- This topic has 371 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 2 days, 1 hour ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey all, just poking my head in after, oh, half a year or so 🪦 (sorry bout that)
I’ve skimmed all the messages in this topic and I wish I had more time to respond.
@thearcaneaxiom I would love to challenge your stance on Mormonism, but I’m going to have to read up first 😉And @orangearmadillo I love how passionate you are about bringing others to Christ! I’ve developed an interest in apologetics the past couple years and I’m looking forward to learning more in humanities next year and college eventually 😀 Perhaps this is just my argumentative side speaking, but I might suggest adding some more pointed logic to your conversations with non-believers.
Personally, I love to bring science into the discussion. That was one of the biggest things that swayed me. So, science has become something of a cult. Not just recently, but over the past several centuries. I would tack this hyper-idolization to the Enlightenment era, though we mortal folk have equated earthly knowledge and authority to divinity for quite some time ☕ Look in depth at all the worldly views that are so commonly taught as fact (i.e. evolution, gender, the big bang, etc.) and you will find remarkably shaky, sparse evidence hidden behind big words and statistics. I’ve always been a science lover and a couple of my favorite topics have always been diversity of species, natural selection, and the theory of evolution (which, I do not believe, is wholely incorrect. There are bits and pieces of Darwin’s theory that do indeed make sense and can be explained by the world around us. For example, microevolution is easily proved just by looking at all the specialized subspecies we have around the world. But his theory of macroevolution proposed as fact in schools is most definitely false and can easily be disproved; it has little evidence and a whole lot of counter-evidence but I need to stop my tangent oh no). OOPS I went on a mini rant. But the point I’m getting at is, there are a lot of rickety theories which are so commonly taught as concrete facts, and when you so much as challenge these ideas you’ll be called a heretic. Kind of weird, considering that the majority of these theories go against what the Bible teaches, and that true scientists do not seek to prove a point, but to find the truth of how things work.
The questions in particular that really got me thinking and helped drive me to Christianity pertained mostly to evolution. How did humans leap so far ahead of every other organism on the planet? How would it be beneficial in any way to evolve a mind capable of questioning one’s own existence, rather than being focused solely on survival and self-preservation? Why is it that all civilizations, past and present, seek some sort of divine higher authority? I can’t think of any animal that does the same. And why on earth would we develop a sense of morality? Morality is not self-serving. I doubt there’s an animal out that feels guilty about stealing food or harming/killing other animals in self-defense. Why do we form structured societies and dictate laws that (in the best-case scenario) protect individual rights? Are we supposed to believe that all of this happened purely by chance, and that we are nothing more than the result of molecules colliding until they spontaneously generate life? And, what’s the point of it all? If we are to thank exploding stars and primordial goop for existence and there is ultimately no purpose nor meaning in life, then the universe has a real mean streak for allowing us to be able to ponder such things to the point of being depressed or even suicidal.
I brought that up because different people will be more open to and willing to listen to certain approaches. Some people are skeptical of the Bible because, as you said, we ought to believe in God and trust him like children, but as prideful people, we tend to be overly logical and trust our own reasoning (or that of an earthly authority) over God’s. But once you start doing your own research and look past all the mainstream voices pushing anti-God narratives, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for God’s existence and authority.
YIPES THIS GOT REALLY LONG, I thought I had like 2 paragraphs in me at most. But yea, sorry for the rather off-topic tangent :] It’s one of my favorite topics and I’d love to discuss it if anyone is interested. If not, none taken. I’m always looking for more questions that might potentially spark an existential crisis and lead someone to Christianity 😀
I could keep this up for a couple hundred more words but my butt is gonna get whupped (courtesy of me own dear mum) if I do not depart to bed at this very moment.
Seeya crew, peace ✌️
that a northern wind
would cool my skin
and fill my lungs againI completely agree. I try to use science as much as possible, since it is the thing that most people would trust more than anything. The only time I wouldn’t is if someone was obviously emotional at the time and what they really need to hear is just that they have a loving Father who’s there for them. At any other time, I love to discuss the evidence and scientific side of Christianity. There is so much mind-blowing stuff that shows God to not only exist, but to be currently acting in the universe. And, we have proof that the Bible was written out of inspiration from God, showing that our religion is the only true one.
