It occurred to me that maybe I didn’t clarify in my introductory post what exactly this blog is for.

In my quest to be the (mortal) embodiment of agape love, I’m striving to explain and de-mystify the myths, preconceptions, and prejudices that influence others’ views of what exactly it means to be a follower of that guy, Jesus.

If I can help even one person by explaining what it’s really about, then I’ve done my job on this blog. If I can have one good, helpful discussion, then this blog has fulfilled its purpose.

It’s not about numbers, hits, multitudes of readers and comments (although, being merely human, I have to say that it would be nice to be that popular =D)… it’s just about trying to share what I know now to people who were like me before I met this Jesus guy. There’s a definite leap of knowledge between the two states, where things that were utterly incomprehensible before become common sense – most Christians I’ve met, however, have lost that sense of parralax, of being able to see both what the nonbeliever saw, and what they see now. If I can help bridge that gap a little, then it’s worth it.

I still have that parralax, and as long as I can hold on to it, to help others, I will.

So… that’s basically what this blog is all about. Hope that helps.

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah

From the Suddenly Christian blog.

“A young man wrote me the other day to ask why God doesn’t once and for all prove his existence. Here’s my answer to that earnest seeker. (Yo! Danny! Do good in school! And don’t take drugs! And … well, actually, that pretty much covers it.)

First of all, God did prove his existence; that’s pretty much the whole point of the Bible specifically and Christianity generally.

So. Massively gargantuan point.

But I know that what you mean is why doesn’t God prove his existence again — and this time, to you personally.

If you think about that question, though, you’ll see pretty soon that what anyone asking it really wants is for God to not only prove to them personally that he exists, but to simultaneously prove his existence to a whole bunch of other people, too. Because if God proved his existence to just you, then that’s going to leave you with one whopper of a challenge on your hands, insofar as right away your choices will boil down to exactly two: Either tell people how you personally encountered God, and risk them thinking you’re absolutely badoinkers — or don’t tell anyone how God proved to you he was real, and risk having a stress-induced heart attack from having to keep such an extraordinary experience locked up inside of you.

See? Neither’s what you’d call an Optimum Situation.

And that is why anyone who claims to want irrefutable, objectively verifiable proof of God’s existence must also want God to prove he exits to everyone else in the world — or to half of them, anyway, so that he or she will at least be in the majority of people.

And God proving the reality of his existence to everyone all at once pretty much boils down to him suddenly, all around the world, appearing in the sky, and in a booming voice announcing (something like), “Hello, world! Surprise! It’s me! Try not to faint!” And of course he would have to say whatever he said in the language that any given person listening to him could understand. Including, come to think of it, baby talk.

Point is: It would be quite the Logistical Challenge.

But hey! It’s God! If anyone could pull it off, he’d be the … divine entity to do it!

And do you know what would happen if God did, all at once, to everyone in the world, finally prove his existence? People all over the world would scream, and faint, and exclaim, and tear their hair and rend their clothes — and then they’d realize that they just got so bored they’d all slump over and pass out.

Bottom line? God doesn’t prove to you in an objectively verifiable way that he exists because he knows doing so would flat-out ruin you.

The truth is, we don’t want God to prove he’s real to us in the same way everything else in our lives that’s “real” to us is real to us. Because it would destroy that within us which keeps us ever moving forward toward resolution, knowledge, clarity, context, wholeness. It would strip from us the very thing that makes us human.

Just imagine it. Imagine God really appeared before you, in physical form — that he spoke and talk and … hung out at your place for awhile.

First, you’d be awed and amazed!

And then — and in fairly short order, too – you’d become a zombie. Because there’d be no mystery left in your life.

Who remains deeply fascinated by a novel when they already know how it ends?

We need God to be mysterious. In order for us to have the richest, most human experience possible for us in this life and on this earth, we need God, and all Essential, Divine Matters, to be just beyond our rational comprehension, just outside of our grasp.

Our relationship with God needs to be, to us, a two-way, interactive, give-and-take, constantly exchanging sort of relationship — of essentially the same sort as we have with everyone else in our lives. If God just appeared to all of us, all at once, the fundamentals of our personal relationship to him would instantly be so radically altered — we’d be so thoroughly pushed out of the subjective give-and-take role that’s actually necessary to keep us engaged with God — that … that we’d no longer be who we are.

