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."
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."
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.
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.
~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."
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.
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.
Invariably have I both observed and experienced older theologians demeaning younger ones by age rather than unfaithfulness, and I have previously ignored it in reverence. I am certainly not referring to mentorships or one's receiving guidance from those wiser than oneself. Obviously, those are wonderful, productive things. I am referring to the inferior complex-inducing strategies and authoritative appeals of the modern day theologian, which are most recurring when they fail to support their own tattered philosophies during debates. Job 12:19-20 says, "He leads priests away stripped and overthrows men long established. He silences the lips of trusted advisers and takes away the discernment of elders." Time and time again does the pride of man influence his very own fall (Proverbs 16:18). While denying it, one gradually starts to believe that he is the authority, or that he possesses great moral dominion over others, yet it is spiritually unwarranted.
By that point he loses steam; in result, he falsely begins trying to prove that unwarranted dominion by seizing the role of a condemner.
Indeed one has to remember that younger theologians are inexperienced, however, alternatively do they have the purity of a fresh canvas for God's limitless work. On the other hand, older theologians have experience but a bias that limits God's work according to those experiences. While God makes both himself and his ways known to those who seek him (Matthew 7:7), the infinite is only understood to a degree in the finite. This is in fact necessary: What is the value of knowledge if it is not concealed so that each man may seek in order to fulfill his own purpose? God as the creator of man, man as the creation of God - neither God nor man may receive glory without the concealment of knowledge. There was never any promise of theological perfection in this life nor is there a direct correspondence in revelations from God to one's years of experience; therefore, one should never cease the will for understanding under the notion that it has all been understood. The credit of wisdom goes to God who is not limited to man's idea of a mature mind. Ultimately, I will take the former over the latter, Mark 10:5 says, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."
Ironically, fallacious diversions such as ad hominem attacks and self-authoritative appeals degrade one's own credibility, thus losing the respect allegedly deserved. Most importantly, 1 Timothy 4:12 is self-explanatory regarding the subject, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity." God's word consistently seems to fall into the philosophically plausible position when interpreted from an unbiased position - the child's perspective is one of the most pure among man. Charles Baudelaire hinted this saying, "Genius is nothing more nor less than childhood recovered at will." Children have pure enough minds to ignore the standards and boundaries set my men/society, and this imaginative nature is a divine perspective due to the notion that only the boundaries set by God are ultimately relevant.
Human Thoughts on Human Thinking: It is inevitable that, generally, we as human beings only hear what we are prepared to hear and see what we are prepared to see - which is like painting in broad strokes, thus "jumping the intellectual gun". When a man takes a tiny piece of information and trivially runs with it, he himself implies that his own logical interpretation of the information is, whether consciously or unconsciously, hindered, and he is simply hearing what he chooses to hear. I would say such a person is verbally more challenging to communicate with than a person speaking a foreign language - the former observes only himself while the latter at least struggles to observe the communicator. There are also those who inadvertently grant power to another man's words by continuously trying to spite him. If a man gets to the point where he can simply say, "The sky is blue," and people indignantly rush up trying to refute him saying, "No, the sky is light blue," then, whether they realize it or not, he has become an authority figure even to such adversaries.
However, my goal, as a Christian, philosopher, and even as a simple human being, is certainly not to be adorned by mere hierarchy nor is it to adorn others in such a way. In fact, I am in several ways influenced by the philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, a witty street bum. On several occasions did he comically signify that the slant of the majority is not always the most plausible: "'Why is it, Diogenes, that pupils leave you to go to other teachers, but rarely do they leave them to come to you?'...'Because,' replied Diogenes, 'one can make eunuchs out of men, but no one can make a man out of eunuchs.'" (The following arguments include more references to Diogenes thus implying my admiration for his actual philosophies.) Although alternatively, what I present is not meant to discourage those of different moral principles than myself, but rather encourage, with positive revelations, any truly willing individual; yet, if one is offended by what is nothing more than constructive criticism, then he is either overestimating the importance of the critic or the overall critique is in some way valid. As far as any of my advice goes, I usually make sure that I need it as much as the next person. Hypocritical or not, that is how I am certain that it is valuable to at least one or more persons. On whom can one start but himself?