The measure of a man is how much bacon he eats.
So I know I said I would respond to you on Saturday but I have ended up having less time than I thought (I’ve been volunteering to run backstage at a show this entire week and ended up getting sick last week) so sorry for not responding. I am still working on a response but I probably won’t have any time until Tuesday (that’s when the show is done) I just wanted to let you know I’m not just leaving you hanging without responding to you about your posts.
Great! I love it when my point of view is challenged, as long as it is with respect. That is how we become stronger in our faith and testimonies. I’ll be waiting with enthusiasm!
(Btw, could you use the proper name? We don’t like to be referred to by Mormons, it’s actually a slur. We prefer the full name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and if your really really have to use something short, you can say The Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-Day Saints, or LDS. We want people to know that Christ is the very center of our worship, and we don’t worship any man. Mormon we see as a great prophet, but nothing more. Thanks!)
No problem, I assumed you were just busy with something, though it’s hard to keep my mind from wondering. Thanks for letting me know, and I’ll be waiting for your response!
Yes! This is so true! I’ve pondered on something very similar lately. What advantage is there for man to develop the idea of God? Is it really just a random mental mutation, even though it’s expressed in nearly every culture in some shape or form?
That being said, and please forgive me for playing the contrary, I agree with all your points, and I think they are excellent ones, but I’m going to challenge them because for one, I think it’s fun, and two, It gives experience and increased neutral understanding (yes OrangeArmadillo, I’m doing it again😂), I feel like many would argue that a moral system is very beneficial, and we actually aren’t the only ones that display such behavior. First off, if some species starts to live in groups, that will greatly benefit the species because there is increased overall strength. Now for this group to work, all the individuals must either play nice and act altruistically to show they are worth to the whole and therefore giving up resources to, or they have to be the most dominate, taking their position forcefully, often playing the alpha of the pack. All the individuals have to work for the whole, and therefore work with and for one another, which can develop into a complex moral system, which we do observe in many different species. This being said, humans still have the greatest expression of this I would say, acting truly altruistically without any regard to ourselves and perhaps giving our own lives for someone else, though many animals will even display that kind of behavior, though it is rare.
Personally, I feel that morality is indeed objective, that good and evil are very real things, but that doesn’t mean that a moral system can’t develop naturally to benefit a species.
Moving on from that, I would also say that I heavily agree on the idea of bringing in science. And I love your point on what true science is, not trying to prove some point, but simply trying to figure out what the truth is, many of the most renowned scientists seem to forget that simple truth. This being said, I think it’s important to remember that your testimony should be built more so with childlike faith then scientific knowledge. I think science can reaffirm, and strengthen your testimony, and even begin it as you’ve alluded to for yourself, but one still must eventually humble themselves, knowing that they can’t know everything in this life, which I’m sure you have. You can’t remove faith from the equation, otherwise the entire point of it all would be void.
Also, out of curiosity (and you don’t need to answer this if you don’t want to), you mentioned gender as one of the things regarded as fact, but aren’t. Are you referring to gender ideology? Because that is what is being taught in schools right now, but simple binary gender has only been attacked by the scientific community and schools exponentially through the past few decades.
Great thoughts you gave! Thanks for bearing with my responses😊
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
@ava-blue
Sorry, you probably don’t know who I am, but I joined KP within the past few months and am a huge apologetics fan.I’m not a huge science person, I wasn’t given the mind to comprehend it. But I love debating evolution and creation science (it’s one of the few things I can debate on). As you study evolution, you realize just how many holes are in their arguments. I studied this a few years ago in school. I find it interesting that despite the lack of evidence for evolution, people believe it. Then they turn around and say Christians are crazy for believing in God. The oxymorons of this world.
So, what do you think is the biggest argument against evolution? (This is a question for everyone in this conversation)
This girl is armed with books, coffee, and writing accoutrements!
