Is anyone else addicted to Internet? I'm not exactly sure if "addicted" is even the right word, so let me set the scene.
Here it is Friday night, and I'm waiting for Scott to get home from work (not sure when that'll be seeing as how he's working OT right now). I had a few projects that I wanted to accomplish today, mainly sewing and scrapbooking (can you get any more removed from blogging?). Have I or am I doing either? Uh, nope.
After dinner, I lounged in front of the TV watching HGTV, even though I'm not exactly a fan of the show I was watching. After about an hour or so of that, I simply transferred screens. I have now been sitting in front of the computer for, oh, maybe a good two hours or so. In that time, I've managed to post 1 (almost 2 now) entries, check my email about a dozen times, and catch up on my friends' blogs. Oh, and play a game or two.
Why is this bothersome? Well, did I mention that I didn't accomplish what I had set out today? Or that I'm really pretty tired and should go to bed? Or that I could be reading, a much more productive use of time?
And yet, in spite of all those more appealing alternatives, here I sit. I'm not sure why. I think it's laziness at this point. I simply don't want to get up and go to bed because I'll then have to get ready for bed, which requires moving. And again, I'm just so tired that I don't feel like it.
Does this make sense at all? I don't think it does. And obviously, the more I sit, staring at the computer screen, the less sense this will make.
Please just tell me that I'm not alone in this. Maybe we could start a self-help group.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Seriously? That's funny?
You'd think by now I would realize that reality TV, including talent competitions, are hardly "real". I mean, does the most talented performer always win?
Case in point. Scott and I have watched "Last Comic Standing" for the past couple of years. Every year, as we watch the auditions, we try to predict who will move on to the next level. In some instances, the funny comedians actually do move on, but in most, the oddest performer is selected. Why? I thought the purpose of the show was to choose the FUNNIEST person, not the one with the most unusual social quirks.
Of course, this season was no exception. I don't understand why the producers (or whoever ultimately decides who will move on) feel the need to fill the house with annoying or quirky people rather than funny ones. Granted, it might make for more interesting TV since it's bound to create some drama or tension, but I think it would be just as funny to actually watch TALENTED comedians interact with one another. I mean, isn't that the point of the show? To find the funniest up-and-coming comedian?
Last night was the long, drawn out finale. Really, it could have been over and done with in 30 minutes, tops. (Even the audience looked annoyed and bored; glad I didn't pay for those seats.) Last week, each comic performed for about 5 minutes or so, and then "America" had a chance to vote starting at the end of the show. Based on their performances, I really don't understand how the woman (Ilisa) won. Three of the four other finalists were so much funnier than she was. Even a friend of mine, who enjoyed some of Ilisa's previous performances, admitted that she wasn't as funny as the others. And yet, she won. How in the world?
I have a couple different theories as to how that happened.
1. Exposure. Due to the program's short season, there weren't very many comic showdowns. Of those, Ilisa was challenged every single time. Thus, she had more exposure than any of the others.
2. Sympathy/ underdog. I'm wondering if people "voted" for her because she had been challenged so much. Think of it as a sympathy vote if you will. Poor Ilisa. She's been challenged again. We should vote for her.
3. Rigged results. Maybe the producers manipulated the votes (I'm not sure how; ask some of the protestors from the 2000 election) so that a woman would win. Again, my guess is that they wanted to play up the underdog and create a Cinderella ending.
I'd like to say that after yet another disappointing outcome from this show that I won't watch it in the future. But I know how I am; I, ever the optimist, will hope against hope that maybe next time the show will actually live up to its name.
Case in point. Scott and I have watched "Last Comic Standing" for the past couple of years. Every year, as we watch the auditions, we try to predict who will move on to the next level. In some instances, the funny comedians actually do move on, but in most, the oddest performer is selected. Why? I thought the purpose of the show was to choose the FUNNIEST person, not the one with the most unusual social quirks.
Of course, this season was no exception. I don't understand why the producers (or whoever ultimately decides who will move on) feel the need to fill the house with annoying or quirky people rather than funny ones. Granted, it might make for more interesting TV since it's bound to create some drama or tension, but I think it would be just as funny to actually watch TALENTED comedians interact with one another. I mean, isn't that the point of the show? To find the funniest up-and-coming comedian?
