The Christian Movie Atheist.

So, at risk of talking about something no one else is going to know about, let me bring up God’s Not Dead.

It made a big splash in the Christian movie industry. The movie is about a college student, among other characters, who refuses to write the words God Is Dead, for a college exercise.

I’m not reviewing the movie here. I just want to talk about how it portrayed atheists.

I’ve seen both Christians and atheists review the film and complain that the atheist was unrealistic. That there aren’t that many people out there who are out to get Christians. They don’t have an agenda against people of faith.

Is that true?

Well, these same sources have heard people say that it really happens, but they refuse to believe it.

Here’s my position on using such atheist stereotypes, if such a thing exists, in movies; It might work for one film, maybe even for God’s Not Dead. But it does not work for every christian film and it does give some films a false sense of importance. Christianity should be more important from a personal standpoint then from the persecution standpoint. Christians get persecuted; so do Jews; so do Muslims I imagine; that’s not what makes a faith important, relevant, or true.

But, nor would I say those stereotypes are never true. There is a reason they exist. Christians have their faults, but they rarely make things like that up. It’s based on things that have happened, and do happen still.

I personally knew a girl who went to a non-christian highschool, and her teacher of biology told the students up front not to talk about any religious opinion that differed from his own, that being evolution.

That’s what he said, and I doubt this girl would have exaggerated that, she didn’t seem the type to me.

For further evidence, I have heard other people tell stories of how their teachers would mock them and try to discredit their faith. It’s never happen to me, naturally because I’ve never had a nonchristian teacher.


Very few atheists I know would get offended if you mentioned your faith to them just in passing. But when it comes to making a point, atheists and christians are equally likely to get riled up.

And Atheists are capable of having an agenda against people of faith. (It was called the 3rd Reich.) There’s a new book out called Faith vs Fact which is described as using the “clear-eyed, rational methodology of a world class scientist [to dismantle] every claim to explaining the physical world that religion proposes” and my favorite part “irrefutably demonstrates the grave harm that mistaking faith for fact can inflict on individuals and on our planet.” (Bargain Books catalog.)

Assuming this accurately depicts how the author of this book feels, it really is almost as cartoony as a movie version of it would be.

I don’t mean to come down on this author. I don’t doubt they probably have some real reasons to be concerned. Faith is a powerful thing, and when it is misdirected, or founded on shaky premises, it is dangerous. Maybe even to the planet.

Bu-u-ut, that doesn’t mean the way they put this wasn’t insulting to any religious person’s intelligence. It also doesn’t mean that religion based explanations for how the world works are all unfounded. Plenty of them have a good scientific basis.

The flood of Noah for example. There’s hundreds of evidences for it in the earth. And if the Flood happened, it gives the Bible a bit more credence.

The bible also lines up with science on issues like the earth being round, light being a moving thing, and life being in blood. All stuff we know now, but at one time people didn’t understand.

So it might be fair to wonder if the Bible, or any other religious texts, could be right again. Maybe whoever wrote it knew what they were talking about.

Why are religious texts immediately discredited as reliable sources of information? I don’t assume that just because someone is an atheist they have no grasp of accurate science, if their bias doesn’t prevent them from being right, why should a religious bias?

In fact if it comes to that, bias really has nothing to do with whether your’re right or wrong, fact will stand for itself. Bias only effects what facts you’ll admit.

I don’t know what religion the person who wrote the above book is concerned about.But probably Christianity. It’s rarely any other religion. (Do you see a lot of books trying to discredit Buddhism?)

If so, then I wonder why they think having a faith based view of the physical world is somehow dangerous to it?

I wonder what people are so afraid of that they won’t let creationism be talked of in classrooms?

Basically I find both the view that Anti-Theists don’t exist, and the view that all atheists are anti-theists to be extreme. One is naive, the other is paranoid.

Many many people hate the bible, many hate God and hate Christians.

Many are indifferent.

But a Christian can never be sure they are safe from that sort of hatred. And we shouldn’t be. It’s always been so.

But I don’t want to seem like I’m making atheists the bad guys here. I will admit Christian can be bullies, they can use their religion like a weapon, and they can be just as adamant about going after people who don’t believe as they do.

It’s a sad fact of human nature that we cannot believe anything strongly without being tempted to hate those who dsiagree.