I have been reading the entries in here… The reason I haven’t touched on the conversation yet is because firstly, I don’t know enough about your theology to feel familiar with the details. Secondly, I do have some thoughts, but am uncomfortable writing them down. Maybe when I read up on this topic more thoroughly, I’ll give it a go. Anyway, I would also fight for your freedom to believe what you believe ❤
I read through some biology last year, and one of the biggest arguments against everything evolution, is the fact that information cannot be added to DNA.
Basically, scientists say living things developed more complicated characteristics over time… But if you actually study DNA, whenever a creature is born with a mutation, pieces of their DNA has been destroyed, not added to or changed.
This means that after a certain period of ‘evolution’ (if I remember correctly), a species can only go so far as go only use pieces from its own DNA. It can’t become drastically different from the original version.
For example – dinosaurs growing feathers and becoming birds. They didn’t have feathers in their DNA already, otherwise they would have always had feathers. But then they can’t become birds at all, because the ingredients were never there in the first place.
Anyway, that’s the difference between micro evolution and Macro Evolution. Micro, which was proven through finch beaks, was when a species adjusted the ingredients slightly, developing different beaks. Macro, however, is what scientists haven’t proven, but want us to believe – simple organisms can grow into complex human beings with minds and senses.
KaPeefers 'til we're old and gray...
Thanks for letting me know. I wouldn’t say that understanding the specifics of my own theology is too relevant to the particular discussion we were having. All I would say is that we defiantly don’t take a Calvinist view, we believe that agency (free will) is a crucial and fundamental part of the plan of salvation. There are many ‘buts’, ‘what ifs’, and other more specific cases that can be discussed, but that is beside the point. This is a general Christian discussion, not just one concerning any unique denomination.
It doesn’t really matter what I believe, what matters is what is true, and you may feel that you have the truth, and I may feel that I do, but in the end, I hope that we can all agree that we are striving to do everything we can to do what we think is right, and lift one another up. That is the best we can do with the shattered pieces of truth we individually bear, and that I think for now will have to do, regardless of what the truth really is.
I hope you know that I mean no contention in my responses, and I fear that I may have given implications of frustration with what you believe in my last one, even if subtly. If that is at all what you felt, I give my sincere apology. Please don’t feel afraid of saying what you believe, but I won’t ask you to if you feel at all uncomfortable about it.
I’m always enthusiastic to talk about these things though, so I’m always open to any further conversation!
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Yeah, there’s a lot of directions you could go about it. A short documentary type book I read called Dire Dragons I think is an excellent direction to point at for evidence against macro-evolution. The main point the book makes is that dinosaurs actually appear in ancient art all across the world, and often depicted as dragons. The big issue this poses with macro-evolution is that we needed the dinosaurs to exist way back before any human existed in order for evolution to make extreme enough changes, so if humans and dinosaurs coexisted for a time, that would greatly undermine that idea.
Did people just find dinosaur bones, and make dragon art from that? No, he points out, because we struggled to figure out the proper anatomy of dinosaurs for a while with modern technology, so how did ancient cultures all around the world figure out how to make such highly accurate depictions with what they had?
Did people just make up fantasy creatures and got lucky in their depictions? Still no, because art is based off our experience, and also many of these depictions are actually placed equally right next to what we see today as normal animals. Why would they make a dog, a bat, a pig, then amongst them a clear depiction of a Brachiosaurus, not set apart as some higher creature, but simply as another animal.
He goes into a lot more detail, getting into things like carbon dating and such, but the majority of the book is going through individual ancient artworks all around the world depicting very clear anatomically correct dinosaurs, showing a big issue with the idea that dinosaurs and humans never coexisted. It’s interesting that this idea is greatly in line with the Bible, because it does talk about dragons and fiery flying serpents.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
@thearcaneaxiom @everyoneelse
So… I wrote this reply, and it is kind of emotional for me, so I want to post it.