We’d be … Us, Severely Unplugged.

Our spiritual initiative would be gone.

We move forward because we want to know.

If we did know, we’d stop.

Not so good.

You don’t, actually, want God to “prove” his existence, any more than you want to lose, for instance, your imagination.

Here’s another reason it actually doesn’t make any sense to desire that God suddenly prove to everyone that he exists: It’s not God’s primary purpose to work with people as a whole, from the outside. God develops his relationship with us individually, from inside of us: God speaks to our heart, to our soul, to our experience, in the ways we most need to hear and understand him. God loves each one of us personally –a nd he wants to communicate that personally, intimately, carefully, delicately; he wants to communicate everything about himself — and us — to us in the ways and at the times that are best for us.

God had no natural interest in just … overpowering everyone at once.

Please.

This is God we’re talking about, not … P.T. Barnum.

God is pleased to be “real” where he can be the most real — where you can comprehend the most of him — which is inside of you. God is a spiritual power. The fullest communion with God must happen spiritually; it must happen inside of you, not outside of you.

The bottom line is that while you might think you want God to objectively “prove” his existence, you don’t, in fact, want that at all.

You don’t want that because you’re more complex than that. You don’t want that because your needs are more real than that.

You don’t want that because you were designed to be better than that.”

Question:
Jesus died for our cheeseburgers.

Anyone who has read the Bible knows that the beginning bits are a little unpleasant. There is blood everywhere, people killing each other left and right. There are a lot of innocent people getting killed by god in a laundry list of atrocities. The most prominent example of this unpleasantness is in the book of laws.

There are laws for everything. Disobedient children, incest, rape, adultery, public defecation, bestiality, male genital injury, fighting, kosher food, working on Sunday, stealing, religious tolerance, tattoos, science, menstruation faux pas, haircut rules, unruly slaves, extramarital sex, being mentally handicapped, religious tolerance, blended fabrics, slander, divorce, astrology, homosexuality, and rules on how to treat darker skinned people. The list goes on and on. And if you haven’t guessed by now, each and every offense is punishable by death.

Now if you ask a Christian about this they will tell you that you really shouldn’t pay too much attention to this because later on Jesus let everybody off the hook. Unfortunately he had to die as part of the deal. Apparently God wasn’t satisfied to give everyone amnesty until He got His pound of flesh.

But here is where things get confusing. When Moses was making these laws he said, “The Law is permanent for all future generations. You must add nothing to what I command you, nor subtract anything from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down for you.” This sounds pretty explanatory.

Then later Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” It sounds a little strange I know, but I am told that the “fulfill” part is the important bit.

From what I understand it is like paying the fine before committing the crime. So if you were to pay a traffic cop $50 and do some community service, you could then drive the wrong way down a one-way street. So by Jesus accepting the death penalty it is like he is paying in advance for all the little laws we break. And this is what they mean when they say “Jesus died for our sins.”

But it’s a little more than that. Jesus also died for our cheeseburgers, and our blended fabrics. And fortunately for us he died for every other odd law that could get you stoned to death.

Now my question after all of this is where is the line in the sand drawn. How far did Jesus’s fulfillment go? Did he die for all of our sins? When you turn on the TV and see Christians, when you see them preaching on the plaza, and when you check the policies of a church it’s plain to see that there are some Old Testament laws that made it, and some that didn’t.

For example, it’s ok to eat non-kosher food, but it’s bad to get divorced. Getting a tattoo is ok, but it’s still a bad idea to use an Ouiji board. 67% cotton undies good, Harry Potter bad. I have been told that “God Hates Fags” but nobody wants to stone your kids when they enter the rebellious teenager phase. And up until June 2, 1865 darker skinned people weren’t treated very well. (By the way, a few choice Bible verses were used as the primary justification for slavery.) And when was the last time that you heard of a court trial for someone who boiled a baby goat in his mother’s milk?

So what sins are ok? What sins are off limit? I think we can all agree that killing and stealing are bad. But if I was brawling with a friend of mine, and his wife decides to stop the fight by grabbing me by my testicles, I would not feel comfortable cutting her hand off.

