Personal God or Cultural God?

Should you not be aware of the things you etch into your faith - for instance, whether or not you speak of a timeless, personal relationship with God before placing a cultural restriction on God?

It is evident that there are boundaries placed on the very God that one loves so much, such as the underestimating emphasis on a tiny corner of the glory of God - a temporary pursuit of happiness that essentially blesses monetarily and materialistically in return for faithfulness and good will. Much of the same doctrine can be found in the self-improvement books located down the aisle from the theology books. However not all individuals treasure and define prosperity by mere domestic comfort and pleasure; not all individuals find reward in forms of entertainment; not all individuals are able to practice their true abilities through cultural definitions of happiness; finally, not all individuals place such value on economic ladders. Now, there is virtually nothing wrong with these things in and of themselves. These days when Christians bicker they exaggerate passion into a legalistic belief and prosperity into a lukewarm belief. But what is God's definition of a blessing to each individual, since after all, it is a personal relationship rather than a cultural relationship?

It is inevitable that there will always be trends. Although, what is most prominent in modern Western Christianity? Better yet, what is success in the eyes of God as opposed to the eyes of man? As of late there has been a deadlock inclination that the work of an individual is fruitless if that work does not produce some sort of monetary profit. Essentially, money is merely a tool, not a goal, especially for one who projects everything, from faith to peace to success, into the hands of God. The more emphasis the desiring hearts of men put on a single tool to succeed, the fewer options he leaves for himself to succeed. Most men think that building a profit or climbing the social ladder is God's primary means of sending a blessing. I find that this is a hindrance to the true potential that God has for man. He is a worker of miracles, a creator, one who has granted great authority to those who are faithful. The man who continuously seeks God delights in creativity, he delights in discovering and witnessing his own strength, without submission to the gods of his time, under the hands of God who is beyond time.

As previously mentioned, the inclination is driven under the assumption that God's sole purpose is to provide little luxuries, which lead only to a rather fickle happiness, for every man that truly confides in his will. On the contrary, there are individuals with a more prophetic perspective; they do not walk in the here-and-now but by legacies for the coming generations. On earth, they might never witness their own successes or prosperities, yet reserved for them are blessings greater than those that which the world itself has to offer. God favors men and women who delight in being made worthy of happiness before the happiness itself. These people ask themselves, "If I were to die this instant, what message, eternally valuable, did I leave behind? How could one find me?" They know that pride and power fall when the person falls, but discoveries of truth form legacies that can be built upon for generations.

First and foremost, the greater good in many cases is to speak of what is sure and profitable in the eyes of eternity, and this is done by clinging onto the example of Christ. He is the only teacher to ever set an irrefutable, timeless example for all cultures and all men. Some men delight in stepping outside of the cultural circle in an attempt to speak for all people. Indeed that is considered overdoing it, however, amplification signifies leadership:

"In winter Diogenes walked barefoot in the snow. In summer he rolled in the hot sand. He did this to harden himself against discomfort. 'But aren't you overdoing it a little?' a disciple asked. 'Of course,' replied Diogenes, 'I am like a teacher of choruses who has to sing louder than the rest in order they may get the right note.'"

How many have a passionate desire, though we will fail again and again, to lead a life following the absolute purity and certainty of the example of Christ? On the other hand, how many have become nothing more than inspirational speakers who focus only on certain highlights meant to emotionally inspire those within one's own culture and time period? Simply put, there were times in history and places on earth where people died or suffered for Christ just as there were times and places where people lived and prospered for Christ. They are both worthy simply because they are both for Christ.

It is quite superficial and safe when a televangelist implies that one must be happy or that he must prosper, by cultural definition, in order to be right with God. I have no problem with God if some of us were meant to suffer on earth in order to bring something worthwhile, something eternal out of us. I for one do not give much when everything is flawlessly moving to my advantage; I am too busy dancing in my selfish, self-righteous pool of ignorance. Sometimes it takes a lowly, title-less man to humble the world. Kings, rulers, CEOs, judges, doctors, pastors, they are already expected to be greater and wiser.

To be sincere, or maybe just believable, about helping others through adversity, one has to have experienced it himself first. This is my strangest prayer, and in this I can never regret a thing. It is a kind of self-sacrificial love, one of life's greatest components. I do not care about happiness simply because I believe that joy is something worth fighting for. Joy lies in one's desire to bear the burdens of others today and tomorrow (Galatians 6:2). It is not a tragedy; the most innocent man in history, Jesus Christ, suffered for the most beautiful event in history. The work of the divine, the act of love is to walk among those less fortunate than oneself. Good works is giving to the poor and the helpless, but divine works is showing them their worth to the One who matters. That is the definition of ultimate prosperity, and anything else, although not necessarily wrong, is indeed settling for less.

Ultimate prosperity is one's value within. It takes a man of depth, morality, and charm to be envied yet without a sign of wealth or romance. A passion to prove such inner worth is his permission to achieve whatever he desires. With a hint of good judgment, to fear nothing, not failure or suffering or even death, indicates that you value life the most. You live to the extreme; you push limits; you spend your time building legacies. Those do not die. The walk of Christ in every sense of the phrase - this is the only constant joy, one that timelessly prevails throughout any and every culture. It is simple, as Kierkegaard said, "The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly."

Know Oneself, Then Know One Another

When you have wit of your own, it's a pleasure to credit other people for theirs; and living by that principle, when people constantly try to ignore you or your talents it actually makes you even more confident, as though you cannot be matched.

Nowadays there are many different tests and evaluations intended to reveal one's dominant qualities. While some may be fraudulent, or maybe just inaccurate, I find StrengthsFinder 2.0 to be one of the most authentic. For those who can only follow me through cyberspace, I believe that sharing traits can provide at least an inch of direction to my nature and characteristic train of thought. The more one knows about how another person is programmed to make their decisions, whether agreeing or disagreeing with an actual decision, the easier it is to constructively criticize, accept, love, understand, and effectively rebuke that person when a circumstance calls. How is it that Christ has such a perfect love yet a flawless judgment? He knows each individual better than the individual knows himself; his Father is the one who designed and built our strengths and tendencies.

Also, I must say that true understanding and acceptance are not passive convictions that entail an "anything goes" mentality when practiced sincerely and effectively, but they, in result, provide accurate sources for godly accountability of one another; when or if in disagreement, the saying comes to mind, "To defeat [or repair] something you have to know it." I previously shared a passage from C.S. Lewis on the vulnerability of love, and I would be quite the hypocrite if I intentionally shielded my own thinking habits and much of what drives me to interpret things the way that I interpret them from those with whom I share my thoughts and interpretations.

This is my StrengthsFinder 2.0 report:
 
"Top 5 Themes:
-Connectedness
-Strategic
-Maximizer
-Intellection
-Input

Connectedness:
People who are especially talented in the Connectedness theme have faith in the links between all things. They believe there are few coincidences and that almost every event has reason.

