Where Did My Mind Come From?

We've all had discussions like this: the person we are talking to, is telling us something that we think is nonsensical. A common phrase we may say, (usually out of frustration) is: "Think about it!" or "Just stop and think about what you are saying (or going to do!)" What are we asking them to do? We are asking them to use their brain, so they can be of a sober mind, when saying, or doing something.

What is the mind's relationship with the brain? The brain is a simply an organ in the body. It works the entire physical body, including all physiological responses that the organism goes through such as shivering. While the mind is the variable where things like thoughts and emotions are derived from. There is some common ground that both the mind and brain share.

1. Both your brain and your mind are 100% dependant on each other and both are indisputable. Nobody can dispute the existence of either someone's brain and mind.
2. All mental facets (e.g. thoughts, emotions, etc.) are also dependant on both the brain and the mind. The mind conceives these metaphysical realities while the brain processes them.
3. Both mental facets and the brain can be revealable.  

However there are some very big differences in the natures of these two realities of the human being.

1. When we tell someone: "use your brain!" we are asking them to use their brain to do something, namely think or be conscious about what they are saying or doing. Their brains can't be the thing they are used for anymore than a pen can be the words that it writes; we use our brains to think thoughts, but our brains are not the thoughts we think. 
2. The brain is a measurable object: It can be experienced with all 5 senses. It has a weight, length, width and a height that can be measured. It has a physical appearance that can be mimicked in art form. The mind however has no physical appearance to be duplicated in picture format and nor can it be experienced by any of our five senses. It also cannot be measured as it has no weight or dimensions.
3. Even though both the brain and someone's thoughts and emotions are revealable they are only so in their own unique ways. Our memories and the processes that we use to arrive at conclusions are private, the brain is not. A neurosurgeon can take off the top of your skull to reveal your brain; but there is no type of surgical procedure that can reveal your thoughts. Your thoughts can be discovered by you, but their discovery is likewise a private moment; but for them to become public knowledge you have to convey them. In sum thoughts have to be conveyed, they cannot be uncovered.
4. Thoughts are not only private, they are also personal. It is true that there is a lot of information that we can get from books, people and other information mediums. However our reactions to various stimuli is very personal. I could learn how most people react in a situation, but that won't negate how I will react if I was put into that situation; my response may be shared by the majority of people, and I may share the same thoughts; or my reaction and thoughts may be different; but either way my responses and thoughts are my own and nobody elses'.

So we know what the mind does, but what is it? The answer that someone derives to, rightly or wrongly, depends on their presupposition of God's existence. From a theistic worldview, the mind finds its origins in the supernatural deity. From the Christian worldview, God is all-knowing, His nature is knowledge, and we humans are made in his image, (Genesis 1:26-27). Therefore we humans, can know things, and all knowledge gives rise to thinking, as we have knowledge to think about. When we tell someone to "stop and think" we are telling them to consider what they know (or at least we assume they do or should know) and act accordingly.

From an atheistic worldview however thoughts can only be merely responses of the brain; so someone's thinking is a mere reaction to stimuli which derives from learned information - of which is itself stimuli. So your brain, causes your ears to hear the crashing sounds in your backyard at 3:00 AM, causing you to be startled awake in a cold sweat. You have only one image in your mind - a burglar. Why? Over the course of your life your brain has received stimuli (information) that burglars exist; and they exist in your city. However why doesn't your mind gravitate to a racoon, as they exist, or the neighbour's cat, as it also exists? Or why can't it be a martian invasion? The knowledge your brain was given is that cats and racoons are nothing to be a afraid of; but a man breaking into your home is; and since the information your brain received regarding martians is that they don't exist, the martian option is simply not viable. So, in sum neurones fire off in your brain causing your ears to hear the crashing sounds, which causes you to wake up; and then other physical reactions happen which develops the image of the masked burglar to appear, where? In your mind. However from an atheistic paradigm, the phrase "in your mind" is a misnomer as there is only the physical organ in your skull, your brain. Therefore the only way the atheistic worldview can interpret something like 'the mind' is to call the mental reactions of the brain, 'the mind'. This way you can have the two separate realities that work in unison: the brain and its reactions.

So, is the mind something that could be chalked up to being mere reactions to stimuli in the brain? Or is the mind a separate reality of the human being; a reality which works in unison with the brain and its functions? It would be erroneous to argue that the metaphysical and physical realities of the human being do not work together. One of the realities of the human being is we respond, intellectually to stimuli just as much as we respond physically to it.

We all have experiences; some good, some bad and some blasé. Stimuli comes at us every day and in many forms, and it affects us 100% of the time. Sometimes we recognize its affect on us immediately, while other times we recognize it sometime in the future, and with other stimuli we don't know how it has affected us, or even what the stimuli was or is. However our response to all stimuli is both intellectual and physical. This morning it was cold and wet when I woke up. My physical body was affected by the cold weather and so was my intellect. What did I do? I got dressed in long pants, shirt and a sweater. Of course my brain was given the information that to alleviate the shivers, I can cover my body with warm clothes; however, I am just as intellectually capable of resisting the temptation, and not put on a sweater. I didn't have a choice to shiver, but I did have a choice to put on, or not put on a sweater. This means my mind, isn't just mere, electrical pulses in my brain. Those electrical pulses caused the shivers and allowed me to filter through all the options that was at my disposal; but in the end it was my mind that chose, A over B and C.

So to conclude, the mind, is something that is not the brain, but which works with the brain. Where did this mind come from? It is not something physical and so it cannot have come from a physical source. Therefore it came from a metaphysical source: God; but whose God? Mine? The Muslim's? The Hindu's pantheon of gods? The worldview that best fits reality is the one whose God is the right God.

Everyone Is A Moral Being, Irregardless Of Religious Persuasion

A problem that arises, in the rejection of the divine, is it forces the atheist to explain everything in reality using only materialism. It is true, that there are aspects of life, that are knowable, brute facts that can be known through the five senses. However does that mean, then that unless we can either touch it, and or smell it, and or see it, and or taste it, and or hear it, it is not a knowable fact? Of course not! However attempting to explain morality through a naturalistic method is akin to trying to race a legless racehorse; you loose the race as soon as it starts. This is how:

Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace argues that "[describing] moral truth as a brute fact of the universe serves to identify and affirm moral truths without explaining why there are moral obligations."[i] It would be wrong, to say that atheism disallows the atheist to have moral convictions as everyone, irregardless of their religious views, have moral convictions, as they are human beings. Moral convictions is akin to the human navel: 1) everyone has one, 2) everyone's moral worldview undergoes changes in ones life in various ways and 3) while there is common ground in many people's moral convictions, everyone's moral convictions are unique. Where atheism fails the atheist, is to adequately explain why their moral convictions, are what they are.

Wallace states that "[those] who describe the existence of objective moral truth claims as brute facts of the universe have only taken the first step in explaining their existence."[ii] As stated above, everyone irregardless of their religious persuasion has moral convictions. However atheism fails to explain, where the atheist's moral convictions come from. Trying to explain morals as facets of this natural world is akin to trying to explain the existence of your umbilicus, using your own body, as its origin.

Moreover, if morality is materialistic, then you should be abel to hold, smell, taste, hear and see morality; and it should be discoverable like a new species of fish.