Will Dave Thomas be sent to hell for leading us astray with his tasty meat and cheese abomination to the Lord? Will Carl Sagan find forgiveness for believing that the Sun and all the stars are older than the Earth?

So for the events of the Old Testament, what will Jesus forgive? Which laws do we follow? And which do we sweep aside?

Answer:

Jesus did die for all sins, across time and space. He will forgive all of them, if you accept what he did for you. He fulfilled all the old covenant Laws and legalisms; which were set up to help humans, but which had turned into a way of measuring people and binding them; by offering himself as a perfect sacrifice in the covenant the Israelites had made and agreed to – and then broke, several times.

I did a very thorough search and could not find the verse you are referring to when Moses said “It’s permanent,” do you still have the reference? In either case, Moses’ word is not binding – only God’s is. Moses was an imperfect human like the rest of us, albeit one with more contact with God than most of us. Jesus also didn’t add or subtract anything to the Law – he left it just as it is. He was simply fulfilling the terms of the covenant – he paid the $250 when you break your cell phone contract early, essentially. Or, a better example: the $1.2 million for pirating music or movies. $250 you might be able to pay. Hardly anyone can pay the $1.2 million on their own (and practically everybody in the US pirates).

What you are referring to are the things that are repeated in the new testament – things like divorce, sexual immorality, following other gods, etc. These are not laws per say – we are not compelled to follow them, our salvation does not rely on what we do or do not do anymore. That’s why we say we are saved by grace, and by faith. Not by works, so that no one can boast. If a Christian gets divorced or has premarital sex, or does drugs, or other things, their salvation is not in jeopardy. God isn’t going to revoke salvation if people sin, because God knows people aren’t perfect anymore, and we can’t live up to his standards on our own.

What we are called to do is to try, out of love for God, to be more like God. That means remaining faithful to your wife or husband no matter what, and to try to work things out in a Godly manner (see Five Love Languages book) rather than just give up and try someone else. God never gave up on Israel, even when they turned away from him, and we are to follow his example.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:12-20;&version=31;

“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:%2023-33;&version=31;

“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

Granted, these apply only to those who believe that Christ saved them already. It’s not that we are given a free pass and are allowed to sin all we want now, since it’s forgiven, but that God knows we’re going to sin anyway, no matter how hard we try not to, and he’s not holding it against us anymore.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jeremiah%2031:31-34;&version=31;

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

You don’t have to follow any laws, since there aren’t any in the New Testament / New Covenant. There are guidelines, which, when you follow them, are outward indications of spiritual growth and maturity. You can be saved and still be sinning – sex, drugs, etc – but you’re not very much a follower of Christ. That’s the part that involves work, and wanting to be changed, and asking God to help you stop sinning – help you to be a better person. That’s what makes you a Christian.

Let’s go back to your cop example real quick. If there were no cops, would it be ok to drive the wrong way down a one-way street? No. We have laws for a reason – because they prevent harm. What we have in the New Covenant aren’t laws written in a book anymore. We have an internal counselor, that we call the Holy Spirit. You are free to obey or disobey as you choose, but if you disobey, you’re likely to get hurt – no extra fines or community service, etc, needed. It’s self-fulfilling. Physically, spiritually, mentally, or emotionally, you’ll get hurt.

The original Mosaic laws were trying to keep people from harm. The dietary laws were trying to keep them in good health. The moral laws were protecting people from consequences of immoral behavior – and there are natural consequences. Extramarital sex, for example. STDs would not – could not – exist without extramarital sex.

In the prior Q&A, I discuss covenants and their consequences, and the cultural understanding of covenants at the time of the Israelites and first century Jews / Romans in great detail. See here.

The Israelites broke the moral laws, and it resulted in the collapse of their civilization – multiple times. What other people group can you think of who has had their kingdoms overthrown and conquered multiple times, yet still exist with their own distinct cultural identity?

So the real question is: Do you think the Mosaic Laws were designed to hurt people or to help them?

Addendum:

There’s nothing in the bible about how to treat people with darker skins – The only time it ever mentions it is by inference, by saying the Cushites were the descendants of Ham, and the Cushites were from Lower Egypt and Africa, so they were most likely darker skinned. There are NO verses in the bible dictating different treatment for different skin colors. See here. And here.

