Apologetics: Jesus' Story

          The following argument follows a few of the central points of Jesus' story with the attempt to use reason and common sense to prove that such occurrences did indeed happen.  I have done little to no research regarding the credibility of the Bible, since internet sources have proven unreliable and wildly biased; whether to one side or the other.  Instead, I will use reasoning over knowledge.
          We are not going to concern ourselves with what is possible and what is impossible; not in this post; for it seems that every time we do we make fools out of ourselves.  Did you know that when computers were first invented, many considered them impractical and were convinced that they would never be able to be built any smaller than the average bedroom?  Yet here I am, typing this post out on a MacBook Pro about the size of a small binder.  So let's not convince ourselves of what is possible and instead look at what is probable.  
          This post will not be able to arrest control of your skepticisms and theories (I doubt that any of my posts could).  But I think it will pose some important questions.  By continuing to be skeptical, are you being smart or cynical?  This post will leave you with two conclusions to choose between.  These conclusions are not right and wrong, since I was not there and do not know precisely what happened.  Instead, almost as compelling, one conclusion will be logical and the other illogical.  You have to decide for yourself whether or not to continue being skeptical or choose to believe the logical conclusion.  

          There is one major thing you need concern yourself with the Bible in this post; nothing else, just one.  Did Jesus indeed claim to be the Son of God?  I believe he did for a mounting number of reasons. 
          1) To Jesus's story, there are four witnesses: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Each of them say, some more than others, that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.  Isn't a story considered credible when there are two witnesses with the same story?  Yet Jesus has double that number, a fact that ought not to be overlooked.
          Now, do not suppose that a lot of that information is second hand (for example, Mark told Luke and Luke wrote down what Mark said without having witnessed it himself).  You should not do this because many witnesses have stories that the other witnesses don't have.  In other words, while each account share similarities between each other, they are also each very unique.
          2) Accounts of Jesus have him stating and restating that he is the Son of God too many times to count.  Even if the story was exaggerated a bit, we ought not deny that he said that at one time or other.  To suppose that Jesus didn't say something that this book says he did (and the book says he said it a lot) is being a little cynical, don't you think?
          Besides, how do we assume that the story was exaggerated?  Through translation, of course.  But how do we assume that the Bible got translated enough to become exaggerated?  After all, if one-third of this book was only about some prophet who claimed to be nothing more than a prophet, how do we assume that the demand for the Bible became great enough for it to be translated so many times that his story eventually became exaggerated?  I personally think it illogical for "some prophet" to be famous enough for a book about him to be famous enough to be translated to the point that his claim as "some prophet" is exaggerated even a little, not to mention exaggerated to the point that he now claims to be the Son of God.
          Besides, why haven't we found any Bibles from ancient times clashing with Bibles form modern days on this subject?  If people are indeed skeptical on the matter, I imagine some archaeologist or other has looked into the matter.  Why hasn't he published his findings, "The Truth of Jesus' Claims", or whatever he wants to call it?  I'm just saying, that kind of claim is not twisted up that badly without someone smart finding out about it, no matter how late the finding may be.
          Also, think of how quickly Jesus became the center of culture.  Historical accounts say that by some 400 A.D., Rome had declared Christianity as the official religion of the empire.  Are we to suppose that this overwhelming influence was exerted by the memory of "some prophet"?  Illogical.  Are we to say, then, that by now Jesus' story had already been exaggerated from "some prophet" to "Messiah"?  Also illogical.  Are we to suppose that Jesus' followers, immediately after his death, lied and said that he was the Son of God?  Why would they do such a thing?  For in doing this they were persecuted by the Jews.  
          Does a liar lie simply to lie, or is it to benefit himself?  Would someone lie simply to lead others astray, or is it because they want to protect themselves?  If the disciples did lie about their leader being the Son of God, they would not be protecting themselves but rather doing quite the contrary and condemning themselves.  So this, too, is illogical.
          Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God
          I would next like to put forth the idea that Jesus did indeed perform miracles.  "Whoa whoa whoa!  Isn't this moving a little fast?" you may ask.  I suppose it is.  Still, there are no other really important things to analyze about Jesus' story.  Would you rather we waste our time debating whether or not the disciples did miracles, or whether or not he indeed had 12 disciples?  I'm not writing a book, its a blog post, and so I must concern myself merely with that which is important and that only.
          So did Jesus perform miracles?  I would think it logical to conclude that he did.  I think we should take the Bible's word that Jesus was famous during his preaching.  After all, he was exceedingly famous (overbearingly so) after his death.  Are we to assume that during his whole life, people didn't bat an eye, but then afterwards they suddenly placed him at the center of their lives?  And if those teachings could have so adverse of an effect from the mouths of others and on paper, why wouldn't they be as empowering from the preacher himself?  
          So it is logical to assume that Jesus was famous during his life, since he was so famous afterwards.  He claimed to be the Son of God and he was famous.  Wait, does not this sentence seem a bit oxymoronic?  After all, when you see on the news that someone claims to be the Son of God, you merely think them insane.  They are not famous, but rather infamous.  
          So, how could he claim to be the Son of God without seeming insane and rather becoming famous for it?  We must assume that he was a very convincing Son of God.  Now, how can he convince others so well with mere talk?  Wouldn't he have to do some pretty miraculous things to convince people?  After all, the Son of God is no small claim to make.  You can't just talk people into believing something so completely ridiculous.
          Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.  Jesus was famous.  Logically, in order for these two things to be true of the same person, that person would have to have performed some pretty miraculous signs to convince his audience.
          Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus performed miraculous signs
