Wednesday, July 27, 2005


If we define lust to be sexual desire, it is not sinful. It is as natural as hunger or fear -- genetically programmed into animals to ensure their continued survival.

The Creator left our cousins in the animal world free to follow their programming (instincts) as they wish (as far as we know).

The Creator chose to deal with H. Saps differently. He gave us "laws" which require us to manage (rein in) our selfish natural instincts for the benefit of others. Therefore, it is when we allow sexual desire (lust) to harm others (or ourselves), that it becomes a "sin".

Asking ourselves, "Does it harm ourselves or others?" is the best way to know if any particular behavior is a sin. Written laws (such as the 10 commandments) can only be a guideline. They are limited in scope. For example, they do not cover putting sugar in a neighbor's gas tank. They also require human definition. For example, taking another person's life can range from self-defense to the crimes of Hitler -- therefore the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" requires human definition.

The laws our Creator put in our heart are much more useful. If we love our neighbor as ourselves, nothing will be left out (sugar in gas tanks) and it's unlikely we will commit the crimes of Hitler.

This is our Creator's "Gold Standard" for sin, if you please. If we adhere to it, we will be much more successful in pleasing our Creator (not sinning) than we can ever be trying to follow written "laws". If everyone used this "Gold Standard", it would be a much kinder and safer world to live in (which was the Creator's purpose for "laws" in the first place).

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

The Paradox of Faith

Strange as it may seem, the utter lack of objective evidence for Christianity's claims may be one of the strongest evidences of it's credibility. I'll try to explain this seemingly paradox.

Biblically, what the Creator wants from his creation is faith -- not knowledge. In fact, knowledge is played down or dismissed entirely many times in scripture. Knowledge requires empirical, objective evidence. The amount of evidence required for a person to have faith is far less and entirely subjective.

If even one stich of objective evidence existed for the Christ, it would make believing in the Christ easier -- but at a cost. It would decrease the amount of faith required. The more evidence we have of something, the less we need faith. Given enough evidence, we can bypass faith entirely and either believe (such as about men walking on the moon) or know (such as about having five fingers).

If it is true that "without faith it's impossible to please Him", what at first appears to be a paradox becomes a requirement. The Creator disallowed objective evidence because he wants the maximum amount of faith -- not knowledge.

It's not the way I'd do things, expecting to be immortalized. Without a ton of objective evidence, I doubt if many intelligent people 2000 years from now would believe I rose from the dead -- but they believe this about the Christ -- by the millions, and have for over 2000 years.

Can H.Saps' psychological need for self-preservation really explain this away? I don't think so. Fact is, there exists a ton of evidence for Christ -- just ask any Christian -- but it is all subjective and personal. Are all these millions of people merely trying to attain immortality at the expense of their reason? Try selling that theory to the man or woman who "knows" God answers prayer.