no absolutes

imagine a world with no physical laws. there is no law of gravity. there is no law of death and decay. there is no magnetic attraction or repulsion. there is no friction, plants don't consume carbon dioxide and expel oxygen, bees don't pollinate flowers, and trees don't blossom in the spring. nothing is constant, nature is fickle and things that go up may or may not come down.

there is no fire; there is only cold. or not. i don't know.

will this circuit carry a current? who knows? will friction keep me from sliding all over the world or not? if i open my eyes this morning will the sun even be there today? if i open my mouth will the air carry the sound of my voice or will it complain how i hurt its feelings?

when do we plant? how do we walk? what do we eat and how? how do we start a fire? how do we breathe? does any physical action have meaning? can i predict anything at all that will happen in the next moment?

imagine a language without rules. imagine every person speaks differently than every other person. how do we share? how do we love? how do we express anger and offer forgiveness? how do any two people connect? imagine an entire world of isolation and chaos.

in the mid 19th century charles darwin published on the origin of the species. it was his attempt to explain the origins of the biological world in purely material terms. that is to say, it was an attempt to explain our origins apart from a creator.

as a scientific theory it was complete nonsense. it was literally pure conjecture. darwin made a few observations about animals on the galapagos islands then did a thought experiment. now while einstein's thought experiments proved true, and were based on mathematical and physical principles, darwin's thought experiments were based on fantasy mutant creatures: giraffes born with multiple varying lengths of neck and other rampant ridiculous macguffins. however...none of that mattered to the atheists in academia. finally they had something that appeared remotely pseudo-scientific they could use to eliminate God from every aspect of university life. it was their supreme unholy grail, and eliminate Him they did.

years later, when these same professors realized that God was no longer relevant, they also realized that His commands were no longer relevant. Enter moral relativism. murder isn't murder anymore. Neither is adultery or theft--nothing is wrong. the moral quality of an action doesn't depend on any supernatural absolute, but on the feelings or whims of the person committing the action, the circumstances of the action, and anything else that said person may deem relevant: diet, hobbies, disability, literally anything.

what holds a society together? the laws that govern how we relate to each other. things like kindness, forgiveness, justice, patience are all necessary. without rules they do not exist. without them society degenerates into chaos and isolation. the academic titans have torn down the foundations of our society without giving us anything to replace them save their impermanent sand blocks of hurt feelings and personal opinions.

there is no grace without justice, and there is no justice without right and wrong. There is no love when there is no law governing what love is and what it isn't, who to love, and who to punish. there is adultery, anger, revenge, and hate and every form of sexual perversion but there is no love.

this is the society we live in today. whether its gender confusion or racism or abortion  or socialism, we must have absolutes to counter these with love, patience, kindness, grace, and forgiveness. murder is wrong in any form. adultery and homosexuality are wrong. theft of any kind is wrong. as christians, we do no one any service by being "tolerant" of what God calls sin. all we do is further the collapse of the world God has given us.

we are the light of the world. if we don't know what is right and what is wrong, no one else does. if we are not the light of the world, there is no light in the world.

Polyester

I started reading a book called "Polyester Christians". It begins with a lot of detail about what it means to be a cotton Christian (i.e., a Christian who uses natural, or authentic fibers). True to form, the detail focuses on what should be done. Examples include consistent prayer (good), consistent miracles (wut?), visiting the sick (also good), listing the twelve apostles or the ten commandments (good yeah, but I believe in ideas more than specifics) and a bunch of other superficial things.
I used to attend his church and these are the same things he's been talking about for the past thirty years. That would be fine if he had begun with any sort if depth to his theology, but honestly, no one starts out with any depth. That's what it means to be "green".
Doing good things is fine, but we are not called to do good things. Evil people do good things. Atheists give to the poor. Pagans feed the homeless. Wiccans care for their elders. Are we Christians because we do these while we recite Scripture? Do we do these things better than the godless? What makes us different? What makes us "Christians"? How do we even become Christians in the first place?
This last question may give us some good insight. We become Christians through our trust. We trust in God and He changes is into the image of His Son, and we share His love with the world. But everything begins with trust.
The evidence of our trust is not what we do but who we are. It is our character.

The Line in the Sand

“Jesus was the only one who raised the dead,” the Misfit continued, “and he shouldn’t have done it. He thrown everything off balance. If He did what He said, then it’s nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow him, and if He didn’t, then it’s nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left eh best way you can—by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him. No pleasure but meanness.”
From “A Good Man is Hard to Find”
Flannery O’Connor

In one crude yet surprisingly rational monologue the Misfit describes the dilemma we post-Christ humans have to face: do we follow Him or not? If Jesus spoke the truth, then we should all follow Him. If He didn’t, then He’s a liar, and worse than any demon, and nothing matters on earth than to do exactly what we want, no matter how destructive or immoral or sociopathic.

Flannery O’ Connor’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find” is a story about a family, who through pure happenstance, come across a murderous escaped convict. The grandmother manages to identify him out loud, provoking him to murder them in order to insure his escape. His fellow convicts murder the rest of the family while he has a discussion with the grandmother and she pleads for her life. It is in this conversation that the convict lays out his very logical rationale for what he is doing.

He says Jesus was the moral turning point of all mankind, in all of history. Jesus drew a line in the sand and said in essence, “I stand with the Almighty, and He stands with me. Join me or perish.” Not only did he say that, but by his actions he proved his words to be true. He rose people from the dead. If it were not for this, we could dismiss Jesus as some lunatic, or the worst kind of liar, but this action, the resurrection of Lazarus, lent the most irrefutable credence to his words. The Misfit lays out the choices we now have: either Jesus was telling the truth, and we should all toss everything aside and follow him, or he was lying, and nothing else matters in this life except to do what makes us happy.