          I would next like to put forth the idea that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.  I know, I know, I'm beginning to sound ridiculous.  Remember, though, that those who try to arrest control of the possibilities always look foolish.  Don't think of how impossible it seems.  Only look at the facts and probabilities with me.
          We ought to take the Bible for its word and agree that Jesus' disciples did indeed scatter after his death, as opposed to the alternative of continuing to preach about him posthumously.  "What makes you say this?" many may protest.  "After all, the followers of Joseph Smith and Muhammed didn't scatter after their leaders died."  A valid observation.  Still, there is something very different about Jesus as compared to these two examples.  These two examples claimed to be prophets.  There is one very natural thing that each prophet does.  They die.  It is not surprising when a prophet dies because it is understood that a prophet, while in possession of divinely inspired wisdom, will die one day.  This lack of surprise allows the followers of a prophet to gladly carry on the legacy of that prophet, unhindered in their faith in the prophet's words.
          While these examples claimed to be prophets, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.  There is one important fact about the Son of God, as is true about any divine being, whether explicitly stated or implicitly implied.  He cannot die.  So in Jesus' death the disciples have not only lost their spiritual leader, an occurrence that is hard enough to have faith in the midst of, but in dying Jesus is simultaneously condemned a liar.  His claims as the Son of God are proven untrue by his death.
          But wait, something is missing from this story.  As it is, the disciples did end up preaching Jesus' message to the world, and the world ended up being centered around his memory for millennia to come.  So what then?  Are we to assume that the disciples, now knowing that they had faith in a lie, decided to deceive the world through this lie?  Illogical.  Remember, the Jews condemned Jesus.  Do you think they weren't also on the lookout for his followers?  Sure, the disciples may be willing to endure suffering in the name of truth.  But for the sake of a lie?  
          Even further, who on earth would be willing to suffer and die for a liar?  And we're not just talking about someone who fires off a bunch of white lies, we're talking about Jesus Christ, who attempted to convince the world that he was the world's Master.  If Jesus is indeed lying, and his death just proved that he is, then he is pretty much the most evil liar in history.  After all, convincing people that you are the Son of God allows you to say pretty much anything and those who believe will accept it as truth.  Now death has come in and exposed Jesus not merely as a liar but as a power-hungry tyrant.  And yet the disciples suffered and died for him shortly thereafter?  Illogical.
          Are we to suppose that the disciples were crazy?  I think we ought not to.  After all, have you read the writings of Paul?  Do they sound like the words of a crazy man?  We may not always understand what he is trying to say, but is this because his words have no principle behind them or because the principle is too advanced for us to explain?  Read some of Paul's writings, I think you will find the writing very informed and advanced.
          Are we to suppose that the disciples were out for power?  After all, Jesus died a famous man, upon whose words many hung.  Perhaps the disciples found merit in continuing his legacy as a ploy for power?  For some perspective on the question, allow me to ask you another one.  During what time period do you consider the church to be less corrupt: 100 A.D. or 1000 A.D.?  Historical accounts attest to the fact that it was more corrupt in 1000 A.D.  
          But why?  What caused the corruption?  The most obvious answer would be power.  Weilding immense political and social power, the leaders of the church became corrupt, turning to dishonest methods to raise money, control the populace, etc.  
          If the original disciples were indeed after power, wouldn't the early church be more corrupt?  Are we to suppose that the disciples had a 1000-year conspiracy to create an institution that would eventually wield corrupt power?  Highly illogical.  Does one exercise corrupt methods to achieve power for another?  No.  One who achieves power through corrupt methods achieves it to enjoy it for themselves.  Consider this: how can one achieve power over others for others?  Not only is this improbable, but is it even possible?
          Some of you may protest, "Government has power over us.  Would you consider that power to be against our best interests?"  The answer is no, I consider government to be in our best interests.  But here is my point: does the government really have power over us?  Honestly, think about it.  It has the authority to punish us for crimes and control things in our lives economically here and there, but unless you are conflicting with the government, its power over you is largely obsolete.  Unlike the corrupt medieval church, which forced people to do certain things, government at its best has laws largely telling us what not to do, exerting power over lawbreakers but largely leaving the "righteous" alone.  Corrupt power (what I called "power over others" in the paragraph above this one) is absolute and does not discern between righteous and unrighteous.
          So the disciples didn't seem crazy, and it doesn't seem that they were out for power either.  Yet still, they suffered and died for who?  A liar?  There must be more to the story.
          Suppose that Jesus' death is not the end of the story.  Suppose that the disciples saw one last miraculous sign re-igniting their faith that all the words of Jesus were true, giving them the willingness to endure pain and suffering.  Now, this sign could not simply be, "Oh, I saw a bright light in my dreams that reminded me of Jesus!  Surely, he told us the truth!"  That sort of a sign does not change the fact that Jesus is dead, and the fact that Jesus is dead is what makes him a liar.  The sign the disciples saw had to have flipped the truth of Jesus' death on its head.  It simply had to.  Otherwise, the disciples would have suffered in the name of someone they knew to be a liar.
          But if Jesus rose from the dead, not only would he be welcomed back by the disciples as a teller of truths, but I imagine their faith in him would be even greater because of the rough days during his death.  This could account for why the disciples were willing to suffer since the alternative, the idea that they suffered for a liar, is illogical.
          Jesus died and is proven a liar.  The disciples suffered in his name.  Logically, in order for these things to be true of the same situation, Jesus had to have risen from the dead, proving to the disciples his rightness and explaining their willingness to suffer in his name.  Any alternative not involving Jesus' resurrection is just as illogical as the next.  Suppose the disciples stole his body from the tomb to convince others that he had risen.  Suppose they saw a vision of Jesus on the throne while his mortal body was still in the tomb.  Only resurrection turns back the fact that he is dead, which is essential because his death made him a liar, which made it illogical to suppose that the disciples suffered in his name.
          Bottom line: it is illogical to deny that Jesus rose from the dead                

