Aristotle believed that every human has a telos. This, we agree on. However, unlike Aristotle, I believe our telos is to serve God. He believed humans' telos was to attain a eudaimon life. According to Aristotle, in order to achieve such a life we must acquire certain virtues. This is basically the foundation in which the Theory of Virtues is founded.
I agree that most humans seek out a life of happiness. This should not be our sole goal though. If we must suffer some negative feelings in order to become worthy of living an eternal life with our Father, then so be it. In fact, we as mere humans can never be worthy of our Lord. It is for this reason that the Father sent His Son to die on the cross. We no longer have to carry our burden of sins alone. Once we genuinely ask God for forgiveness, we are forgiven. It is truly that simple.
Happiness is so temporal. It is impossible for humans to always be happy. Unlike happiness, joy is permanent. From joy stems hope. With hope for better comes a belief that there is something/somewhere better. All this can only be found in our Father.
Why is it that so many people are willing to accept the idea of virtues from a long dead philosopher, but they are unwilling to adhere to the commands of the still living God? Is there anyone alive today who can say they met Aristotle? Are any of his family members still breathing? The answer is that he probably has descendants, but they are very distant from him now. We can accept his ideas and even rules he has set forth about morality based on old writings that have been translated and reprinted many times. Doesn't this sound familiar? The bBible was translated and reprinted many times as well. The Bible explains and sets forth rules concerning morality and many other aspects of human life. For years, philosophers have been formulating and reformulating moral theories, trying to come up with objective truth. Yet, we have a standard for objective truth, God and His Word. It seems like we are blind if we continue to seek out answers to questions that have already been answered. We are just not satisfied with the answer. I do not think we should try changing the answer, but rather we should try accepting the answer. Part of having a personal relationship with God is to try to understand the answers.
How can we follow the rules of a fallible man when we refuse to follow the perfect God?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Women and Equality
Women empowerment has been a continuous theme throughout the world. We fight for equality, to be like men. Are we really equal? Doesn't the fact that we think men have this superior position cause us to be inferior?
From a historical standpoint, I understand the desire for "equality." Women were oppressed and expected to follow laws they had no say in creating. However, I do not think that some of the constraints on women were all bad. The moment women were given more of a sense of equality, they took it to an extreme. Sex became a form of expressing such equality. Women began to dress provocatively and began sleeping around. Instead of caring about family, women began to live the "single" life. They no longer wanted children because they didn't want responsibility. I do not see these changes as a good thing.
Divorce was a lot less common as well. It is true that women were forced to stay in unhealthy relationships, but some women were not. Today, there are marriages that don't even last a year. Divorce is such an easy way out now. Women can ask for a divorce for the dumbest reasons.
Women were closer to God's ideal when they weren't so busy tring to fight for "equality." They were more willing to submit to their husbands as is a woman's duty. They were more open to caring for their homes and their children.
Do not misunderstand me. I am beyond grateful for the achievments of women throughout time. I am thankful that I have say over my own life. However, I think it is important for women to accept that we are not men. We are different from men in many ways. We should be embracing our differences. We should be looking to God and His Word to find our p[urpose and place in the world. The truth is, I believe that much of this gender cross over business has caused much more sin in our society. The whole idea of transexualism and transgenderism derived from people not accepting their God given place in the world. When we are given too much freedom, we take advantage and further sin against God. If we have too many rules, we feel the need to rebel and we sin anyway.
Will we ever be satisfied?
From a historical standpoint, I understand the desire for "equality." Women were oppressed and expected to follow laws they had no say in creating. However, I do not think that some of the constraints on women were all bad. The moment women were given more of a sense of equality, they took it to an extreme. Sex became a form of expressing such equality. Women began to dress provocatively and began sleeping around. Instead of caring about family, women began to live the "single" life. They no longer wanted children because they didn't want responsibility. I do not see these changes as a good thing.
Divorce was a lot less common as well. It is true that women were forced to stay in unhealthy relationships, but some women were not. Today, there are marriages that don't even last a year. Divorce is such an easy way out now. Women can ask for a divorce for the dumbest reasons.
Women were closer to God's ideal when they weren't so busy tring to fight for "equality." They were more willing to submit to their husbands as is a woman's duty. They were more open to caring for their homes and their children.