But, I don’t go so far as to say we should all be less passionate. Passion is a good thing. And I also don’t think  Christians should never speak up for their faith. Sometimes, as Wonder Woman would say, it’s not about what other people do or say (deserve) but about what you yourself believe. A person has to stand up for their convictions or they will never know if they are real.

I won’t be glib and say we all just need to try to understand each other better. WE actually can’t. We’re too different.

But we do need to treat each other like human beings. I think both sides should keep that in mind when we’re debunking the opposition. That’s all I’m saying,

until next time–Natasha.


The Matrix

I’ll describe the way this movie makes you feel in one word.


Seriously, what the heck was that?

I guess this was a hit in the nineties or whenever it came out, but it is so dated.

My idea is that the screenwriter wanted to make a martial arts action thriller, and got stuck with a sci-fi movie instead. The action is quite good, especially for a movie of that decade. It had breakthrough shooting techniques I’ve been told.

But guys, the plot is crud.

I find it hard to discuss this movie rationally because it makes my brain feel dizzy trying to figure it out. If you get it, then good for you, but it does not compute for me.

Which is funny, since everyone in this movie acts like a computer.

I have to hand it to the director, he succeeds it making you feel just how unreal it would be to live in a world of machines run by robots. That’s the experience this movie puts you through for 2 hr+.

You find yourself unable to differentiate the Matrix from the “Real World” as you watch the movie. It’s like it was intentionally made to be confusing.

How can Neo still have superpowers in the second movie when he’s not in the matrix? HOW did he stop those squid things? Why did he go into a coma?

If the Oracle is the enemy why do her prophecies still come true? If she doesn’t control Neo, how can he be subject to the Matrix? IF he is subject to it, how can he fight it? Ahhh!

I’ve only seen the first two movies, and the second one made me so dizzy I don’t know if I can handle another one. The more my sister and I tried to understand it the more our heads spun.

the first one, which is slightly better and easier to follow, and actually made me feel something for a split second there when Trinity kissed Neo. Yay! True love!

In the sequel I couldn’t care less about their relationship because it’s just physical, none of the emotion comes in, even when it’s supposed to. Neo reaching into her heart to restart it…what?

And they kill her in the third one, so what was the point of it all?

If you live in another country and never heard of this or saw it, you didn’t miss anything.

The second movie only improved on the first in its action. I enjoyed some of the scenes where Neo beat the crud out of the other dudes. Though Mr. Smith’s constant appearance got irritating. Die already you freak computer program!

It’s like when you have a glitch in your computer that always trips it up when you don’t want it to.

The meaning (and I use the term loosely) of the Matrix is basically humanism. Cosmic humanism I think. The idea that men have to be independent and can’t rely on something like an oracle or a constructor to fix things.

That man has to break free from the  powers that be and do his own thing to survive.

Even if the world hardly seems worth surviving in when you see it for what it is.

And there’s no afterlife to make it worth doing what’s right.

Now, it’s the second movie that killed the series. The first one didn’t go that far. It actually had valuable moments about faith in it.

And let’s be real, the people who liked the Matrix when it came out liked it because of Morpheus and his undying faith. And Morpheus has quite a lot of profound advice about faith that makes sense to me. I think it’s valuable even outside of a religious context. Stand by your morals, and try to make things better. Who doesn’t like that message?

The first movie did that okay, it was weird, but I didn’t feel like puking when it was over. Now, the second undid all the good things about the first one. Oh, Neo’s a Bruce Lee of computer programs now? Yay! I’m so inspired by someone who can imagine their reality into being reality….what?

I thought they sequel blew its one chance to improve upon the first by making Zion ugly and depressing as heck.

If you want us to feel humanity is worth saving, show us some beauty in humanity. Show us art. Show us family. Any touching moment at all. Please.

But hey Morpheus is in a  love triangle and he gets the girl by the end, so there’s that.

Because obviously we all wanted that.

If this was a modern series, I would be begging for it to go under. As it is I’m amazed anyone watched the second one. I could see them watching the third in the hopes that they would finally find a way to understand this weirdness.

But one interesting thing I can observe for you folks who saw it but don’t watch current teen movies is that ever single dystopian series has been stealing from the Matrix 1 and 2.