          And so concludes my job as Jesus' lawyer, so to speak.  A part of me is outstandingly proud of what I have just written, another part of me rather shocked at the idea that this is even logical.  Still, I cannot deny that it is indeed logical.  Who is the master of logic?  Are we?  Hardly, we can only harness and use it for our own ends, or in my case, the ends of others (God).  I hope to add more to my growing stack of apologetic arguments in Jesus' and God's favor.  Don't wait for my next post.  Believe now, if not for God's sake than for the sake of logic and reason and common sense. 

To my first and second cousins

          To my first and second cousins serving as missionaries in a foreign land.
          From Codey, a servant of the LORD.  Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.

          I feel this letter is terribly overdue, seeing as you departed from us over a week ago.  Still, I find writing in this style to be exhilarating and terribly fun; funner, even, than writing the other logical, apologetic writings on this blog.  I gather that this is because when writing these writings, I feel free to burst out with words praising God whenever I see fit, whereas during apologetic writings I must become as a fool to speak to the fool.  Since you are not fools, I can speak as a wise and informed Christian, thanks be to God and the three Persons within!
          Since I know little of you, I imagine this letter will end up a little more superficial than you or I would like.  Still, I will do my best to encourage and advise you in genuine topics of importance.
          Shaun, I could not help but notice certain fascinating similarities between you and me.  As was mentioned, you are currently writing both a fantasy book and an autobiography (I regret not asking more about them).  I find this comparable to my video game planning exploits and my endeavors on this very blog.  One is an exercise of my creativity, the other involves logical judgments of the facts.  In the same way, your fantasy book is an exercise of your creativity while your autobiography exercises your analysis of the facts.
          These gifts are surely of God; do not withhold your thanks from him.  To God's glory will these gifts enrich the lives of friend and foe alike, and by sharing them will your talents increase and multiply.  
          Do not feel inconsequential, as I do from time to time, because you do not get the glory for yourself.  On the contrary, be exceedingly glad!  For when a man dies (as every man does), his glory dies with him.  However, our God will never die, and his glory will live on with him.  By storing up your glory in him, that glory will live on forever.  To hoard it for yourself is to condemn it to your fate, which will eventually be death.  Yet because you have placed your soul in the care of God, it will live on in him.  Therefore, give him the glory also, so that it, too, can live on forever.
          What glory does a single music note have?  It lasts just seconds after it is played, then it fades away and dies.  Its glory, however minuscule, dies after seconds.  Yet the music note can also die to itself and become part of a piece of music, giving up its own glory and instead bringing glory to the song.  Is this not better?  Look at how little glory one note has alone.  Though it must give up its glory, doing so can create something infinitely more glorious.  A song is capable of immeasurable glory; yet it needs notes to cooperate for it to be created.  
          So you see?  The glory belongs to the song!  Even so, the contributions of each note are to be celebrated and appreciated.  As surely as he lives, the LORD will commend and reward you for your contributions to Truth and Eternity.
          Haley and Kylie, I thank you for teaching Olaf how to be a house dog; how to sit and snuggle while he would much rather run around and chew on everything he ought not to be chewing on.  You each possess soft hearts towards animals, the likes of such a heart I have only glimpsed.  Not to suggest that you do not already, but invite as many people as possible into that heart.  
          I am certain that, considering the circumstances within which you live, you will often meet men who will hate you.  Do not hate them back, for to do so would be to surrender to the same devices to which they have been lost.  The human tongue refers to it as sin.  It is a disease, infecting one then infecting another through contact with that one.  It creates circles of dysfunction, causing the next to infect the next to infect the next.  
          Oh how I hate this very thing about sin!  It seems unstoppable.  So many submit instead of breaking the circle.  Many do not even know that they have become a victim in a circle.  Indeed, we are all victims; our parents Adam and Eve committed sin, and their children inherited that sin.  Yet now we have been given the opportunity to die as children of Adam and live instead as children of God.  
          I am confident that you have already done this, and so I advise you, do not hate those who hate you.  For though the one who hates hates only to help himself, the Devil seeks to use him to spread his virulent Disease, which we are called not to devise a cure for, but to administer the cure that was already devised by God through his Son.  So do not hate, for while there is indeed room for the sick in the hospital, there is no room for the sick among the doctors.  Instead, love the way you love all the creatures in Creation, with it in mind that the Creator loves them.
          Lastly, to Cliff and Kari.  I fear that I probably overheard some conversations that I ought not to have overheard, specifically between Kari and Barbara.  I heard that you were afraid for your children, or you used to be to some significant degree.  This is what I have to say on the matter, to both of you: I would consider you fools if you weren't!  It is indeed rational to be afraid for them; if parents did not fear for their children they would be unable to protect them from anything dangerous.  In addition, you are going places that you are not familiar with; places that may intend ill against you, places that almost certainly will considering the message you have for them.
          Yet do not be afraid, for there is another fear that cannot even compare to this.  Fear of what might happen were you to ignore God's call to the mission field.  This would negatively affect not only you but to the people who you would have ministered to.  It is evident that they need Christ, and therefore, by extension, they need you.  The following advice is obvious and overstated, yet I feel I must give it to you anyway.  If this is indeed God's calling for you, will he not provide what you need to carry out his mission?  Such trust is radical, profound, and rarely experienced.  Still, God calls you to have this trust in him, through him, and for him.  Amen.
          I must admit a level of envy against you, for in your stories you reconciled so many souls to Christ!  It is no exaggeration to say that to every one soul that I have lead to Christ, you have lead... well, the second number depends on the grand total of people you have saved, since I have saved but one soul.  Her name is Sarah, the one whom you met on Tuesday, and even then I barely credit myself since I merely told her to borrow and read a book; shortly thereafter she accepted Christ into her heart.
          So, while you will on many occasions be tired and irritated and scared and angry, be thankful, for the LORD has counted you worthy of a great honor that many in the family of believers have been counted unworthy of.  In the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "I am sending you out as sheep among wolves.  Therefore, be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
          While I, indeed, resent my apparent inconsequential place in God's kingdom, it is a feeling and/or position that will pass eventually.  When it does, I imagine it will be in some extremely bold way that will turn the eyes of many, simultaneously bringing much glory to God and humiliating my past resentment.

          Again I say, be thankful and bring glory to the song you have all been counted worthy of being included in, for there are many who have not yet found their place, or who have found their place and do not like it or discredit it due to lack of faith.
          Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.               
            

What's my opinion on good and evil?

          In my last post "Why is there evil in the world", I wrote that I have a well formed opinion on what I think good and evil is, and I imagine many of you would like to know what that opinion is.  To such people I write this post.  Who knows?  Perhaps it will help chisel and improve your own perception of good and evil.

