem. Yes, right there. I'm pointing at the screen, but I guess you can't see that, can you? So let me fill in the question with some adjectives.
"Why would a loving God send evil, hateful, lustful, selfish and mean people to Hell?" Hmmm. . . And in case you think I'm being too harsh, read the book of Romans. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Okay, now for the next problem. This is the word "send." God does not "send" anyone to Hell.
As C.S. Lewis said (I told you it would come), "in the end, there are only two kinds of people. The ones who say to God, 'thy will be done,' and the ones to which God says 'thy will be done.' "*
Again, the root of the problem is in free will. God isn't sending anyone to Hell--they go willingly. It's a simple choice: God, or no God.
So, here is the final draft of Question Number 2: "How could a loving God let evil, hateful, lustful selfish and mean people choose to go to Hell?"
It really takes all the power out of that question, doesn't it? Mark Twain once said "Humor and frogs can both be dissected, but both die in the process." The same is true of most atheistic questions.
So, here's my theistic question for you: have you chosen God or no God? Or, more specifically, has Jesus covered your sins, or have you rejected His sacrifice?
Goodbye, valiant reader,
Mitchell

*I don't know which book he wrote this in (maybe Miracles), and yes, I paraphrased.