If morality is a mere natural entity, then just as everybody's navel is different in its shape and unique features but no better or worse than another's, then everyone's uniquely shaped moral view is no better or worse than any others, just merely different. This means that ISIS' moral outlook is just different than the moral outlook than that of The West; it is neither bad nor good. If morality is natural then people will act in accordance with how their morality is shaped. ISIS acts the way they do because their morality is shaped a certain way, and it dictates how they are to behave. What conceived their morality? A wiring of their brain which was a nurtured through experiences and teachings on life and God. In sum just as rodents are fidgety creatures, because that is simply the way they are, people act the way they do, because that is simply how they are.

Therefore, if morality is natural, like the the weather is natural, then there is no justification for judgements. This earth is not doing anything wrong, when it's skies brew a hurricane and destroy villages. In the same way, when ISIS sweeps through a city, captures its citizens and beheads them, they are not doing anything wrong; as they are just working in accordance with their natural wiring.

It is true, that morality does play out in the physical world; a positive moral code (charity, helping people in need, etc.) pushes society forward in a positive way, and a negative moral code (murder, theft, etc.), hinders that positive progression. However it fails to explain two things: 1) why do we want a positive progression through life, and 2) what makes, what a society considers a positive progression, a positive progression? The answer to the first question, seems obvious: because people generally want to have a good quality of life. However, the likes of ISIS, would argue that eradicating anyone who rejects Islam, is working towards a positive quality of life; yet, many people in The West would argue, that a 'live and let live' philosophy, leads to a positive life. A quickly developing society, doesn't answer why a way of life, is morally right, as a quickly growing society, doesn't make such a determination.

Furthermore, it could be argued, that the society, where there is happiness, is in most of its members, has the best moral code. This again fails to explain objective morality because there are, happy people who live in societies with conflicting moral codes: there are plenty of happy ISIS members, just as there are happy Westerners. Someone's happiness, does not determine, what makes them happy, morally right.

So in the end, if morality is a natural like the moon is natural, it's my uniquely shaped morality verses how your morality is uniquely shaped. Neither of our views are better or worse than each others, and so it doesn't matter if which one of us wins. The loosing party, should just shrug their shoulders and accept life, as is, and be happy, or at least be content, with the way things are. We of course, could look within ourselves, and attempt to denominate our views, over the view of others, if we cannot simply stand by and be content with how things are. This however, is Darwinistic, in that the winning moral outlook, does not win, because it is morally superior, but only because the beholder of the moral view, was more effective in implementing their view, over the view of others; it doesn't say anything about the moral outlook itself.

However, if morality is immaterially discovered, and is outside of the natural reality, but is in unison with it, then the rules change. What is the nature of morality? Morality is a mental construct. Although it cannot be discovered in the same way as one discovered a new species of insect, morally is discoverable through the medium of what is natural; the reality that is physically touchable, observable, tastable, auditory and smellable. This gives birth to the plains of good, evil, and morally-neutral, and it necessarily requires a prerequisite mind, to determine how to slot moral issues, and behaviours, into either of those three categories. This mind, can determine how the antics of ISIS should be judged, that is as either good or evil. However why can't humans make their own moral codes? Are not humans intellectual beings? If morality is left up to the human intelligence, then as discussed above, Darwinism kicks in and the dominating view wins on virtue of its beholder's abilities to fight for what they believe in, and not because what they believe in is morally right. Something can only be a moral issue, when there is a external ruler that it can be measured to. Constructing morality, by the exclusion of the external mind, or in accordance with ones own mind is parallel to excluding your parent's intellectual choice to have sexual intercourse so to conceive you, thus necessarily giving you your navel; and just as your parent's physical sexual-intercourse, brought your physical umbilicus into existence, an immaterial origin will bring an immaterial item, like a moral construct, into existence. You need to evoke something outside this natural world in order to explain the origin of morality.

Morality is knowable, through common-sense. Although the flourishing of the love of life, is not the moral standard, it is evidence of the true moral standard. What is this moral standard? God; but whose God? In brief: The worldview, is best explains reality is the right worldview, and thus its God, is the true God, and His moral construct, is the standard for our moral constructs.

_____________________

[i] - http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/are-moral-truths-simply-brute-facts-about-the-universe/ - accessed September 4, 2015
[ii] - Ibid,.

Is God A What Or A Who?

One evening I was watching the original 1931 Dracula staring Bela Lugosi. There was a scene where Dracula (Lugosi) was standing in the lobby of his castle talking to the protagonist, Jonathan Harker (David Manners) when I got the sudden urge to cite: "One...ah, ah, ah." This quote is from The Count, a famous character from the children's television show Sesame Street. For another example, when someone is deciding whether or not to get dressed up as Dracula for Halloween they may cite William Shakespear's 'Hamlet's" "To be or not to be"; that is 'to be, Dracula, or not to be Dracula.' Needless to say there are many sayings and quotes that have made their way into common dialogue.

However there are some quotes that are more than mere commentaries like my citation from Sesame Street's, The Count, but rather are facts of truth. When a child comes complaining that they are tired of being picked on at school their parent/s may teach them how to simply deal with it. Why should the child deal with being bullied? To put it simply: every school yard that has ever existed has had bullies; today's school yards have bullies and tomorrow's school yards will have its fair share of bullies. In sum "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastics 1:9). This is simply true!

This brings me to yet another famous quote: “What is truth?” (John 18:38). The first century Roman governor Pontius Pilate asked Jesus this question when Jesus claimed to have come into this world for the purpose of testifying to the truth (John 18:37). However unlike how the phrase: "live long and prosper" originates with Star Trek's fictional character' Spock, the question 'what is truth" has been asked for millennia and probably by everyone that has ever lived (at one time or another). 

Let's analyze Pilate's question: What is truth? Merriam-Webster defines truth as: "the real facts about something"[i]. Therefore an underlining fact of truth is that it is something concrete. I may believe that the catchphrase "eat my shorts" originates with Star Trek's, Captain Kirk but my belief would be wrong; as the catchphrase "eat my shorts" originates with the character, Bart Simpson from the television show, The Simpsons. So, belief doesn't determine truth. Returning to Jesus, Jesus' claim was to testify to 'the' truth, not His truth or a truth. This shows that truth is specific. 

Everything has two facets of truth: concrete and opinion. The sentence: "ice cream is cold" is concrete - a fact - whereas "ice cream is better than chips" is my opinion, it is not a fact. I may believe ice cream is hot, but my opinion would be factually false. I may believe that ice cream is cold and although that is my view, I'd be correct. If I hold that everyone who says chips are better than ice cream are simply wrong I'd be incorrect. What makes me right about the temperature of the ice cream irregardless of opposing or affirming opinions? What makes my opinion neither right nor wrong about the tastefulness of ice cream over that of chips, thus allowing apposing opinions to be equally true - subjectively? The temperature of the ice cream is the nature of the object - the ice cream - the nature of ice cream is cold. My affirmation or rejection of that fact doesn't negate its nature. My preference for ice cream over chips is a part of my nature, not the ice cream's nature. Therefore it is objectively true that for me, ice cream is a better desert than chips, but it is equally objectively true that chips are a better desert for someone else. 

Jesus also claimed to be the essence of truth (John 14:6) and God (John 8:58). These two claims proclaims things about the nature of reality: 1) There is a standard by which every objective truth claim should be measured by and 2) there is only one God. If God does not exist then Jesus' claim of being God is simply no different than anyone else who claims deity status, even if it is only over their own lives. However if God does exist then there is a logical possibility that Jesus is that God. If He is the essence of truth and that He came to testify to the truth, then He claims to have come to testify about Himself as God. 

