Welcome to Reasoning Gamer

Welcome to Reasoning Gamer, an apologetic and evangelical ministry with a video game appeal, to which I am the founder. Here are a couple of blogposts I offer via this ministry, that may prick your intellectual interest. Be sure to check out the Reasoning Gamer website for all that it has to offer.

____________

Calling All Christians Out From Religious “Fanboyism”

By: Ian Murray

By Source, Fair use,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52854893

 One common thread that weaves its way through every part of life, be it politics, religion, professional sports, video games, etc. is what the video gaming industry might call, “Fanboysim”. A fanboy is someone who is irrationally obsessed and devoted to something: a video game, a sports team, a religion, political party, etc. This, however, ought not to be mistaken with being a “fan”; every one of us are “fans” of something and to varying degrees we are committed to showing our allegiance to that thing of which we are a fan.

Read on...

~~~

Concerning Free Will: Can we have Free Will under God’s complete sovereignty? (Part 1)

By: Jason Plouffe

Fair use,
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12766032

I have heard many times how free will and God’s sovereignty are in conflict with one another. It may be that God lets people do their own thing, as if people do things outside of His control. We have autonomy; as in, complete independence and control over what we do, and thus God does not dictate or have control over our own processes.

Read on...

Why “No Man’s Sky” Is A Great Game!

The following post is a break from the normal topics that are discussed on this blog. This post is strictly an opinion piece about the newest space exploration video game, by Hello Games, No Man's Sky.

_________

In 2013 the British video game developing company Hello Games introduced to the gaming community, and the world at large, the space exploration video game, No Man’s Sky (NMS). 

NMS is supposed to be so big that you won't be able to complete all of it. It assaults the player with over 18 quintillion planets to explore, a variety of extra terrestrial rocks, flora and fauna to discover and the ability to become either allies or enemies of aliens races. In NMS the player can do business with the alien races, or get into all out dog fights for steeling the cargo from their huge freighters. Having played NMS for many hours, I can confirm this to be the case. However, this is all there is to do; (okay, that and run around each planet you land on getting resources to either sell or beef up your starship and spacesuit - a mandatory aspect of the game if you want to live.) Wait a minute! “That’s all there is to do? Isn’t that enough? What’s the problem here?”

There are some major complaints coming from the gaming community about NMS. One issue arrises from the simple nature of procedural regeneration as a form of video game development. NMS was generated, not through intentional and artistic thought, but through mathematical algorithms. Procedural generation expert Kate Compton states this: 

[Your] algorithm may generate 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 planets. They may each be subtly different, but as they player is exploring them rapidly, will they be perceived as different? I like to call this problem the 10,000 Bowls of Oatmeal problem. I can easily generate 10,000 bowls of plain oatmeal, with each oat being in a different position and different orientation, and mathematically speaking they will all be completely unique. But the user will likely just see a lot of oatmeal.1

Aesthetically speaking every planet seems to be the same. One theme among many planets is a difference in colour scheme and a mountain over here instead of over there, but in the end what we have are just mountainous planets. Other planets are more forestry, but again one planet may be a bright orange, and purple, and pink forest while another is a dark red, blue, and brown forest - different but still nothing but forests; and some planets do have large bodies of water while others are nothing but waterless rocks. In the same way with the exception of small distinguishing features, all the flora and fauna seem to be the same on all planets. In sum it seems that all you need to do is discover let's say 10-20 planets and you’ve functionally (not literally of course) discovered all 18 quintillion planets. Why? They are all virtually the same.

(NOTE: This has been my observation so far, insofar as to how far I traveled into the universe. It is possible that I simply didn’t land on planets yet that are completely unique from what I’ve experienced thus far; and this is something of course that I hope to do as I progress through the game.) 

This leads then right into another complaint about NMS. The game play is also very repetitious. One necessary task that all players are commissioned with is to gather resources to stay alive by beefing up their spacesuit which protects the player from a variety of deadly environments that can be found on many planets. As the player traverses through the universe and land on planets they are having to always be on the lookout for resources to keep them alive. This gets boring after a while. In sum the major things to do in NMS is: 

1. Fly from planet to planet.
2. Discover alien flora, fauna and geology.
3. Gather resources to stay alive.
4. Dog fight with other spaceships for resources to sell to make money to advance your starship; and which will also cause you to grow in allegiance with the alien races that are being attacked by these enemy starships. 
5. Attack huge star freighters for resources and try to stay alive long enough to get to a space-station so to sell the goods so to make money to advance your starship.
6. Do business with aliens races so to advance your starship. 
7. Repeat steps 1-6.
8. Repeat steps 1-6.
9. Repeat steps 1-6.

I'm sure you get the drill. Listing these activities like this defiantly gives the impression that there is plenty of stuff to do in NMS. And this would be correct. However why is the player doing all of this? This is the biggest complaint that many people in the gaming community has had about NMS. NMS is not focused on any mission, except to travel to the centre of the universe; but it doesn't tell you why you are to do this. So what is there to encourage you to do it? You decide why you are going to the centre. 