By nature, you often are the one who helps people understand how they are linked across time, distance, race, ethnicity, religion, economic levels, languages, or cultures. You make it possible for individuals to work together. You aim to break down barriers that separate them. Instinctively, you may be guided by the notion that no one can live life without some help from others. Perhaps this idea compels you to consider how what you do and say affects people you know and individuals you will never meet. It’s very likely that you demonstrate a heightened sensitivity to the challenges facing various members of the human family. The faces you see in the news often strike you as familiar, not foreign. You usually feel a strong bond between yourself and these individuals. You intentionally refrain from being surrounded only by people who remind you of yourself. Driven by your talents, you choose to associate with people whose philosophical perspective gives them both balance and courage in the face of adversity. Because of your strengths, you consider people more important than things. The value you place on humankind guides your decision-making. It also influences what you say and do as well as what you choose not to say and do.

Strategic:
People who are especially talented in the Strategic theme create alternative ways to proceed. Faced with any given scenario, they can quickly spot the relevant patterns and issues.

It’s very likely that you realize you can identify a variety of problems and respond to a wide range of questions. You probably can pinpoint specific times when you proposed alternative ways of doing things. You probably recall giving answers no one else considered. You are aware that your subconscious mind continuously absorbs information and creates possible options. Chances are good that you are a self-reliant person who needs time alone to think and work. You generate innovative ideas and propose systematic programs of action. You likely identify recurring configurations in the behavior of people, the functioning of processes, or the emergence of potential problems. Driven by your talents, you invent original ideas of your own. Your imagination is typically stimulated when you collaborate — that is, team up — with future-oriented thinkers. Because of your strengths, you might easily detect unusual configurations or spot new trends in data or factual information. Devising options appeals to you. You have little interest in simply repeating what worked in the past. Instinctively, you trust your ability to be an innovative thinker. You routinely invent many ways you can reach a single goal. Only then do you start narrowing down your options to the best one. You probably take into consideration prevailing circumstances, available resources, budgetary constraints, or pressing deadlines.

Maximizer:
People who are especially talented in the Maximizer theme focus on strengths as a way to stimulate personal and group excellence. They seek to transform something strong into something superb.

Driven by your talents, you often accommodate the unique talents of people. Characteristically you accept human beings just as they are. You argue that excellent outcomes are produced by people who have ample opportunities each day to do what they do well. It’s very likely that you notice the unique traits that differentiate one person from everyone else. You have little patience with people who stereotype others into general categories. You prefer to describe individuals with specific and vivid details. No two people and no two lives are exactly the same, you contend. Watching people gives you much pleasure. It also provides you with lots of information others miss. Instinctively, you select projects, assignments, or tasks that allow you to use your talents to produce outcomes. You actively seek opportunities to work independently. You probably realize you make a lot more progress when you are allowed to work alone. Chances are good that you invest much more time thinking about your good points than agonizing over your shortcomings. You usually proceed faster and produce better results when you build on your talents. By nature, you inspire others by finding out what motivates them. You give individuals lots of recognition. You celebrate each person’s uniqueness. Your acknowledgments and compliments typically energize people.

Intellection:
People who are especially talented in the Intellection theme are characterized by their intellectual activity. They are introspective and appreciate intellectual discussions.

Driven by your talents, you are willing to spend time sharing your ideas with intelligent individuals. Of course, you want them to tell you their latest thinking. Conversations that involve a lot of questions and answers stimulate your mind. You know you have spent your time wisely when you have a number of new ideas, theories, or concepts to somehow file away or remember for future use. Because of your strengths, you yearn to increase your knowledge by being kept in the information loop. This explains why you gravitate to people who converse about ideas at a deeper and more thoughtful level than most individuals are capable of doing. "Making small talk" — that is, engaging in idle conversation — probably seems like a waste of time to you. By nature, you spend a lot of time pondering your future. You can experience anxiety about your prospects. Fortunately, your ability to reason through stress-producing situations calms many of your fears about the unknown. Chances are good that you traditionally want to think with visionaries. You are quite comfortable with long stretches of silence. Why? Quiet allows you and the others to mull over theories or create inventions that can alter the course of history or change the way ordinary people live. It’s very likely that you gravitate to discussions where the participants are committed to searching for truth and reason.

Input:
People who are especially talented in the Input theme have a craving to know more. Often they like to collect and archive all kinds of information.

Because of your strengths, you usually equate education — formal and informal — with understanding more about something today than you understood about it yesterday. It’s very likely that you genuinely care about the people you meet. Your fondness is apt to be apparent to them. Habitually, you ask lots of questions and carefully study the responses. Because you take time to know them personally, many individuals feel safe sharing their innermost thoughts or feelings with you. Armed with these insights, you probably become their ambassador of good will. You frequently teach your circle of acquaintances and friends how to welcome these people into the group. Instinctively, you desire to acquire additional knowledge and gain new skills. Why? You are naturally curious. You often work alone to commit information to memory. You probably have a solitary place where you can practice your art, craft, sport, or science. Chances are good that you can finagle — that is, obtain by indirect or involved means — time with people who think about the coming years and decades. Routinely, you read their writings or listen to their conversations. You probably ask them questions and consider their responses. You file away lots of ideas and facts, sensing that one day this information will prove to be useful. Whether it ever actually does become useful makes no difference to you. Collecting the predictions of forward-looking thinkers is apt to be rewarding in and of itself. Driven by your talents, you have a strong need to know that you are taking the proper course of action before you begin. Without a doubt, your hunger for evidence, data, or background information is immense. Whether your sources of knowledge are people, classes, books, the Internet, or discussions, you are hardwired to be as informed as you possibly can be prior to starting most ventures. You probably prefer to be overly prepared rather than risk being poorly prepared."

Salomé: In Every Inch In Every Mile

I recently published my first poetry book, Salomé: In Every Inch In Every Mile. The introduction says, "Everyone has their own ways of expression. I believe we all have a lot to say, but finding ways to say it is more than half the battle." I wrote this book because, unlike difficult logistics and seemingly sophisticated, scholarly writings, media such as poetry, music, and art often seem to reach immeasurable levels of communication. Personally, I prefer reading things with a bit of "flavor" or that seem to remain open for various interpretations depending on the individual. I am not here to merely argue about the perplexities regarding theism or philosophy, but to be a light to the world and to reach out to those who long to be a part of that light (Matthew 5:14-16). When holding steadfastly onto the wing of Christ, there are countless ways of doing this. I also like creating things that any person can enjoy rather than shielding my work from those who do not already understand the beauty of Christ. 