Is Jesus' divine nature His and His follower's opinion or is Jesus' nature objectively divine, just as the nature of ice cream is cold? First off, does God exist so to even allow Jesus be God? Reality consists of both a physical and metaphysical aspects. The origin of this universe is a centuries old debate and even though it is often fought in the scientific arena it is equally a historical debate as it is dealing with an event that happened in the past. In sum it is an: "in the beginning God" vs. "in the beginning another explanation" debate. Therefore one has to look at the facts that the field of science informs us about and conclude the most logical conclusion. Given the fact that nothing natural can come to be without an external factor bringing it into existence the answer to the origins question is unarguably God; but of course whose God? The Christian's God? Islam's God? Why not a pantheon of gods? 

Or why can't God be a non-inteligent, eternal and omniscient force? If God is a non-inteligent, eternal and omniscient force then what are we to do with the metaphysical aspects of reality such as morality? It is often argued that morality is subjective, but how can then one explain the words we use when we describe something as wrong or right, such as "murder is wrong" and "helping the sick is right"? When anyone makes an appeal like that they are making an appeal to a standard. No individual can be the standard because they would be then spouting their opinions with no way to determine if they are correct or incorrect. So the standard must be something outside of themselves and the thing that they are determining right or wrong? What is this immaterial plain? An non-intelligent, eternal and omniscient force cannot be that plain because it's nature is non-intelligent because it has no determining ability. Therefore we are left with an being with the ability to determine between right and wrong. 

Who is this intelligent being? Pulling the two facets of reality together lets look at what Scripture and history has to say about Jesus. Jesus claims to be the creator (John 1:3). Jesus is shown to be from heaven as per Nicodemus (John 3:2). Jesus fulfilled every Old Testament prophecy uttered about the messiah and Scripture claims he died on a Roman cross and rose again. Many non-Biblical historians such as Josephus[ii], Lucian of Samosata[iii] and even the famous Jesus Seminar scholar Dominic Crossan writes that Jesus being crucified is "as as sure as anything historical can ever be."[iv] And among many other facts including some unlikely conversions to Christianity such as the apostle Paul (Galatians 1:13) "[there] is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus' resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus' death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead."[v] In sum, Jesus fits the bill for God. Jesus' deity is not just His nor anyone else's opinion. This means unlike my view of ice cream being better than chips being a mere opinion my view of Jesus' deity, whether I hold it or not as true, is in fact, true. It is as concrete as history will allow and it is specific: Jesus is God. This is the truth that He came to testify about. 

_____________________

[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth - accessed August 27, 2015
[ii] - Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. (Grand Rapids: MI,  Kregel Publicaion ,2004), 49.

[iii] - Ibid., 49.

[iv] - Ibid., 49.

[v] - Ibid., 49.

What Is The True Nature Of Repentance?

In Christian doctrine, repentance is the changing of one's mind from sin to holiness. God has called us to a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:16) from a life of sinfulness. Christians are called to change their minds on sin and decide to follow God. However I have heard it argued that true repentance has a zero failure clause. In sum any failure to resist a specific sinful behaviour, after having repented from it is evidence that the repentance from that sin was never genuine. Does Scripture support this strict application of repentance? No. The entire Jewish nation is guilty of idolatry and adultery, (Isaiah 47. 7-11, Jeremiah 2:13, Ezekiel 9) time and time again; and they did have times of repentance, (Haggai 1:12-15, 2). God dealt with these repeated offences with repeated calls to repentance.

However since we can't repent from a sin with a 100% success rate does this view not justify sin? No. Should any of us really practice repentance? Yes. Complete repentance is mandatory. When someone comes to faith in Christ, they will repent from their sinful nature. No Christian has the luxury of choosing which sins to repent from as all sins must be addressed and repented from. We are to repent from all sin and rely on God to help us to stay the course regarding all sin. What if someone is simply not ready to repent from a sin? Nobody can condemn someone a non-Christian for a conscious and willingly unrepentant sin, as that call is only for God to make. A reservation for repentance however should cause themselves and others to call their commitment to Christ into question.

However nobody can repent from 100% of their sins as none of us know 100% of our sins. We are to repent from our sins when they come to light. Some sins are akin to taking out the kitchen garbage, in that its a matter of tying the garbage bag and throwing it into the dumpster. While other sins are akin to spring-cleaning a basement that accumulated 20 years of junk; it takes a long time and persistent effort to overcome these kinds of sins. However everyone's life is like a multi-roomed house where there are many different areas that need cleaning and in each room there are both kinds of sins. The answer is to be ready to deal with each sin as they come to pass. Every time it rises up, and with the Lord's help you take it down. This means repentance from is a day to day, and even a minute to minute duty.

However everyone of us has compromised on chores like taking out the garbage and cleaning the basement. Does that mean then that ones failure to take out the garbage means that they truly want a smelly kitchen? Or if they forget a day to work on cleaning the basement does that mean that they truly don't want to clean up the basement? No on both accounts as we all may want to have the end result such as a clean smelling kitchen and a clean basement; but sometimes our commitment is week (Matthew 26:41). For someone to fall for temptation for a sin they are trying to daily kick does not mean that they really do want to do the sin; it just means that they had a time of failure. What are they to do? Since none of us can gain the past, the only thing that any of us can do is decide to figure out what caused the comprise and pick up where we left off. In the same way if a Christian truly wants to overcome their struggle with a sin, such as pornography, but they fail once or over the course of time they have bouts of failure, each time they ought to repent and keep on going. One's failures does not undermine one's successes but it doesn't justify the sin as they are guilty of breaking God's moral laws.

Why do people repent from a sin? In many cases many people repent from a sin, even when they don't want to because they know how it has hurt them in the past. Many people will still love to eat fatty foods and drink alcohol and watch too much television, but due to experiencing a recent heart-attack they give them up. Other people sometimes quit drugs because of almost overdosing to death. Other people see how their behaviour has hurt others and they feel dreadfully bad about it; they are very apologetic and as a result they decide to not do the act again, or do the thing they should have done. In sum one big encourager of repentance is having suffered a great pain. However why should the Christian repent from their sin? 1) God tells us to. 2) We are to represent God (1 Peter 2:) and 3) God cannot tolerate less than perfectness (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). A Christian does not need any other reason than the first one to justify giving up a sin. Its all about priorities: which is your priority, God or your sin?

To conclude what is the nature of the true repentant Christian? The apostle John highlights that if we say we are without sin we are liars (1 John 1:8). This means that sin is a reality in every Christian. If someone denies they are a sinner they are thusly a non-Christian because Jesus came to bring sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32). Jesus can't bring a non-sinner to repentance. John argues that the person who says such a claim is deceiving themselves, that is they are believing a false view as truth and if they believe a lie then they can't live out the truth.

Furthermore, John states that if we have not sinned we are making Christ into a liar (1 John 1:10). A Christian is an ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). This means we are to represent Him in His views and practices. Jesus asserts that we are sinners and proposing that we are not is making a liar out of Him. Moreover, we make Christ out to be a liar on virtue of denying specific sins that are in fact sins. John is clear in his words: "[if] we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar..." (John 1:10 [my emphasis]). If we do something that Scripture is clear on is a sin, such as any of the wide variety of sexual sins and say "I have not sinned" we are making Christ into a liar by saying: "He is wrong, what I did is not a sin."

John explains why he is writing this to his reader namely so that they will know the truth and thus know how to appropriately respond (John 2:1a). However John highlights the implication of his teaching, namely if we are sinners, we will then sin. A such he offers some good news: 1) If we confess our sins God will forgive us and make us right in His eyes (1 John 1:9) and 2) Christ will represent us in front of the Father, who is the one who we sinned against. He will argue for our salvation from condemnation (1 John 2:1b).