The Hunger Games ripped it off, and the Divergent series blatantly did it. I watched the first and third of that series, and while it’s more enjoyable and less confusing then the Matrix, it’s pretty much the same plot. Right down to the main character waking up in a chair after being plugged into a drug induced computer hallucination….yes, they did that.

The real lesson boys and girls is don’t use computers, and don’t do drugs. Because you’ll become part of the system…well, I guess that’s kind of true in some ways…

But trying to pull any real life lesson from the Matrix is impossible because nothing makes enough sense to justify the few things in it that are profound.

Morpheus, the best character, is shown to have been wrong abut everything! And he was the inspiration for all of us… to keep watching. For crying out loud, movie!

Anyway, that’s all I have to say about that. If you’re a millennial who’s curious about why the Matrix keeps getting referenced in new shows and movies, then you guess is as good as mine, but please don’t waste your time by checking it out for yourself.

The movies make more sense if someone explains it to you then it ever will watching it yourself.

Until next time–Natasha.


Let’s take a break from my heavier topics to talk about something we all love:Titanic

Just kidding.

I know not everyone, including myself, loves this movie. But I do think it’s worth discussing even if you hate it’s guts, or if you’re one of those with an undying love for the franchise.

We have to consider why this movie was and is such a hit. Because it tells us a lot about people and what they like, and what they secretly dream about.

I really don’t think the actors or the score are what make or break a movie like titanic. That is, I don’ think good actors guarantee a hit, or a good score. But I do think they sell the plot.

It sounds weird to say you love a movie that it as least one third tragedy, and almost as frustrating as Romeo and Juliet in terms of how differently it could have gone if something had just turned in the couple’s favor.

But, even though when I saw Titanic it was on TV, with commercial breaks, and I was not completely swept up by the romance, I recognized something about the film was entrapping.

I escaped the craze by a few years or many more, so I didn’t have that bias stacked against me when I watched. By the time I saw it there were plenty of haters, but I’d talked to some girls around my age who liked it anyway. But didn’t rave over it.

Titanic was basically the Frozen of adult movies, from what I can gather from those who witnessed the craziness. The difference being adults didn’t have to be as embarrassed about liking it. (Until people turned against it.)

And I’m not going to say it was right or wrong to love Titanic. I will reiterate that I don’t love it personally, but that’s taste on my part. I could easily see how it would hook folks. I do enjoy it in some ways, and I do, still, like the song. (Sue me.) I think it was a well made film.

But the part I found impossible to get out of my head for days was the sinking. It wasn’t actually Rose and Jack’s part in it that moved me (though that’s sad in of itself,) it was the actual tragedy they showed. Stuff that probably really happened. I think the Musicians playing is a recorded fact. So is the line that :God himself couldn’t sink that ship” Someone did say that.

Titanic may be a good romance, depending on your taste, but it’s lasting impression is because it depicts the folly of arrogance and pride. And how they lead people to destroy themselves by being incautious. Titanic, the queen of the fleet, as it were, was brought down by an iceberg just like any common ship could be.

Never reckon without the force of Nature folks. It is God’s territory, and whether God sank the Titanic  personally or not it doesn’t matter. What really sank it was the idiocy of the people aboard. Speeding when they should have slowed. Leaving half the life boats at home when they could have saved hundreds more people. Not letting the poor leave the ship, locking them in steerage.

And the movie makes us feel this, which is important, because you often can’t get that feeling just from reading an emotionless account of the story. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Titanic may not be a great loss of life compared to a War. But it springs from the same source. Neglect, arrogance, leaders misleading people.

Which in the movie is personified by Rose’s ex. Who is a bully and almost a murderer. And a coward.

It’s sad to me when the Captain goes down with the ship in utter despair and shame for what he let happen. And heart rending when the minister is reciting Psalms 23 and desperate people are listening as they wait for death.

By contrast, the fact that Rose and Jack don’t freeze to death after twenty minute in the lower levels of the ship makes me feel less sympathy for them. Because it’s unreal.

But I get it, not everyone cares.

The real point isn’t how real or unreal it is, but what we carry away from it. Thought the romance is nice, I think it’s a mistake to act like that was the only thing in the movie that made people cry. And I doubt it was what made them remember it either.