And not all Mosaic Laws were punishable by death. Many of them were simply fines, in money or property, or as you gave the example of, removal of various offending body parts. To say all Laws were punishable by death is a gross over-generalization.

Another external site, although not so much a blog this time:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

Enjoy.

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah

I’ve been asked a few times in casual conversation “Why do Christians tithe?” To answer this properly, I think I first have to explain what tithing is, and what it isn’t.

Tithing, as used in the Old Testament, is the practice of giving one-tenth of your edibles (“firstfruits” – anything agricultural or livestock, as the Hebrews at that time were a pastoral culture) as a sacrifice to God, and to support the system of priests and Temple that He put into place. Christians don’t practice this kind of tithing anymore, since it was required by Mosaic Law, and Christ paid for that at the cross, so Christians don’t need to follow the Law anymore.

Tithing in the New Testament sense is probably more accurately called “offerings,” and it doesn’t have to be ten percent, or made of edibles. In the New Testament, Christians are simply called to give generously and quietly, to help the poor, needy, etc. Many of us choose to do it through the vehicle of our church, since (presumably) they have already spent the energy to find out who needs it in their community, or channels it to needy elsewhere.

So, let’s look at some of the misconceptions about tithing:

1. Tithing is compulsory (or, we should tithe because [leader] told us to).

All the churches I have ever been to, and this includes the Catholic churches I attended as a kid, always emphasized that offerings were voluntary, and please, if this is your first time here – do not give! If you go to a good, Bible-following church, tithing is not compulsory. If it is, that’s one of your first signs of something shady going on, or at least horrible theology.

2 Corinthians 2:17: “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.”

2 Corinthians 9:7: “Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

2. The church keeps track of what you make and kicks you out if you give less than ten percent.

See above. If you have a church that does this, then leave cheerfully! That’s not a Biblical church. The salvation that Christ offers is a free gift offered to all, whether you give or not doesn’t impact the status of your salvation, or membership in the body of Christ (the Church).

3. We should tithe because it is commanded that we do so.

Tithing was only compulsory in the Old Testament to support the system of priests and the Temple that God had set up as a demonstration. Christ fulfilled the Old Testament covenant, and so we are not compelled to tithe any more (besides, the great many of us don’t grow our own food or raise our own livestock any more, so the tithing spoken of in the Old Testament would be nearly impossible to do. And there’s no infrastructure to accept it any more either).

So Why Do We Give Offerings Now?

1. As a demonstration of our lack of attachment to material things and obediance to God

The best thing I can do to explain this is to follow Christ’s example: Tell a story. So:

Jenny’s Necklace

Jenny was a bright-eyed, pretty five-year-old girl.

One day when she and her mother were checking out at the grocery store, Jenny saw a plastic pearl necklace priced at $2.50.

How she wanted that necklace, and when she asked her mother if she would buy it for her, her mother said, “Well, it is a pretty necklace, but it costs an awful lot of money. I’ll tell you what. I’ll buy you the necklace, and when we get home we can make up a list of chores that you can do to pay for the necklace. And don’t forget that for your birthday Grandma just might give you a whole dollar bill, too. “Okay?”

Jenny agreed, and her mother bought the pearl necklace for her.

Jenny worked on her chores very hard every day, and sure enough, her grandma gave her a brand new dollar bill for her birthday.

Soon Jenny had paid off the pearls.

How Jenny loved those pearls. She wore them everywhere-to kindergarten, bed and when she went out with her mother to run errands.

The only time she didn’t wear them was in the shower. Her mother had told her that they would turn her neck green!

Now Jenny had a very loving daddy. When Jenny went to bed, he would get up from his favorite chair every night and read Jenny her favorite story. One night when he finished the story, he said, “Jenny, do you love me?”

“Oh yes, Daddy, you know I love you,” the little girl said.

“Well, then, give me your pearls.”

“Oh! Daddy, not my pearls!” Jenny said. “But you can have Rosie, my favorite doll. Remember her? You gave her to me last year for my birthday. And you can have her tea party outfit, too. Okay?”