          Many of you who have read my previous posts know or can easily infer that I am a Christian, believing that Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross to atone for mine and everyone's sins.  It is not surprising, then, that my opinion is based on, if not centered on, my Faith.
          It is obvious and sensible to assume that God is the goal, the prize, etc.  Salvation and eternal life in heaven are central ideas not only in Christianity but in every religion ever, acknowledging God, or whatever that religion may call him, as the goal of every man, woman, and child.  Is it not sensible to assume, then, that God is also the Standard, the thing we ought to be as much like as possible?
          It is my opinion, then, that God is the standard.  God is Right, and anything else that conflicts with what God says is Wrong.  This, I think, is a much more solid conclusion than any person can conjure without using God.  
          For example, let's assume that someone, without using God, assumes that Right and Wrong are perfectly fixed and absolute.  Not so surprising of a conclusion, there are things that for the most part seem very obviously wrong, such as murder and stealing.  However, would one be considered to have done wrong were they to murder someone with the intent of murdering them?  Let's say a robber has a gun to your head.  Should it be counted against you if you shot him first?  I would say no, and many others stand behind me.  "That's justice", one might say.  However, if Right and Wrong are so absolutely fixed, wouldn't murder be wrong under any and all circumstances?  And besides, who decides whether or not an action is right or wrong?  People?  Clearly, there is some level of relativity when it comes to Right and Wrong.
          Now what about the other end of the spectrum?  Say someone, without using God, decides that Right and Wrong are completely relative.  Not unwarranted, yet misled.  After all, how can we account for things that are obviously wrong under almost any circumstance?  In addition, to what is Right and Wrong relative to?  Human preference; that is, what one would want done to them?  Children don't like to be disciplined, but I don't think anyone will deny that that is what is best for them; that that is what is right.  A child doesn't know what's best for them; to say that Right and Wrong are relative to what we want is assuming that we always know what is best for us.  Is it not obvious that we don't?
          So I believe that God's will is Right, and that which conflicts with it is Wrong.  This covers all of the problems encountered when we try to omit God from the Moral Question.  Right and Wrong are indeed absolute.  However, though absolute, they are not predictable since we cannot know God perfectly and completely.  At the same time, Right and Wrong are completely relative to God's judgment on them, accounting for why some things (such as murder) are wrong most of the time yet not all of the time.  
          Now, some of you may say, "How can God contradict himself?  For instance, why would he tell the Israelites 'thou shalt not murder' one moment, then lead them into battle the next?"  All warranted questions, however, allow me to use an analogy to better your understanding.  Have any of you watched "The Incredibles"?  If not, allow me to explain my analogy.  Ellen is the mother of Violet.  Each of them have super powers.  The current political atmosphere in the world rejects super heroes, so Ellen makes sure Violet knows that she is never allowed to use her powers in public.  Long story short, the two of them end up on a private jet with Ellen as the pilot.  The jet is being hunted down by seeking missiles.  Unable to outmaneuver them, Ellen tells Violet to use her powers of force-fielding.  Violet is panicked and confused, simply yelling, "You told us we weren't supposed to use our powers!"
          Would you say that the mother's judgment was wrong?  Of course not.  They were going to die.  They needed her powers.  Violet didn't understand why she wasn't allowed to use her powers at home, yet here on the plane she had an obligation to.  The mother, on the other hand, knew better than her daughter, and made her best judgment.
          So it is with God.  He is omniscient; he possesses knowledge far above our own.  He knows every circumstance and situational dynamic involved and is fully equipped and thoroughly inclined to make the right decision.  Just because it seems contradictory to us does not change the fact that it is right.   

Why is there evil in the world?

          This particular post is more from the Creationist standpoint, asking the question, "If there is a Creator, why is there evil in the world?"  If you consider your faith faltering, or you want to believe in a Creator yet cannot bring yourself to do so because you do not understand why their is evil in the world he created (he created the world, not evil), this post will be good for you.