Do not misunderstand me. I am beyond grateful for the achievments of women throughout time. I am thankful that I have say over my own life. However, I think it is important for women to accept that we are not men. We are different from men in many ways. We should be embracing our differences. We should be looking to God and His Word to find our p[urpose and place in the world. The truth is, I believe that much of this gender cross over business has caused much more sin in our society. The whole idea of transexualism and transgenderism derived from people not accepting their God given place in the world. When we are given too much freedom, we take advantage and further sin against God. If we have too many rules, we feel the need to rebel and we sin anyway.
Will we ever be satisfied?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Animal Cruelty
It has been argued that animals do not have souls. During the years that philosophers like Kant lived, this argument was used to justify torturing animals and allowed scientists to perform heinous experiments on them. This continues to be a debate, though not so open.
When Adam was created, God gave him reign over the animals. This obviously gave mankind dominance over non-human animals. However, animal played a significant role in the bible. It was the blood of animals that was sacrificed to the Lord so that the Isrealites could receive forgiveness for their sins before Jesus came and died on the cross. God even gave a donkey the ability to speak to a man in order to get His point across. When the Lord flooded the Eath, he told Noah to save a male and female of every type of animal. This must at least imply that animals are important. More significantly, God created animals, which gives them importance independent of their use for humans.
An argument that has been posed in against animal cruelty is that animals whimper/cry when they are being hurt. However, during times when animals' rights weren't being protected, scientists claimed that the cries of an animal were simply a spring that was hit during the experiments. Animals were said to be machines and we do not have to treat machines with any type of morality.
While I believe that we have a God given right to use animals for food, clothing, and ethical experiments, I am strongly against abusing animals. If animals are only a means to an end for humans, then let us consider the idea that it has been observed that people who torture/abuse animals are more likely to hurt other humans. Some of the most well known killers, like Ted Bundy, tortured animals. This type of behavior initiates aggressive, disturbing, and dangerous behavior.
We have a responsibility to take care of our environment. If we fail to take care of our animals, our society will fade quickly. We would not be able to survive without the blessing of non-human animals that God has given us.
When Adam was created, God gave him reign over the animals. This obviously gave mankind dominance over non-human animals. However, animal played a significant role in the bible. It was the blood of animals that was sacrificed to the Lord so that the Isrealites could receive forgiveness for their sins before Jesus came and died on the cross. God even gave a donkey the ability to speak to a man in order to get His point across. When the Lord flooded the Eath, he told Noah to save a male and female of every type of animal. This must at least imply that animals are important. More significantly, God created animals, which gives them importance independent of their use for humans.
An argument that has been posed in against animal cruelty is that animals whimper/cry when they are being hurt. However, during times when animals' rights weren't being protected, scientists claimed that the cries of an animal were simply a spring that was hit during the experiments. Animals were said to be machines and we do not have to treat machines with any type of morality.
While I believe that we have a God given right to use animals for food, clothing, and ethical experiments, I am strongly against abusing animals. If animals are only a means to an end for humans, then let us consider the idea that it has been observed that people who torture/abuse animals are more likely to hurt other humans. Some of the most well known killers, like Ted Bundy, tortured animals. This type of behavior initiates aggressive, disturbing, and dangerous behavior.
We have a responsibility to take care of our environment. If we fail to take care of our animals, our society will fade quickly. We would not be able to survive without the blessing of non-human animals that God has given us.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Mark Foley Scandal
Most people who watch the news, read newspapers, or listen to the radio have heard about the Mark Foley scandal. In a Political Science class I am taking, one of my fellow classmates continues to argue that Mark Foley should suffer no consequences for his actions because the pages probably tried to seduce the senator and because they were not actually involved in any sexual activity. He argues that by the time a child is 15-16, advancements by adults should not be considered such an abhoring deed.
Here are my arguments against my classmate...
1. This is not just a moral issue, but a legal one. With Mr. Foley being a senator, he should know better than most the laws governing our nation. He should be aware that it is illegal in the U.S. to engage in sexual activities with a minor, whether or not the minor consents.
2. A major issue is not just that these were minors, but that sexually harassing anyone is a crime. Not only because he is a senator, but because he is an adult, he should know better than to make sexual remarks to another when it is clear that they have a strictly professional relationship.
3. Another huge problem with this is that he was sending these text messages to males teenagers. As I have demonstrated in my previous posts, I am strongly against homosexuality. This type of behavior with teenagers can be very damaging to their development.
4. Mr. Foley held a position of authority. I am sure many of these young pages he was sending sexually explicit texts to were highly intimidated by him. No American should be considered above the law.