This is one feature about NMS that makes it a great game however! Unlike most games where the gamer gets to be brought through a pre-scripted story, such as in Metal Gear Solid 5, NMS forces the player to be the writer of the adventure that they are on. They get to design the backstory of who they are and why they are doing what you are doing - such as discovering all the different species of animals, and planets, and spending half their time collecting zinc, and taring down elements of gold and copper. 

Hello Games has done something wonderful for the player even if many people are not aware of it: they’ve given the player the opportunity to use their own imagination. As a NMS player, I am not at the whim of the imagination of the Hello Games team. I am left to make my own NMS experience interesting; and if I cannot do that, then that is strong evidence for how reliant I am on others to tell me a story. Hello Games plopped me into a universe sized sandbox - metaphorically speaking - that has nothing but sand to play with, and with nothing but the barest of essentials to work with,  - again metaphorically speaking as I am given starship - and tells me to create my own story. 

To conclude there are other ways that NMS is a great game, and perhaps I’ll allude to them in the future, but this is one reason why I appreciate Hello Games and the work that they put into developing No Man’s Sky.

_______________

1 -  http://galaxykate0.tumblr.com/post/139774965871/so-you-want-to-build-a-generator - Accessed September, 10, 2016

Is It Reasonable To Believe In Miracles?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/
7/7d/Cherry_Tomato_on_Vine.JPG

A few days ago, I embarked on a new summer project: gardening. I went to various places collecting what I needed and the next day I assembled my crops; my landlord put the kibosh on me bringing a cow home and so I had to settle for Miracle Grow as my fertilizer. About an hour after planting my crops I went to check on them: nothing! I lamented on Facebook:

I planted my Cherry Tomato plant and Lavender flower seeds over an hour ago! Where are my crops?!

My comment was for pure comical purposes as I know that growing plants takes time, work and patients; and the following Sunday at church I caused a friend to chuckle when I told her about my new project and (again for comical purposes only) lamented that I used Miracle Grow fertilizer: "It says "Miracle Grow", not "Natural grow". Naturally growing crops takes time, but I used Miracle Grow! It's been over an hour, where's my miracle!"I lamented.

The idea of miracles is controversial as it flies in the face of the observable facts of reality. It would truly have been a miracle if my tomato plant grew to full size and flowered me some little juicy Cherry tomatoes within an hour of being planted and watered; and to date, I have never heard of such an event happening. However does a lack of personal witnesses for such growth mean that such an event can't happen? It is of course not within the realm of normality but is it within the realm of possibility? Yes, if you have a miracle worker in play.

In todays skeptic society many Christians are under pressure to believe what is explainable within natural means; and if they can't explain something, yet still believe it to be true, they are ridiculed as fools. However this should never be! Christians should allow the "miracle explanation" to be a viable explanation for something. Why? Just because something is not explainable through one paradigm doesn't mean that another paradigm cannot explain the event in question. Science offers a wonderful form of discovery but it is limited in what it allows us to discover; and so sometimes science has to step aside and let another side of life have the spotlight. This allows reality to be seen more fully.

However Christians ought not to go from one extreme of trying to explaining everything within the realm of scientific inquiry so to save face in this skeptical community, to the equally opposite irrational position of calling "everything" a miracle! In 1994, I went to Toronto for a Billy Graham, Youth Crusade with my church youth-group. I was lucky that I was with my youth leader because for a time we got separated from my youth group. My youth group was about a group of 30 youth, with no identifiable features to tell them a part, in a group of about 20,000 youth, who likewise didn't have any identifiable features; (can we say "needle in a haystack" boys and girls?!) My youth leader had a pare of binoculars with him and so we used them to see if we could locate our group of 30 specific teenagers in the group of 20,000 teenagers. He put the binoculars up to his eyes, randomly pointed upwards and "boom!", he found our entire youth group, together on the first try, up in the nosebleed section of the baseball stadium that hosted the event that night.

One may argue that was "a miracle" as: "what are the chances of finding 30 specific youth, together, in a group, in a group of 20,000 youth on the first try?" The answer is: improbable but possible. It was fantastic that we found the group on the first try, and we prayed that we would find our group as we were both unsettled about being separated from the group; and when we found our group we were both very relieved. To this day I believe that God heard our prayer and eased our jitters; but because it was mathematically possible that our group was together and discoverable on the first random try it was not a miracle that we found them on the first try. However does that mean that God wasn't at work and that we just beat the odds? No, as something doesn't need to be naturally or mathematically unexplainable for it to be the work of God.

