One of the arguments against the existence of God that I've heard during many one on one witnessing opportunities is that there can't be a God because bad people succeed and good people fail. A God wouldn't let that happen. First of all, without a standard of good and bad, good and bad wouldn't exist, and God set that standard. Second, and my main point, God doesn't let bad people succeed and good people fail. I believe this deals with perspective. Let us compare two passages of Scripture. First, Ecclesiastes 6:1-2 -- "There is an evil that I have seen under sun, and it lies heavy on mankind: a man to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that he lacks nothing that he desires, yet God does not give him power to enjoy them, but a stranger enjoys them. This is vanity; it is a grevous evil." In this passage, we learn that fulfilled desires is not the same as enjoyment. Getting that which one counts as success is not the same as actually enjoying the fruits of success. While the evil man flourishes with success, most likely he is also drowning in despare, for he has all he wants, but does not truly reap the happiness that he thought his success would bring him. Rather, someone else enjoys his success for him, possibly that poor failure known as a righteous man. This man knows happiness, and gets it from the rich, successful, discouraged man. The second passage we should acquire wisdom from is Psalm 92:7, 12-15a -- "Though the wicked sprout like grass and all evildoers flourish, they are doomed to destruction forever...The righteous flourish like the palm tree and grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in the house of the LORD; they flourish in the courts of our God. They still bear fruit in old age; they are ever full of sap and green, to declare that the LORD is upright." Here we find that the success of the evil man is of the earth and will soon transform into destruction. Everything comes and goes in its season. All that which is of this earth will be reduced to vanity, and all who trust in it will perish. But the righteous man, whose flourishing is in the house of God, will succeed forever, and will always be full of "sap," or, abundant, healthy, productive life, even when he is old. And this is so that the righteous can "declare that the LORD is upright." So I think success is all a part of perspective. To pile up vanity to oneself or to fill one's self with the uprightness of the Lord: which is true success? On the outside vanity is much more appealing. At least during life. But what then? All one has to offer God for his life is vanity. That which melts with the elements. Truly the righteous man who seems to fail in this life is filled with success that far exceeds the evil, wealthy man. That man can't even fully enjoy his wealth. So I will seek God. Not for pleasure, but because He is worth it. He is worthy of it.

Is God limited by reality and logic? How do reality and logic relate to one another? I will attempt to give an anwer from my limited understanding. The introductory question is one given by many who would attempt to undermine the limitless nature of God. However, a look at the nature of reality and logic, in my mind, undermine attempted undermining. What is reality? Is it something that can bind God? Is it an essence that can be escaped from? I think a more appropriate question is: is reality something that is to be escaped from? Let me explain. Many words within language are words that represent ideas rather than entities. Such words include "existence" and "victory/defeat." These words do not represtations of things, but rather ideas related to things, occurances, etc. Likewise, reality is not a thing. It is an idea that refers to what is. God IS boundless. That is reality. If God escaped from reality because of His boundlessness, He would consequentially escape from boundlessness. Reality is not an entity, it represents the God who is, and everything else. Reality is not a type of Alcatraz that provides the inhabitants a sense of capture and imprisonment. Reality is not even something that has inhabitants. We are not co-inhabitors of reality along side of God. Reality is an explanation, not a composition, of what is. How is reality related to logic? Is God bound to logic? Logic is a means by which intellectual beings understand reality. It is the ability to identify observable or otherwise comprehendable realities and conclude other realities. Math is an example (deductive). Betting at horse races is another (inductive/abductive). Is God limited by logic? Is logic a realm? I would say, no. Logic is a means of identification. Logic was not created. God is logical by nature, and He passed on that trait to the image in which He created man. Logic finds its roots in God. Is God limited by mathmatical equations? Can he not work outside of those bounds? Or is math representative of the mind of God? I suppose He could change math laws. I'm just not sure if such laws are a creation or if they are part of God's established logic, defined by His nature. Either way, He is not bound by logic or reality. Neither are entities that have the ability to bind anyone. They are representations and explanations of what is.