5. "The people" elect senators to represent our states. How can we trust our representatives when they are as deceitful and untrustworthy as Mr. Foley. We believe our representatives should at least be truthful with those who gave them that position in the first place.
These are the strongest arguments I am able to think of at the moment. It should be mentioned that it is believed that other members of Congress were aware of Mark Foley's appalling behavior. It is sad when we have a government that is supposed to represent our views and ways of life, yet we do not even know whether they are honest, genuine people.
Here are my arguments against my classmate...
1. This is not just a moral issue, but a legal one. With Mr. Foley being a senator, he should know better than most the laws governing our nation. He should be aware that it is illegal in the U.S. to engage in sexual activities with a minor, whether or not the minor consents.
2. A major issue is not just that these were minors, but that sexually harassing anyone is a crime. Not only because he is a senator, but because he is an adult, he should know better than to make sexual remarks to another when it is clear that they have a strictly professional relationship.
3. Another huge problem with this is that he was sending these text messages to males teenagers. As I have demonstrated in my previous posts, I am strongly against homosexuality. This type of behavior with teenagers can be very damaging to their development.
4. Mr. Foley held a position of authority. I am sure many of these young pages he was sending sexually explicit texts to were highly intimidated by him. No American should be considered above the law.
5. "The people" elect senators to represent our states. How can we trust our representatives when they are as deceitful and untrustworthy as Mr. Foley. We believe our representatives should at least be truthful with those who gave them that position in the first place.
These are the strongest arguments I am able to think of at the moment. It should be mentioned that it is believed that other members of Congress were aware of Mark Foley's appalling behavior. It is sad when we have a government that is supposed to represent our views and ways of life, yet we do not even know whether they are honest, genuine people.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Child Abuse
Punishment for child abuse is so miniscule in this country. Children in our nation are dying because they are beaten so badly. Why do we wait for something so drastic to happen before we take action? It is these same abused children who grow up and become thieves, murderers, anorexic/bulimic. We then call these scarred people crazy. Are we doing enough to prevent such behaviors in people? We are so adept at tring to prevent such things as pregnancy, but we don't prevent child abuse. There are too many children in foster care that are being physically, mentally, and emotionally abused. Where are the social workers who are supposed to be checking up on these children? Is it not bad enough that these children will probably already have emotional scars from being put up for adoption in the first place? Do they really need more trauma in their lives? Can we blame them for acting out? I don't think we can. We try and argue that there is a certain point when we know right from wrong independent of our environment, but I disagree. They are crying out for attention, for help.
We also don't take into account the full scope of abuse. We often think of it as just physical, but the reality is that the scars left by emotional abuse can take years to heal, if they heal at all. This is usually what causes the trauma for children. The physical scars heal, but it is the scars on the heart that sting and can so easily be reopened. Why shouldn't every child talk to a therapist? Even if there is no type of abuse going on, shouldn't they be able to release any stress they do have? I think this should be part of every school's curricula. I realize an argument against this may be that there isn't enough money to institute such a program, but maybe we need to make teachers take a few psychology classes before obtaining their certification. I am not suggesting individual therapy, unless needed, but perhaps 15 minutes during lunch or free time. I think this should be done until every child turns 16.
Why spend years on rehabilitation programs for extra tax dollars, when we can build in a prevention system in our schools?
We also don't take into account the full scope of abuse. We often think of it as just physical, but the reality is that the scars left by emotional abuse can take years to heal, if they heal at all. This is usually what causes the trauma for children. The physical scars heal, but it is the scars on the heart that sting and can so easily be reopened. Why shouldn't every child talk to a therapist? Even if there is no type of abuse going on, shouldn't they be able to release any stress they do have? I think this should be part of every school's curricula. I realize an argument against this may be that there isn't enough money to institute such a program, but maybe we need to make teachers take a few psychology classes before obtaining their certification. I am not suggesting individual therapy, unless needed, but perhaps 15 minutes during lunch or free time. I think this should be done until every child turns 16.
Why spend years on rehabilitation programs for extra tax dollars, when we can build in a prevention system in our schools?