“Oh no, darling, that’s okay.” Her father brushed her cheek with a kiss. “Goodnight, little one.”

A week later, her father once again asked Jenny after her story, “Do you love me?”

“Oh yes, Daddy, you know I love you.”

“Well, then, give me your pearls.”

“Oh, Daddy, not my pearls! But you can have Ribbons, my toy horse. Do you remember her? She’s my favorite. Her hair is so soft, and you can play with it and braid it and everything. You can have Ribbons if you want her, Daddy,” the little girl said to her father.

“No, that’s okay,” her father said and brushed her cheek again with a kiss. “God bless you, little one. Sweet dreams.”

Several days later, when Jenny’s father came in to read her a story, Jenny was sitting on her bed and her lip was trembling. “Here, Daddy,” she said, and held out her hand. She opened it and her beloved pearl necklace was inside. She let it slip into her father’s hand.

With one hand her father held the plastic pearls and with the other he pulled out of his pocket a blue velvet box.

Inside of the box were real, genuine, beautiful pearls. He had had them all along. He was waiting for Jenny to give up the cheap stuff so he could give her the real thing.

So it is with our Heavenly Father. He is waiting for us to give up the cheap things in our lives so he can give us beautiful treasure.

God asks us to give, because in the act of giving, we (figuratively or literally) hold out our hand instead of clutching on to whatever we have. It’s only when our hands are open that we can receive ourselves.

2. To help support our church, so that it can continue functioning (if it is our home church)

Most pastors don’t work a second job during the week – it is a full-time job just to run a church. The building has its expenses, the choir or band’s instruments have to be kept up, and the pastor still has to eat. The majority of churches aren’t some sort of franchise, they don’t get paid from somewhere higher up, they get paid through audience contribution. If you like your church and want to keep hearing good sermons from your pastors, and want them to continue helping in the community (global or local), help them out in turn.

1 Corinthians 9:13 -18: “Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.”

3. To help those in need

This one should be the most obvious of the three. Whether you give to your church or somewhere else, one of the primary reasons for giving is just that – to help those who need it. Whether you give in time, money, or material, in some way it should be helping those who need it. Katrina families, AIDS victims in Africa, Tsunami survivors in southeast Asia, homeless people in your own town, your neighbor down the street struggling with debt – any one who needs help.

Matthew 6: Being Quiet About Your Giving

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah

Here’s another interesting blog I found and thought you all would enjoy. I don’t think I can link to the individual articles, but the first couple are very good.

http://www.dougbeaumont.org/Ircontent/IrContent.html

I’ll post a real article once I get another question through my “Ask a Christian” page or after I think of something else. Enjoy,

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah

I came across an interesting article on another WordPress blog today and thought I would share. Enjoy.

http://gracemark.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/more-thoughts-on-atheists-attempting-to-refute-god/

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah

Here is a question I recently received through my “Ask the Christian” page, and my answer:

Name: religionandatheism
Website: http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com

Hi

Here’s a theological question for you.

In order for the story of the New Testament to unfold according to God’s and Jesus’ plan Jesus submitted himself to the will of the Romans. He rode into Jerusalem in the full knowledge that he will get crucified. He therefore anticipated that a Roman or a number of Romans will nail him to a cross and kill him. He therefore was complicit in the act of murder, since by his own actions he facilitated it. This facilitated the Roman’s sin, murder.

And yet a loving Jesus did this?

Suggestions appreciated.

My Reply:

Hello!

Sorry for taking a little to get back to you — life has been weird, with work and all. I take it this is AT? Or AG, I suppose, since AT usually signs his/her posts?