In sum a true repentant Christian is someone who knows that they are sinner, one who agrees with Christ regarding sin and who represents his views on the subject and one who daily turns away from their sin. The nature of the true Christian is one who is represented by Christ.

You Are God's Princess

Authored by: Jacqueline
Co-Authored with: Ian

[i]

One day the supervisor's daughter joined the staff meeting at work. She was an attractive young lady in her early to mid twenties. This was the first time I saw her. She walked into the room full of confidence because she takes personal security in the fact that her father is the department head of a famous university. Her appearance and behaviour were so elegant that it makes people naturally respect her. After admiring her for a while, I turned to look at all the other ladies in our group. In comparison, although they have pretty faces, everyone’s body language seems to indicate that they lack confidence because their families are all of lower social class and none of them have celebrated fathers. 

I was astonished by how confident this woman is, as like the other ladies in the group I also have a low self-esteem. Although I have believed in God for many years, deep in my heart I am still influenced strongly by my family background. However I think I first need to explain where I am coming from.   Many cultures throughout the world dictate that honour and respect will be given to the lady who has a rich and famous father. If a man wanted to pursue the president's daughter, chances are he will try hard to impress her and her father, and do no harm to her; and this is largely due to him being the president of a country. In sum no matter who a girl is as a person or how beautiful or ugly she is or smart or stupid she is there are many places around the world which teach that as long as she has a rich father, she should be honoured. The lie that social classes determines how much worth and self-worth one should have is still being pounded into so many people’s minds today.

However, my walk with Jesus taught me that my identity does not depend on where society slots me based on how much money my family has or doesn’t have. Rather, my identity is dependant on who I am. So who am I? I am someone who is “fearfully and wonderfully made” - Psalms 139:14. I am someone who was made by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). I am someone who broke God’s laws but who is loved by God so much so that He took His punishment for my sin onto his shoulders so that I could have a chance to be called his daughter, (John 1:12). I am someone who has purpose, namely to represent God (Matthew 28:19).

Until that day in the meeting, I realized that I forgot that I have a heavenly Father. My heavenly Father is the richest in the universe, but not only because He created the universe and everything in it belongs to Him (Colossians 1:16) but also because he is rich in love (Ephesians 2:4). My heavenly Father is the most powerful in the world (cf. Psalms 65:6), because He is God, the King who rules all (Psalm 47:7). 

My fellow sisters in Christ, let’s put this into perspective. If an earthly father who is only more rich than others can bring such influence to his daughters, resulting in them holding their heads up high, what influence do we as daughters of God have based on God being who He is, namely our heavenly Father? The Apostle Paul gives this promise to all who follow Christ: we can be “confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus" (Philippians 1:6). My dear sisters in Christ, no matter your family social status, that is, rich or poor, as daughters of our heavenly Father we all can be confident in that we have a calling that supersedes any status that any human culture can slot us in. God is working and His work that He is doing through us will allow us to have a great influence in this world. 

However, we can also be confident that, as an earthly parent should, our heavenly Father will look after us. Jesus says: 

For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? - Matthew 6:25-26.

Again, Jesus asks us: are we not worth much more than the birds of the air? (Matthew 6:26). Yes. Therefore we should be confident in the knowledge that we have worth and it is Jesus who determines that worth, not culture or family social status. Jesus thought us worthy enough to die for us; this of course doesn’t mean that we are worthy of his sacrifice, as nobody is, but God loved us so much that he thought that we were worth saving (John 3:16). We are precious princesses who are redeemed by Jesus' blood (Ephesians 1:7). God demonstrated “His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). God did this with a perfect love (1 John 4:12). 

To conclude, how can we continue to use imperfect love to deny or harm ourselves? Our heavenly Father is saying to you and to me: "My child, you are tired and weary. Come home! Receive my love!" (cf. Matthew 11:28). As a sister in Christ, I beg you: don't refuse His love again and again. You are searching for unfailing love in all the wrong places. Come home and receive His faithful and everlasting love!

___________________

[i] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Cima_da_Conegliano%2C_God_the_Father.jpg - accessed July 27, 2015

Is Virtual Murder Equal To Real Murder?

Of course TV, movies, books, magazines, video-games, etc. are within themselves harmless as they are just the platforms by which morals and values are promoted. It however is simply fact that an extreme majority of entertainment in this world are in moral conflict with Christian morals and values. This puts many Christians into a tight position because as the disciple John tells us clearly we are to "not love the world or anything in the world." (1 John 2:15a).

There are three categories John puts worldly values into: 1) the lust of the flesh, 2) the lust of the eyes, and 3) the pride of life, (1 John 2:16). In the first article of the three part series I alluded to above I introduced a character named Joe, who identifies himself as a Christian but who also has a sinful-pleasure, as it were, for adult oriented, open-world video games and in particular Grand Theft Auto, (GTA). All packed in one blue-ray disk, the fifth instalment of the GTA series sports every kind of immorality this world has to offer including, theft, physical assault, vandalism, murder, manslaughter, multiple homicide, having sex with prostitutes, killing animals, doing drugs, dealing drugs, getting drunk, driving while intoxicated, stealing every drivable vehicle from cars to jumbo jets to military tanks and so on. Almost every female character in the game is in some skimpy outfit that shows a lot of her cleavage; and in the Playstation 4 (PS4) version of the game, the game designer RockStar Games included partial nudity at the local strip club. The PS4 version also includes various vantage points by which the player can view the game-play ranging from far-3rd-Person to close-3rd-Person view to 1st-Person view. Needless to say Joe can have his fill of lust by just playing GTA5. What can one lust after in games like GTA? Take your pick! Every scantily dressed woman; the ability to own $100,000 cars; the ability to do crime without any serious consequences; the ability to have $30,000,000+ in the bank; the ability buy weapons of war such rocket-launchers, honing-launchers and a rail-gun so to cause mayhem and so forth.

In the article I alluded to the fact that Joe did struggle with this moral quandary. He enjoys playing the game immensely but he does not agree with the values that it promotes when done in the real world. He has no problem committing virtual multiple-homicide and beating up virtual people and hiring computer animated prostitutes with fake money; but, although he would love to own a real $100,000 car in real life, he does have real issues with real murder, real theft, real crime, real sexual immorality and so forth. Is it not inconsistent to for him to hold the belief that its okay to commit fake murder, but not real murder? And that it is okay to pretend to be having sex with a prostitute in a game, but not agree with real men who pay real money to real flesh and blood women for sex?

To give a brief summary of the three part series, I concluded three things: 1) There is no real difference between playing a video game with questionable morals and watching a movie or reading a book that promotes those morals. However those morals are mere plot points to move the story forward and the story is written to serve adults; as such only adults should partake of these sort of forms of movies or video games. 2) Christians have the freedom in Christ, however we do not have the freedom in Christ to offend others or put a stumbling block to the cross in front of others. As such if ones partaking of such entertainment is causing someone to stumble, the Christian has the moral obligation to forsake their freedom in Christ to enjoy these sort of movie or video-games for the sake of their weaker brother or sister in Christ or unbelieving neighbour; and 3) no Christian is immune from being affected by the immoral content of such entertainment. It is imperative for a Christian to keep an eye on their thinking and if their enjoyment of these forms of entertainment is causing them to fail to represent Christ in all they do, then they have to walk away from the genre of entertainment.