The romance is the euphoria of it. It’s the reason you watch it again. Because at the end Rose almost seems to beat the tragedy. In her dream (or her death) being reunited with Jack. Literally living the dream we have, that all bad things can be avoided, or turned into something beautiful.

The wish we all have that we could change history, whether or own or the world’s to make it devoid of tragedy.

That’s whey movies like Titanic and the Notebook are popular. It’s not just women’s wish fulfillment, (though men will pretend that it is,) it’s humanity’s wish. Our longing.

And whether you say it’s stupid or not, you’ve felt it at one point. Claim you’re older, wiser, (in reality more cynical,) but you felt it once.

There are those who think Titanic was hit because of its theme of true love conquering all. A christian them, Christians will claim.

It could be. I certainly think Frozen was a hit for that reason.

But, the Bible says the World sees and soon forgets the truth of God. If Christian truth is what makes a movie a smash it at first, it’s not what endures of it for most people.

I don’t call the fanatic obsession with either Titanic or Frozen a godly thing. I don’t think it has anything to do with God, after a certain point, though it might have started that way.

The fact is, people make idols of these stories. They chase the dream that the movie showed them a glimpse of, thinking it came from the movie itself, instead of just being portrayed by it.

Which is why in the end the world or culture turns against the art it once loved, because the art proved empty.

Of course it did, it was never the paint itself that made a portrait good but what the paint made you think of. Which could be done by a charcoal sketch just as effectively.

I am not discrediting the beauty of fine art, I love it. But it’s fine because of the ideals the people painted it with.  It’s the invisible attributes of things that make you love them. Not the visible. IT never lasts forever.

And those are my thoughts on Titanic.


What we believe-3

So what  we believe is that Sin is bad, God is good, Jesus is unique, and righteousness starts on the inside.

I might as well call this part Hard things the Bible teaches.

Let me go back now to the person claiming the Bible is too old to shape how we do things.

This person wasn’t a Christian, or even an orthodox Jew from what I could tell, but they aren’t alone. Christians have said that too.

Most specifically about how we discipline children, and view sexual immorality. Both between same sex and opposite sex couples.

They claim that the Bible’s advice to spank children is outdated and part of the mindset back then. They claim this, even though that advice comes directly from Solomon, who was the second wisest man to ever live, according to God Himself. And whose proverbs prove true in every other circumstance. No one argues that laziness leads to poverty, a nagging wife is worse than no wife, and fools can’t be cured by stripes or sound reason.

But we chafe at the idea of hitting Children.

Okay, I’m not a monster, I know it sounds sick. And if I wanted people to agree with me, I could pick almost any other point of contention to discuss and get more open minded responses.

But in true Jesus fashion, I’m going for the most problematic thing.

The reason is, if we discredit God’s view, then we are saying God can be outdated.

The complete arrogance of us, if we claim that God is real, to say that we could be more progressive than Him, is beyond belief.

But people will support gay marriage and ignore what the Bible clearly teaches on it in favor of what the world says, and they will ignore what the Bible says about children.

Now to be clear, the Bible does not say Children are wicked. Jesus encourages us to become like children, but be adults in understanding. And that is why discipline is encouraged. Because Children do not start out wicked. But if neglected, all human nature tends towards it’s worst parts, because we can’t help it. We are born into sin.

I’m going to be fair and admit that thousands of people have been physically disciplined by parents, and it made them worse off, and bitter, and left a scar.

But the only time I was ever mad at my parents truly for spanking me was when it was for something I didn’t do. Injustice is what stings.

Which is why many people do find spanking traumatizing I believe, it’s not the spanking itself. If pain itself equaled trauma we would all hate our siblings who slapped us, or even our friends or our pets.

But when trust has been broken between parent and child, physical discipline, or any discipline at all is fanning the flames.

The issue is trust.

The Bible says that God disciplines those He loves, using suffering often far worse than a spanking, to teach them not to sin, or to teach them patience. It’s not fun.

And people hate it, possibly more now than they ever have. Life is too easy for some of us, and too hard for others. Both types of people will find discipline form God a disheartening idea, and will likely resent it from their parents.

But, and please hear this with an open mind, that doesn’t mean it’s bad.