          I'm not interested in arguing whether or not good and evil is absolute, or whether there is has some relativity under Justice, or whether it is completely relative based on what people would have done to them.  Know that I have a well formed opinion on the matter; however, that is for another post.  Whatever evil is, I don't think anyone is going to argue that it exists.  Even if we aren't talking morals, there's also pain and sadness and hatred in the world.  So while this post considers moral things to be evil, murder, stealing, lying, etc., it also considers pain and sadness to be evil, since it is just as compelling to ask, "Why would God create a world with pain and sadness?"
           Allow me to point out that it is often people that do evil.  People murder, steal, lie, and do all sorts of wrong things for their own gain.           
          If I'm not mistaken there are some arguments against this, one in particular that I can think of is Naturalism (I may be mistaken on the terminology).  It claims that man is completely subject to his surroundings, his upbringing, etc.  For instance, if a child grows up among thieves and scoundrels with no psychologically healthy family to speak of, that child is not simply very likely to become a thief and scoundrel, he has no say in the matter.  He will become a thief; in other words, he has no choice.
          Now, under this philosophy no one can do evil.  I suppose there still could be evil in the world (of this I am unsure), but no one's actions could be evil.  Why?  Because evil is a choice; the option to do good or evil is first placed in front of you before you do evil (more on that in a later paragraph).  If it is as Naturalism says, people do not have the power to choose.  They are robots, obeying the pressure of their surroundings.  Therefore, they cannot do evil.
          I think this philosophy is wrong for simple reasons.  For one, how does it account for enmity between people and their situations?  If something bad happened to someone in their past, they would hate the fact that that situation happened to them.  Why?  Because they know that it could have been better.  Read that last sentence again, it's important.  How is it, if we are indeed completely subject to our situations, that we can speculate about our situations being different?  If people and their situations are one in the same, how is it that people can speculate about their situations being different?
          This inherent ability to speculate indicates a level of insubordination between people and situations.  If you were indeed subject to your situations to the degree that Naturalism may suggest, you would not be able to "see beyond" them.  Sure, someone brought up among scoundrels is likely to become a scoundrel upon growing up.  But do you suppose that he doesn't understand that he can "not" be a scoundrel?  Even if it seems a ridiculous or harmful option, he did indeed choose to become a scoundrel. 
          Besides this, think of people brought up in said situations who did not become thieves, or became thieves and later turned from their ways.  How could they have done that were they subject to their situations?   
          As it is, we can and do do such things, so we could not possibly be subjects of our situations to such a degree that we cannot do evil.  Situations around us are a factor in this, but they cannot control our ability to choose, they can only influence it.  This is an accurate depiction: situations place before us the good and the evil from which to choose.  Just because they seem to present more options under "evil" does not mean that we have to choose evil.  Besides, to every evil there is a good.  For example, if under "evil" there is the option "become a thief", there is always the option "don't become a thief".
          Bottom line: Naturalism is proven untrue on account of our ability to see through and change our situations
          So people can do evil.  But why?  Why would a Creator create us with the ability to do evil at all?  Why not simply strip us of that power?  Well, allow me to argue that without the ability to do evil, we would not have the ability to do good.  This is because the existence of good and evil is dependent upon the presence of one thing: a Standard.  This Standard defines what is good as that which upholds the Standard, simultaneously condemning everything that does not measure up to the Standard as evil.  Since good and evil are dependent on the same thing, the presence of a Standard, you cannot have the ability to do one without the ability to do another.
          Think of how this plays out in reality.  Whenever you have the option to do good, do you not also have the option to "not do good"?  And whenever you have the option to do evil, do you not also have the option to "not do evil"?  Whenever a standard is set, there will always be that which does not measure up to the standard.  To every one, there is the other.