If Jesus was telling the truth, then everything he said about God and about justice and heaven was true, and the only rational, logical choice is to follow him and trust in everything he said. If he was lying, then he is the worst kind of liar, claiming God to be on his side and demonstrating the power of some otherworldly omnipotent monster to back up his claims and seduce us to the worst kind of hell. If Jesus was lying, where did he get this power from? Who was really behind the miracles he performed? If not God, then who?

If Jesus was a liar, then everything he said about truth, and love, and justice have no meaning. If Jesus was a liar, the only meaning this life can give us is pleasure, however we can find it. If he was a liar, then every action he did to help people, his compassion, kindness, and power all have some darker and cosmically ominous significance.

What kind of person would come to the conclusion that Jesus was a liar? A person like the Misfit, yet the Misfit was a monster. His conclusion that Jesus was a liar led him to a life of “meanness”, for it was the only pleasure he found in life, and murder was the only purpose with any meaning for him.

Jesus laid all of existence bare when he raised Lazarus from the dead. There would no longer be a middle ground between God and men. We can either follow Him or call Him a demon. Any kind of compromise between the two is complete nonsense.

God may not love everyone in the world

Jacob I loved but Esau I hated

Romans 9.13 

A common interpretation of this verse goes like this:

Jacob I chose and Esau I rejected. 

This interpretation seems reasonable except for the very powerful language it uses. Also keep in mind what the Apostle Paul goes on to say about this passage, and the other story he uses to illustrate the verse.
Pharoah, Paul says, was specifically chosen to demonstrate God's power. Pharoah's heart was hardened so that God would show His wrath on the unbeliever and the world would know who He was. Does this sound like God loved Pharoah equally to the Israelites? Does this sound like the mere difference between "chosen" and "rejected"?

He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

Maybe God did hate Esau.

For God so loved the world... 

But does God love everyone in the world?
He didn't love Esau. If there is one exception to any universal rule, the rule is not universal.
Let's assume God did love everyone in the world. We also know that men are powerless in their sins and cannot choose to believe in God. If anyone will be saved, it will be God who saves them and it will be God who chooses whom to save. If God loves everyone, why doesn't He save everyone? Why didn't He save Pharoah? Why did He harden Pharoah's heart and make him an "object of wrath, prepared for destruction" (Romans 9.22)? Does anyone else see a contradiction between simultaneously declaring love for someone and then determining their destruction?
Let's put that aside and examine our present state in the form of a simple statement:

God loves all men equally.

Or another way:

God loves me as much as He loved Adolf Hitler.

Maybe to you it's OK that God loves the atheists and the pagans and the Christian-beheaders and the God-haters as much as He loves you. Maybe to you that's noble and that's what the Apostle John meant when he said, "God is love."

My Father loves every child in the neighborhood as much as He loves me.

Every child that you don't know, every child that barely knows Him, every child that steals your stuff and bullies you at school--your Father loves them every bit as much as He loves you. Are you still OK with this?

My husband loves every woman He meets as much as He loves me.

You should not be OK with this. Yes, God is love, but love only has meaning when it takes place within the bounds of a relationship. Anything less is dysfunction and adultery.
I do not believe that God loves everyone in the world. I believe that God loves the world, and within the world He loves the people that love Him, those that He has chosen and redeemed to be His own.

Identity Things

I attended a lunch at my daughter's new college that was meant to introduce her to all of the ethnic clubs on campus. There was a very unenthusiastic panel there that answered questions from a moderator like, "How did [college] help you learn about your ethnic identity?" and "Tell us about how you're ethnic and not white". Well, basically. It was a strange experience sitting with a white and non-white crowd listening to how awesome it is to not be white. At a Christian college.

I am thankful that we have taught my daughter to be happy with who she is, not as a member of any particular group, but happy with herself. God made her and that is why she is special, not because she is not white, or not a man, but because she is, and she is God's child. None of us is more or less special because of our color or our gender. We are all sinners, as Paul made clear.

Why am I a Christian?

I have no "good" reason to give any atheist or agnostic or any member of any other faith. What I say will make no sense to anyone but others like myself.

I am only a Christian because God has loved me and chosen me. I am a Christian because He decided to love me and save me. I was not convinced by any evangelist nor was I persuaded by any apologetic evidence. I stand here in faith because there is literally nothing else I can do. I have wrestled with God and I have hated Him and cursed Him and I cannot escape Him because He has grasped me and not I Him.

Some of us who have fallen to the bottom of the pit of this hell called sin have realized there is no hope apart from God, and that hope can only be known through His Son Jesus Christ.

TWOGATBWOM: The Nature of the Divine Sovereignty, Jack Cottrell

I do agree with one thing that Cottrell says about Calvinists and divine sovereignty: consistent calvinism cannot adequately and biblically reconcile free will with divine sovereignty. There is no reconciling free will with divine sovereignty. Scripture explicitly teaches God's sovereignty over His creation and man's desires , and only implicitly seems to assume man's free will.

The main justification for a biblical notion of free will is, "God would not command us and hold us accountable to His commands if we were not free to obey them". This makes complete sense. However, what makes sense and what God does do not always mesh. Paul obliterates this notion in Romans 9:

“Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

In reconciling two exclusive ideas, one taught explicitly and one explicitly denied, I hold to God's absolute sovereignty and deny man's free will.