We need to adjust our idea of bad. To the modern mind, if it is painful; if it produces tears; if it’s upsetting; then it is bad.

But that’s a fairly new, and not an enlightened idea at all.

Because how many more people need therapy now because they think all painful things that happen to them warrant trauma. Things have come to a pretty pass when electing the wrong president is enough to throw people into an emotional tailspin.

Furthermore, spanking is one thing, but people who have a problem with corporal punishment, often (not always) were actually beaten or other wise abused. Spanking leaves no real damage. And a good rule of thumb is, if it damages, it’s too far.

But I’m no expert. To me that is what makes sense.

I’m not saying that every parents needs to spank. Some children can be ruled by other means. But some can’t.

The Bible expects parents to use their heads when it comes to that sort of thing. Jesus once said “if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children; how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to you.”

The point is, would God tell us to do it if it wasn’t good?

And that leads to other complaints people have about the old testament. Like why would God command entire nations to be wiped out.

And Christians would never argue that that’s okay now (I hope.)

Any why would God condemn homosexuality? (Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s in there.)

There are two options, maybe three.

Some say God has changed over time. That is, they say that things were different back then, and harsher, and it was a different world. It was, but it’s not because God changes. It’s because we change.

Others say it shows that Christianity is uncivilized in its origins, and that’ is why it can’t be taken seriously now. But they are going by a definition of civil that was ironically created by the spread of Christianity. (until the idea of brotherly love got about, the idea of killing people over religion wasn’t ever considered ridiculous, it’s why Jesus was crucified to begin with.)

The third option, aside from choosing to say some parts of the Bible aren’t real, and not many will go there (I hope;) is that God does not change, but He can change the rules.

C. S. Lewis explained it best in “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” Certain laws have been in place since before time itself. Time itself is a law that was in place before the law of Moses was given.

And those laws supersede the laws that were given to tide us over till Christ came.

The Law itself is universal, when it comes to how we should treat each other and how we should treat God. But the part about dealing with Sin was never meant to be the way things were forever. And we know that because in the prophets, God speaks often of a time when sin will be gone forever, and forgiven forever, and we will never be separated form Him again. No more sacrifices, no more death, no more suffering.

He also says He takes no delight in animal sacrifices in of themselves. Only preferring them to destroying people. (Wouldn’t’ you?)

This may sound like a broken record, but remember, we are the guilty party here. We are the ones who deserve death. God could justly destroy the whole world, and he almost did once. But he promised never to do it again and He won’t destroy this earth till the end of time.

The only reason we see things differently now is because we’ve had Jesus’ work in place for 2000 years. And the world’s viewpoints have altered. But in the time Jesus was here, they still view all sin as worthy of death.

The point is, though God allows us to question His decisions, it is because of His mercy. Because we don’t have the capacity to understand Him.

But lest this sounds like a cop out when my whole point was to lay out what we believe, let me say that this is what we believe. That no man can understand God unless God enables Him to.

If you understood anything of what I’ve been saying, it’s the grace of God. Because let me tell you, I didn’t use to get it. Often I still don’t.

I have days when it all seems clear to me. But most days, I have the merry go round of opinions spinning through my head. I think about what the world says about God and I wonder what basis I really have for disagreeing.

And the thing is, my doubts prove nothing. Nothing except that men are easily swayed by each other’s opinions. Which is true whatever you believe.

But the fact that sometimes I can see how the pieces fit together, that gives some pause. Because it’s hard to be sure of anything in this chaotic culture of ours.

But I am sure.

And I will continue to be sure, whether or not people think it’s crazy, outdated, or even morally wrong to believe what the Bible teaches.

If a little fall of rain can drown you faith, it didn’t have deep roots to begin with.

Until next time–Natasha.

What we believe-2

Item 1 was talking about how Christianity does not teach that sin is the intended result of free will, or that it is necessary to sin first before choosing good.

“Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” Romans 6:1-2

Most have heard the Christmas story. Jesus was born of a virgin, in a stable, and angels announced it.

It sounds like any other religion with its prophets and visions.

The reason I find The Gospels different is because they are so unpretentious. I’ve read some other gospels, and religious texts, and they are always told in a sort of sanctimonious tone. Making everything sound very holy and above our understanding.