          So the Creator created us with the ability to do both good and evil.  Why?  I suppose we must assume that he thought it was worth it.  I cannot answer why the Creator thought it was worth it (though I do believe it was worth it), I can only assume that he did.  And in the end, whether we think it is worth it to have good and evil in the world, we still have the explanation as to why people can do evil.
          Bottom line: people have the ability to do evil as an unfortunate side-effect from the ability to do good
          Some of you may be thinking, "Okay, fine.  So there's evil in the world because people do the evil.  But why would the world be created with natural disasters and other lethal, tragic occurrences in it that have nothing to do with people?"  Now, allow me to present to you an idea, which I will later back with tangible representations.  Imagine people as they are, interacting with each other.  Now imagine the universe as a medium through which their interactions pass to get to each other.  Now, in order for someone to do "something" to someone else, that "something" must pass through the medium to the other person.  If someone does "something" good, the medium carries that something to the subject.  If someone does "something" evil, the medium carries that something to the subject.  Now, does not the medium have to be capable of carrying evil for people to do evil to each other?  In other words, does not the world have to be capable of evil for people also to be capable of evil?  Besides, are we not part of the world in which we live?  And if we are capable of evil, surely the world in which we live is too.
          Allow me to explain myself, since I am sure that I have you thoroughly confused.  Imagine this: someone punches you in the face.  They wronged you.  Why?  Because they inflicted pain upon you that you did not deserve.  Back up.  Pain.  Now, we suggest that the Creator ought to have created a world where only people could do the evil (as the price for good) but their surroundings were perfect.  In order for that to be fulfilled, a punch from a person would hurt.  However, falling and hitting your head on a rock would not hurt in the slightest.  How could the Creator create a world like that?  Well, I suppose he ought to be able to do whatever he wants.  Still, making a world where rocks don't hurt would likely require a serious reshuffle in the laws of nature, which I imagine would have upsides and downsides of their own. 
          Even further, in such a world someone hitting you with something, say a tree branch, wouldn't hurt.  We couldn't use swords or knives or even guns to hurt each other.  Humans, for a large part, have control of the earth.  We are the only animals on it possessing enough power to annihilate it.  We often have to scale back our best efforts to keep from killing off a particular animal.  We can use nature for our own ends.  Painful as it is, nature has to be able to go along with us when we use it to do evil.  Besides all that, I wonder if the world would be capable of good if it were not also capable of evil?
          Bottom line: in order for us to do good and evil, the world in which we live must be capable of good and evil
          
          "Okay okay.  Fine.  I get it, the world has to be capable of evil.  But did the Creator have to create natural disasters that huge?  I mean, couldn't he have scaled it back a touch?"  This line of thinking is warranted, yet naive.  Think about this, what if he had scaled back the disasters?  What if every tsunami (hypothetically) killed fifty people rather than today's one-hundred?  Even if tsunamis were less intense than they are today, would we not still think them intense?  Imagine two separate worlds: one with fifty-kill tsunamis and one with one-hundred-kill tsunamis.  Don't you think that each people would complain just as much about their tsunamis?  After all, they have no comparison for how bad their tsunamis are, all they see is a lot of people being killed by nature.
          Imagine even further.  Imagine there were no natural disasters.  Might we still complain about, I dunno, people drowning in oceans?  People dying of heat stroke?  Don't you think we are taking our complacency a little far?  We know that the world must be capable of evil, and we know that we would probably complain no matter how truly disastrous nature was.  Now, can we stop complaining about the earth (which is just so bad, right?) and opening our minds and trying to understand why?  I have found the answers, and what I found I wrote to you.  Listen well to the words; I am certain that they are good and true. 