In any case I feel that there should be a thicker line between the ideological critic and the personal critic. "Rule: Start by looking for what is valid in every man," said Camus, and due to the masses not attempting such, knots of the ages merely grow tighter. Many young philosophers, in an infatuation or detestation regarding ideology, excessively attempt to negatively discern one another before evaluation of the philosophies. At times it is to so far a degree that it seems as though, when driven by such distraught motivators, any possibility for discovering truth becomes an offensive strike to the face. The result is a form of denial, but denial is temporarily satisfactory and quite like a safety net; false sentiments are much easier to control than real ones, or as Camus also said, "Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twilight that enhances every object." Hence, my reflection on the ways in which we commonly give and take information is to ultimately remind that, when the time is right, truth seems to find the individual rather than the individual finding truth - an important thing to understand when arguing abstract or controversial topics.
Having said that, much of the following was taken from an argument with an individual of atheistic belief who initially challenged me. Unfortunately, I no longer have the full message that inspired it, but I saved and refined my response because it compiled quite a bit of timeless information, both personal and universal:
A Wandering Response, Pt. 1: "I open my messages and find an entire essay criticizing me more than the argument. That is a sign of instability, so I contemplated hard about responding to this. Plus, it would take forever, but here we go...
I dislike the political world due to the iniquity and intellectual erosion it provokes in opinionated men. There are two culprits that can bring out a man's worst: pride and bias, and even beyond religion, they are, in a more subtle nature, most ample in the field of politics. Non-partisanship is consistently more plausible - the limitations given by labels tend to negate marvelous potential [Kierkegaard]. Under the notion that there are endless complex factors for one to consider, both on personal and universal levels, one's provoking thought and questioning the status quo, unveiling those little things we take for granted, and challenging politically systematic partisanship are essential means of support. One is apt to limit God according to his own understanding; therefore, he must frequently acknowledge human nature within the power-hungry society: great nations, out of pride, devour themselves (Jeremiah 50:32). God's ways are not imprisoned by man's current idea of conservatism nor are they littered with the excessive lenience of contemporary liberalism. Similarly, as a deviation from political corruption, G.K. Chesterton made known the vilification of such, "The whole modern world has divided itself into conservatives and progressives. The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." In essence I find that the foundation of modern conservatism is driven by a clinging to God in fear of the world, whereas the foundation of modern liberalism is a clinging to the world in fear of God; albeit, the true foundation should be one's clinging to God in fear of God (Proverbs 14:26).
In God's eyes, a man who teaches one truth and nothing else is more righteous than a man who teaches a million truths and one lie. I cannot nor do I pretend to comprehend what is economically best for every living individual as well as his descendants 100 years from now, yet I support those who genuinely and purely attempt to do such. Regardless, I find that belligerent patriotism explodes on the subject of politics as though it consists of 99% pride and 1% sincerity. Patriotism as the belligerent patriot practices is less patriotic than it is to
the one who admonishes his country. As individuals die every moment, how insensitive and fabricated a love it is to set aside a day from selfish routine in prideful, patriotic commemoration of tragedy. Just as God is provoked by those who tithe simply because they feel that they must tithe, I am provoked by those who commemorate simply because they feel that they must commemorate. In his 1942 epistolary-styled apologetics novel, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis, or rather "Screwtape", explained very well the psychological stages of obsessive, contemporary politics with regard to religion: "Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the 'cause'..." Even under what some might call "the separation of church and state", it is the philosophers, theologians, and evangelists who are said to be filled with pride and bigotry due to the strong convictions that they represent. On the contrary, teachings can be either taken or dismissed; whereas voting is the only thing the average person can do to force everyone to live how they would prefer. A simple vote is among the largest yet most acceptable forms of bigotry, and that is because people play the card only when they feel that in doing so it conveniences themselves. Unlike philosophical teachings, politics have an inevitable effect on all people whether they like it or not.