Last night was the long, drawn out finale. Really, it could have been over and done with in 30 minutes, tops. (Even the audience looked annoyed and bored; glad I didn't pay for those seats.) Last week, each comic performed for about 5 minutes or so, and then "America" had a chance to vote starting at the end of the show. Based on their performances, I really don't understand how the woman (Ilisa) won. Three of the four other finalists were so much funnier than she was. Even a friend of mine, who enjoyed some of Ilisa's previous performances, admitted that she wasn't as funny as the others. And yet, she won. How in the world?
I have a couple different theories as to how that happened.
1. Exposure. Due to the program's short season, there weren't very many comic showdowns. Of those, Ilisa was challenged every single time. Thus, she had more exposure than any of the others.
2. Sympathy/ underdog. I'm wondering if people "voted" for her because she had been challenged so much. Think of it as a sympathy vote if you will. Poor Ilisa. She's been challenged again. We should vote for her.
3. Rigged results. Maybe the producers manipulated the votes (I'm not sure how; ask some of the protestors from the 2000 election) so that a woman would win. Again, my guess is that they wanted to play up the underdog and create a Cinderella ending.
I'd like to say that after yet another disappointing outcome from this show that I won't watch it in the future. But I know how I am; I, ever the optimist, will hope against hope that maybe next time the show will actually live up to its name.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Excerpts
I knew it had been awhile since my last post, but I hadn't realized HOW long until today. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised though; after all, for much of July I was busy with work, and then last week we were on vacation. With quite the hiatus, you'd think I'd post something light. Oh no, not me. Today are some excerpts from Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran, a book I highly recommend.
"The first day I asked my students what they thought fiction should accomplish, why one should bother to read fiction at all. It was an odd way to start, but I did succeed in getting their attention. I explained that we would in the course of the semester read and discuss many different authors, but that one thing these authors all had in common was their subversiveness. Some, like Gorky or Gold, were overly subversive in their political aims; others, like Fitzgerald and Mark Twain, were in my opinion more subversive, if less obviously so. I told them we would come back to this term, because my understanding of it was somewhat different from its usual definition. I wrote on the board one of my favorite lines from the German thinker Theodor Adorno: 'The highest form of morality is not to feel at home in one's own home.' I explained that most great works of the imagination were meant to make you feel like a stranger in your own home. The best fiction always forced us to question what we took for granted. It questioned traditions and expectations when they seemed too immutable. I told my students I wanted them in their readings to consider in what ways these works unsettled them, made them a little uneasy, made them look around and consider the world, like Alice in Wonderland, through different eyes" (Nafisi 94).
"A novel is not an allegory, I said as the period was about to come to an end. It is the sensual experience of another world. If you don't enter that world, hold your breath with the characters and become involved in their destiny, you won't be able to empathize, and empathy is at the heart of the novel. This is how you read a novel: you inhale the experience. So start breathing" (Nafisi 111).
"I have a recurring fantasy that one more article has been added to the Bill of Rights: the right to free access to imagination. I have come to believe that genuine democracy cannont exist without the freedom to imagine and the right to use imaginative works without any restrictions. To have a whole life, one must have the possibility of publicly shaping and expressing private worlds, dreams, thoughts and desires, of constantly having access to a dialogue between the public and private worlds. How else do we know that we have existed, felt, desired, hated, feared?" (Nafisi 339).
"The first day I asked my students what they thought fiction should accomplish, why one should bother to read fiction at all. It was an odd way to start, but I did succeed in getting their attention. I explained that we would in the course of the semester read and discuss many different authors, but that one thing these authors all had in common was their subversiveness. Some, like Gorky or Gold, were overly subversive in their political aims; others, like Fitzgerald and Mark Twain, were in my opinion more subversive, if less obviously so. I told them we would come back to this term, because my understanding of it was somewhat different from its usual definition. I wrote on the board one of my favorite lines from the German thinker Theodor Adorno: 'The highest form of morality is not to feel at home in one's own home.' I explained that most great works of the imagination were meant to make you feel like a stranger in your own home. The best fiction always forced us to question what we took for granted. It questioned traditions and expectations when they seemed too immutable. I told my students I wanted them in their readings to consider in what ways these works unsettled them, made them a little uneasy, made them look around and consider the world, like Alice in Wonderland, through different eyes" (Nafisi 94).