It isn’t related to everything we’ve been talking about (just the Calvinism critiques), but I rarely get emotional over this kind of thing… So I felt like I needed to ramble and get it all out before I fall asleep 😂
So I apologize if any of this sounds rough or negative. By tomorrow I will be sorry for anything I said that offended or attacked. I will not force you to believe any of this ❤❤
…
I understand, and I’m glad you understand – I would not say that this conversation makes me sad or confused, just slightly frustrated. I’m just gonna touch on my own beliefs, because then at least I can add something to the conversation.
I often feel as if people are turned off by us Calvinists’ ‘frozen’ attitude… what with the argument that ‘complete predestination means we are robots,’ and ‘God wouldn’t condemn someone to eternal torment because that denies his loving nature.’
We are often seen as emotionless, I think that might subconsciously affect the way people see our theology as well (…it’s not just us, others may have the same problem). And I want to prove this isn’t true – we are very, VERY emotional at times 😂 – and some of the things that might seem negative at first glance… shouldn’t be treated that way.
For example… Some people are completely allergic to the idea of God being angry. They claim it’s unloving and wrong.
Why is it wrong?
A person in my life has had some illnesses, and because of the fact that not many people have studied this particular illness very much, she spent years listening to doctors imply she was wrong, and silly for listening to her body.
This has negatively affected me. And guess what? I AM ANGRY.
I don’t think that anger is wrong.
I am angry because I love this person, and I want her to be better, and for life to be normal again.
This anger inside of me is – I hope at least partially – slightly, itty-bitty tiny bit right. And if it isn’t, at least I know God is feeling angry for her too – in his huge righteousness.
Sure, it doesn’t make you feel good. And so many Christians ignore it and pop in their earbuds and listen to some sweet, Christian-written pop song, because we need to be happy and joyful…
I don’t disagree with the joy part (and listen to Christian pop, I ain’t gonna stop you), but to make that anger seem little? I agree, we shouldn’t dwell on it, but I think positive emotions have been put on a pedestal and made the ultimate goal, regardless of what other feelings you have to sacrifice to get there.
Joy, to me, is a combination of things. It is love. It is satisfaction. Peace. Belonging. It isn’t a warm glow in your head, or a smile, or a tingling of happiness, although those are signs of joy. I see it as a state of being – a fact, put there by God.
Anger is seen as wrong, because it feels terrible. But it can be a sign of justice, and of fierce love.
So… God can be angry. He has a right to be angry. And just because it makes us feel un-Christian-like in our gut, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
.
.
…
As for the predestination ‘robot’ thing.
Again, I think we just need to look at it differently. So I’ll tell a story. (This is KP after all… 😂)
Let’s say there’s a legend told about a little girl who was lost in the forest.
Everyone knows the story, and they tell it around campfires, or in the car in the deep, dark hours of the night. Except here’s the catch… There are two versions of the story.
In both stories, there are two people – the Searcher, and Lost Girl. And in both stories, the girl disappears in the deep, dark forest, and Searcher goes out to find her.
But here’s where things are different.
– Story of Lost Girl –
Lost Girl wanted to be found. She often cried out, watching for Searcher’s lamp, wishing for relief from the cold, slimy embrace of the forest swamp.
She wanted to become his Light Child. But it was so dark…
When would Searcher ever come?
Finally, a bobbing light wafted through the mist. The light of eternal love and hope.
Lost Girl ran, stumbling over roots and slipping through mud, and held out her arms, calling, “Searcher, Searcher!”
She fell into his arms, exhausted, as he brushed back a lock of her hair… and guided her home at last.
– Story of Lost Girl: Wild Child –
Searcher held out his lamp and peered under the knarled fingers of trees, looking for the little monster they called the Wild Child.
She had never known light, or love… Ever since she was abandoned in the forest as a mere wisp of soul.
There she was. Hair tangled, nails cracked, eyes as black as night.
Wild Child scrambled away, kicking and screaming, but Searcher grabbed her, and held her tight against him. He began to carry her out of the forest. As he felt her claws scratch against his cheeks, he knew she didn’t understand love, or hope, or light.