Let's hone in on the second and third conclusions for a moment. It is true that Christians are not confined to rules and regulations as the Hebrews were in the Old Testament; we are free to dress how we want, work where we want, eat what we want, plant our crops however we want, and so forth. However do we have the freedom to enjoy worldly values, even in spirit if we are called to represent Jesus? No. However this is where the third point comes in. A Christian has permission to love a murder mystery or a crime drama but just as long as they hate the evil. This means that the Christian is to be hotly against the action not morally neutral on it; and if the Christian is starting to reclassify the morality of those actions into the latter category that is when the Christian has crossed the line and should put away the entertainment.

However it has been argued to me that virtual murder is murder just as lust is adultery. Jesus argues that if Joe was to merely lust after a woman to whom he is not married to, he has committed adultery with her. What is done in his mind, namely lust, is the same thing as doing it in action; so lust = adultery just as 2+2=4 (cf. Matthew 5:27-30). Is then virtual murder equal to real murder? When Joe maneuvers his character with the controller to kill another character in the game is Joe committing a murder that is parallel to a physical murder? Is Joe a murderer? Is Joe deceiving himself when he claims to have no issues "playing murderer" in a game but hate murder in real life? The answer is in connection with the third point made above. What is Joe's motive? If Joe is merely doing the murderous actions and stealing cars and so on in GTA to push the story forward, to go through the levels, then he is not a murderer. However if his motive is to end life, but since he can't do it legally in real life, he resorts to doing it virtually then he is a murderer, even if he is not one legally. If his mindset has evolved to the latter then he aught to slay the game. However is virtual killing, even to progress through the story, equal to real killing? No. Killing takes life, and video-game avatars are lifeless; you can't kill a rock anymore than you can kill a computer game character.

To conclude merely enjoying entertainment that uses ungodly values is not parallel to loving ungodly values; but ungodliness can arise when the entertainment, any entertainment becomes more important than God and representing him in ones day to day life.

Why God Won't You Deliver Me From My Sin?!

A number of months ago, I introduced you to a factitious character named Timothy, who like King David, was truly a man after God's own heart, (1 Samuel 13:14).[i] However, also like King David he had a heart that got side-tracked by his own desires. I told you his story of betrayal by a couple of clergymen at his former church for essentially doing two things: 1) struggling with a sexual sin and 2) repenting of it and asking one of these two men to help him by being a friend. He looked to this man to whom he knew for over 10 years to be someone to whom he can go to for help for when he is running low on his ability to stay sober. After this incident his ability to trust another clergy-person was severely weakened.

Several years went by and Timothy was simply unable to talk to anyone about his struggle; (lest he suffer round two of being betrayed from those who are supposed to be Biblically sound.) He of course had weeks and even months of sobriety, but he never truly found freedom from this sin. In his head he knew that no one was to be blamed but himself but in heart he took a play from Adam's play book, namely blaming everyone including God for his problems; his mind started to believe his heart that he is not at fault. He blamed the two clergymen for mistreating him and he blamed God for not taking this sin away from him. Lets take a closer look at these two main attitudes that Timothy had.

Choices vs. method of execution:

Timothy was justified in being hurt because, although what they did was not wrong, it was how they responded that was wrong; but Timothy didn't see it this way; he held that being disciplined was out of place and how he was disciplined was simply unBiblical. However it wasn't till recently when he fell in love with a very Biblically sound woman that helped him to see things differently. The day after he told her his story of betrayal this young lady ran home from work on her lunch hour and called him up to tell him that he deserved what he got from the pastors, namely their discipline was justified. After about an hour of listening to her (and arguing with her) he began to see where she was coming from. However he reminded her that the two pastors didn't act Biblical in their method of discipline. She agreed but she still maintained her position that they had full Biblical authority to excommunicate him from their local church. She held this view for one simple reason: just because they were wrong in their method of discipline doesn't negate the fact that they were right in their act of discipline. What made their choice of excommunication justified? One reason was that Timothy was in teaching ministry. He taught every Sunday that his students should refrain from sin; he said this all the while behind the scenes he was doing the thing that he told his students not to do. In sum he was being a hypocrite.

Its God's fault for not delivering Timothy:

Moreover, as I explained in the previous article Timothy pleaded with God to take his sin away, namely deliver him from the temptation so he can go about his day and serve Him with relative ease; and because God seemed to say "no" Timothy was angry at Him. However Timothy's beautiful beloved put things into a light that he never considered. Consider for a moment a tenant being evicted from their apartment for getting a dog after agreeing to not have any pets. How ludicrous would they be for them getting mad a their landlord for evicting them and suggesting that it was their landlord's fault for simply not taking this dog away from them, if they insisted that they didn't want animals on the premise? In the same way Christians are called to a standard of living that requires them to make sacrifices. How stupid then is it for Timothy to blame God for him not laying down a deed because God won't take the desire for the deed away?

However the question begs to be asked, "why wouldn't God deliver him from that temptation?" Timothy realized he was being lazy and he wanted God to strengthen him by taking away the resistance that, if dealt with daily would make him strong. There is a definite parallel between lifting weights at a gym and dealing with sin. Going to the gym takes discipline to get up, go, push through the pain and daily complete ones exercise routine. However if one sticks to it, they will see, over a period of time, not just an internal change such as feeling fit but also an outer change; they will have lost weight, gotten stronger and toned. In the same way dealing with sin is a daily routine and at times it is very difficult to successfully push through the temptation; however each day of sobriety will reward the person with the feeling of success and trusting in God's grace to be their spiritual fitness partner will promise blessings (cf. Jeremiah 11:1-4).

It is true that there are testimony's from people who can say that they have been delivered from a temptation, such as pornography or alcohol addiction, etc. Yet it is equally true that there are many other people to whom God has not delivered them from temptation but instead allows them to struggle with their sin. There is a lot of discussion among Christian scholars and layman alike as to what the 'thorn' in the Apostle Paul's side resembles (2 Corinthians 12:1-10); but one can say for sure that it was something that was hindering Paul's ability to serve God; and as such he pleaded with God three times to take it away (2 Corinthians 12:8); but God replied:

“My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” - 2 Corinthians 12:9

In Timothy's case, it seems God is doing the latter that is instead of giving him mercy and taking away his sexual temptation He chose to walk with him as he daily battles it. Why does God deliver some people from their temptations while he makes others battle them? This cannot always be known, but it could be for some people the same rationale as it was for Paul, that is to show His power through their human weakness. I'm sure there are other reasons God allows people to go through their sin instead of delivering them from the temptation; and perhaps nobody will know what some of them are on this side of heaven, but one thing that can be surly known: God will be with every person who is with Him.

____________________

[i] - http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/06/hyperactive-christianity-how-not-being.html 

Taking It Like A Christian

[0]

There is one common phrase that has been used and misused throughout the English speaking world. That phrase is: "take it like a man." This phrase often connotes being tough. A man may say to another man "take it like a man" to refer to taking some sort of physical abuse or not whimpering when he is in serious pain. A wife may say to her husband the proactive equivalence of that phrase, namely "be a man" when she wants him to do something that she believes (or is culturally believed) to be the duty that is dedicated to the male half of the human species; for one such example: being the protector of the home by chasing away the burglar with his wife's hairdryer (which was the first object he grabbed when he was startled awake, at the sounds of rumbling at 3 AM).

Conversely a man may chastise another man for being a lazy-bones by not getting up off his rear end and getting a job to provide for his family. It is because this is the case that the phrases "take it like a man!" or "be a man!" are very overly cited. They are often said in the movies and in television shows; in novels we read fictional characters saying them to one another and perhaps you may even have heard them in the privacy of your own home.