"A novel is not an allegory, I said as the period was about to come to an end. It is the sensual experience of another world. If you don't enter that world, hold your breath with the characters and become involved in their destiny, you won't be able to empathize, and empathy is at the heart of the novel. This is how you read a novel: you inhale the experience. So start breathing" (Nafisi 111).
"I have a recurring fantasy that one more article has been added to the Bill of Rights: the right to free access to imagination. I have come to believe that genuine democracy cannont exist without the freedom to imagine and the right to use imaginative works without any restrictions. To have a whole life, one must have the possibility of publicly shaping and expressing private worlds, dreams, thoughts and desires, of constantly having access to a dialogue between the public and private worlds. How else do we know that we have existed, felt, desired, hated, feared?" (Nafisi 339).
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
I don't get it.
Just some random thoughts based on recent observations.
1. Why do some people wear sunglasses indoors? Are they trying to look hip or pretending to be a federal agent? And at a Cici's restaurant no less!
2. Why do some extra large people wear extra small clothing? Exhibit A: the woman Scott and I saw after we had finished swimming laps at a local pool.
3. Why do some feel the need to wait several minutes for an elevator ride UP ONE FLOOR when they could walk up the stairs and arrive at their destination before the elevator even arrives? I understand riding up two flights, but one? Really? The stairs are much more convenient.
1. Why do some people wear sunglasses indoors? Are they trying to look hip or pretending to be a federal agent? And at a Cici's restaurant no less!
2. Why do some extra large people wear extra small clothing? Exhibit A: the woman Scott and I saw after we had finished swimming laps at a local pool.
3. Why do some feel the need to wait several minutes for an elevator ride UP ONE FLOOR when they could walk up the stairs and arrive at their destination before the elevator even arrives? I understand riding up two flights, but one? Really? The stairs are much more convenient.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
It all started with a phone call
to Elliot in the Morning (a local DJ). See, Elliot was giving away chances to win a custom chopper from Hardcore Choppers here in VA. Scott said he was going to try to win a key; it wouldn't hurt to try.
There it was, about 9 AM on a Wednesday, and the phone rings; it was Scott, telling me he had just won (a key). I was shocked; what were the chances that he would get through? Apparently, even he was surprised; when they answered the phone at the radio station, they told him to stay on the line. Elliot was then going to pick one of the phone lines at random. So just getting through wasn't even a guarantee of a key! But, for whatever reason, Elliot picked Scott's line. Random! Guess God wanted Scott to have a chance at a chopper (probably because He knows we wouldn't be able to afford one).
Now flash-forward to yesterday, July 4, 2008. DC 101 hosted a July 4 bash at Sequoia's down in Georgetown. We weren't exactly thrilled about heading downtown on the 4th, but we knew this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Besides, after the giveaway, we could head back home (no, we didn't want to stay and watch the fireworks, even though the location was perfect. We simply didn't want to deal with the post-fireworks crowd... and we would have been bored waiting for the show to begin.).
So, as we walk up to Sequoia's, we immediately see the DC 101 tent next to the Hard Core Choppers trailer. After checking out some of their bikes, Scott checked in, we received our VIP wristbands (free food and beer... uh, what are we going to do with free beer?), and then we checked out the chopper.
The Chopper:
Then came the waiting. We arrived about 12:45, and the check in time for those who won a key was from 12-2. So we had to stay occupied until then. We walked around Sequoia and then wandered into the DC 101 VIP area for some free burgers, hot dogs, and drinks. What a good deal! Scott has an opportunity to win a custom chopper, we show up, and we don't have to pay for anything (except for the cost of my Metro ticket).
Until it was time for the drawing, we made ourselves comfortable at a table and simply people watched. And boy, were there some interesting characters. VA Tech perpetually wandered throughout the area, apparently trying to stay busy (he was by himself). He certainly didn't look like a biker; more like a gamer or someone who's more comfortable around computers. Then there was The Mess; she and her friends had to be early 20s, and their number one priority was getting smashed. Seriously. As she walked by, all tattooed, pierced, and clad in an unflattering turquoise dress, she emphasized the importance of not wandering too far because she didn't want to lose her buzz. At one point, a couple of girls at the next table over took a picture of The Mess and her posse because they were such a sight to see. And of course there were couples who were probably in the same boat as us; they just didn't seem to fit in with the party crowd (translation: this was definitely not our scene). Take, for instance, the 30-somethings who happened to have a baby. Or the 40-somethings who quietly nursed their Cokes instead of beer. At least we knew we weren't alone in the crowd.