Salomé contains a total of 65 poems written (in lyrical format over the course of several years) and selected by me. Each poem is followed by a very brief word of thought, or direction, sometimes obscure and sometimes obvious, which is vaguely intended to set the atmosphere for that poem. The majority of them focus greatly on the psychology of relationships. That is in many cases exceptionally valuable to individuals during the stage of young adulthood; hence, the suggested age range is teen and up. As social beings it is relevant for one to acknowledge his motives behind the decisions regarding love and truth; when it comes to relationships, whether friendly or romantic or rivalrous, the mystery element, the most wanted, the most sought after, is passion. I know that I would rather a romantic relationship turn into contempt than turn into apathy. The passion in the extremities make it appear as though it once meant something. We grow from hot or cold, but lukewarm is the biggest insult. I would also like to say that the book captures a number of philosophical ideas expressed in my other writings while setting others free, and it answers questions while questioning answers by way of a wordsmith rather than that of a scholar.

In closing, I want to note that love is as simple as the absence of self given to another. God, when invited, fills the void of any unrequited love; hence loving is how one is drawn closer to God no matter its most horrific repercussions. I think C.S. Lewis' words, from his book The Four Loves (1960), on the vulnerability of love, set the tone quite well:

"There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.

I believe that the most lawless and inordinate loves are less contrary to God’s will than a self-invited and self-protective lovelessness. It is like hiding the talent in a napkin and for much the same reason. 'I knew thee that thou wert a hard man.' Christ did not teach and suffer that we might become, even in the natural loves, more careful of our own happiness. If a man is not uncalculating towards the earthly beloveds whom he has seen, he is none the more likely to be so towards God whom he has not. We shall draw nearer to God, not by trying to avoid the sufferings inherent in all loves, but by accepting them and offering them to Him; throwing away all defensive armour. If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as a way in which they should break, so be it. What I know about love and believe about love and giving one’s heart began in this."

Negative Prejudgment vs. The Trouble of a Moral Overload

If love is blind, then maybe a blind person that loves has a greater understanding of it.

Oftentimes a deviation from man's typical cognitive shortcuts will either look incredibly foolish or incredibly intelligent or, sometimes, both simultaneously. To a degree, it also appears to be a sort of raw knowledge - developing on a strong foundation what one can from square one. Here is a quick reference, a neuroscientific peek into the strikingly superior minds of infants, which provides a solid metaphor for this type of reasoning: Inside the Baby Mind. Not to wander, but watching babies is quite a sight. It is reflective of one's relationship with God: They run around getting into everything and will sometimes pick up something that could harm them (such as a sharp object); they are completely unconscious of how it could harm them, so daddy has to come and snatch it away for the baby's own protection. What is my point here? Raw knowledge, grounded on faith, is a great strength when avoiding fearful, negative prejudgment.

Maybe this is an obscure subject, but negative prejudgment, by means of appearance, to any degree in which an individual takes his appearance, is generally an unfaithful position. John 7:24, 51 says, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with righteous judgment. ... Our law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" This is not to say that men cannot judge at all. To judge is essentially impossible not to do. Everyone judges constantly: positively judging one person is the same as negatively judging everyone else; it is to say that that person is superior in some sense. Most men fear the incoming judgment but live by an outgoing judgment, therefore I am convinced that most men do not follow, or even understand, their own logic until it benefits themselves. To elaborate on controllable prejudgment, I am going to use a "bandana-covering-the-face" example:

If late at night I am walking alone, should I become intimidated when casually approached by a stranger with a red bandana covering his face? Should not I truly only fear God? When the stranger is approaching, he, just like any individual, has the decision, on the spot, to either follow through with a crime or turn from it. If I instantly anticipate the darker side, then I am inadvertently hoping for his worst. This leaves little faith in the security and conviction of God for both him and myself. In that case, I would even more deserve the coming misdeed. Similarly, and previously quoted, C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity that when one goes on thinking that his enemies are worse than they really are, he is "beginning to wish that black was a little blacker" (pg. 118). Oppositely, if I believe that he can suddenly reconsider what he was going to do, then I am hoping for his best. I am beginning to wish that there is a light within him that can steer him in opposition of sin. 1 John 4:18 says, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." One might call it a sanction for naivety, but that is merely a label tagged onto a legitimate philosophy. A label does not change the truth value of the product it labels. In order on the scale of perception, there is cynicism, there is realism, there is hope, there is naivety. I find them all useful. No man is fully cynical, and none fully naive, rather his perception, to a degree, shifts under a given circumstance.

Being nice merely to be liked in return nullifies the point. The vital difference between avoiding negative prejudgment and longing for some form of mercy through wishful thinking - which is always vain and destructive - is that it is neither intended to nor believed to affect the outcome of another man's decisions. It is, in fact, one's inner victory over fear where true freedom is then found. Ultimately, whether he commits the crime or not is irrelevant to the faithful man because, sooner or later, God blesses the faithful man in such a way where the flesh decreases as the spirit increases, where the temporal yields to the eternal. The faithful man perceives nothing less than opportunity in difficulties. Flowing through his spine, faith and courage work together: Such a man does not fear losing his life, thus he will risk losing it at times in order to empower it. By this he actually values his life more than the man who fears losing his life. It is much like leaping from a window in order to avoid a fire yet in that most crucial moment knowing that God will appear to catch you.

Man causes more problems than he solves when he frequently disregards the example of Christ. Maybe he insists on doing this for a number of reasons: It can seem too difficult to try to follow, or it, theoretically, leads a boring lifestyle, or maybe it is just cheesy. However it is typical for man to want to thrive in his own misconceptions, and through short-sightedness, he settles for the less ripe fruit merely because it is easier to reach. Regardless, would Christ wet his pants in the sense of danger, or would he stand firmly on what is virtuous no matter the earthly consequences? Would he look at a group of gangstas and become intimidated? Would he look at an emo and begin ridiculing him? Would he look at a bum in disgust? Would he look enviously at a successful man? The answers to these questions are so evident that the questions themselves are rhetorical. Love begets wisdom, thus it is, as often misconceived, more than vain layers of tenderness; it is inherently rational and comprehensive of the problem within the problem: for instance, envy is one of the most excused sins in the media of political correctness. Those you find most attractive, or seem to have it all, are often some of the most insecure at heart, and that is because people assume that they do not need anything but defamation. Such envy is the selfish man's way of coping with where he feels a shortcoming in himself. He, consciously or unconsciously, acts in a way in which selfishness is his key to emotional self-improvement. I would say, "In the land where excellence is commended, not envied, where weakness is aided, not mocked, there is no question as to how its inhabitants are all superhuman." God's teachings, when sincerely respected, are far more beneficial than one can only feel. Christ delves far beyond the means of superficiality, not simply because of his immaculate love, but also because he considers the distinct cases of each individual rather than withholding a broadened perception by use of stereotypes.