However how many times have you heard these two phrases being spoken: "be a Christian!" or "take it like a Christian." Probably never, as 1) they are simply not phrases we use, 2) if they were used they would only refer to anyone who follows the Christian religion and 3) figuring out what they might mean would be hours of discussion because they are wrought with nuances.

Be a Christian!

However if someone was ever chastised by another with one or both of these phrases how should they be interpreted? Being a Christian in the sense of salvation means to be one who truly and actively believes in their heart that Jesus is LORD and that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). However let's hone in on that nuance of 'active belief'. What does it mean to be an active Christian? It means to be a slave who is in love with his master (cf. Titus 1:1-4). A slave is one who knows he is not free to do his own will and submit his entire being to his master. A Christian is one who knows his place in God's world and submits his entire being for the will of God.[i] However the Christian also does so with a heart of willingness; so to suggest that if God gave him an 'out' he would not take it, as he wants to serve Him, because he loves Him. And so the Christian is one who doesn't just say the right things but who also excitedly does the right things; whatever God wills him or her to do they do with glee.

Take it like a Christian

However being a man or a woman after God's heart (cf. 1 Samuel 13:14) doesn't negate the fact that the Christian is still a sinner whose natural inclination is to do what is ungodly (cf. Romans 8:7). There is a commonality between many people who are caught doing something wrong and a dog who is caught doing something wrong. Almost all dog owners have, at one time or another, seen their dog pitifully walk up to them with their tales between their legs and their heads hung low for doing their business on the carpet. The dog knows that they disobeyed their owners house rules and now they are going to get a consequence, and they are scared! In the same way, all people, have the same natural reaction. They do something wrong and they want to do what they believe needs to be done so avoid being punished, and Christians are no exception.

When we do something wrong, the world teaches us to run and hide; and or bury the evidence; and or to concoct a story that is convincing enough to be believed by the authorities (e.g. the police or one's parents); and or to play by Adam's playbook and find an escape-goat (cf. Genesis 3:12) and cast blame onto another. This however is not what Scripture teaches about dealing with consequences for doing something genuinely wrong, or sinful. Scripture advocates for the practice of proudly and willingly taking the consequences for ones actions.[ii] This doesn't mean that the Christian should be proud that they sinned against God and thus they should be proud to suffer the consequences for sin; rather how they take the consequences for their sin will be a multi-facet testimony. Let's look at one example of how this is played out:

King David took pride in the vast power of his army and trusted in his army rather in God, (2 Samuel 1-9). However he eventually came to his senses and remembered that God's abilities greatly supersedes in a combined power of the number 1,300,000 soldiers. As a result he realized that he sinned against God and he prayed earnestly:

“...I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.” - 2 Samuel 24:10

David's love for God caused him to desire not be found guilty and so God saw to it that he pay for his crime, thus making him innocent in His eyes once again.[iii] God gave him 3 options to choose as a consequence for his sin: 1) a famine in the land 2) loosing battles or 3) plagues, (2 Samuel 24:13). David choose option #3 with the hopes that God will show mercy. However by doing that he also knew that God's will may turn out deadly, and this was in fact how it turned out as thousands of people died (2 Samuel 24:15). However this wasn't the end of David's punishment. David suffered as a king, and now it was time for him to suffer as an individual man of God for his crime against his God. As it was the custom for his people David sacrificed an animal for the forgiveness of his own sins, however when an animal was offered to him for free David refused the handout and insisting on paying for it, because he didn't want to "...sacrifice to the Lord ... God burnt offerings that cost [him] nothing.” - 2 Samuel 24:24. David knew that he must be the one who pays for the consequences for his actions.

This illustrates three things: 1) A true follower of God wants justice, even when they are the criminal deserving of punishment for evil. A true Christian will take their discipline from God like a Christian should. 2) A true follower of God wants God's righteousness to be broadcasted, even if it means that they suffer God's wrath and 3) a true follower of God wants everyone to know that he's on God's side. Although suffering a consequence for sin is not pleasant taking it "like a Christian (follower of God)" is a testimony in itself. It proves to the world that the Christian is no more or less a sinner than the greatest and Godless sinner and it shows God's righteousness and love for the sinner.

So being a Christian is being a slave who is in active love for his master, who is God, even if this means taking a well deserved punishment for breaking the master's rules. The Christian is to represent God's righteousness and justice and love for his creation; and sometimes this is done by the act of suffering for personal acts of sinful stupidity.

_______________________

[0] - "Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 079" by Rembrandt - The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH.. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg#/media/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg - accessed May 24, 2015 

[i] Does this mean that someone who is a non-Christian is 'free'? Is there liberation in being a non-Christian? No. Everyone is captive, so the question is, who is your captor? If you are your own captor and you use your own judgement, then you are held captive by death; and that is where all who are not in Christ will end up, (cf. Romans 8:1, 6a). However for those who are Christ's captives life is the natural outcome, (cf. Romans 8:6b). So who are you submitting to, death or life?

[ii] I do not mean to suggest that there are no non-Christians who are advocates for the philosophy of fessing-up and dealing with the consequences. I only mean that its the natural instinct to evade the authorities and try to avoid getting caught.

[iii] This is parallel to a criminal who successfully completed their prison term; they are no longer in debt to society for the crime that they committed because they had paid the debt in full; or they were released early thus they were shown mercy for the crime they did; either way they in the eyes of the law paid for their 'sin' as it were. 

One Day At A time

[i]

There is a famous saying in Alcoholics Anonymous: "one day at a time." The idea of taking each day as it comes is not limited to overcoming addiction as it also applies to marriage life. Marriage is designed to bring both participants in the union much closer together than any other human relationship and to also bring both people close to God. Therefore it should not be taken lightly.

Paul teaches that the husband and the wife are to both "[submit] to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21). Why? Each person brings applicable value to each others lives may it be instruction, wisdom, guidance, compassion, skills, positive (and unfortunately some negative) attitudes and general and specific philosophies on life. Moreover, each person also brings the value of their very nature to the table, that is one person is a man and the other is a woman. So the husband brings himself in-toto to the relationship and the wife brings her total self to the relationship; and over the years what begins to develop is a new man and a new woman. The husband is to submit to his wife as she has things to offer that will do nothing but benefit him as a man and a follower of Christ; and in the same way she aught to submit to him as what he has to offer will make her a better woman and a follower of Christ; this of course is contingent on both people as individuals being reliant on Christ and sharing the vision for a God-centred union.

However there are unique ways for the husband and wife are to individually actualize this mandate as a husband and a wife. From here on in, I will discuss the role of the husband. Paul is clear that "...the husband is the head of the wife,..." - Ephesians 5:23a Such propositions are often stained with perception; a perception that is influenced by factors such as upbringing, friends, society, comparing first century middle-eastern culture to 21st century Western culture, and of course let us not forget that he is a sinful human being. So what is one to do? In this day of social quality is the husband still the head? Or is that a first century way of thinking, and now for us in The West, who live in the 21st-century is there ought to be a different interpretation or application for that passage? The answer is found in the passage itself. 

...as Christ also is the head of the church,... (Ephesians 5:23b)

Is it societally relative that Christ is the head of the church? No. Therefore since Christ is the picture to mimic then the husband role does not change with time and culture. Husbands will forever be the head. How, however is he to proactively live out this responsibility in his life? 1) Concentrate on his own responsibility and not police his wife's role. 2) Remember her role in his life, namely be his complementer or helper, (Genesis 2:18b). Why? He needs the help! God noticed that it was not good that the man was alone (Genesis 2:18a) so He solved the problem, namely his wife. 