He would never give up on her.
Ever.
Because she would be his Light Child.
…
I believe we are too far gone to choose the light for ourselves. We are like Wild Child – prone to the darkness, because we were raised in darkness.
Searcher loved her so much, that he took her home, and clothed her, and taught her Light. Even though he didn’t have to.
Even though dirty little Wild Child would have been content to sit in those swamps, gnawing at cold raw fish for the rest of eternity!
Isn’t that beautiful? Isn’t that awe inspiring?? It is AWESOME.
Normal Lost Girl reminds me more of Sanctification – when Wild Child is taking her first steps towards the Light, and realizes for the first time she needs it.
Wild Child can’t choose Searcher. We were raised in darkness, and are made of writhing darkness inside and out.
But Searcher chose Wild Child.
…
When I say I believe in predestination, that is what I mean. I guess you could say I believe the Wild Child story is true.
KaPeefers 'til we're old and gray...
Again, I am extremely sorry if this pushed you away or offended someone. I try not to be harsh over the internet, but sometimes I can’t think of the right words. I am flawed after all… ❤
KaPeefers 'til we're old and gray...
I’m rudely butting in because now we’re talking about science and that’s one of my Topics of Passion. I’m more on the side of old earth creationism though, fair warning 😆.
The problem with the argument that nothing can be added to dna is that both YEC and evolutionists rely on rapid additions to dna. If we accept that all our current diverse species came from a handful of “kind” representatives that were present on the ark, that is a huge amount of genetic diversity! Just think about the diversity of wild cats, which all apparently came from a single ancestor around. 5,000 years ago. That’s an enormous amount of change in a very small amount of time.
Also, dinosaurs did have feathers! Most if not all theropod dinosaurs did have feathers, shown very clearly in some wonderful fossils found in China and Mongolia in the last few decades.
I actually have this book, if you ever want to debate it let me know. There’s a lot of wrong/outdated information in it.
I don’t think that’s the worst argument for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, but the glaring error I see in it is that if we accept dinosaurs are dragons and were real (in terms of living alongside humans), then we should accept every other creature that appears in art over the world as true as well. Vampire type creatures exist in mythology from all corners of the world, often in very unrelated cultures. Does that mean they’re real? Mermaids are also similar, with hundreds of cultures having stories of human/fish hybrids and treating them as real. Does that mean they are?
INFP Queen of the Kingdom commander of an army of origami cranes and a sabre from Babylon.
Don’t get me wrong here, you can believe in Calvinism if you want (it’s a variation, not a false gospel), but since this forum is about defending our beliefs, I’d like to give my reasons for not being a Calvinist.
1. If we must be chosen by God, and we cannot choose him (as you stated), why wouldn’t anyone in the Bible say so? The disciples, Paul, and even Jesus simply stated that we must repent and be baptized (as a show of faith). If we can’t choose God, they would’ve said, “Wait on God to choose you,” as that’s all that we would be able to do.
2. There simply is nowhere in the Bible that says we cannot choose God. We were too far gone, but that’s why Jesus came, and now all we have to do is choose him.
3. I think that we all are predestined in a way. Not that we simply have to believe because God chose us, but that God just knows who will end up choosing him in the end, so he’s prepared a place for us.
4. Jesus died for everyone, not just the ones that God picked and chose. If Jesus paid the penalty for just those that he chose, he wouldn’t need the disciples to spread the Gospel because it was already a done deal; the winners were already announced in heaven.
I could be misunderstanding your particular beliefs, but that’s just a few reasons I believe Calvinism is just not reliable. I hope that I don’t sound rude, and sorry if I do XD
Calvinism very well could be true; I just think that you would have to take a really blind leap in the dark to get to it from Scripture. Hope you understand!
(first clarifying: I am not sure if the earth is young or old, I honestly don’t care lol, but I wanted to defend young earth views) So yes, evolutionists rely on additions to DNA, it’s their whole idea. But young earthers, not so much. They believe that there were a ton of different starting kinds that mutated and bred to form different species. This may sound like adding DNA, but mutations is a deletion or warping of DNA, and breeding is taking DNA from two contributors and combining them to form a brand new set of DNA. No addition of DNA is needed. Old earthers don’t require it either, and it’s for the same reasons that they don’t. Hope this helps!