I will be happy to answer your question so long as you remember that I can only speak for myself and what I understand of Christianity, not Christianity in general. I’m not a professional theologian or anything. =)

If you are asking on the playing field of Christianity (in that you are accepting that Jesus had foreknowledge of his death and God’s plan), you should accept the rest of it as well — Christianity is not something that works in bits and pieces. The rest of it being that Jesus died for the redemption of ALL sin. So with that in mind:

Here are some other things to consider:
When confronted with the reality of the consequence of sin in this world; ie pain, suffering, death, disease; there are basically three options.

a) Sin can be excused – as in saying that it doesn’t matter, ignoring it, and thus belittling our pain as a temporary issue. Religions that accept reality as an illusion usually go this direction, because there are no eternal ramifications for sin.
b) Revenge or Justice — making an individual person pay for their actions. They are getting exactly what they deserve. If we look back in history and realize the multiplying consequences of our actions over time, there is a LOT to pay for.
c) Someone else can pay in substitution for our consequences — they can pick up our tab, as it were. This is the nature of forgiveness – every time I forgive someone, it is not because what they did has no consequence. It is my way of saying that I am willing to pay the cost instead of forcing the other to pay, instead of taking revenge.

God chose not to belittle our pain but to endure it along with us. Pain in the world has a very real nature to it – it’s not simply an illusion. Jesus’ life was a demonstration of God’s willingness to pay for our consequences and forgive us. Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant (or contract) that God made with Israel in the Old Testament — It was understood in those days that a covenant was A Serious Business — if you violated it, you died, since it was enforced by God. Israel didn’t keep the covenant — they could not be perfect, just like we are still incapable of being perfect. Jesus came to die instead of the Israelites — he was perfect (according to us), and therefore the only one who was even capable of being that sacrifice.

Jesus suffered along side the rest of humanity, he knows what it is like to be mocked, abandoned, beaten, hungry, thirsty, tired, alone, and grieving. He also knows what it is like to love, be happy, find joy, be full, have friends, etc. It leaves us with a decision to make – we can either choose Justice and fairness, in which we pay for all of our actions, or we can choose to accept Jesus’ offer of forgiveness.

So here’s the question: In fulfilling the big picture, did Jesus fudge over the little picture? If he hadn’t done what he did, there would be at least one thief with no hope, and one Roman who is still paying for his own sin.

1. The Romans weren’t going to stop crucifying and conquering and doing all the things that Romans did just because Jesus didn’t come to Jerusalem. There were two thieves scheduled to die the same day – if Jesus hadn’t come to Jerusalem, they still would have died, and the Romans still would have “murdered.”

2. To the Roman common soldiers who were crucifying Jesus, he wasn’t an innocent child or anything. He was a criminal, no better than the thieves on either side, and a political dissident. They were carrying out orders to execute enemies of the Empire — much like the poor guys who give lethal injections on Death Row.

3. Would it have been more loving to have one less person hanging on the cross that day (taking into consideration they wouldn’t have stopped choosing to follow orders even if Jesus hadn’t have come to Jerusalem) and allowed the rest of humanity no way to reach God (through payment for sins)? Or is it more loving to share in a person’s pain to achieve the redemption of ALL murders, ALL sins, for all time?

The term accomplice comes from our justice system, a human defined morality that insists that people must pay for their crimes in full. When dealing with the morality of God, it’s different — since he operates as the definition of morality. So yes, Jesus was loving, if you choose to accept him. At least one of the Romans who crucified him became a follower later on, ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:%2032-36;&version=31;) so that’s one lifetime of sin redeemed.

-Raeliyah

The major trend I see in attempting to “evangelize” or “witness” to people in the States (since that is where I am from, I will be concentrating most of my efforts here… applicability to those of you in other countries is unclear) fall along two major methods.

There’s the “Shotgun” method, as I call it, which generally involves going up to random people and asking them brazen questions (“Where do you think you’ll go after you die?” and such like, generally with the preface, “Can I ask you a few questions?”). For most people (Christians and non-Christians alike) I’ve talked to about this phenomenon, the only thing it generally gets across is that Christians are only doing it “for the numbers,” or to get as many people converted as possible, which, is most certainly not our goal. For every person that comes to Christ through this method, I would estimate there’s between 100 and 1000 that come away with a negative opinion of Christianity.

There’s also the “Shock Value” method, which generally involves very loud people standing on soapboxes and street corners, preaching that basically we all suck, and we’re all going to hell. As valid as that may be, the only thing it does is convince non-Christians that we’re a hateful, bigoted bunch.