If that wasn't a miracle: what is a miracle? A miracle is simply an event that is not possible within natural means, such as my crops growing from seeds to tomatoes in just one hour. However what if I prayed that day for a quick harvest and my crops did spring up ready for the picking within an hour of being planted: how is explaining this phenomena as a miracle an invalid explanation? If Scripture is true and that God created the world from nothing (cf. Genesis 1:1) (a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: a.k.a, "a miracle"), which includes my plants doesn't God have the ability to cause my crops to grow within record time? Yes! He created them with the ability to emerge within 7-10 days, so it stands to reason that He has the ability to speed up the process if He so chose to do so.

Therefore one reason why Christians should allow a miraculous event to be a miracle and not try to explain it away naturally is because it is possible if God is in play. A miraculous event is not explainable within science, but there are a lot of facts of reality that science cannot explain, but that doesn't mean that they are any less factual than gravity is, factual.

Another reason that a Christian ought to allow miracles to be a part of reality is without one specific miracle happening we will all die in our sins and transgressions. The apostle Paul writes that in order to be saved from eternal damnation we first must confess that Jesus is LORD and believe that His Father in heaven raised him from physical death (cf. Romans 9:10). Jesus was physically dead and three days later (known as "Easter Sunday) He was not. Jesus was not a zombie, He was - again - a living being. God regenerated the dead cells of His body and gave His body new life. Jesus did this so to pay the consequences of sin (cf. John 6:23a) and to give us sinners eternal life through a regenerated physical existence of our own (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:42-49; John 6:23b). If miracles can't happen, then Jesus didn't rise from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-18), leaving us all to be condemned to eternity without God in Hell.

A third reason why miracles ought to be supported is simply due to the fact that they show God's awe and wonder. God has 100% sovereignty and power over His creation and every miracle God does shows His mighty power. Moreover, this natural creation performs the same function (cf. Romans 1:20); even though a sunrise or a sunset it is not a miraculous event, as pointed out above the mere existence of the sun and the rest of creation is the face of a miracle that has already happened namely creation; and thus there is a miracle worker in play who deserves to be honoured and worshiped.

To conclude, Christians ought to represent miracles when they appear. Miracles show God's glory through creation, and they show that the picture of reality is a lot more complicated than what one mere academic field, namely science can highlight for us.

What Was Jesus' Real Sacrifice?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Marco_
palmezzano%2C_crocifissione_degli_Uffizi.jpg

The Easter weekend is the time when social media outlets like Google+, Facebook and Twitter are hot with articles, blogs and video-blogs, a.k.a vlogs all talking about the extravagant claim of the resurrection of the dead Jesus of Nazareth. On the Friday (known as "Good Friday") Christians retell the story of Jesus arrest, beatings and crucifixion and on Easter Sunday articles and videos on Jesus' resurrection from the dead are presented.

As such then I won't add to the already mix of papers that surround these two days but instead encourage you to go to reputable sources to find out the truth that surrounds this weekend of love and why it is in deed a time of love. I have listed a couple of trustworthy resources below to aid you in your journey in the Christian faith and all of its claims.

However I would like to ask this one question: What was Jesus' real sacrifice? The Christian claim is that Jesus suffered a horrible physical death on the cross on Friday and then on the Sunday, He rose from the dead. These two events paid the penalty that you and I owed God for breaking His laws and conquered the effects of eternal death. However on the Friday was it just His life that He 'gave up'? No. The apostle Paul argues:

[Who], although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:6-8)

Paul argues that the first real sacrifice Jesus made is celebrated in North America on December 25: Christmas. That is the very act of coming down as human, not in human form, as if He wore a human costume, but as a natural human being. Paul's word homoiōma[i] (ὁμοίωμα) (Philippians 2:7) translated in English as "the likeness"holds the notion of something being that something. The logical law of identity states that something is that something, e.g. an apple is an apple, it is not a pear or a banana, it is an apple. In the same way then Jesus is human. This was for God in the literal sense a natural demotion as He is much better than humans.

Jesus was naturally divine, and thus He had the right to demand that others identify Him as divine just as much as He had the right to act on His divine nature. Did Jesus then give up His glory? In the applicable sense, yes. Before He was arrested Jesus is recorded praying to His, Father: "glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was," (John 17:5) (my emphasis). Jesus always had the glory at His fingertips, but He willingly put it aside in exchange for abuse, rejection and death for the sin of the slave of sin. In sum Jesus became the target for hatred by humans and the object of His, Father's wrath, instead of the slave to sin who was the one who is truly deserving of His, Father's wrath.

These sacrifices are what He made. He gave up His right to act on His glory, something that was rightfully His and the right for easy and automatic justice, as he could have, if He wanted to, destroyed us all in the fires of Hell. He didn't need to save anyone! The earthbound, physical and sociological suffering that He endured was how it was materialized in His life here on earth. Why did He pay for the penalty for our sins the way He did? Great question! I'll leave the answer for another day. All we need to do today is reflect on his sacrifice for you and me.

______________

[i] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/nasb/phl/2/1/t_conc_1105007 

______________

Resources

- faithbeyondbelief.ca 
- The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus

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.