It always seems as though the definition of love will remain debatable by an opinionated world, so I want to include a word from Kierkegaard that frames this for a more solid understanding: "Love is the expression of the one who loves, not of the one who is loved. Those who think they can love only the people they prefer do not love at all. Love discovers truths about individuals that others cannot see." Love is without a doubt the laziest theory for the meaning of life, but when it actually comes a time to do it we find just enough energy to over-complicate life again. Any devil can love, whom he himself sees as, a good person who has treated him well, but to love also the polar opposite is what separates love from fickle emotions. To endure such a challenge is the opposite of cowardice.

Now returning to the example, I understand that depending on how one defines it, taking such a position can at times ruin the fun (or the personal safety net) of an individual, but on the other hand, and more importantly, it provides the autonomy of a noble sacrifice. Throughout much of history the greatest men were those who were substantial enough to make sacrifices. Truly understanding that values are more important than valuables is temporarily the hardest yet permanently the most admirable way. It is what I like to call a "moral overload" because, when desiring to walk as Christ did, one is bound to pass through dark moments in order to remain consistent with his integrity; however, through faith in Christ those darkest moments will ultimately resolve into the brightest moments. And in this, as one becomes wiser, the more sensible the way of Christ becomes to him: the notion "God's laws are too strict" becomes "God's laws are my delight."

"Did you just imply the concepts of 'reasonable faith' and a 'reasonable God'? Tsk tsk."

As already mentioned, it is inevitable that those who speak out will often be accused of heresy by various individuals, groups, or denominations who interpret even non-essentials of doctrine differently. In his autobiography Unfinished Work, vocalist Kevin Max wrote, "Christians sometimes think that every believer thinks as they do without taking the time to understand the individual and what makes them tick." Yet unless those unjustly accused of heresy embrace religious legalism before faith in Christ, then such accusations should not always become overly disheartening. If a faithful man has met his calling, it is extremely difficult to convert him, the servant of another (Romans 14:1-4), to a legalistic, systematic tradition learned by rote. Isaiah 29:13 is an effective passage for one's self-evaluation, "The Lord says: 'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.'"
Reason is not necessarily a contradiction of faith. I want to elaborate on one of my previous passages:

"Truly reason is a large cut of what directs one to a reasonable God apart from the uncultivated mentality - one in which is driven by fear of philosophies and scientific data. Ironically, would not the creator be both the paramount definition of knowledge and the source of logic? Lasting is the irrational conflict between men of science and men of faith, yet there is an analogy by astronomer Robert Jastrow that nails the primary difference between the two: Men of science hike the mountain 'round and 'round in search of truth. This will inevitably lead back to the Author of truth. Eventually, upon nearing the top, they will realize that men of faith have been standing there for centuries."
 
Several respected theologians, such as Tozer and Kierkegaard, have implied that faith is where reason cuts off, and this is a necessary absurdity. In The Fellowship of the Burning Heart, Tozer wrote, "So, all down the line, faith is an organ of knowledge. And the man who believes is having knowledge that the man who merely thinks can't possibly have. Our poor little old brain can come staggering along like a little boy trying to keep up with his dad - coming along on his little, old, short, stubby legs, trying to reason." There was a time when skepticism was an act of rebellion. Since to a degree I both believe in evolution and have faith, I can only conclude that, as prophesied, to have faith will someday be an act of rebellion (Jeremiah 5:31). As stated in both the beginning analogy and by Tozer, men of faith are intellectually beyond men of science (Proverbs 9:10). Scientists are at high-risk of being directed towards the Author of truth due to the probability of evidence for God (however, it is important to note that tangible proof of God is not scientifically justifiable because he is spiritually beyond the universe). What one truly does upon receiving this evidence is God's distinction between the faithful man and the skeptic. If one's heart is hardened, an idea or thing can rest in front of him but he will deny it out of pride, while on the inside knowing, in this case, that there must be a supernatural origin for his existence. Consequently, the universe continues to appear more complex, and the more complex something becomes, the more evidence one has that it was not an accident.

From the theistic standpoint, reason exists yet will be inferior to faith. Tozer also said, "Faith never goes contrary to reason; faith simply ignores reason and rises above it." To elaborate on the relationship between this and the phrase "reasonable God", I must make it clear that the following reasons are different from those of scientific standards. The theist has reasons for faith in God: a transformed life, miraculous happenings, positive revelations, gifted abilities, and Christ himself within history. These reasons require a degree of faith in order to be comprehended, but are in fact reasons for one's faith in God; therefore, the phrases "reasonable faith" and "reasonable God" are not unbiblical.

There are a number of denominations who openly reprimand the inclusion of God and science in the same sentence. God, on the contrary, permitted man the sciences as a means to seek, discover, to use, and to relish. Ultimately, God's magnitude is made evident, in the physical dimension, as strong advocates of science so desire, when exploring such a voluminous and complex universe, and whether conscious of it or not, man, in addition, honors God when doing such. Yet many highly and predominantly religion-oriented sects are contemptuous of knowledge seekers, as though God scorns those who delight in studying, in experiencing his own creation. However, what truly matters is that a man who does this through his own conscience is fallen.

Psalms 19:1-6, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat."

Dictionary Moment: Humility ≠ Self-Righteousness

There are 2 sides when it comes to judgmentality: the judge and the judged. As for the judged, there are indeed those who too often resort to the very asinine "I'm just being myself, so don't judge me" mentality, which, if ultimately given way to, the distinction between morality and immorality becomes completely nonexistent. If you build the guts to do something, anything, then you better save enough to face the consequences.

But the focus in this case is primarily on the self-righteously judgmental who is, in fact, spiritually destructive in his manner. One can only ponder the great number of individuals that hide behind righteous masks and how many are truly relentless about divulging specific things done, or ideas hidden, that are clearly ungodly to more than trustworthy counterparts. When defining "humility", in many cases the first impression is a gentle, seemingly good person giving out free hugs, big smiles, and groveling to the ground. Such a definition is quite asinine and sometimes even culturally inconsistent.

Humility of any true value extends beyond merely quoting passages and regurgitating phrases such as "bless you, my brother". On the contrary, the humble sinner will sometimes be interpreted as one of the filthiest in the eyes of man yet immersed in the eyes of God, and this is due to the volition of honesty regarding his own corruption. In light of dealing with this, Romans 8:1 is important, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." No man has the authority to condemn another man under the construction of the hands of God. Perhaps the individual is going through a fruitless period as a part of his ultimate growth in Christ; however, to partner that statement, I must note that condemnation is not to be confused with accountability. Yet, it is inevitable that the honest man will often be ridiculed by the self-righteous man, who is condemning irrespective of the notion that when a man is penalized for honesty he learns to lie. Self-righteousness is much like a spiritual egocentricity. It constitutes a secular type of love that thrives under conditionality, one in which is only existent after an individual meets the adopted standards of the condemner; oppositely, unconditional love is a holy love. People more easily welcome the man that was crafty about hiding his own immoralities while willfully rejecting the man known to have said or to have committed something immoral.