Finally the time came for the drawing. Instead of giving everyone (all 100 people) a key, Elliot drew licenses. If he drew your license, then you were out. As he read off the names, Scott and I both grew more and more hopeful. Michael Patrick... Linda R... James ... Scott ... . Bummer. Scott walked up there and picked up his license. He had a good chance; he just missed the last 25.
Oh well. Had he won, he would have needed to have the bike re-painted anyway. And besides, it was a different (and enjoyable) way to spend the 4th.
There it was, about 9 AM on a Wednesday, and the phone rings; it was Scott, telling me he had just won (a key). I was shocked; what were the chances that he would get through? Apparently, even he was surprised; when they answered the phone at the radio station, they told him to stay on the line. Elliot was then going to pick one of the phone lines at random. So just getting through wasn't even a guarantee of a key! But, for whatever reason, Elliot picked Scott's line. Random! Guess God wanted Scott to have a chance at a chopper (probably because He knows we wouldn't be able to afford one).
Now flash-forward to yesterday, July 4, 2008. DC 101 hosted a July 4 bash at Sequoia's down in Georgetown. We weren't exactly thrilled about heading downtown on the 4th, but we knew this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Besides, after the giveaway, we could head back home (no, we didn't want to stay and watch the fireworks, even though the location was perfect. We simply didn't want to deal with the post-fireworks crowd... and we would have been bored waiting for the show to begin.).
So, as we walk up to Sequoia's, we immediately see the DC 101 tent next to the Hard Core Choppers trailer. After checking out some of their bikes, Scott checked in, we received our VIP wristbands (free food and beer... uh, what are we going to do with free beer?), and then we checked out the chopper.
The Chopper:
Then came the waiting. We arrived about 12:45, and the check in time for those who won a key was from 12-2. So we had to stay occupied until then. We walked around Sequoia and then wandered into the DC 101 VIP area for some free burgers, hot dogs, and drinks. What a good deal! Scott has an opportunity to win a custom chopper, we show up, and we don't have to pay for anything (except for the cost of my Metro ticket).
Until it was time for the drawing, we made ourselves comfortable at a table and simply people watched. And boy, were there some interesting characters. VA Tech perpetually wandered throughout the area, apparently trying to stay busy (he was by himself). He certainly didn't look like a biker; more like a gamer or someone who's more comfortable around computers. Then there was The Mess; she and her friends had to be early 20s, and their number one priority was getting smashed. Seriously. As she walked by, all tattooed, pierced, and clad in an unflattering turquoise dress, she emphasized the importance of not wandering too far because she didn't want to lose her buzz. At one point, a couple of girls at the next table over took a picture of The Mess and her posse because they were such a sight to see. And of course there were couples who were probably in the same boat as us; they just didn't seem to fit in with the party crowd (translation: this was definitely not our scene). Take, for instance, the 30-somethings who happened to have a baby. Or the 40-somethings who quietly nursed their Cokes instead of beer. At least we knew we weren't alone in the crowd.
Finally the time came for the drawing. Instead of giving everyone (all 100 people) a key, Elliot drew licenses. If he drew your license, then you were out. As he read off the names, Scott and I both grew more and more hopeful. Michael Patrick... Linda R... James ... Scott ... . Bummer. Scott walked up there and picked up his license. He had a good chance; he just missed the last 25.
Oh well. Had he won, he would have needed to have the bike re-painted anyway. And besides, it was a different (and enjoyable) way to spend the 4th.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Not for the feminist-at-heart
I promised Ann this entry, so here goes...
Cooking. Dusting. Vacuuming. Baking. Washing dishes. Laundry. These are common tasks for the housewife (or probably most wives in general). Yet, I don't lament them. I actually enjoy completing these often thankless tasks. Really. Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't consider them my idea of a good time (well, except for cooking/ baking), but I take joy in doing them, and doing them well. I think there's a satisfaction in knowing that I can make the home comfortable and inviting for my husband and our friends.