However what does it mean that he is 'the head'? The husband is the spiritual leader; the one who is commissioned to teach God's word and lead his family to Godliness, (cf. Ephesians 5:26). However he needs help! His wife is called to help him, therefore he needs to listen to her (cf. Proverbs 31:26)! Solomon states:

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. ...a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. - Proverbs 31:10-21, 30 

Moreover, he is also to love his wife "...just as Christ loved the church..." - Ephesians 5:25. If you are a married man the day you put your signature on your marriage license you signed onto love your wife with a parallel love that Christ had and has for His church - a daunting task indeed! If you are an unmarried man, but you are looking down the corridor to marriage with your girlfriend, a great blessing indeed, but realize how God wants you to love her. 

How is the husband to parallel his love for his wife to Christ's love for the church? The first step is to concentrate on loving her and not how she is loving you in return. Christ's love for His church was not contingent on receiving love from His church (Romans 5:8); as such the husband should love his wife non contingent of receiving love from her.

Regarding all relationships Paul commands that all of us are to "...have the same mindset as Christ Jesus" - Philippians 2:5. This thus includes your relationship with your beloved. How should a husband love his beloved? Take on the nature of a servant and be obedient to her needs; and he is called to do this as far as to his own grave, (cf. Philippians 2:7-8). Christ sacrificed something, namely the glory that he had with his Father, so to meet our need of reconciliation back to him, (cf. John 17:5). In the same way husbands are called to be prepared to make sacrifices so to meet their wive's needs. 99% however of sacrifices won't have the err of death, except for from time to time, the death of one's preferences for the benefit of his wife. 

Christ also humbled himself by entering his creation and dying a natural death, (cf. Philippians 2:8). This however does not apply here for the husband because he is not on a higher standing than his wife; therefore there is no way that he can mimic the humility for his wife that Christ did for him, as he is, like his wife, but a lowly sinner. However the service end of that scenario is one that all husbands are commissioned to do; and this service is to love her unconditionally and ensure that his love for her is his number two priority as God is to be his number one (cf. Matthew 22:37-39).

Moreover, God pleads with his people to return to him and love him (cf. Jeremiah 3:12); he parallels his relationship with his people as His bride and He their husband (cf. Jeremiah 3:14). He chooses them; and when they love him, he promises not to reject their love and be angry (cf. Jeremiah 3:12d). Remember that your God-centred wife willingly chooses to love you and so be willing to be loved by your wife. This can done by a submission to all that she has to offer!

To conclude if you are an unmarried man who is looking to marry to your girlfriend, practice being her husband now. Show her today the reality of who she is namely, a person of "...noble character...". Someone who "...is worth far more than rubies." - Proverbs 31:10. 

Loving your spouse is a wonderful opportunity; but it can be hard. Therefore both you and your beloved should thank God that He's given to both of you rationed portions of time to do it; namely each of our relative hours that we are awake, (cf. Matthew 6:34). Just as I took sobriety from alcohol and drug abuse, one day at a time, every married man and woman should not try to love their spouses in chunks of 3 days or 7 days or 50 years, but only one day at a time to one portion of the day at a time to one hour at a time; and relish every second of it!

____________________________

[i] - "Placing a wedding ring" by Petar Milošević - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Placing_a_wedding_ring.jpg#/media/File:Placing_a_wedding_ring.jpg 

Who Am I?

I was invited to become a guest blogger for Faith Beyond Belief. I am addressing the argument that one's identity is in their sexual orientation thus making acting on homosexual attraction a justified behaviour. 

***

"The question: “Who am I?” is one that is old as dirt. When this question is asked, many people take a trip down a common road of qualifications such as name and vocation. It is true that someone’s name identifies them and their career says something about them, but neither name nor career defines them as people in toto. There was a time when sexual orientation was also not included as a qualifier, as even though it is a part of who someone is, it does not complete them. However, times have changed, and now when someone in Western society says “I am gay,” their homosexuality is not just “a part of who they are”; it is in fact the very essence of who they are." - Con't here

Getting To Know God's Will: Finding your path in life

In an article I wrote, located here, I introduced a factitious character from the 2015, post-apocolyptic zombie game, Dying Light named Toygar. I showed that just as the creators of Dying Light, namely Techland and Warner Brothers designed Toygar to have a specific role in the video game God has designed His creation for one specific goal, namely to Glorify Him. So no matter where you may feel called as a believer in Christ to you are called to the same overarching goal namely to glorify God, (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23-31).

Finding the specific will of God for ones life can be difficult because it involves every aspect of their life. The Christian wants to know His will for them when it comes to relationships - should they get married or stay single? God's 'Will' invades their education and career; should they go to school to learn medicine or politics? And so on. These types of questions are important as it is one thing to say that its God's will for the Christian to glorify Him by 'whatever they do' (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:31), but it is a totally different question to ask: 'How do I bring glory to Him?'

The first step in being abel to do God's specific will is to know what His will is? As James, the half-brother of Jesus states:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. - James 1:27

This reiterates the point made in the aforementioned article about bringing glory to God by loving one's proverbial neighbour, but James adds a mandate to keep oneself separated from the unGodly world's morals, values and practices. John, Jesus' disciple encourages his readers to "...not love the world or anything in the world. ... —the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—..." - 1 John 2:15-16. So one way the Christian can bring glory to God is to stay on the right side of the line; in sum hold to Godly interpretations of abstracts concepts such as 'love'. Moreover, do not participate in practices that the world sees no issue with but God does; and also speak out against those practices. In other words irregardless of job-choice or choice of ministry, God has called the Christian to holiness, (cf. Lev. 11:44-45, 1 Peter 1:16).

How can one ascertain that something is Godly verses unGodly? Jesus promises to abide in us if we abide in Him; conversely he also promises that those who do not stay connected with him, will suffer eternally, (cf. John 15:1-17). The way we can learn what is Godly verses unGodly is to stay daily connected with him in prayer and in quite devotional times. However one also has to be attentive to what 'the world' believes so to be able to make the contrast, as there are several values that both 'the world' and Christianity share at the superficial level, such as to love one another. (cf. 1 John 3:11); but in the thick of it, Christianity's version of showing love to one's neighbour and the world's version of loving one's neighbour do not always see eye to eye. Representing God's views on various things bring's glory to God; it is God's 'Will' that we represent Him.

Another way the Christian can bring glory to God is to sit back and enjoy Him, through what he has made (cf. Psalms 46:10, John 1:3). God wants the Christian to not just stand up for him, but also relax in him, (cf. Psalms 23:1). Relaxing in the comfort of God brings God the glory of being a God of refuge, (cf. Psalms 46:1).

However how can the Christian know what they are called by God to do for their short time on this earth? All Christians irregardless of a specific calling are to abide in Him, rest in him, stand up for his morals and values, but not all people are called to be teachers, or go abroad as missionaries, or to work in the government, or preach from the pulpit, and so forth. How does the Christian ascertain God's will for them in terms of a life-calling? This is the billion dollar question. I ended the aforementioned article with this ascertain that Christians can make choices for their lives "...(move here, do this, do that, etc.) just as long as whatever choices they make are God-focused and ones that can bring Glory to God." We are called to glorify God in whatever we do, but can we do anything to glorify God? No. I for example, cannot look at internet pornography 'for the glory of God', because the nature of pornography is non-glorifying to God. So the Christian's choices are limited to those that can actually bring glory to God. There are two types of choices that one can make that can bring glory to God: one type of choice is Biblical and the other choice is neutrally-Biblical. The former is a moral choice that is founded upon Biblical values, while the latter is a choice that is neither for or against Biblical values and may also neither be a moral choice. One question the Christian should ask themselves is if the choice they are making falls into one of three categories: 1) Biblical, 2) neutrally-Biblical or 3) counter-Biblical (sinful choices.) If a Christian's decision falls into the third camp, it is undeniably and exclusively their will and counter to God's 'Will'; and therefore it can never glorify Him. If however the choice is in the second camp then the Christian should recognize it as permissible but ask if it is beneficial for themselves and or others. If this permissible choice is not going to be beneficial or constructive then it may be best to choose not to embrace this choice; and then of course if the Christian's choice falls into the first category then it should be a no-brainer that it is something that will bring glory to God as it is a Biblical choice.