There is a difference between idealistically generalizing man and maliciously attacking the individual. Many young hearts today have the balance of effective judgmentality in reverse. They are afraid to judge humanity, yet are willing to hastefully judge the individual. One, however, is more precise when he is warm enough to a degree in which he does not judge the individual, yet he is wise enough to a degree in which he does judge humanity. Why is this so? The individual can and will justify himself by his own motives, thus, no man is truly at liberty to pass accurate judgment on another without a fair case. Man-to-man argumentation achieves very little when it comes to defining absolute morality. Whereas, judging humanity before the individual forms an unjustifiable depiction of sin, an unavoidable axiom that the individual cannot deny. He knows that at times he partakes in it. He cannot justify himself in knowing that his sin is a reality. A man does not have to feel less than human to realize his sin; oppositely, he has to realize that he gets no special vindication for his sin.

Although, what do I mean by "judging humanity"? It is in some respects understanding the consistencies of man. For instance, drinking is such a necessity to human life that people cannot fathom an individual who, like a child confined to a church pew, gets little enjoyment out of it and would rather do other things. There is an irrefutable truth value to such an observation. While drinking in itself is certainly not an act of sin, the commonality here is the nature of man, and in this case, idolatry, the things in which we may too often depend on. It then becomes evident as to why God's commandments are absolute truths rather than movements susceptible to emotions. "I have been yet another petty fool; I shall now reach further than the average man." To put it quite simply, a pure heart does not demean the spirit of an individual, it, instead, compels the individual to examine his spirit.

For the believer, humility is honesty about one's greatest flaws to a degree in which he is fearless about truly appearing less righteous than another (e.g. "Yes, I lusted after her", "Yes, I hope I can make more money", "Yes, I search for loopholes in song lyrics so that I can listen to the music I want", "...Yet God is my discipline and my guidance."). All individuals have moral deficiencies, and when introducing these to reality one not only strengthens himself but also the confidence of others in the human exigency for Christ due to a reflection throughout the body of Christ. In simpler terms, the believer should avoid living in fear of open self-evaluation - a fear of weakness only strengthens weakness. The heart of Christianity is not about being a good person; it is about being saved by grace through faith because you are a bad person. Every man knows that he would never compare to a holy and sovereign God (even the non-believer, theoretically, knows it if there was indeed a holy being); hence, it is easy for one to repeat what is already written, "...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags [to God]," (Isaiah 64:6). However, it is difficult to expose oneself as though he truly means it, that he is, when astray from God, the epitome of nothingness.

Warming the Cold Shoulder and Mending the Mass Media

To a degree, I have a cold shoulder towards a number of detective shows and the daily press, or, I could say, the "inflated" daily press. The reason is simple - they frequently portray quiet individuals as crime suspects, as though introversion is a negative connotation, the drive behind a sinister agenda. In an extroverted society, the difference between an introvert and an extrovert is that an introvert is often unconsciously deemed guilty until proven innocent. Not to ramble, but here is a word from Kierkegaard on the daily press, "On the whole the evil in the daily press consists in its being calculated to make, if possible, the passing moment a thousand or ten thousand times more inflated and important than it really is. But all moral elevation consists first and foremost in being weaned from the momentary. There has never been a power so diametrically opposed to Christianity as the daily press." My mind is more stimulated watching children's shows than political news. The former brings back all the basic, undeniable truths that may then be built upon; the latter is flooded with biased drivel thus giving me this strange feeling that I did my mind a huge disservice. While a person should most definitely feel free to indulge in such, as entertaining or important as it may be, as well as inevitable to assimilate in most cultures, one must maintain a sound foundation.

One must keep in mind that an over-indulgence of anything, even something as pure as water, can intoxicate, and in this case, in a way which develops unhealthy thinking habits since the mind seems to be only truly affected when slowly penetrated. Seemingly minor yet persistent things penetrate the mind over time making it difficult to ever realize the impact; hence, though quite unfortunate, the most dangerous forms of corruption are those that are subtle and below the radar. I find technology in general to be a strong force in this assertion. In the age of technology, there is constant access to vast amounts of information. The basket overflows; people get overwhelmed: The eye of the storm is not so much what goes on in the world; it is the confusion of how to think, feel, digest, and react to what goes on.

To get to the central points, it is evident that normal introverts of today, who are genuinely virtuous yet show the affections in a different manner, cannot even take a dump without being accused of dropping a bomb (pun intended). It is paradoxical that, when confined to nothing more than human judgment, the majority of people fear and doubt the unknown, thereupon an emotion by way of ignorance. Now, I am aware that everything at some point has been declared the root of all evil. But if ignorance is not the root of all evil, as Plato is often credited for saying, then explicitly so, it is very much the water to the roots. Ephesians 4:18, "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." The result of ignorance is false and potentially malicious judgment. For instance, when it comes to judging individuals, I do not like remarks such as "too good to be true." They speak as though one is rewarding the nature of evil. Yet, ironically, we still wonder where all the good people have gone. Oftentimes such cognitive habits leave little beauty to be seen in the individual, therefore isolating his very essence: If a man cannot understand the beauty of life, it is probably because life never understood the beauty in him.

It seems as though some cultures have evolved in ways which convince one that he is mentally unstable if he is naturally more productive when flying alone. In turn, it steers him into a hole; he feels bullied for personality traits which are very difficult to steer. In result, he begins to feel and think as an enemy to other people; he is filled with a cultural guilt (which is not necessarily a moral guilt). This is why it is understandable that one can sympathize with villains and underdogs - they are obviously wrong, but it continues because, by the holiest standards, good people are not as good as they think they are. But, of course, giving or finding sympathy is not the answer - an obsession with sympathy expands, and I often say that, like crying wolf, if you keep looking for sympathy as a justification for your actions, you will someday be left standing alone when you really need help.

Now some of the most common arguments against this particular area of non-prejudgment may (inadvertently) influence a detachment - the greater solutions from the problems. You get hit the hardest when trying to run or hide from a problem. Like the defense on a football field, putting all focus on evading only one defender is asking to be blindsided. One's own functionality begins when pinpointing the lethargic solutions that influence him to remain lethargic, as these are the most brutal of human oppositions, for example, "That's the reality of it. Deal with it. Mysterious people are more likely to commit crimes." Yes, the assertion can be made, but assuredly, is not that way of thinking also what separates genius from mediocrity? As Einstein said, "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer." In recent years, the problem is not so much the individuals behind the atrocities, those further made infamous in a stereotypical caricature, rather it is the reaction of the general public towards those being negatively caricatured. When it comes to world news, attitude is what marks the distinction between justice and vengeance. Justice is pure, but vengeance brings more ruin. In Mere Christianity (pg. 118), C.S. Lewis wrote: "The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Denying safety and precaution is asinine; albeit, such conceptions, in their rights, do not veritably come from man. In times of doubt, God should be sought when among the alleged perilous. If one is meant to know, as it is written, proper judgment will swiftly come and the true securities of the individual will be of solid assurance for having faith in God, James 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."