Friday, October 13, 2006
Infanticide and A Broken Nation
Is there ever a reason for infanticide? While discussing Cultural Relativism in a moral issues class we used the Eskimo's practice of infanticide as a culture to study. In the West, we can usually agree that killing an innocent person is murder. However, the Eskimos argue that they practice infanticide as a way of survival. Most often, it is baby girls who are killed. It has been observed that the reason for this is that boys grow into men who become the providers for their families. When a mother has a daughter, but is in need of a "provider", she will kill her infant child as to avoid any economic strain. We are quick to suggest other opportunities, but we must remember that these people are out in Alaska. Do not mistaken this as an attempt to justify infanticide, but only an effort to view it from many sides. Some might ask why they just don't move, but if they weren't already in economic distress they claim they wouldn't practice infanticide. My thoughts are why don't they simply teach the women how to be providers? With this in mind, there would be no need to kill off the infant girls. It should be noted that the Eskimos also leave the elderly, whom they claim are no longer productive, out in the snow and ice to die as to avoid supporting them. In today's day and age, this seems psychotic. As for the topic at hand, there is such a thing as adoption. The excuse might be posed that Alaska is too isolated and semi-primitive, but now there are international adoption agencies. I cannot imagine that a woman would rather murder her child than allow a couple who is willing to care for it have it. Do the Eskimos continue to be so ignorant to think that a woman cannopt help herself? Do the continue to believe that a woman must depend upon a man for her survival? Are we, as the most powerful country, allowing our citizens to murder innocent, defenseless children?
While I acknowledge the importance of foreign affairs, I think we often fail to acknowledge the necessity of helping repair ourselves from within. There are many domestic issues that we either don't recognize or pretend don't exist. How can we impose our ways when we are so broken?
While I acknowledge the importance of foreign affairs, I think we often fail to acknowledge the necessity of helping repair ourselves from within. There are many domestic issues that we either don't recognize or pretend don't exist. How can we impose our ways when we are so broken?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Polygamy:Polygyny and Polyandry
Ploygamy as I understand it is being married to multiple partners.
Polygyny is a man married to multiple women.
Polyandry is a woman married to multiple men.
Now that that's established, I'll explain why I am opposed all of these. The most prevelant reason I have is God. Yes, I've heard the argument that God allowed men to have multiple wives in the bible, but when referring to marriage He is always found to refer to a man and a woman. Also, the gene pool was very different in those days.
I will, however, not focus on this concept, but I will attempt to give some other reasons that I think will foster some thought.
First, there are the personal issues that many women have. I know of many women who are in monogomous relationships, yet are a little, if not very, insecure. In our society, we promote sex. It is all over the media. It seems like we cannot escape it. Along with this, we imply, and sometimes bluntly state, that there is an ideal image a woman should have. Truth, if every woman is different, then there shouldn't be one look they should all have. The only ideal is Eve. Anyway, for the reason of trying to obtain this society's ideal image,, many women find themselves insecure and never satisfied with who they are or how they look. We often measure our beauty by how attractive others, especially those of the opposite sex, find us. In a mate, most women want to be the most beautiful, sexy woman in their eyes. I believe that most women, who aren't naive, have realized that this is not likely. However, there are things that men can do to help keep there women feeling secure and confident in themselves and in their relationship. Now, if women are truly as jealous as they are often made out to be, how are they at all satisfied being in a polygynous relationship? As it is, women often feel like they must compete with other women to get a mate in the first place. How can a woman be secure in having a mate and being forced to share him? My only thought is that perhaps she isn't looking for security from her mate in love. Maybe her self-esteem has been so broken that she feels this type of the relationship is all she can get. I should make it clear that I am not referring to those women who are "forced" for economic reasons or family pressure. I am referring to those women who claim that they choose to live in this type of relationship. Bluntly, I don't believe them. It is these same women who wind up committing suicide or overdosing because they are depressed. It is these same women that end up with STDs. It seems apparent that these women are some of the unhappiest.
As for polyandry, this seems to be something less common, but don't be mistaken because it does exist. I am told that there are some cultures that practice polyandry in Nupal. Anyway, I am told that the way this usually works is that the oldest son in a family chooses a wife and that woman marries him and all of his brothers. Not only does this make it impossible to distinguish siblings from cousins, but how is it possible to share true intimacy? This one woman would be forced to divide her time, mind, and body among many men. Each relationship would pretty much run on some type of rigid schedule. Assuming that all the men will want children, the woman will be left at home with many presumably young children. Her body will eventually tire. Though we don't often hear about men competing for a woman's affection, they do. Men can be just as insecure, if not more so, than women. Can a man feel he is in a fulfilling, passionate, meaningful relationship when he is forced to marry a woman because his older brother says so? This just seems to go against an innate sense of love we humans have.