As far as my philosophy endeavors go, I know it is a popular stereotype that philosophers do not get very far in this day, but that does not bother me no matter its accuracy or lack thereof. The reality of society is a failure - by foundation it respects individuals and their relevance according to institutional records and paperwork rather than by skill. Labeled fools to the world are geniuses to the cosmos. Genius is often suppressed: education truly comes alive when one averts it in such a way in which he puts up a wall protecting his imagination, the creative portion of the brain. I essentially use the philosophical perspective as a tool for intellectual creativity, new ideas, song lyrics, and as a way of life. You are correct. On occasion, it attempts to ask and answer questions that cannot always be proven beyond the means of logic and speculation, however it is more relevant than it initially appears in a career-oriented proportion. In order to share one's true brilliance one initially has to risk looking like a fool: genius is like a wheel that spins so fast, it at first glance appears to be sitting still. Diogenes once stated that philosophers are like dogs; they do more good than they are appreciated.
Albert Einstein said, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." I personally share this sentiment and value creativity, art, and wisdom over materialism. Wisdom is nothing more than confirmed imagination: just because one did not study for his exam does not mean that he should leave it blank. And one does not have to be a philosopher to be a successful artist, but he does have to be an artist to be a successful philosopher. His nature is to view the world in an unpredictable albeit useful light. Some might ask questions such as, "Don't you wanna be rich or famous?" but by the words of Diogenes, yet again, when questioned how one can become famous or successful, "By worrying as little as possible about fame." The artist lives to have stories to tell and to learn to tell them well, therefore I try to have my own definitions of happiness and success, and I would rather make paths before taking paths. Ultimately, one's idea of success is subjective rather than objective. Most men either compromise or drop their greatest talents and start running after, what they perceive to be, a more reasonable success, and somewhere in between they end up with a discontented settlement. Safety is indeed stability, but it is not progression.
For instance, rarely did I excel as an employee; in fact, I did quite the opposite. At times I was feeling much like Charles Bukowski's description with regards to a laboring humanity. In Ham on Rye he wrote [shortened], "The problem was you had to keep choosing between one evil or another, and no matter what you chose, they sliced a little bit more off you, until there was nothing left. ... A whole nation doing everything in the worst way possible, like voting for the presidential candidates who reminded them most of themselves. I had no interests. I had no interest in anything. I had no idea how I was going to escape. At least the others had some taste for life."
The power of hope! Even a lack of ambition can, for a time, pay off as a necessary facet, as long as hope outweighs it. I had no desire for things that I knew would someday deteriorate and eventually realized that my ambitions were too high for personal gain and comfort. I lost interest in settling for mediocrity and only wanted to bring something, anything fascinating to the table, something eternal. Generally, strategies that were merely intended to thicken one's pockets told employers what to do, and employers told me what to do. Thus at times my objective was to work for a more intangible reason - something as simple as experiencing and understanding the cycle of humanity, and hopefully in turn, developing an affinity for such. After all, repetition reflects one's living in the present thus demonstrating a will to live forward, as Kierkegaard wrote in Repetition, whereas, recollection is potentially an immobilizing mindset, a concern which is much like jogging in reverse. Therefore, coming to accept the seemingly inevitable repetition of life was my work ethic, but, being so obscure of a work ethic, it appeared to be completely nonexistent in the opinions of others. That bleeds through - oftentimes one is harshly judged for a lack of work ethic. I once read that music became Bono's revenge; likewise, philosophy became my revenge. After a while you cease trying to be accepted. When determined to be who you are, you conjure ways to cope with who you are; so, instead of drugs or alcohol, I chose faith and philosophy. That is what I believe to be the nature of optimism. When you feel like you mean nothing to everyone for too long, you one day wake up with an urge to mean everything to as many people as possible. That is what inspires creativity. Maybe God would agree, hence creation. What is my point here? Every man has a specific skill, whether it is discovered or not, that more readily and naturally comes to him than it would to another, and his own should be sought and polished. He excels best in his niche - originality loses its authenticity in one's efforts to obtain originality. Nevertheless, by use of his genuine craftsmanship, a simple man further becomes walking evidence of the glory of God.