As a side note, the theistic philosopher has a tendency to devalue insufficient worldviews, ideologies, and quite often common sense for the greater good, and in such cases, one should not be discouraged when seen as a bad guy. When good people consider you the bad guy, you develop a heart to help the bad ones. You actually understand them. To some, this is a calling. Luke 6:26 says, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets." If he stresses over man's perception of a righteous heart, then he has given his heart to man. But know that, for positive results, if you have to say or do something controversial, aim so that people will hate that they love it and not love that they hate it. It is never ridicule, but a compliment, that knocks a philosopher off his feet. He is already positioned for every possible counter-attack, counter-argument, and retort...only to find a big bear hug coming his way. Many great and memorable philosophers, scientists, theologians, poets, artists, writers, and musicians were at odds with the majority during their times - not simply because they sought to be rebels or revolutionaries - but because they utilized a gift; and for this they are now highly respected.

For instance, one of my great philosophical influences, Søren Kierkegaard, in some way related to such according to selected writings in his journal, "People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me." From personal experience, as a child, introversion is generally considered, as a natural trait, cute, but as one ages into young adulthood, the introversion starts to become a burden to the introvert. Others will at times judge him, label him incompetent or untrustworthy. In attaining job promotions, as well as finding a mate, a natural introvert must work twice as hard as a natural extrovert must work: In an extroverted society, most people seem to have empty restaurant syndrome, "There must be some kind of an issue there, so let's move on to the next one." In an extroverted society, one's outgoing tendencies are more desired than one's skills.

Albert Camus, yet another influential philosopher, similarly stated, "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." As an introvert, I am actually rather appreciative of this. At times, what I lacked socially, I would compensate for it by perfecting my talents. I like solitude. It is when you truly hear and speak your natural, unadulterated mind, and out comes your most stupid self as well as your most intelligent self. It is when you realize who you are and the extents of the good and the evils which you are capable of. Einstein puts into perspective an introvert's purpose in an extroverted society, "Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value." For some people, quite frankly, life is not always about trying to be different when understanding that that is actually a burden. Life can go from living to survival looking for where one belongs, therefore my dominant reminder in this case is that, as long as one allows them to, personal difficulties, in result, accentuate an individual's ingenuity; therefore, the weakness is the cause of the strength.

Calm in Calamity (and other wanderings)

~Disasters work like alarm clocks to the world, hence God allows them. They are shouting, "Wake up! Love! Pray!"

~Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." It is indeed controversial; yet it is truly effective in all its authoritative, sovereign implications of the foreknowledge of God; it is a source of fearlessness and endurance for those of faith. Calm in calamity: one asks himself, "Who is in control no matter what?" Although, on the other hand one might ask whether such calamity indicates a malevolent God. But by that he is dealing with subjective emotions rather than objective truth. The objective is quite the contrary, and easily mistaken, it is not about a love for adversity, it is about knowing a strength and a faith so great that adversity, in all its adverse manifestations, hardly even exists. By this one does not hesitate to progress through the face of adversity. His faith, in its most correct form, never removes responsibility; it removes fear of responsibility. The results are complete opposites with the greater saying, "God's will is my delight." I often find that people confuse inner peace with some sense of insensibility whenever something goes wrong. In such cases inner peace is a permit for destruction: The unyielding optimist will pretend that the forest is not burning either because he is too lazy or too afraid to go and put the fire out. Ironically, to him adversity is an intimidating giant.

~Just as an unexpecting child is awakened to find an ocean of gifts surrounding his bed, through faith in the goodness of God one awakens to the gifts of patience, wisdom, and courage. So, when understanding calamity, one should not limit God according to his own understanding; it results in a failure to acknowledge the sovereignty and the justice of God. As Octavius Winslow wrote, "justice is the fire of love." He is God; he is love; he is sovereign. In some cases, what seems bad to man is good in the end and what seems good to man is nothing but filth. Men are commanded to pray and love, to unify and work, but instantly labeling what is or is not God's will can reach dangerous grounds because by this, obsessively, one is fabricating his own god.

~As no servant is greater than the master, I want to note that God is the commander, thus all else are messengers; Proverbs 1:32-33 says, "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm." The messenger that attempts to replace the commander is both wayward and complacent, yet consequently, the original sin was channeled through the desire to be like or greater than God. What is it that leads one astray from the most viable path? It is not a rare flaw in which only a select few struggle. Ultimately, it is a disposition to form our own paths, and while this is evidence of desire, that desire is bound to be more substantial when aimed in the best possible direction - this direction is one in which God reveals.

~I am aware that the following is likely a regurgitation of some of my previous writings, but regardless it is essential. God is sovereign to so far a degree that he is not an impoverished deity, with insubstantial weaponry, merely set out in an attempt to defeat evil. It is not a threat to him or his kingdom. While he abhors sin and we are commanded to do so as well, in his absolute holiness and sovereignty, he holds both good and evil in the palm of his hand (Isaiah 45:7). He allows short term evils in order to carry out long term good [C.S. Lewis; Mere Christianity]; therefore, he is ultimately good and impossible to truly oppose. Yet the extent of such an authority is perfectly consistent with the holiness of God. With our simplistic cognitive reasoning, some things are first perceived as negative before we get to witness the positive results. But by God's foreknowledge, he envisions the evils that will ultimately result in goodness, as written in Isaiah 46:10, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."

~Imperative is the passion to improve one's personal walk with and faith in Christ, and in result, the obsessive contemplation of temporary afflictions cease. This is also to seek his will before adhering to a certain confirmation bias that tends to dictate the human perception of right and wrong, as I have previously quoted this of Kierkegaard, "The proud person always wants to do the right thing, the great thing. But because he wants to do it in his own strength, he is fighting not with man, but with God." All must be still and know that he is God (Psalms 46:10), and in result they will mesmerize with an illumination of ravishing colors to those with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth of Christ.

~Finally while on the subject of seeking God's will, or the discovery en route to both emotional and spiritual value, I want to add an important observation; however in this case, it is regarding one of many reasons for stress within the self-driven busybody. In The Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer recovered nicely the principles of strong faith over contemporary misconceptions thus writing, "I fear that thousands of younger persons enter Christian service from no higher motive than to help deliver God from the embarrassing situation his love has gotten him into and his limited abilities seem unable to get him out of. Add to this a certain degree of commendable idealism and a fair amount of compassion for the underprivileged and you have the true drive behind much Christian activity today."