Not exactly following Christ’s example, there, huh? Yes, I know He did talk about hell, but what He emphasized most of all was manifesting God’s love, and His saving Grace. A thirty-second conversation with someone on a deeply personal topic is not going to convince them that we love them, and through us, God loves them. Deriding them for their sins (because that’s honestly what it sounds like) is also not going to show that love, because most people don’t think they’re doing too bad.

The reason, I think, that these methods don’t work in America at all, is because we’re spoiled and jaded. We’re doing fine, for the most part, on our own. We’re not looking for ways to survive, or reasons to keep trudging through life (“Gotta get that iPhone….!”). We have someplace to sleep at night, we have three square meals a day, and we probably money we can spend on something other than survival means…!

To follow the very wise words of my mother (“Don’t complain about something unless you can propose a better solution and put it into practice.”), here’s an alternative. We, as Christians, care about people. We love them. We don’t want to see them fall to the consequences of their own actions, in this life or any other. Just like you can’t be best friends in an hour, just so you can’t convince people that you care about them, and so does God, in a brief conversation. Take the time to get to know people, to see them through God’s eyes, and to love them like He does, first. Then, when you do share with them, it’s genuine, from more than a surface level, and they’ll know it. It’s not a numbers game.

The seeds that fell on good soil did so, and thrived, because the sower took the time to prepare the ground – he pulled out the rocks, weeded out the thorns, and turned away from the road. So, follow his example.

My favorite book on this subject is “Permission Evangelism: When to Talk, When to Walk,” by Michael L. Simpson, and it, along with the Five Love Languages is on my “Should be required reading” list for Christians (and the love languages book for humanity in general). And I’m extending an offer: If you want either of those books but don’t want to spend the money for them — I’ll buy you a copy.

Zhai’helleva,

Raeliyah

The best way to start out this article, I think, is to tell a story.

I once worked in a PetsMart in the small animal department. I took care of the fish, reptiles, small cute fuzzy things and small cute feathery things, in addition to keeping the department straight and answering questions and things. I once had a woman come in to buy fish, together with her two youngish children – the boy about 12 with glasses with those clips designed to keep them from being lost, the girl about 7 and very pasty and skinny. As I got to talking with her (starting with the usual, “What size tank do you have,” etc) the woman told me that they’d had a leopard gecko up until a few months ago and were now looking for a replacement “pet.”

“Oh? I love leopard geckos, they’re so pretty,” I said, thinking of my wonderfully dense gecko at home. The lady immediately derailed into a monologue about how they’re dirty, carry germs, and imminently not suitable for children at their [her childrens'] age. Entirely confused, I asked why she thought this way and she told about how her daughter had gotten severely sick (so badly that she had been in the Intensive Care Unit for a few days) with salmonella from having the leopard gecko in the house (she hadn’t even held it directly, always in a clean tub, or so the woman told me).

From the conversation, this woman was one of those people who are worried about everything. She disinfects everything, wouldn’t allow her children to touch anything, and immediately made them use the sanitize-gel stuff in the event they did brush up against something. I would lay fair odds she didn’t let her children play outside or anything either. I may be overgeneralizing, and it’s certainly possible that these kids had some sort of immune-system problem, but in the course of the conversation nothing like that was even implied.

I have never gotten seriously sick, and acquired my fair share of scrapes, cuts, gashes, and abrasions in my childhood (living on the edge of a greenspace, in Florida, with all your playmates being active boys will do that for a girl). I caught snakes and lizards and frogs a plenty in the wild, and only maybe washed up before dinner (ssh, don’t tell my mom.)

This, I think, is a wonderful example of both physical health and spiritual health – if you are never exposed to anything that might harm you, your natural defense mechanisms will never have the chance to develop properly, and consequently when you do come into contact with something severely harmful, those defense mechanisms have a far more difficult time protecting you.

What about those parents who continually strive to shelter their children from anything “wrong” or “bad” in the world? I believe they are doing their children a disservice, unintentionally of course – for if they have never encountered the little evils, how will they survive when they finally leave their parents’ control and encounter the big evils?

Many people have told me, “You will feel different when you have children of your own,” and I’m sure if I do I will agree with them. To a point. I haven’t yet seen any studies done on this particular subject, I have done quite a bit of my own observation through the people and the families around me, and this is what I continually find to be the case. At the very least, it is a question designed to be thought-provoking.