That may seem fitting, certainly the church has done the same thing. But the Gospels themselves don’t do it. When they tell the story they state in it simple language, very matter of factly. Only getting excited when talking about glorifying God.

The whole Bible is full of stories like that. Miraculous stuff happens, and is told like it was the time of day.

Some call the Bible boring because of this. But I want to point out that it’s also very humble.

Which is astounding, since it is said to come directly from God himself.

That doesn’t prove it was true. I know that. But it’s different.

The humility of the Bible is important when considering how vital it is, if it is true.

But I digress.

According to the Bible, Jesus was God, and Jesus was man. There’s debate over what that means. But the best explanation I can give is that God, who made man in the first place. obviously could make his son into a man. HE doesn’t need help. The reason He used Mary was so that Jesus could be born into temptation, but not into sin itself. Which is handed down from the father, according to the word. Though also from the mother.

But God is sinless, so Jesus was able to choose that because He was God’s son.

It sounds crazy, but every religion sounds crazy if you look at it though what is possible to man. (That includes secular ones by the way.) If what you believe doesn’t sound nuts to someone, you don’t really have faith.

And there are those skeptics who will pick apart anything that’s a little outside their comfort zone. I trust that’s not any of you, but I’m sure you’ve met them.

So I don’t think we can discount the biblical story just because it sounds crazy. Even for human beings crazy does not equal impossible. (Did you know people have jumped down Niagara falls with no protection at all, and made it. Maybe it was just one person, but still.)

I think we should ask what makes the story of Jesus different from other faith figures.

I think there are others who were known as  humble. But none quite so shockingly unique. I’ve been reading a book called “Beautiful Outlaw” about how Jesus is a collection of contradictions.

And I’m not one who is swayed bye very book I read about God, I discount plenty if it seems wonky. But this book has a very strong biblical foundation that anyone can appreciate.

I know that fact that Jesus seems to contradict himself can make it hard to buy.

However, when Jesus seems to do something, there is always a reason for it.

I want to address something else I heard on the internet now, the idea that we should not use the bible to shape our views of parenting, or of anything I imagine, because it is old and written from a mindset of thousands of years ago.

I’ll get more into that later, but for now I want to address the Christian belief that the Bible is the very Word of God. I don’t know if the Jews beleive that, or if they believe it about every book in the Old Testament. But Christians believe it about the whole thing.

And if that is so, then there’s no way God’s ideas can be outdated. Think about it.

But also, if that is true, what do we do with the fact that Christians do not follow Old testaments Law? IF it was the word of God, aren’t we hypocrites.

And Jesus said He did not come to remove he law but to establish it.

Jesus also allowed his disciples to break the law by plucking grain on the Sabbath so that they could eat. He also healed on the Sabbath. (Which is not forbidden by the way, but at the time it was condemned by the pharisees.) Sow hat gives? And why do Christian now balk at the passages that strongly condemn sinners to death or other horrendous punishments.

Well, the interesting thing is that until Jesus came, there weren’t a whole lot of peaceful gods in any religion. I’m not sure there were any. All the old mythology I know about had blood thirsty, or temperamental gods. And God has been accused of being the same. Though the prophets tell us that He takes no delight int he death of the wicked.

Jesus changed the fad.

The reason Christians believe that we can have more mercy now, and that we don’t have to eat certain foods and not eat others, and do all these rituals to purify ourselves is because Jesus did it all for us.

Christianity differ from Judaism int hat it start the work from the inside out, instead of the outside in. If you change inside, then outside you will soon follow. But outside first never changed anyone.

Jesus fulfilled the law not in that he enforced every single command, but that he brought us the real why behind them. He showed us that The sacrifices and eating and not eating were all things meant to tide us over, to teach us what holiness is through outward examples, but that it was never meant to actually take us there on it’s own.

God says this in Isiah when he mentions how the people honor him with their lips, and go through the motions of his commands “but their hearts are far from me.”

It is not hypocrisy for Christians to no longer practice some parts of the law, but actually part of what the whole faith is about. Being righteous inside first, not outside.

I can get a little more into that later that’s all for now–Natasha.

What we believe-1

I’m starting right in with a new mini series of posts. This time around, my topic is the semantics of Christianity.