Moreover, it is a fallacy to suggest that one's calling will be counter to their personal skills or design. I am not saying that God won't call someone to do something that will take them out of their comfort-zone and cause them to stretch as people, but it is a simple fact of life that there are people for example who are very impatient with young children but have a head-for-numbers; these people can spend hours going over a church's financial records and being in-tune to every dollar that is spent, but throw their hands up in frustration when a child is being incommunicative or taking a tantrum. God may be calling this person to be their church's treasurer and to work in a bank instead of being an AWANA leader and a kindergarten teacher. For that person to choose to take an economics course and strive to be a banker and or serve on the church's board of directors as the treasure is never going to be sinful or unGodly choice. For a concluding point of consideration one should also look at where their heart bleeds for. Nehemiah's heart was broken when he got word about the state of the Jerusalem wall (cf. Nehemiah 1). This inspired him to instigate a renovation project to fix it up. In parallel if one's heart bleeds to see Children come to faith in Jesus, then that person is probably called to children's ministry. Who does your heart break for?

Why Do I Exist?: Asking the oldest question, 'What God's 'Will'?

I'd like to introduce you to Toygar. Toygar is a factious character in the latest post apocalyptic zombie video game, Dying Light. Toygar is one of the animated side-characters who you can approach as the main and only playable character in the game Kyle Crane to get some of the side missions. This game of course has many side-characters, and like Toygar every character was designed by their creators, Warner Brothers and Techland to be stationed in one or two or three places in the factitious city of Harran. As such Toygar is pretty easy to find because he is always in the one place, that he was designed to be in: the main hideout called, The Tower. One popular place you can find him in The Tower is standing by a pin-board where other characters have posted requests which are several of the side-missions in the game. Essentially for most of the game Warner Brothers and Techland designed Toygar to stand by the pin-board and encourage me to help the other characters; in sum do the side-missions.

The way video-game developers like Techland design their games is very similar in intent to how God designed this universe and everything that resides within, (cf. Exodus 20:11). They design their characters to perform a single function or several specific functions. God has designed this universe and each life of every person, Christian and non-Christian alike for a very general purpose. One of the biggest endeavours and struggles that have burdened Christians throughout the centuries is finding that purpose for them as Christians and as people. "What is God's will for my life?" or simply, "What is God's 'Will'?" is the question that many Christians ask. This is a hard question to answer for many reasons, of which one is simply due to it being such a vast topic because it covers virtually every area in ones life: relationships, vocation, eduction, place of residence, Christian ministerial calling and so forth.

"What do I want to be when I grow up?" is a question that we all have wondered about throughout our childhood. From a Christian's viewpoint however the question could read like this: "Where do I feel called to?" We ask: "Does God want me to be a missionary? Or should I pull 9-5 desk job?" This question invades our relationships:"Is it God's will for my life, to be married or stay single?" It invades our para-ministerial goals: "Does God want me to get involved in children's ministry, homeless-ministry, prison-ministry or sing in the choir? It even causes many Christians to wonder about God's will for where on this earth they will live, work, eat and sleep: "Does God want me to move to this city or that country or stay where I am now?" These questions are a real burden for many Christians because the true Christian will truly want to ensure that they are fulfilling the will of God and not running off doing their own thing. Conversely however they are also human beings with desires, passions and personal ambitions. It should be a given that all Christians will gladly sacrifice sinful desires for the devotion to God and His Will; but what about those permissible desires? One burdening fear that many Christian's have is that their perfectly acceptable and non-sinful desires won't fit into God's 'Will' for their life. For example, what if I want to move to China but God wants me to stay in Canada? What if I long to get married, but it is God's will for me to stay single? What if my heart bleeds for children but I have this feeling God wants me to work in an adult's prison-ministry? And so on.

Before anyone can tackle such questions one has to ask the general question of God's will: "What is God's will - period?" This doesn't ask the question, "what is God's will for me? that is Ian Murray." But rather: "What is God's 'Will'?" Once the answer to this question comes to light personalizing God's 'Will' should become much easier to do.

There is an overarching theme in God's 'Will' for his creation. It is to glorify Him. Techland and Warner Brothers, designed Toygar for one meaning in life: to stay by the pin-board encouraging the player to help other characters in the game. And in the same way we exist to do one thing: glorify God.* The Apostle Paul highlights that the Christian has freedom in Christ. That is the Christian is not bound by the Mosaic Law. To the Christians in Corinth he explains the relationship between their freedom to do things and the rationality to do those things and the focus by which they should have so to make Godly decisions.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. - 1 Corinthians 10:23

He indicates that even though they have freedom to do many things, many of those things may not be beneficial for themselves or be a benefit to others. He then asserts that "[no] one should seek their own good, but the good of others." - 1 Corinthians 10:24. What did Jesus say, was the first and second greatest commandments? To love God and to love one's neighbour (cf. Matthew 22:37-39). Paul's focus is to have them be God centred and represent God by showing His love to their proverbial neighbours. So even though one has the freedom to do many things, one's Christian mandate may functionally take that freedom away. Paul uses the analogy that even though all foods are no longer contraband for the Jew, the Jewish-Christian should not eat any food sacrificed to false gods, solely base on how doing so may offend unbelievers (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:27-30). The spirit of this lesson is, if doing something is going to have a negative effect on an immature believer or an unbeliever (or even cause distress to mature and immature believers [cf. Romans 14:15]) then it is right to think of them first and sacrifice your freedom in Christ to do the "offensive" thing. Paul summarizes his point with:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. - 1 Corinthians 10:31

There is a necessary connection between loving one's neighbour and bringing glory to God. Paul is saying that, in everything we do, we aught to honour the two greatest commandments that is to love God first and do so by loving one's neighbour (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37-39). And we aught to do this not for our neighbour's sake, but for the sake of bringing glory to God. So every action the Christian takes, every word the Christian speaks, every thought the Christian thinks - every ounce of the Christian's being is mandated to glorify God; the Christian exists to glorify God.* This greatly frees-up the Christian to make choices in their lives (move here, do this, do that, etc.) just as long as whatever choices they make are God-focused and ones that can bring Glory to God.

____________________

* The mandate of this creation being designed to bring Glory to God is one reason that sin has separated his creation from him. Sin entered the scene (cf. Romans 5:12) disabling his creation from glorifying Him (cf. Romans 1:21). Since this universe and all that dwells within has been corrupted it no longer can glorify God (cf. Romans 8:6-7, 22). So God has solved this problem with sending Jesus to pay the consequences for sin, (cf. Romans 5:8). As such there will come a time when God will officially fix his creation en-toto (cf. 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 21:1-4) to the way it was supposed to be (cf. Genesis 1:31) thus restoring its original purpose, to glorifying God.