On these matters, I could go on for hours. However, these were some strong oppositions in my head. Perhaps I will continue this some other time.
Polygyny is a man married to multiple women.
Polyandry is a woman married to multiple men.
Now that that's established, I'll explain why I am opposed all of these. The most prevelant reason I have is God. Yes, I've heard the argument that God allowed men to have multiple wives in the bible, but when referring to marriage He is always found to refer to a man and a woman. Also, the gene pool was very different in those days.
I will, however, not focus on this concept, but I will attempt to give some other reasons that I think will foster some thought.
First, there are the personal issues that many women have. I know of many women who are in monogomous relationships, yet are a little, if not very, insecure. In our society, we promote sex. It is all over the media. It seems like we cannot escape it. Along with this, we imply, and sometimes bluntly state, that there is an ideal image a woman should have. Truth, if every woman is different, then there shouldn't be one look they should all have. The only ideal is Eve. Anyway, for the reason of trying to obtain this society's ideal image,, many women find themselves insecure and never satisfied with who they are or how they look. We often measure our beauty by how attractive others, especially those of the opposite sex, find us. In a mate, most women want to be the most beautiful, sexy woman in their eyes. I believe that most women, who aren't naive, have realized that this is not likely. However, there are things that men can do to help keep there women feeling secure and confident in themselves and in their relationship. Now, if women are truly as jealous as they are often made out to be, how are they at all satisfied being in a polygynous relationship? As it is, women often feel like they must compete with other women to get a mate in the first place. How can a woman be secure in having a mate and being forced to share him? My only thought is that perhaps she isn't looking for security from her mate in love. Maybe her self-esteem has been so broken that she feels this type of the relationship is all she can get. I should make it clear that I am not referring to those women who are "forced" for economic reasons or family pressure. I am referring to those women who claim that they choose to live in this type of relationship. Bluntly, I don't believe them. It is these same women who wind up committing suicide or overdosing because they are depressed. It is these same women that end up with STDs. It seems apparent that these women are some of the unhappiest.
As for polyandry, this seems to be something less common, but don't be mistaken because it does exist. I am told that there are some cultures that practice polyandry in Nupal. Anyway, I am told that the way this usually works is that the oldest son in a family chooses a wife and that woman marries him and all of his brothers. Not only does this make it impossible to distinguish siblings from cousins, but how is it possible to share true intimacy? This one woman would be forced to divide her time, mind, and body among many men. Each relationship would pretty much run on some type of rigid schedule. Assuming that all the men will want children, the woman will be left at home with many presumably young children. Her body will eventually tire. Though we don't often hear about men competing for a woman's affection, they do. Men can be just as insecure, if not more so, than women. Can a man feel he is in a fulfilling, passionate, meaningful relationship when he is forced to marry a woman because his older brother says so? This just seems to go against an innate sense of love we humans have.
On these matters, I could go on for hours. However, these were some strong oppositions in my head. Perhaps I will continue this some other time.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
On Atheism
What would my life be like had I lost all hope for something more, something better? This I cannot, nor do I wish to imagine. I have had my share of glimpses into that dark hole of hoplessness. It is one of the scariest, most depressing places to be. Where does my hope come from? God is my hope. True, I hid for so long. True, I find myself continuing to hide sometimes. Yet, at night, in the darkness of my bedroom, I called out to Him. We spoke, even if only to argue. He has always been my Wilson from Cast Away. It is true that only I know what He's telling me sometimes and I too get the funny looks from people when I pray in public. I used to care. I used to find myself embarrassed by the stares, but that has passed. Hindsight truly is 20/20. It often felt like the Lord ignored my prayers, could care less about my hurts, and at times it felt as though He inflicted pain upon me. These are the thoughts of a lost, immature, young girl. Though I lack wisdom on many things, I find God giving me wisdom as to who He is and who I am in Him. My faith in Him is strong.