Empty handed I am. This is a fact all men can claim with personal application. However, some come to learn it through lonliness of heart. "Some" includes me. With a smile on my face, rotting my soul with its hypocrisy, I drown in emptiness. Can I not just be honest-faced? Is it that I do not trust that the body of Christ will care for its own members? It's most likely it will not, at least not with real concern, but there are a few that would truly reach out. A couple for sure. However, the issue extends to more closely related subjects. They might be discussed here in this physical representation of my scattered mind.
I can not live; I can not work; I can not read; I can not pray; I can not sing; I can not love; I can not laugh; I can not cry; I can not play. I can only appear to do these things. But my wholeness is not welcome at these festivities. This has only just occured to me. I know neither how nor why. Perhaps I do, for I can know one thing, and in this one thing changed the world: "Your love is better than life." Surely this one thing can change one who helps make up the world. May it do more than make sense. May it make me. He loved me first, and my natural response ought to be to first love Him. But sin makes one go against He who bought and changed him. I want to want to love Him. God uses that. It allows for perseverance. Not that God needs that; it's merely an aspect of such a condition.
"You make oceans from the rain, bringing life into this place. And I will drown inside your love until I see your perfect face."
I want to do this drowning.
Who else besides my self will I hurt because of the false sense of emptiness I experience? I know a few.
How is it a false sense, knowing that the things I know I don't have cannot be had anyway in the truest sense apart from intimacy with God? Here's a clue: the knowledge manifests itself in apathy and the selfish kind of depression, if there is any other kind. I'm not sure. One can know truth, and apply it selfishly. A lot of Atheists do this everyday. So do some fundamentalists with their perfectly ok policies, only in a different way.
So how can I know this truth in a selfless way? Not through force, that's for sure, for there is none that seeketh God. For me to seek through my power would be to ensure failure, for one that seeketh with his own power will not seek God, but by default seeks his own. But the one who seeks by His power by default seeks God's own, for he is and acts like God's own. Once again, the prevailing, one-word answer is. . .yield. Yield your soul, your life, your pride, everything inside and out. "What is man that thou art mindful of him?" But You use him for your glory as you deserve. What is man. . .you are mindful of Him? To understand this fully, the "you" must be understood. At least to an extent. But that' for our own personal thoughts and studies. But at least, know this my soul, that He who began this great work in you is faithful to complete it. So set your will, your struggles and strifes at highest second to the one Who can not fail at what He sets out to do. For to seek God's own is the highest calling for all who live, including God. And all who set out to do it in His power will be blessed with victory.

Why do we get proud when God does something great through us? Is it at its core because we like to take the credit for ourselves? I think that could be one way of seeing it. Another way of seeing it might be this way: men are of little faith. When confronted with a situation/opportunity/etc., we religiously pray that God would use it for His glory, when in all reality, our real desire is so that something good would happen so we wouldn't have to admit to messing up again, and/or that we may be lifted up in the eyes of men. The reasons can go on. So perhaps the prayer is merely a mentally spoken desire addressed to ourselves but tagged with the name "God." We do this maybe because we have more faith in the works or our own hands than in the hand of God. This is due to a belittled view of God. Perhaps I don't believe God works in my personal life, even though I can see that He did in the great Christian men of the past. So we feel alone. We feel the burden layed on ourselves to make the opportunity great. But we still pray, "Dear God, please. . ." We know as a fact that we have no strength, but we don't realize how much God actually does work in our daily lives. He really is real. He really does get deep into our lives. Deeper than we get into them. When we speak with Godly ferver, it really is Him speaking great things, not ourselves. But we, when we speak great things, don't acknowledge that God really does do great things immediately through us. We then perceive our actions as merely our actions. And when the action is great, we think we are great, when it was God working all along. All because we don't see God when He really does work. The memory gets blended with the times when we really did work in our own strength.