To Lake Havasu City

          To Lake Havasu City, my home in body but never in soul.
          From Codey, a servant of the LORD.  Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.

          I feel entirely compelled by honesty to speak my mind to this city, as harsh as the words may be.  Those of you who know and sympathize with what I have experienced will probably find my words tempered and even-handed, whereas the subject of my words will likely find me verbally reckless and hot-headed.  (That is what you do, is it not?  Hate those who disagree with you?)  It is entirely unfortunate that the crowd to whom this post is addressed will not receive it well; still, for some reason, wise or unwise, I feel the need to truly speak my mind before leaving you all.
          You do know that the nature of this city is the reason we are leaving it?  And I do not speak of how dull it is around here or how little there is to do; with this I could have and was beginning to learn to be content.  In fact, I was insufferably busy during my time here, far busier than a strongly pronounced introvert such as myself hopes to be. 
          So this has nothing to do with boredom.  Well... perhaps I am over judging.  Boredom and lack of opportunity are factors.  Still, the end-all (for me, at least) is the nature of the city; or, more exactly, the nature of its people.  If Las Vegas ("sin city") had a child, this city would be her prostitute daughter.  So worldly are its people!  So entirely sold to what is useless are they!
          Do not suppose that we are afraid of you, my family and I.  We may be acting out of fear, but there is a difference between reacting to fear and enslaving oneself to it.  A soldier afraid to die can do two things: fight bravely or flee.  To flee would be to submit and enslave himself to fear.  To fight bravely, he must still react to his fear of death, for his fear of death is what compels him to stay alive in battle.  Fear of death allows him to dodge bullets and terminate enemies.  Courage allows him to fight, fear allows him to fight well.
          So we are not afraid of you.  In fact, we are afraid of ourselves.  Afraid of what we might miss without the opportunity, afraid of what we might become after prolonged exposure to the likes of you.  And do not suppose that we are enslaved to fear, for if we were, we would kill ourselves.  These fears will never leave us until we die; even to Capistrano they will follow us.  For I am sure that to every sinner, every drunkard every prostitute every sluggard, to every one sinner here in Havasu there will be two where we are going.
          However, to every one person here who has given there life to Christ and who lives their life like Christ as well as their flesh allows, I am confident that to every one who is saved there will be at least three where we are going.  Though it seems a small number, it is more than enough for me.  Whatever number of saved there are, God will provide, just as he has each and every time in the past.  This will be to our betterment, which will be to his glory.  Amen.
          I think it best to acknowledge the Christians in Lake Havasu City.  I say to you: do not give in to the sinners around you!  Do so, and you may find God rescuing your friends from you just as he rescued me, and you will simultaneously lose yourself to sin and lose your friend to the jealous hand of God.  
          Do not abuse substances.  Do not slander.  Do not lust.  Be especially careful not to do these things, for these are the things that you will be most intensely tempted to do.  Do not give in; wait on the LORD.  Believe me when I say that when you wait on him, he will deliver you.  I say this with confidence because he did the same for me.  And when he does deliver you, you will be safe indeed!  The temptations of the world will not scathe you during a season of deliverance.  Therefore, wait on him, and he will deliver you.
          Now, to the sinners of Lake Havasu City, I can honestly say that I wish you the best, for if I did not do so then I myself would be undeserving of the best, which is something I strive to achieve for myself.  Not that I am capable of achieving the best for myself by my own power.  The thing that is the best for me, the path that leads to the best, and the power required to keep me on that path all come from another so infinitely more powerful than myself and all of humanity.  The only thing in my power, the only thing, is my power to choose to start that path.   
          This is not to say that I wish you the best merely so that I can be deserving of the best, or simply because I ought to, but because I truly do.  Why shouldn't I?  Why should I be hateful and resentful if you were to repent and do what is best for yourselves?  That is not to say that I am hateful and resentful now.  No, what you may read as hate is merely frustration, which is entirely different.
          The past is just that; past.  The past has no other use but to be used and referred to at the expense and benefit of the present and future.  The past does not deserve to wreak havoc on the present and future.  However, if it can enrich the present and future, what reason have we not to let it?  If you were to repent, what is past would be past, and there is no need for me to let the past ruin my future by allowing my heart to harbor hatred against it.  Indeed, your repentance would also be in the past, and that repentance could enrich the future, both yours and mine.  As it is, your past is also your present, and until you repent it will be your future.  What a sad thought this is for me!
          I do not expect you to repent because I leave, sad as you may be about my passing, for if you were capable of being convinced to repent under any reasonable magnitude of circumstances, you would have done so already when I begged you to do so in person (in my own, somewhat roundabout way).  Even so, I say it one last time.
          Repent!  Repent and believe the good news I have been presenting to you all this time!  Let go of your pride; it will grant you no power.  Let go of your lust; it will leave you empty.  Let go of your contempt; it will control you.  Let go of the things of the world and pursue things that are true and pure and eternal!  Pursue what I pursue; you will not be disappointed.  I have never been let down in my pursuit of these things, and I am confident that I never will be.  What is to stop you from pursuing them besides you?
          As bitter and frustrating and sad as it is, I bid you farewell.  If only I could I stayed a bit longer!  I might have finally made an impact on the likes of you.  Yet these are my conclusions, and it is clear that the LORD knows better, otherwise I would not be moving.  Sons and daughters of the world, if nothing else, know this.  Know that I would have fought for you to the end.  Do you think I would ever have given up preaching and ministering to you?  Certainly not.  Such is the tenacious love of Christ.  Take this as a sign; if I am so tenacious then surely the love of Christ must truly be working in me.  
          Do not fool yourselves.  This love is for all, not merely the "good guys" or self-righteous religious types such as myself.  This love is for all, and for all it sacrificed all that you could inherit everything.  Gifts of eternal value, highly prized in this age and the age to come.  All you need do is accept it!  Is it not you I hear, babbling on about acceptance?  Do you not cling to inclusiveness like a priceless ideal?  Christ's love includes you!  Accept it!
          