...And the soldier asked, "What's a prudent evangelist?"

I would rather my descendants have greater abilities and a greater knowledge of the love of Christ than I do, much like standing on one's shoulders in order to get a clearer view of the valley. How can one do this?

1 Corinthians 13:1-2: "I may be able to speak the languages of human beings and even of angels, but if I have no love, my speech is no more than a noisy gong or a clanging bell. I may have the gift of inspired preaching; I may have all knowledge and understand all secrets; I may have all the faith needed to move mountains but if I have no love, I am nothing."

Sometimes the problem is not so much what one is preaching, but rather how he is preaching it.

When a man has a gift in speaking the truth, brute aggression is no longer his security blanket for approval. He, on the contrary, spends most of his energy trying to tone it down because his very nature is already offensive enough. So, should there not be a balance between the drill sergeant and the amiable teacher? In this context, I want to focus on the former. When the drill sergeant-like approach becomes customary to a congregation, the congregation, over time, grows insensitive to the coming wrath thus potentially raising the bar for truly fearing God and understanding what it means to fear God. In result, individuals are negatively affected because, out of cynicism, it will then take a deeper effort to instill a true passion for Christ and the purity in which he stands. Of what benefit is there when, seemingly, apathy is shown from the teacher towards the sincere troubles of each individual's heart?

Colossians 4:3-6: "And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."

Time and time again the evangelist must stop and ask himself, "Whose judgment is superior, God's or my own?" The legalistic evangelist will intuitively evangelize on his own watch, whether inadvertently or intentionally, rather than on God's watch. Any truth, when passing through the hands of man, can be transformed into an entrapping lecture apart from, in this case, the beauty of Christ, and such a displacement can leave falsehoods to be purged by the mercy of God. When communicating with rebellious men, do not all things have a more effective time, place, and method in which to be communicated? Indeed it is essential that Christ is being taught regardless of incentive (Philippians 1:18), but because God finds great pleasure in observing the growth of his messengers, why should any evangelist remain merely a heckler to the public who mutilates by legalistically professing the Christian ethic? Alternatively, upon desiring growth in Christ, many are prophets who mutilate the coarse patterns of both oneself and a fallen humanity by use of the Christian faith.

There is a difference between evangelism motivated by legalism and evangelism motivated by faith in Christ, and I feel that the distinction is repeatedly ignored. The legalistic method is one in which the evangelist shares his faith through feelings of obligation or as an act of charity, whereas the prudent evangelist shares his faith to appointed individuals under the influence of the Spirit. Just as God sees the individual, his followers must strive to do so as well. Kierkegaard said, "Spiritual superiority only sees the individual. But alas, ordinarily we human beings are sensual and, therefore, as soon as it is a gathering, the impression changes -- we see something abstract, the crowd, and we become different. But in the eyes of God, the infinite spirit, all the millions that have lived and now live do not make a crowd, he only sees each individual."

I do understand that this can be misinterpreted as a position irrespective of the belief in sharing the Gospel by some (thus "trying to shut believers up"). Oppositely, the acknowledgment of the concept of effective timing by adjusting one's focus on the ingenious patience of God is the only sure and profitable position. Yielding to God's judgment is certainly not an act of compromise to man; instead, it is the greatest form of wisdom. This is so because there are natural tendencies of impatience undeniably instilled in most prideful humans during a fast-paced era - quite often must one feel pre-eminently in the right of each and every moment. Whereas, God has been sustaining rebellious men for millennia, therefore he is very much aware of one's potential reactions towards the ultimate truth during any given situation and time of day. The truth without the harmony of God is not a truth fully manifested, it is frightening words from a reckless man's mouth, as radical skepticism, out of pride, hates and fears the possibility that it is not in absolute control of its own eternity. Rather, it surrenders to the works and securities of its own hands (Isaiah 2:8). The Holy Spirit must be present in order to overcome such a nature. Therefore I do not much trust the man who cares solely to inspire - he does not really inspire me - only the man who cares to tell the truth, whatever that may do. For when the man who cares to tell the truth happens to inspire, I, in addition, find it easier to believe that he in fact does his homework on how and when one should truly inspire (e.g. by way of the Spirit).

Concerning the subject of a virtuous faith, it is easy to concur with Diogenes, "Discourse on virtue and they pass by in droves. Whistle and dance the shimmy, and you've got an audience." Regardless, if an individual is indeed led to further seek the will of God, should a mission ever end at its very beginning? Realistically The Sinner's Prayer is no secret code to those during the age of information. Throughout much of humanity, the value of repentance has been reduced to an unsubstantiated ritual. I call this way of repentance lip service - it is made religiously provisional in substitution of a lasting and humble passion for Christ. Yet what is merely lukewarm, according to scripture, will be spit from the mouth of God (Revelation 3:16). One must remember that discipleship is both guidance and friendship, therefore the nurturing of the individual is essential to any new-found walk with Christ.

What is a prudent prophet? In my lifetime and throughout history, there have been several, what some might call, "end of the world date-setters" that have dedicated not only their own lives but also the lives of others to spreading news of world-devastating calamity or rapture both nationally and internationally. As expected, much of the world becomes intrigued, whether comically or sincerely, by the matter - some Christians are convinced, others skeptical; some atheists mock, others simply ignore the prophecies in sheer disbelief - and as evident in my ability to write this, as the world continues beyond every date that has been set thus far, all of the prophecies were indeed false.

Why is this? False prophecies come from men who believe that faith is nothing more than a stubborn emotion felt in the heart - the equivalent of wishful thinking. On the contrary, doubt is a question mark; faith is an exclamation point. The most compelling, believable, realistic stories have included them both. Doubt asks, "Is it possible for me to have too much faith, to the point of being just plain foolish and impractical, or is it evil trying to convince me so?" Then the answer, resting in the motive and the source of his faith, catches him either off-guard or when the time is right. That is suspense. The false prophet prophesies according to his own understanding, his own calculations, his own interpretations, and in this, he is opposing the will of God. A prophet will be false in his every prediction when his judgment is empowered by mere faith in himself, or other sources, rather than by faith in God. Matthew 24:36 says, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." It is ironical that by this we know it will not be the end of the world as long as man disobediently attempts to calculate the end of the world. God's commands are very much necessary and based upon reason: Prophets proven to be blatantly wrong are merely humoring skepticism pertaining to the existence of God. The destruction caused seems to be far worse than the earthquakes prophesied, and strangely enough, the aggravation caused by the prophet is the very thing wrongfully fulfilling his own prophecies of destruction.