The measure of a man is how much bacon he eats.
I’m glad you were able to let out a few emotions, sometimes that is simply what you need to do to feel better. Don’t worry about offending, we must speak with love, but we must also stand for truth.
I don’t think any of us are trying to force any others to believe anything, but as this is a apologetics page, we are trying to discuss our differing beliefs from a logical point of view, as long as it is in a healthy fashion. I haven’t been trying to convert anyone to my Church at all, but I am happily answering any questions people have been asking, and I am simply answering honestly, which has lead to many different stings of conversations I’m having now regarding what I believe and what the truth of it really is.
I’m simply trying to engage in similar conversation with you, as Calvinism, though I know a little about it, feels like a very foreign concept to me. It takes an angle that seems more commonly associated with many atheistic views (not to suggest that it is atheistic, and please don’t take this as an attack, it is simply again a foreign idea to me.), so I simply ask questions for the sake of trying to understand, though yes, I make critiques when I see something that doesn’t add up to me, as again, this is an apologetics page, where we have those sort of discussions. I give these critiques in good faith however, still believing there to be an explanation, as there is always something deeper.
As for your other comments on love vs anger, I see nothing wrong with what you’ve said, and I’m sorry I gave the impression that I was trying to remove God’s wrath. It is clear in the Bible that God is angry at many points, and He feels many other human emotions at other points as well. This is very well established. The point I was trying to make is that God is also reason, He doesn’t simply throw around His mercy and anger however He feels like, there is order to these things, as He is just, and justice is order, but not an order we make up, but a higher law He lives by. He is angry and/or sad when there is rebellion against him, this makes sense, and as a Just God, He will display His Wrath as needed. We are not robbing Him of that, though we believe that He is all loving as well, and therefore would give all His children the opportunity to choose Him over evil, and if we choose evil, then He will be Just.
I’m not trying to tell you your wrong, and I want to make that clear, what I’m trying to establish is that I do believe that God can be and will be angry, and He is always Just in His anger, I agree 100%.
I also would say that it is odd to suggest that we are saying ‘God wouldn’t condemn someone to eternal torment because that denies his loving nature.’ I thought I already commented on this. I’m simply confused because this is what pretty much all Christianity believes is that God will condemn people for their wickedness, as that is stressed in the Bible a lot. What we do say is that ‘God is perfectly Just, but also perfect in Love, and therefore gives the way in which we can be with Him again, but that He will condemn us if we do not follow Him.’ Perhaps I am wrong, but I simply want it to be clear that we aren’t saying God doesn’t condemn.
I simply find it very confusing that the fact that He will condemn makes predestination the only reasonable explanation, in fact, it feels the opposite way to me, but perhaps I am wrong, and I’m not telling you that you are wrong. I am simply voicing my confusions, and I voice them in good faith that you have an answer, I’m not trying to attack, and I agree with you point here on anger.
I also can’t say that I see Calvinists as cold and emotionless, mostly because I think you are the first one I’ve ran into, at least knowingly. Though I can see how that may have been a problem for you in past conversations, to which I’m sorry you have to deal with any form of contention for what you believe, I can relate in this regard. My church has many times in the past have been referred to as a the Church of the Devil, and though I have not personally experienced it in my more sheltered environment, many other members I know personally have been scorned, and people would literally touch their scalps because their pastors told them that we have horns on our heads. Btw, I’m not trying to play victim here, I’m simply pointing out that I can relate in the regard of frustration for being viewed one way, when you know the reality is another. Simply remember that Christ said to remember that He was hated before we were hated. I am not denouncing your faith, and I meant it when I said that I will fight for it, I simply make critiques as the thinker that I am, and this is an apologetics page where we have those sort of conversations. If you feel at all uncomfortable with your view being challenged, then don’t sweat, just let us know, and at least I will stop my ranting.
