December 1999


December 22, 1999
Yes, I know, I've been awful about writing the past few months. I could lie and attribute it to insufficient free time, but the truth is, it's been due to a lack of interest.
You see, when I started this page, I was a different sort of person then I am now. Back then, I wanted to share every minute detail of my thoughts and wishes. I believe I did this out of a desire for attention. I wanted people to be interested in my private life so I could be in some way the center of attention.
The reason my entries have decreased in frequency as of late ( as of the last several months ) is rooted in a realization I had. It came to me shortly before the beginning of this semester that wanting to be the center of attention wasn't really healthy. I realized that I was really trying to replace actual friendships with colorless pseudo-relationships. I also realized that I wanted respect for the things I have to say.
Recently I discovered that very few people are interested in what I have to share. That may sound sad to you, but I don't intend it to be. It is the honest truth. Unless one has published books or has displayed an inordinate amount of wisdom in some other way, that person's advice is rarely sought, and his unsolicited offers of advice are even more rarely appreciated.
Let me make this clear. I intend to continue writing, of course. My hope is that I will find it easy once again to share the things that are close to my heart. Not because I want to be revered or consulted, but because I have also concluded ( along with everything else I've mentioned ) that being a cold distant person isn't particularly Christ-like.
Now I know what some of you are thinking. How is spilling one's guts on the web "Christ-like"? Well, there isn't anything particularly Christ-like about it. It is, however, a good exercise, and a step towards becoming a more confident Christ-like individual. Self prescribed therapy, if you will.
....
And so, on to some sharing.
I feel like I'm turning over a new page. With this new page I'd like to also turn over a new leaf. I'm going to try a little harder to make my thoughts flow a little more logically. It seems that I've been slipping in this area. The fact that I haven't taken an english class in two years is my only excuse.
What I'm about to say I believe I've said before. If I'm wrong and I haven't said it before, then I've at least thought about it.
I'm finding myself to be too reliant upon reason. I'm forgetting that my mind is not the final ruler for determining truth. I am guilty of worshiping at the alter of rationalism.
I'll try to describe this problem to those of you who've never experienced it.
Ever since I was fairly young, I was consumed with what was provable and what made sense. When I was in elementary school, I was a fully functioning agnostic. I recall triumphantly declaring to my mother that we couldn't really prove that God exists. Even after I became born again, I wrestled with issue after issue. I doubt that I have ever gone for longer then a few months without being afflicted with a contentious, arrogant spirit. Only recently have I begun to take all arguements, including my own, with a grain of salt.
But occasionally, as recently as this week, I'm presented with a completely unfamiliar angle. I am thrown into a state of mind that I can only describe as being a stress attack. I want to return to my books and retreat to my thoughts to puzzle over the new information. I am bewildered and frightened almost to the point of nausea that I might have miscalculated at some point. I throw myself into my studies with a new resolve, digesting and re-digesting material ( most often scripture ) to determine whether my foundation of beliefs is cracked.
In the end, I usually sigh and realize that I'm running myself silly for no reason whatsoever.
Then I experience the aftershock -- The thought that perhaps I gave up too easily. That perhaps the new idea is the correct one and I've only given into the fear that i'm wrong. This gradually subsides as well, and i'm left where I started, usually with a bit more knowledge of what I believe what I believe, and a new appreciation of just how precariously balanced any student's beliefs are. No matter how robust a certain system of theology is, it has it's irregularities.
Though a top may spin, you can be assured that it has imperfections in its shape and inconsistencies in the material it's made from exist. It's shape may not be symetrical. Certain regions are denser then others and there might even be holes. These give each and every top a tiny wobble.
Ah, but the issue is not whether my top wobbles, but in the way I go about insuring that it does not. Friends, there is only so much inspection one can carry out with one's eyes. I can look at and measure my top all day long, but even if it is perfectly formed externally ( an impossiblity ), it would take more specialized instrumentation to determine if it is equally as uniform internally.
The point I have at long last come to is this: I am going to a lot of trouble to make certain that my top is as perfectly shaped as it can be. So much trouble that I'm failing to take take care of the material it's made from.
We are able to reason because God reasons and we are made in the image of God. The world is an ordered and reasonable place because an ordered and reasonable God created it.
I feel that my intelligence is my greatest asset. I'm not particuarly handsome or athletic, but I can do calculus. I also feel that my intelligence is my greatest burden. It has blinded me time and again to the truth.

December 23, 1999

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy's OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything's getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes,
UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing.
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is not absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
--Creed, by Steve Turner

If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
--Chance, a postscript to Creed, by Steve Turner

December 24, 1999
A merry Christmas Eve to all. It is highly likely that I will not be writing tomorrow.

More often then any other objection to Christianity passing through the mouths of non-believers is the complaint that we do not practice what we preach. As I was listening or reading, I don't remember which, the speaker/author pointed out that he did not believe that Christianity would ever be successful in India unless we as Christians began to live by the tenets given to us during the sermon on the mount.
Small is the fraction of believers in my personal experience about whom I can claim that their Christianity, their Christ-likeness, was evident. When I look in the mirror and review that duel lifestyle I have led, I know that I would not make that list in very many people's eyes, and even if I somehow were to make that list, it would be only because those making it out had only seen the better half of my character.
It is not hypocrasy that I sat down to write of. Rather, it is those few individuals who seem to be nearly immune to it. To my credit, I recognise and praise those people, rather then accusing them of being overly pious or puritanical. To my horror, I find myself resisting the desire to manipulate those people because I know that they will allow themselves to be controlled even as they are aware of my attempts to do so.
We have have grown rather soft living in this society of individual rigthts. Let me make it clear from the outset that the idea of individual rights owe's a great deal to religion. In our western society, we may call that religion by it's proper name, Christianity. The eventual outworking of the Protestant movement after Luther nailed his ninety-five thesis to the church door was not only a break away from the theocratic establishment, but an awakening of the realization that the lower class had worth. Our country was founded largely by protestants who brought this concept of freedrom from opressive authority with them. Not only that, but Christian ideas themselves, when properly carried out, demand a respect for each and every person. It was Christ who gave his attention to the poor and the rich alike.
The despairing fact is, we have carried with us to this day a semblence of these Christian ethics. I say it is desparing because it is only a poor image which we have retained, an image which is smaller, dirtier, and a bit corrupted. Where Christ insisted on the individual rights of others, we insist on the individual rights of ourselves. Where Christ pushed humility, we push self-esteem. The golden rule has been distorted to apply only to self. Treat yourself as you would like others to treat you. Even if it is left in it's original form, it is robbed of its context and taught in a way that twists it to mean that we should treat others well only out of the hope that we will in turn be treated the same way.
Even many Christians echo this sentament. I go and listen to bible teachers tell me that Christ expected us to be humble, not doormats. This idea is a foul mixture of Christianity and modern human rights that is plainly not biblical. Christ went to the cross. Tell me sir, was he, or was he not, a doormat at this point? He was wrongly arrested, beaten, and crucified. He never said a word in his defense. Was he, or was he not, what we would label a doormat?
My charge is that we must recognise that the kindness taught to us by Christ demands the humility of a doormat. We must realize that we will be manipulated, controlled, and used if we persue the truly Christian life. The concept of individual rights applies to the way we must treat others, not the way we should expect to be treated.


Main
Contact me: adam.stephens@ttu.edu