All in all we are called to further seek the will of God before claiming the will of God. But thankfully, as C.S. Lewis once stated, "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." I believe the same concept applies to the failures of evangelists and prophets. God still possesses the sovereignty and the knowledge to reverse a man's mistakes for his own glorification. His work is magnified when repairing the destruction afflicted by men, however, it is not always so easily comprehensible, according to our own understanding, the many ways in which he does this. At times, an individual may react disdainfully towards the truth of Christ, yet when the Spirit wills it, the planted seed grows when the time is right. An individual may mock and ridicule theism after witnessing a failed prophecy, yet he still does it with an unadmitted interest in the actual truth value of the overall belief system he mocks. God's relationship with man does not work in a way in which man stumbles and then God has to drop what he is doing in order to lift him up; rather, man stumbles so that God can lift him up. Hence it is utterly impossible to truly diminish his glory.

The "Devil's Advocate" That Glorified God

At the start of one of his "Does God Exist?" debates, Dr. William Lane Craig stated [roughly quoted], "First off, I want to say that we need not spend all our time and energy arguing for (or about) God, but rather enjoying our relationship with him."

My purpose for beginning with Dr. Craig's words is to remind the apologist to prioritize his personal relationship with Christ first and foremost. Yet I do understand that this is a way in which many theistic philosophers continue to experience God - one discourses on virtue in order to stimulate the minds of individuals of all ideologies and not only that of the highly insurgent skeptic. It is not to convince or to persuade, but instead it is to encourage men to search willfully and extensively under the law of God. However, a number of activist non-believers radically censure supernatural-related doctrines; one can merely approach him with such and he builds reason for a more intense disdain. In what ways should this be conversed, with civility, in order to effectively reach out to the self-proclaimed intellectuals of the new age (e.g. radically anti-theistic iconoclasts, skeptic philosophers, humanistic scientists, etc.)? I must note that this question by no means implies compromising the nature or the law of God in order to "persuade" skeptics - the theist should understand the great distinction between "compromising the truth" and "tonality and the truth". Moreover, consistently does one expound under both logically and scientifically strong convictions for skeptic ideologies, hence those constantly active among these fields must remember that even the sun shines into cesspools and is not polluted [Diogenes].
Secondly, it must be noted that one's stressing over such is futile. A message of encouragement regarding patience and the steady effort of diligence can be found in Proverbs 25:15, which says, "Through patience a ruler can be persuaded, and a gentle tongue can break a bone." Patience is a commonly forgotten gift, often replaced by recklessness and ungodliness, and the reason for this is because God is patient.

Controversies regarding the vitalities of non-essential doctrine, cultural immoralities, and taboos, and their precedences to salvation, are ongoing within the theistic community. While these should never cease acknowledgment, are they not held, in negligence, as diversions from one's active realization of the authority of Christ? Intellectuals of modern skepticism begin with disfigured premises regarding God's cause due to the case that so many of his earthly representatives misrepresent his great cause. Truly, reason is a large cut of what directs one to a reasonable God apart from the uncultivated mentality - one in which is driven by fear of philosophies and scientific data. Ironically, would not the creator be both the paramount definition of knowledge and the source of logic? Lasting is the irrational conflict between men of science and men of faith, yet there is an analogy by Robert Jastrow that nails the primary difference between the two: Men of science hike the mountain 'round and 'round in search of truth. This will inevitably lead back to the Author of truth. Eventually, upon nearing the top, they will realize that men of faith have been standing there for centuries.

Yet it is axiomatic that there are different callings for Christians in correspondence with personal strengths and weaknesses, just as a military has different tasks for soldiers. A number of individuals will appear to be devil's advocates as interpreted by the self-governed conscience of man. Constructive accountability of the philosophical and social areas of Christianity and its truth wholly for the glorification of God has lamentably become a repulsive role to a number of modern fundamentalists. Beware: open-mindedness will often say, "Everything is permissible except a sharp opinion." Would it not be of great exigency to support faithful men who productively challenge the ethos of modern Christianity for the manifestation of its true, essential values? Personally, I like finding problems because I like solving problems. Nothing is more depressing to me than cheerfully sweeping things under the rug. It reminds me of passive individualism. I would rather have strong enemies than a world of passive individualists. In a world of passive individualists nothing seems worth anything simply because nobody stands for anything. That world has no convictions, no victories, no unions, no heroism, no absolutes, no heartbeat. That world has rigor mortis. This is not to justify the instigation of unnecessary conflicts, but rather to defend truth from future turmoil. Needless to say, one should avoid passivity when negative extremists represent hatred or falsehoods as regularities within the body of Christ (e.g. the infamous Westboro Baptist Church). The motive behind criticism often determines its validity. Those who care criticize where necessary. Those who envy criticize the moment they think that they have found a weak spot. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin effectively explained the Church's interaction with the state of the times (or cultures); firstly, love should be one's guide before tradition. As previously mentioned, determining the tone of one's beliefs does not necessarily entail altering and/or compromising one's beliefs:

"I mean that the Lord has in his sacred oracles faithfully embraced and clearly expressed both the whole sum of true righteousness, and all aspects of the worship of his majesty, and whatever was necessary to salvation; therefore, in these the Master alone is to be heard. But because he did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. Indeed, I admit that we ought not to charge into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause. But love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe."

There is a certain role for a number of theists, and surprisingly enough, one in which is not to condemn in the name of doctrinal principles. Instead, it is to provide reasonable direction for one to ruminate on Christ, love, and virtue as manifested through scriptures, but first, let me explain: I feel that some individuals, forgotten individuals, more confidently relate to this approach. There is a presupposition that says, "Oh, it's from the Bible, whatever," and then there is the alternative, "I've never thought of this that way. It's starting to make more sense." Scripture in its purest interpretation is the one and only reliable foundation of all teachings worth teaching, yet every individual requires an amount of deconstruction in his grand search for truth. I want to make it clear that this does not imply something as contemptuous as provoking the loss of one's conscious state of mind. Veracity is within all people, however the challenge is sorting through one's own nonsense. Those who speak of progression but are afraid of change are self-repressed and therefore unable to reach any further than their eyes can already see. In Job's hardships, he shaved his head and tore his robe saying, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I must return (Job 1:21)."

I think it is healthy to, every once in a while, combat everyday inclinations in order to inspire evaluation of one's own potentially biased ideologies, whether it is for the theist or the atheist. It is like a reflection that rearranges the pieces in the mirror; surely the questioning of faith, rationality, opinion, and ideology is an effective self-evaluation. In result, if it was ever true faith in the beginning (more than mere opinion or belief), the right questions can only make that faith stronger under the discovery of more refined answers. When one serves as a planter of seeds for the glorification of God, the remainder of the vision is placed in his sovereign hands. With this an endeavor cannot be any more valuable whether the results are comprehended by man or not.