I thank you for saying what you felt you needed to say, and I simply want it to be clear that I respect you and what you believe. I bear no ill will, nor contention towards you, nor am I trying to convince you, though I will still point out the things I see, and I hope we can have good conversations about it, as good conversations and challenges to our beliefs can greatly strengthen our testimonies of the truth, at least this is something I believe, so I encourage it.
As for your story, I can tell that it was heart-felt, and I agree with some of the ideas it points out. I do not want to take that away from you, but there are points I find fundamentally problematic, so at this point, I will ask you to simply stop reading if you feel uncomfortable. If you are willing to listen however, know that I speak with love and understanding, and I like what you said, and find it quite poetic, and I mean no harm to it. If you feel comfortable talking about it, then I would love to hear your thoughts, if not, I understand whole heartedly, and again, don’t feel pressured into any thought process, nor a need to read what I have to say. And before I continue, know that you have not offended me in any way, I have taken offence too often in the past, even a few times on KP, and it really doesn’t do much does it. I have spoken offensively too often as well, and that doesn’t do much either. I hope to speak with as much love as I can, but also with as much truth as we can.
Now, the lost girl. First, I feel that the story is incomplete, so I will make a third version.
The Lost girl: The Searchers daughter
The Lost girl is lost, and it is her fault. She wanted to follow Searcher, “stay close” he said, but she didn’t listen. She tries to find Searcher, see his lamp’s light, but eventually she realized that she didn’t deserve to see its light, because she didn’t listen.
She sits down, and weeps, knowing that she doesn’t deserve to see Searcher again. She has wandered off too far.
Then Searcher appears, a warm radiant face, chasing the darkness away. Lost girl whimpers, saying “Father, I know you hate me”.
Searcher sits beside her, and embraces her, feeling the cold slim and muck she was covered in from the swamp. “I love you daughter” he says “please, come home with me.”
His voice soothed her hurts and tumults within, yet she questioned, could she come back? She disobeyed, Searcher gave her cloths and food, yet she got the once beautiful white fabric stained with mud, slime, and even her own blood, how could she even set foot in Searchers house?
Searcher repeated “I love you daughter, I will carry you the whole way, I will clean you and I will feed you. Not a stain nor sign that you were lost, other than your heart I will fill with love. I will make you whole again.”
There are other Lost girl arch-types that could be explored, but I feel that this is one that should be emphasized. In some ways it is in-between the normal lost girl, and the wild child. I drafted it in the fashion similar to the prodigals son, a story the Savior gave.
The prodigal let his son leave with his inheritance. And what did his son do with it, he gambled it all away, losing it all, going to the lowest of the low. Eventually he realized his mistake, and he sought to come back to his father, yet he believed his father would hate him, and so he would offer to simply be his lowest servant. When he came back, just being a distance away from the house, his father ran to him and embraced him, and wept, brought him home, clothed him, and made a feast for him to celebrate his return. Did his son deserve any of this, probably not, yet his father did not dwell on who his son was, but who he knew he could be, he would no longer stray, he understands now what his father taught him and why.
This seems in very like fashion to how your thinking of the wild child. But the difference is that the son choose to come back, though it was in humility, thinking that he would be nothing but a lowly servant. He didn’t expect to be saved, unlike his elder brother or any scribes or Pharisees, or what I think your suggesting with the normal lost girl, but he choose to come back. Now, you may say that the father (God) simply choose to have his son leave and come back, and I think I see why you take that view, because it is not too unlike my own regarding the necessity of evil and tribulation so that we can come back to good with a knowledge of good and evil, and therefore not take for granted the good we receive, would you say that’s right? If so, that’s awesome, because that is something big we can agree on. If not, that’s alright. Where we would differ is that I believe that with our knowledge of good and evil, we must then learn to choose good, because we must become more Christlike. If we are forced into evil, and back into good, how do we know that the return is genuine?