This brings me to discuss something that has been brought to my attention several times within the last month or two. Before my senior year of high school, I never knew anyone who claimed to be an Atheist. I knew, and know, many who claim to be of some religion and don't follow it, but never one who refused God's existence. I was confronted with such a person on a very personal level. I write this with an air of sorrw, not for having met this person, but for having utterly failed them. I began a romantic relationship, my second serious one, the summer before twelfth grade hit. The guy had many emotional, and looking back, psychological problems. He had never denied the existence of God, though he didn't follow any religion, before his nearly fatal accident. However, after about a year in a hospital, he declared himself an Atheist. At the time, I was on the border line of having a personal relationship with my Father and blaming Him for all bad things. I never once questioned His existence. There I was, falling in love and faced with a question that I wouldn't truly believe my own answer to until almost two years later. The question he asked, "Why do you believe in a God you cannot see, hear, smell, nor touch?" In that moment, God had me respond perfectly. I know this was God's doing, for after I responded I found myself reaching a new realization. My response was, "Without at least believing in something/someone greater than myself, my life would have no purpose."
So, I pose these questions and ideas to those claiming to be Atheists: What is your life purpose? If you believe in no higher power, then what are you living for? Doesn't the thought of living simply to die and become nothing seem rather depressing? So some may say they'll change the world and leave their mark, but what good is all of that if you don't reap the benefits or even see your work succeed? Some of the most famous artists died before their works were ever considered a significant contribution. Do we have souls or are we just a bunch of chemicals sophisticatedly combined? When a loved one dies, isn't it much more comforting to think that their spirit lives on and that they aren't simply buried or cremated along with their bodies? As children, we often believe in things and people we have never seen. Then, we grow up and think we deserve an explanation for everything. We can't accept that some things are beyond our knowledge and understanding. If I told you that Santa Claus is really a man named Saint Nicholas, can you deny that Santa Claus existed at some point in time, if not now? Why then is it so hard to believe that there was a man named Jesus who died on a cross to save our sins? It is a documented event. It is not as though one person wrote of this, but many men witnessed first-hand and documented this happening. I cannot believe that any human can be satisfied with the idea that when they die that is the end. By human nature, we care about our own interests equally, a more often more, than those of others. Would we really care about changing the world and making it a better place if we thought nothing was in it for us? I highly doubt it. Belief in something greater than one's self is essential to truly living and having a meaningful life. Without this, without God, life is without purpose and without purpose there is no need for life.
This brings me to discuss something that has been brought to my attention several times within the last month or two. Before my senior year of high school, I never knew anyone who claimed to be an Atheist. I knew, and know, many who claim to be of some religion and don't follow it, but never one who refused God's existence. I was confronted with such a person on a very personal level. I write this with an air of sorrw, not for having met this person, but for having utterly failed them. I began a romantic relationship, my second serious one, the summer before twelfth grade hit. The guy had many emotional, and looking back, psychological problems. He had never denied the existence of God, though he didn't follow any religion, before his nearly fatal accident. However, after about a year in a hospital, he declared himself an Atheist. At the time, I was on the border line of having a personal relationship with my Father and blaming Him for all bad things. I never once questioned His existence. There I was, falling in love and faced with a question that I wouldn't truly believe my own answer to until almost two years later. The question he asked, "Why do you believe in a God you cannot see, hear, smell, nor touch?" In that moment, God had me respond perfectly. I know this was God's doing, for after I responded I found myself reaching a new realization. My response was, "Without at least believing in something/someone greater than myself, my life would have no purpose."
So, I pose these questions and ideas to those claiming to be Atheists: What is your life purpose? If you believe in no higher power, then what are you living for? Doesn't the thought of living simply to die and become nothing seem rather depressing? So some may say they'll change the world and leave their mark, but what good is all of that if you don't reap the benefits or even see your work succeed? Some of the most famous artists died before their works were ever considered a significant contribution. Do we have souls or are we just a bunch of chemicals sophisticatedly combined? When a loved one dies, isn't it much more comforting to think that their spirit lives on and that they aren't simply buried or cremated along with their bodies? As children, we often believe in things and people we have never seen. Then, we grow up and think we deserve an explanation for everything. We can't accept that some things are beyond our knowledge and understanding. If I told you that Santa Claus is really a man named Saint Nicholas, can you deny that Santa Claus existed at some point in time, if not now? Why then is it so hard to believe that there was a man named Jesus who died on a cross to save our sins? It is a documented event. It is not as though one person wrote of this, but many men witnessed first-hand and documented this happening. I cannot believe that any human can be satisfied with the idea that when they die that is the end. By human nature, we care about our own interests equally, a more often more, than those of others. Would we really care about changing the world and making it a better place if we thought nothing was in it for us? I highly doubt it. Belief in something greater than one's self is essential to truly living and having a meaningful life. Without this, without God, life is without purpose and without purpose there is no need for life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)