The reason I wanted to do this is not purely to convert anyone, it’s actually because I keep seeing people on the internet describe what Christianity, only they don’t describe it. They think I believe something totally different.

This is getting on my nerves, so in order to feel better,  I’m gong to explain what I believe and why.

(A quick warning, Christians don’t agree on everything, I’ll try to stick to the basics, but there’s always going to be some debate between sects. Most of it is over minor stuff so I hope no one will start an argument in the comment section over it. Thanks.)

Okay, topic number one: What is Christianity?

Better yet, why does it claim to be different from every other religion?

The skeptic will always doubt that there really is any difference, and might not care what the difference is because it still involves God.

But as far as theists are concerned the difference is important.

All religions, (even the godless ones) try to answer life’s fundamental questions about our identity, purpose, and who is in charge over everything. Christianity is no different here. But Christianity goes a step further. It not only answers all this, but it answers the question of why these things are the way they are.

We are made in God’s image. The reason is, God wanted to make independent beings who could love Him of their own free will. (That’s the semantics part.) Because, love is a choice.

Now the mistaken internet person I was watching yesterday made an error after this point. I won’t tell you who it was, though I doubt any of you watch her. (It would be uncanny if you all knew the same people as me.)

What she said was that we can’t attain heaven, until we’ve been given free will. Being born into it makes it boring. And that Christianity shows this by having man first choose to leave paradise, and then to regain it by sacrificing his life, thereby earning it.

I could see how, if you view Christianity as just another myth, you might think that Adam and Christ are both meant to represent mankind. Therefore making the whole thing a metaphor for how we have to earn our stripes, as it were.

But the real thing we believe is that we earned the stripes, and Christ took the beating for us.

It is true that Adam and Christ both represent Man. As do all of use individually at some point in our lives. We all constantly reenact Adam’s choice to sin, and hopefully we reenact Christ’s choice to put ourselves aside, sometimes.

But the Bible never claims that this is a metaphor. It’s quite literal. Christ was able to pay the price for Adam’s sin, and all Adam’s children (us and also himself) because he never sinned. Because he was also God in the flesh. (More on that later.)

The idea that man needed free will in order to sin so that heaven could be a choice is flat out ludicrous.

It seems to make sense in this world, where the idea of never sinning seems impossible.

But that’s because we’v lived here all our lives and never seen an example of anyone who doesn’t sin, except for a young baby.

But that’s what Adam was, compared to us. A baby in terms of sin. As indeed, Christian are admonished to be by the Bible. (1 Corinthians 14:20)

It doesn’t mean however, that sin will make you grow up. We all know immature people who do things that are wrong and won’t listen to reason, they aren’t more grown up than us. They are less.

The reason sin is associated with adulthood is because the older we get, the more of it we know about. Which is a tragedy, not an asset. I wish there was no sin to know about, but because there is, I have no choice but to deal with that fact.

But how is it good for me? The idea that sin is good for man, in that in enables him to choose heaven, is against everything the Bible teaches.

Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant to the topic, since I am merely laying out what the Bible actually says. (Not saying as of now that you have to accept it.)

This is just what’s actually in there. Sin brought death (see Romans.) Man brought sin into the world. Sin leads to death, which leads to hell, unless it is redeemed through Christ.

Hell is not good. Also, God cannot live with what is not good. So, if sin was the key to getting into heaven, how would that work?

I think the real idea this YouTuber had was that sin enables you to truly become good. But that’s also not true.

Goodness is linked to purity. The Bible says God desires a pure heart. Pure means not mixed. A heart that’s mixed with sin is not pure.

And pure goodness is preferable to partial goodness.

Romans also says no one in righteous, no not one.

So, it doesn’t matter if we choose good in the end. We aren’t righteous because we choose to do good, since we’ve all chosen evil before.

Jesus himself taught that if you break one of the commandments, you break all of them.

What this means is, only one sin is enough. Sins aren’t cancelled out by good deeds. Not in Christianity anyway. It is because to sin is to cast yourself infinitely away from God.

The idea is to be without any sin, ever, that was how man was created.

If we were all good, we wouldn’t be bored. It’s only because we sin that it becomes pleasurable to us. I think we all know this deep down, if we look back to when we were kids and still felt guilty over thing we take for granted now.

That’s all for this post, till next time–Natasha.