I’ve met a few wild childs myself, as well as a few normal lost girls, and many many including myself I would say take the in-between route. I believe all three, and more can change through christ, because they are all lost in some sense, they only need to accept his offer. Though what you were implying with the normal lost girl feels more akin to the scribes and Pharisees, which is entitlement and pride, which is not accepting the offer, because it isn’t choosing to be humble yourself before Him.
Another thing regarding the lost girl I would like to point out is say there are not one, but two wild childs. Does the searcher really just pick one and condemn the other? This doesn’t make sense. Now, I think what your saying may be different, so if you’ve read to this point, I would like some clarification, because it seems like your denying the story of the normal lost girl as existing at all, and that we are all wild childs. I think what your trying to say is that it is the normal lost girl that would be condemned, and the wild child that would be saved, in other words, it is the line between those who will or won’t humble themselves. If so, that’s awesome, because again, I 100% agree here, it’s incredible that we can find so many similarities if we just take a little time asking questions, and bear with one another’s misunderstanding.
Here’s the thing though, If that is what you believe, but you also believe in predestination, then doesn’t that imply that God made the normal lost girl prideful, and the wild child humble, therefore they are not responsible for their actions, but instead God is, and therefore He simply picked between two wild childs, and made one act entitled, and therefore He would condemn that one and not the other?
Another interpretation I could take from what your saying though is that God didn’t predestine our choices, but we did by simply our beginning nature, and God simply knew our hearts and nature, and therefore already predetermined our fate, is that more in line with what you believe? If this is what you mean, then that works a lot more with me, I still have problems with it we could get into, but I don’t feel the need right now as I’ve said way too much already.
So here’s what I’m thinking it is that your trying to say. You believe that we are predestined not by God picking favorites, but simply God knowing our hearts in the beginning, and choosing our fate accordingly. He puts us in a life of pain and suffering, but also love and experience so that we may gain a understanding of good and evil, and be able to find joy and appreciation of good. And only those who are truly humble in their hearts by their beginning nature, will be saved. Would you say that’s about right? If yes, yay, because you should know that while I don’t agree with all of it, I still strongly affirm a lot here, thus we can find similarities in what we believe. If not, please correct me. I’m not too confident in this being what your saying, as I think this would still be problematic with Pharaoh, but that is beside the point.
If you’ve read to this point, yay! Thank you for bearing with me, don’t feel bad for what you said, it wasn’t really aggressive in any way, and your right to say it. I just hope that I was able to clear up some misunderstandings of our differing views and find some neutral ground, and I’m sorry you had to take some things I said as denunciation and contention. I really do respect your side of things, I’m just trying to understand it, but sorry if my curiosity has come off as rude. Thanks for all your thoughts!
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Thanks for your comments! Although, and please forgive me for saying this, but your argument against it doesn’t really counter what I’ve said. He addresses this specifically, but the response I can give is what I already pointed out. Vampires and mermaids and countless other creatures of that sort are all based off of existing things we know of, such as humans and fish. Things like dragons are different, because they are not quite based off of any creatures we know of, except maybe lizards, but he makes it clear that this really isn’t enough, because even the anatomy of lizards doesn’t match the very specific highly accurate details that are clearly depictions of dinosaurs. The only thing they would have had to go off of is bones, but again, it took us a long time to figure out how to re construct dinosaurs from the bones with our modern technology, and we made some pretty silly mistakes on that journey.
That being said, I won’t contradict you and say that old earth creationism is wrong, because I myself am sort of agnostic in that regard. I recognize excellent points to both sides, but for now, I don’t find how the Lord did it really all that important, what’s important is that He did do it, and we are here now. I personally am swayed a little more by micro-evolution, but biology isn’t really my area of interest.
I’m open to debating it with you if you would like though, I find the idea of saying that the information is outdated to be a bit strange, because while that might be true, the artwork is the main information, and the main idea still remains. Thanks again for your comments, I’m always open to fun discussions!
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Okay so I just have one gripe about the dragon argument. Couldn’t they just be based off of snakes? Because Snakes are long and dragon like, 🐍 🐉 see very similar.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