Plus, I know that by caring for our home, Scott can come home from work and just relax. He doesn't have to feel stressed out about the condition of the house; he can simply come home, grab a Dew, and chill in front of the X-box for a while. He WANTS to come home; is it any wonder why "being domestic" brings me joy, then?
There are so many women who pooh-pooh (or is it poo-poo?) the idea of the "woman's sphere", but why? My husband hasn't forced me into this role; I've chosen it because I love him. Besides, this particular role works for our family. What better way to feel appreciated than to know that he prefers being here with me than somewhere else?
And just because I care for the home doesn't mean I can't pursue additional or outside interests. I work. I get together with friends regularly. I have hobbies. I exercise. I just feel that as a wife, my primary task is taking care of and supporting my husband by caring for our home. After all, if he is the (primary) provider, then the best way to ease his burden is by supporting him here.
And don't think that I'm a slave to the house, either. I have a cleaning routine that works for me. And Scott knows that I won't clean his man-room or the adjacent bathroom; since he uses those areas, he's responsible for them. He'll also readily chip in with daily chores if I ask or if I have to go somewhere. So in that way, he supports me, too.
So if being "domestic" isn't so bad, why all the fuss?
Cooking. Dusting. Vacuuming. Baking. Washing dishes. Laundry. These are common tasks for the housewife (or probably most wives in general). Yet, I don't lament them. I actually enjoy completing these often thankless tasks. Really. Don't get me wrong; I certainly don't consider them my idea of a good time (well, except for cooking/ baking), but I take joy in doing them, and doing them well. I think there's a satisfaction in knowing that I can make the home comfortable and inviting for my husband and our friends.
Plus, I know that by caring for our home, Scott can come home from work and just relax. He doesn't have to feel stressed out about the condition of the house; he can simply come home, grab a Dew, and chill in front of the X-box for a while. He WANTS to come home; is it any wonder why "being domestic" brings me joy, then?
There are so many women who pooh-pooh (or is it poo-poo?) the idea of the "woman's sphere", but why? My husband hasn't forced me into this role; I've chosen it because I love him. Besides, this particular role works for our family. What better way to feel appreciated than to know that he prefers being here with me than somewhere else?
And just because I care for the home doesn't mean I can't pursue additional or outside interests. I work. I get together with friends regularly. I have hobbies. I exercise. I just feel that as a wife, my primary task is taking care of and supporting my husband by caring for our home. After all, if he is the (primary) provider, then the best way to ease his burden is by supporting him here.
And don't think that I'm a slave to the house, either. I have a cleaning routine that works for me. And Scott knows that I won't clean his man-room or the adjacent bathroom; since he uses those areas, he's responsible for them. He'll also readily chip in with daily chores if I ask or if I have to go somewhere. So in that way, he supports me, too.
So if being "domestic" isn't so bad, why all the fuss?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Only one
First, check out this article on Fox News about faith in America.
Is anyone else as disturbed as I am by it? I find it appalling that so many people of faith--whatever that faith might be-- think that there are alternative paths to heaven. Our culture is so concerned with tolerance that we've abandoned Truth; we don't want to offend, so instead of boldly sharing our beliefs, we apologize for them, as if believing them is criminal.
Now, I don't claim to be a theologian, but I am a believer, a daughter of Christ, and I know what the Bible teaches. So when I hear that a vast majority of believers think there are multiple paths to one destination, I can't help but get riled up.
Consider some of the claims:
1. All roads lead to heaven.
-Uh, no, they don't. As the article referenced, Jesus states, "I am the way, the truth, and the light; no one comes to the father except through me." Now, if we believe that the Bible is God's Truth, then we have to believe this statement by Christ. We can't just pick and choose what we want to believe; if we do that, then we're basing our faith on lies and personal opinion. Faith then becomes us-centered rather than God-centered.
-If all roads lead to heaven, then why bother believing? Seriously. Why not just do away with religion and faith all together if they all have the same result? Sound absurd? Of course it does! It's like too many kids' sporting competitions these days; we can't say that one team won the division or the championship because it might hurt everyone else's feelings. But when we negate the joy of winning, we negate the purpose of the game. Hard work, perseverance, determination, team work, and even graciousness all become obsolete. Isn't that what happens when we equalize all religions?