If everybody in the world had a mental illness due to something not detectible by microscopes, CAT scans, or anything else that detects physical problems, and that mental illness influenced the thoughts and corresponding lives of those who had it, and one person lacked that illness, that person would be seen as "different" or "abnormal." As far as the majority goes, they think they are "right" because each one of them is "normal." Normality is relative to the majority, not to what should be. And far too often people critisize others for not being "normal," whether the subject of normality be phsycological, physical, or spiritual in nature. Let's deal with the spiritual aspect. Fundamentalists have a view of what is right based on their interpretation of Scripture. So do liberals. Fundamentalists judge liberals and liberals judge fundamentalists. First of all, neither of them has to be right about whatever topic is being discussed. Second of all, there has to be one conclusion to every discussion, whether that conclusion is subjective or objective in nature. How does one know what is the right conclusion? If I could answer that, I could eliminate the terms "fundamentalist" and "liberal." But I'm not going to do that. I do not doubt my fundamental beliefs, for I believe they are sound, but I cannot uplift dogmatism so high that it refuses to accept something else as truth if it is a better fit to reality than what I presently believe. When personal agenda reigns as the king of perceived truth, I no longer seek to find truth, but rather I attempt to make truth and I am unwilling to accept reality when God shows it to me. And this reality shows us intended normality. This normality is what God created, but man lost because of sin. To be driven by dogmatism is to be like the majority with the undetected mental illness. When they see someone who is "healthy," they cannot allow themselves to accept that they are "sick" and are the ones in need of change. Certainly there are diseases that are obviously detrimental to overall health, but what of the one who is merely...different? Cannot something be learned of him? Is the majority supreme, or is truth? Is historical normality the standard, or is truth? Truth is not found in "what always has been" or "what most people in our circles believe." Truth is its own substance and cannot be determined by what people say it is. Truth paints a picture of the immutable God - or should I say, truth is a product of the existence of God. Understanding changes. It always has. God doesn't. Logically we can deduce from these two statements that, historically speaking, 100% truth has not been found by men, nor will it be until we're all dead. Only glorified individuals who have seen God and have cast off the filthy, defiled flesh can truly see 100% truth, for only the glorified individual can see the complete picture of God. And even then we are limited. Who are we, who yet live in the flesh, to claim supreme health and be unwilling to learn from those who are different? Do we have to admit that they are right? Not necessarily. But we must be humble enough to learn, for our understanding about just about everything is still incomplete and always will be until we're dead. But our understanding can progress. This happens by learning, evaluating, discerning, praying, and yielding to the Spirit. No dogmatic (proud) man will know truth according to the Spirit as he ought. No, not much more than an unregenerate man can. I do not mean by this post that man cannot please God because he will never be able to truly see who He really is. God is pleased by one's desires more than He is by one's accomplishments. Accomplishments are done by the unregenerate everyday. But they are filthy rags. Rather, God looks on the heart. What we give Him today from our hearts pleases Him. This is yielding. This is relationship. Women and men don't understand each other very well. But a love and desire for the other (all things pending) will keep them together. Understanding within this bond will keep growing. But little or much understanding does not have to regulate little or much love. We can have a vibrant relationship with God, even though we don't really get everything about Him. So let's seek the love relationship. Understanding will come when the Spirit shows us. We must be willing to accept it when it comes though, whatever twists it may throw in our preconceived ideas. Our goal is truth as it displays God, because we love Him and want to know Him and understand Him. Love is curious about the deep things of the other. Should we not seek the deep things of God, while not making conceptual endeavors god instead?

Why does it seem that the focus of marriage centers on what is physical? If such a focus displayed reality, then that would also be the focus that God has on marriage. But when in the Scriptures does it emphasize the physical above other things? When I think of Scripture passages dealing with marriage, I think of topics dealing with love, respect, understanding, sacrifice, giving and giving up, etc. These are the major emphasese, not the fulfillment of physical passion. Not that this is non-existant in Scripture, but it is not what is displayed as being the most important. But it is nevertheless what men and women look forward to the most on their wedding day. At least this is so according to my limited sources of observation. Welcome to America. Anyway, here are what I perceive to be the most important qualities of marriage: The permanent bond between two helps fit for each other-helps fit to aid in their spiritual walk with God, help in the work of God, lift up the other when they are down, to weep with, to rejoice with in all things for the rest of their lives; to have someone to understand and be understood by; to give and receive joy due to common love; to fulfill each other's love by being there, for no love desires to be seperated from its object. Many reasons are buried within these broad discriptions, and there are many more that could be mentioned. And I suppose this love that is true and in its right place doesn't have to be beckoned by the Spirit into the arms of God because its already there. It has recognized its King. It has fallen in love with Him too, foremost. First-not in a time sense but a priority sense. This is how love for another on earth can be its deepest and purest-when the fullness of one's love is buried deep within the heart of God. Otherwise, love only causes the Spirit to beckon and battles the Spirit when He beckons. This is the root of selfishness, the deepest enemy of love. This is what causes lust, aka love corrupted by the cancer of selfishness. Therefore, love cannot be what it is meant to be, hurting one's relationship with God and the other individual involved. Maybe this is one reason those entering into a marriage relationship find things the hardest right at the beginning. The physical relationship has transformed, and so often one's mind concerning the other individual has done so as well, replacing love with lust within the marriage relationship. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it has to be understood the proper way. Lawful fulfillment of passion doesn't have to be done in love for the other person. But it is done in love. For self, which, corresponding with one's relationship with the other, is lust. So where is the emphasis of marriage? It's found in the other person. It's found in God.

If one knows not truth, but ends up telling truth though his heart sought to lie, is it not counted a lie? If one is misinformed and tells a falsehood thinking it to be a truth, is he not yet counted with the pure in heart? If one makes the righteous statement, "I love God," yet in his heart he has not renounced unrighteousness and cleaved to the Good, is he not a liar? Though he might suppose that since the statement is Christian, "and therefore good," is he not still a representative of the infadels at heart? Then again, if a person says, "I do not love God. Look at me: how could I?" and in his honesty rather the opposite is true, is he not still a man after God's own heart? Consider the prayers of the publican and the pharisee.