Despite the personal sense of fulfillment that philosophy brings, ironically, it is constantly told to the philosopher, "Stop thinking; be happy." He then replies, "Define 'happiness'". The person defines it, and in result, he further realizes that he is pleased with who he is and what he does; therefore, he is indeed happy. Philosophy is a way of imagination; it bends the frame of mind, challenges the notions that which we take for granted, and reveals those held captive by common sense. This is the sense of fulfillment that I spoke of, and in the words of C.S. Lewis, "There is a kind of happiness and wonder that makes you serious. It is too good to waste on jokes." I find such happiness to be like a collector's toy that you never open or play with because it then loses its value, but the non-collector does not fully understand. Studies restricted to the boundaries of the scientific method harvest a limited knowledge because the contents are based on systematic testability, thus the only accepted results are those bound to the limitations of man's perceptions of reliability. Frankly, that is not wisdom, that is the taking of information compiled under the laws of human research. Like most I do find pleasure in the discovery of truth. However it is often considered a mistake that one would so adamantly pursue what is sometimes called "the b.s. subject", and further suggested that science is the direction to take if one desires truth. I would rather aid an individual idealistically - peace thrives internally - than physically, and according to my experiences, with a philosophy education, one can infuriate his peers, intimidate his date, think of obscure, unreliable ways to make money, and never regret a thing."
A Wandering Response, Pt. 2: "But, enough about me, you also wanted to know qualities about the Christian God that are unique. I would assume that any God that truly exists and has any power will be the lasting God above the others. This was taken from an external source, and you can easily rule out the more obscure ones without the need of extensive research. We can find that the "dying and rising gods", such as Adonis, Baal (and Hadad), Marduk, Osiris, and Tammuz have been discarded for quite a long time by both non-Christian and Christian scholars:
"1.) There is simply no unambiguous data to support the belief in the existence of any dying and rising deity apart from Jesus.
2.) There is data contrary to the belief that these were common figures before the time of Christ (to say the least).
3.) There would not be any motif from which the NT authors could even borrow the image of a dying and rising God."
There are also gods in the "mystery religions", such as Mithra and Dionysos:
"1.) None of the savior gods died for someone else in their place. The idea that the Son of God fully dying in place of his people is unique to Christianity.
2.) Only Jesus died purposefully for sin. As Gunter Wagner said about the pagan gods "none has the intention of helping men...The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."
3.) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries (the closest is the self-castration of Attis, but this is generally attributed to his insanity, not to a free and clear choice)."
They have been arguably debunked philosophically and scientifically, whereas, the Christian God has remained consistent despite the extensive cherry-picking and scrutiny the Bible has boldly endured for centuries.
The nature of God has historically remained controversial as perceived by skeptics, for example, the laws advocated in the Old Testament (e.g. do not shave your beard, sell your daughter into slavery, marry those you rape, etc.). When hearing these laws, skeptics criticize God for being too tyrannical and even too malevolent of a God, as Epicurus concluded. That is further evidence that man's initial idea of a loving God does not make sense without a sincere observation of his divinity, holiness, and consciousness of sin. One of my favorite verses, Isaiah 45:7 says, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." The God of the Bible reigns beyond both good and evil. He allows short term evils in order to carry out long term good [C.S. Lewis; Mere Christianity], and even though he made evident his mercy time and time again throughout the Old Testament, he does not take sin lightly; he is constantly forgiving of our mistakes, however his judgment is perfect, just, and holy. Find another god like this and you can discard this entire paragraph.
You asked for a positive ontology regarding the existence of God. I do not believe there is one that would satisfy the majority of radical atheists. I am a scientific agnostic and a spiritual theist, and it does not bother me or most Christians I know - ontology is not where God initially intended to be found. If God did exist as the creator of the universe, he would, as explained on several occasions, exist incalculably - outrageously massive beyond the instruments of scientific research. Try proving our more complex reality to ants. One could give them evidence and they would hardly perceive the complexities from their simplified cognition, and correspondingly, tangibility and testability are essential to science as perceived by humans.