As a believer in Christ, I know how difficult it is to walk with Him daily; faith is hard work. I'm not perfect, and I never will be, but I know that I must persevere. Through perseverance, God will develop my character and my faith. Challenges to my faith and character (just like an opposing team in a sporting event) push me to trust in the Truth; I know that my Coach won't tell me wrong. He has the team's best interest at heart. Fellow believers develop the ability to work together, just like a team. Independently, we can do nothing; but together, in Christ, we are strong. When we encourage each other in our walks with God, when we hold one another accountable, when we support one another in the challenging times, we as a team win. For in those moments, we demonstrate the awesome power of God in our lives and His ability to bring such diverse people together. But what about graciousness? That leads me to the next point...
2. God is gracious, so that's why He provides many paths to heaven.
-Yes, God is gracious, however, grace is extended to only those who have accepted it. Grace cannot be earned, yet many other religions teach that it must. For them, salvation is about what one can earn, and, in a sense, about hierarchy. Yet, grace is undeserved forgiveness. Grace depends solely on the giver; the beneficiary can do nothing but accept or reject it. That's why Christianity is so different from other religions. God's given us the ultimate pass; He sacrificed His only Son so that we might be forgiven. If, and only if, we accept that Truth, can we actually receive His grace.
-What bothers me is that too often people misinterpret what it means to be gracious. Grace doesn't mean tolerance; grace involves holding firm to a set of beliefs and then extending a pass (of a sort) to those who realize that they've violated those beliefs. We can't earn it; we can't buy it. I am as sinful as the next person, and there's nothing I can do to earn grace, but because I know that I am sinful, I can accept God's gift. He's given me an escape route, even though I don't deserve it.
-The other problem with this argument is that those who use it forget to mention that there are also consequences for our actions. Grace doesn't mean that all is fine. God forgives me for my sins, however, I do have to accept the consequences for my actions. For example, a parent might forgive a child for lying, but that child must now rebuild his parent's trust. He might also be punished for a time for lying. That doesn't negate the forgiveness, it just means that there are consequences.
3. A truly just God would not willingly condemn people to hell.
-Again, people who believe this statement do not understand the nature of God. Yes, God is just. He is fair. And ultimately, He wants what is best for us. But in His infinite justice, He has given us free will. We can choose whether or not we will accept His Son as our Saviour. Only a just God would give us a choice; an unjust God would mandate belief.
-A just God honors our decisions, even when they hurt Him. Our choice is salvation through Jesus Christ or some other alternative. If we choose salvation, then we will one day fellowship with God in heaven. If we choose the alternative, then we choose to be separated from Him. Why is that not just? He's honored our decision, even though it upsets Him. It's like in the classroom; if a student has a vocabulary quiz, he can choose to study or not to. If he studies, he will earn a good grade. This, of course, makes me happy. However, if he doesn't study, he will fail. Though that disappoints me, as an educator, I have to "honor" that decision by awarding the student the failing grade. Does that make me unjust?
Being a believer and follower of Christ does not mean that I'm intolerant; I respect those who firmly hold to their faith. However, I want others to share in my belief because I know, without a doubt, that there's only one way to salvation. I've received this wonderful, amazing gift that is offered to everyone, so why would I not want to share it? If I believe so passionately in this Truth, then doesn't it make sense that I would reject any other paths? Doesn't it make sense that I would want others to experience it, too?
Besides, if faith in Christ is wrong, what have I to lose? Nothing. But what about those who don't believe in Christ? What if they're wrong? What have they to lose? Everything.
Is anyone else as disturbed as I am by it? I find it appalling that so many people of faith--whatever that faith might be-- think that there are alternative paths to heaven. Our culture is so concerned with tolerance that we've abandoned Truth; we don't want to offend, so instead of boldly sharing our beliefs, we apologize for them, as if believing them is criminal.
Now, I don't claim to be a theologian, but I am a believer, a daughter of Christ, and I know what the Bible teaches. So when I hear that a vast majority of believers think there are multiple paths to one destination, I can't help but get riled up.