I can picture God as I or any struggle through thoughts of depressed relationship between us: He looks upon us with wide dialated eyes and forcefully yet with peace and an overflowing heart says, "I still want you. I have not changed my mind about you yet, nor will I. Here's my love. Take it. Know it. Embrace it. I'm embracing you. I do not say you have never forsaken Me. I do not say that you have never played the whoremonger. I do say My faithfulness toward you will endure. Remember - I am love. Therefore, I am faithful. Your relationship with me is not based on you and your character. It is based on Me and Mine. I will not change. My thoughts about you won't either. Therefore, you are mine forever, o dearly beloved of My soul."

"I love you more than the sun and the stars that I tought how to shine - you are Mine and you shine for me too. I love you yesterday and today and tomorrow, I'll say it again and again - I love you more!" - Matthew West

What does it mean to be "right with God"? I would suppose that it means to be a person who runs after God's own heart. Wouldn't that assume that the same person is himself resembling God's own heart? Granted we are fallen. Granted we will not fully resemble Him until glory. But, like David who was an obvious sinner more than other Biblical examples of a Godly person, we can have God's desires be our own and pursue them as much as we are able. My problem is realizing that I don't have to understand every problem to the fullest extent in order for it to be dealt with. I can seek God while still having problems. Isn't God the one who is able to defeat the sin? So why do I think I have to have my problems under my thumb in order to be "right with God"? If I wait for that I will never be useful for God because I will never be satisfied because of Him. Rather, the recognition of our sin ought make us awefully consider God who calls us His beloved and chosen regardless of our sins against Him. We ought to consider the grace that yet called us. What did David do in most of his Psalms? Work out his own problems in his head and then display his thoughts on parchment? Rather he drew a picture of the person of God, to His praise. When David saw his sin, he turned the gaze of his heart to God who did not change His mind about him.

I was reading Isaiah 5 this morning before bed and was immensely blessed by the first 7 verses. It tells an allegory of a planter planting a "beloved vineyard" and making all the necessary preparations to assure a quality and bountiful reaping of grapes. To the planter's dismay, all the vineyard produced was wild grapes. It was as if the planter had done nothing to the vineyard at all. Had he done nothing, the end would have been the same. Nothing but wild, useless grapes. God compares this story to His interaction with Israel. Though God dealt wisely with His beloved nation and blessed them beyond measure, Israel still lived as though God had no part with them - as though He never had existed. They claimed their own lives. Back to the allegory: God, acting as the planter, upon realizing the outcome of the crop, decided to let the field be "devoured" or "grazed over." He tore down the walls to the field for it to be trampled down by whatever fealt like coming through. The planter would no longer weed or till it. Comparing it to Israel, it was as if God said "If you wish to live as though I don't exist, then I will grant your wish. I will leave you to yourselves that you might see what will become of you apart from Me." The vinedresser in the allegory left the field to itself and it was destroyed by natural events. In like manner would Israel be destroyed when left to it's weak self. What's this mean to me? Many times I play the part of Israel in this story. I live as though He doesn't exist, though I make my pious claims that my circles expect. My heart doesn't really acknowledge Him, though my mind might. I have no feelings for Him at all, and true love will always come complete with feelings of some sort to some degree. Through all of this, I lose sight of reality; I find myself strong, and God unneccessary. So, God lets me see what I am when left to myself, and it is the most depressing experience imaginable. However, the point of His tactic is to bring me back to Himself, as it realines my perceptions with reality. Too bad I don't always recognize reality right away when it layed out right in front of my face. I'm way too stubborn. Dumb pride.

I've been thinking a lot about Christian liberty lately. Most would apply the discussion to personal standards, but I'm not so sure the idea keys in on standards. It may impact standards practically, but only indirectly. Galatians 5:1 tells us to stand in the liberty of Christ, not the yoke of bondage. This yoke is what the false teachers, probably Jews, were trying to give new Christians, saying they had to keep the law of Moses with Christianity. I have fallen into this belief personally, but the yoke is not the law of Moses. Rather I convince myself that unless I can comprehend Scriptural ideas as much as I can apply practically, I am not right with God. I have been learning that the Christian life is lived by the same grace that saved me, and my salvation is based on the mystery of God's love and providence. Both of which factors I cannot comprehend. How then is my life to be based upon rational ability instead of faith? Is not faith the evidence of things not seen? So I have replaced faith with self-effort, similar to the yoke of Moses' law. I am commanded to live in liberty. Liberty lets one live free because of the expense of another. I've nothing to contribute - not even my mind or heart. Rather, those are effected by the one who is sovereign over them, and wisdom is gained only because God chooses to impart it to the one who has already known God by His grace through faith.