You said, "Interesting. On one hand you claim that children mature then eventually come across evidence that denies the existence of Santa, but just a few sentences earlier you say that Santa and God share the common property of being unprovable. You have to pick one or the other."
It is not a contradiction. Proof and evidence are 2 different things. We cannot prove that God or Santa Claus exist, however we have significant evidence that Santa does not exist. We do not have significant evidence that God does not exist. This applies to every imaginary fairytale out there. Skeptics often pretend that the idea of a creator is as improbable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, or the Pink Unicorn. This is a strong example of intellectual dishonesty. When something is truly said to be insane, it is because it is from an abnormal state of mind. A belief in God is not abnormal - billions of normal and intelligent people today and since the beginning of time believe(d) in God, hence you are being intellectually dishonest if you truly consider theism to be insane in and of itself. In fact, one of the most intelligent men in recorded history was a deist, Einstein, who died merely 50 years ago. You have been so flooded by atheistic views that you somehow think a belief in God is insane. It is evident what modern propaganda can do to people.
You said, "But you have a problem with causality? Can't you accept that we just don't know about "the beginning" or even if there was one? Doesn't that fall under "realizing your own ignorance?" You are doing exactly what you're telling us not to do. You assume knowledge regarding causality and the universe, and use that assumed knowledge to support an otherwise insane idea."
Everyone claims to be okay with freedom of religion, but the moment you mention God there is a strange tension that fills the air. If there was a 6th sense, that would be it. Several skeptics, however, refuse to acknowledge the case that a rational, justified belief in God is indeed possible. It is not always a pseudo-intellectual decision based on one's ignorance of scientific facts, cultural norms/indoctrination, "blind faith", or insanity, nor was it ever meant to be grounded on such fallacies. The existence of God does not appear to be verifiable by means in which the normative atheistic position expects him to be verified, hence many theists do not take part in the endless attempts of logically explaining a relationship with God according to standards of the scientific method. To take that route is not by any means a requirement for one's faith nor for the sharing of one's faith, but it is indeed possible for one to have a calling to defend the faith in such a manner. John Calvin once said, "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." Certainly God does not need any sort of defense or protection, however the faithful apologist naturally delights in clarifying certain misconceptions of Christ and his word."
P.S.: "I appreciate the "breath of fresh air" comment. I hope all of my fellow Christians remind themselves that the Bible teaches against blind faith and ignorance, "Test everything, hold on to the good". On the other hand, one should not look for God strictly within a self-proclaimed form of intellectualism or science but by experience. When saying, "the best intelligence is realizing your own ignorance", the ignorance is one's lack of experience, yet many Christians have experienced Christ in some indescribably, personal way.
Intelligent Christians are not rare in the slightest, yet a number of skeptics repeat the stereotype amongst themselves. One's intelligence excels in different areas; a person is intelligent in a certain aspect and unintelligent another aspect. While I am not exactly sure what you are looking for, I can briefly list a number of "intelligent" individuals within my own field. To list a modern wave of philosophers that also happen to support theism, there is Richard Swinburne (Oxford), Eleanor Stump (Oxford), and Brian Leftow (Oxford). If you want to find non-condemning theists, you could try sincerely talking to some rather than listening excessively to a biased media while surrounding yourself 360 degrees in atheistic communities.
Regarding the reliability of the Bible: I said that it is possibly "imperfect" to the biased thinker in such a case of passing through the hands and interpretations of man (technically, that is a result of man's imperfections). I never implied universal fallibility. That is not a semantical backflip, it is an important distinction. Your question seems to be, "If it is imperfect, then what basis do you have to properly decipher and interpret the Bible? Why interpret this like this and that like that?" If a man depends completely on himself, then you are absolutely correct, he has no basis. Such a man, in result, is prone to spread hatred and deception in the name of God (i.e. "a wolf in sheep's clothing"), which is the clashing of the fallen human interpretation with divine truth. I am sure you have heard this before and will call it a "cop out" like earlier (ironically, simply saying "cop out" is a cop out, in many cases). For those who are truly humbled towards God, the Holy Spirit guides them through interpretations. Many faithful Christians receive new, positive revelations upon every instance a passage is read or re-read."
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.