Consider some of the claims:
1. All roads lead to heaven.
-Uh, no, they don't. As the article referenced, Jesus states, "I am the way, the truth, and the light; no one comes to the father except through me." Now, if we believe that the Bible is God's Truth, then we have to believe this statement by Christ. We can't just pick and choose what we want to believe; if we do that, then we're basing our faith on lies and personal opinion. Faith then becomes us-centered rather than God-centered.
-If all roads lead to heaven, then why bother believing? Seriously. Why not just do away with religion and faith all together if they all have the same result? Sound absurd? Of course it does! It's like too many kids' sporting competitions these days; we can't say that one team won the division or the championship because it might hurt everyone else's feelings. But when we negate the joy of winning, we negate the purpose of the game. Hard work, perseverance, determination, team work, and even graciousness all become obsolete. Isn't that what happens when we equalize all religions?
As a believer in Christ, I know how difficult it is to walk with Him daily; faith is hard work. I'm not perfect, and I never will be, but I know that I must persevere. Through perseverance, God will develop my character and my faith. Challenges to my faith and character (just like an opposing team in a sporting event) push me to trust in the Truth; I know that my Coach won't tell me wrong. He has the team's best interest at heart. Fellow believers develop the ability to work together, just like a team. Independently, we can do nothing; but together, in Christ, we are strong. When we encourage each other in our walks with God, when we hold one another accountable, when we support one another in the challenging times, we as a team win. For in those moments, we demonstrate the awesome power of God in our lives and His ability to bring such diverse people together. But what about graciousness? That leads me to the next point...
2. God is gracious, so that's why He provides many paths to heaven.
-Yes, God is gracious, however, grace is extended to only those who have accepted it. Grace cannot be earned, yet many other religions teach that it must. For them, salvation is about what one can earn, and, in a sense, about hierarchy. Yet, grace is undeserved forgiveness. Grace depends solely on the giver; the beneficiary can do nothing but accept or reject it. That's why Christianity is so different from other religions. God's given us the ultimate pass; He sacrificed His only Son so that we might be forgiven. If, and only if, we accept that Truth, can we actually receive His grace.
-What bothers me is that too often people misinterpret what it means to be gracious. Grace doesn't mean tolerance; grace involves holding firm to a set of beliefs and then extending a pass (of a sort) to those who realize that they've violated those beliefs. We can't earn it; we can't buy it. I am as sinful as the next person, and there's nothing I can do to earn grace, but because I know that I am sinful, I can accept God's gift. He's given me an escape route, even though I don't deserve it.
-The other problem with this argument is that those who use it forget to mention that there are also consequences for our actions. Grace doesn't mean that all is fine. God forgives me for my sins, however, I do have to accept the consequences for my actions. For example, a parent might forgive a child for lying, but that child must now rebuild his parent's trust. He might also be punished for a time for lying. That doesn't negate the forgiveness, it just means that there are consequences.
3. A truly just God would not willingly condemn people to hell.
-Again, people who believe this statement do not understand the nature of God. Yes, God is just. He is fair. And ultimately, He wants what is best for us. But in His infinite justice, He has given us free will. We can choose whether or not we will accept His Son as our Saviour. Only a just God would give us a choice; an unjust God would mandate belief.
-A just God honors our decisions, even when they hurt Him. Our choice is salvation through Jesus Christ or some other alternative. If we choose salvation, then we will one day fellowship with God in heaven. If we choose the alternative, then we choose to be separated from Him. Why is that not just? He's honored our decision, even though it upsets Him. It's like in the classroom; if a student has a vocabulary quiz, he can choose to study or not to. If he studies, he will earn a good grade. This, of course, makes me happy. However, if he doesn't study, he will fail. Though that disappoints me, as an educator, I have to "honor" that decision by awarding the student the failing grade. Does that make me unjust?
Being a believer and follower of Christ does not mean that I'm intolerant; I respect those who firmly hold to their faith. However, I want others to share in my belief because I know, without a doubt, that there's only one way to salvation. I've received this wonderful, amazing gift that is offered to everyone, so why would I not want to share it? If I believe so passionately in this Truth, then doesn't it make sense that I would reject any other paths? Doesn't it make sense that I would want others to experience it, too?
Besides, if faith in Christ is wrong, what have I to lose? Nothing. But what about those who don't believe in Christ? What if they're wrong? What have they to lose? Everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