          Now I fear that I am beating the dead horse as I continue to preach and dictate to you.  This stands as yet another witness to my furious love for you.  So now I really do bid you farewell!  Know that I could have written so many more paragraphs addressed to your betterment.
          Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.
                          

To NRG Youth

          To Lake Havasu Baptist or, more exactly, its youth group.

          From Codey, a servant of the LORD.  Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.

          I consider myself much like Paul as I write (or rather, type) this message to you, my brothers and sisters in Christ.  Besides such, I consider my writing very similar to his: intellectual, confrontation, frank, etc.  I have been meaning to read more of his immortal writings and recommend that you do the same, in addition to all that is written in the Gospel.

          At the same time, I am much different from Paul.  I do not presume to be as far along or as rooted in my relationship to Christ as Paul himself; if I did it is unlikely that my words would go quite so unnoticed by the world.  Not that I desire recognition, especially for my own sake as opposed to the sake of Christ, but at the same time I would rather make a difference that is limited and intense as opposed to extensive and superficial.  I see that this is why I am still in Lake Havasu, not to preach to the masses but to permanently change the lives of a few intimates, among whom I include you.

          In addition, my mission is not quite the same as Paul's.  For Paul was once a sinner, the worst of sinners, who became arguably the greatest Christian in history.  This was to God's glory, and to show sinners the shattering power of his grace and the grace of his Son.  Me, on the other hand, know little to nothing of darkness.  I know only of shadow, of the contrast, since the light of Christ has been in my life since time immemorial.  

          I do not say this with pride, on the contrary, I say it with great humility.  This is what I envy from Paul: he had the power to show sinners the way.  He did not simply speak words, but proved that sinners can indeed be saved, and not merely saved to the point that they can "survive" their faith but thrive in their faith.  For Paul was once a great sinner who did not merely survive his walk with Christ but thrived. 

          In light of such information, it is obvious that I have a different charge from the LORD.  For a sinner cannot look at my testimony and conclude that he, too, can be saved, for he will not see me as a sinner.  I once was a sinner, but such was not so obvious to me or anyone else.  My story, my words; sinners cannot relate to them.  
          I am quite certain, then, that my audience is the righteous.  I have little power to convince the sinner to begin on the path of righteousness.  But for one who is on the path of righteousness, a path I have fought tooth and nail to stay upon, that person I can help.  I have experienced many hardships on this path; some hardships caused by the very fact that I was following the path.  There is little that a righteous man struggles with that I myself have not experienced and vice-versa.  Where there is sympathy there is understanding, and where there is understanding there is progress.  I cannot convince someone to start on the path, but I can convince them to keep on it.  
          Therefore, my greatest audience is the righteous.  Brothers and sisters, you are on that path; it started when you accepted that Christ was your one and only Savior and vowed to do as he did and love as he loved.  I share more sympathies with your problems than you may think; indeed, I may share more sympathies than even I think!  And it is because of these sympathies that I have decided it altogether good and proper to write to you personally, most especially considering that there will come a time very soon that I will neither see nor speak with you personally.
          As you know, I am moving from Lake Havasu to San Juan Capistrano in California.  My parents are convinced that it is the LORD's will, and they are wise and righteous.  A week ago I may have disagreed, but today I can honestly say that I, too, believe that this is God's will for us.  What is altogether troubling is the reason why.  How few are the righteous, how ignored is Christ here in this city!  You know that I am a young man of strong will, yet even so God saw fit to rescue me from the pit of the unrighteous.  Is this because I was destined to stumble some time very soon?  Is my full potential only reachable in the courts of the wise?  
          If God saw fit to save one of such strong will from such a place, how much more danger is there for you!  I do not presume to be more righteous than anyone.  I do presume, however, to possess more thirst and determination for righteousness than many (not nearly all, of course).  I urge you then: be strong and courageous; I'll say it again, be strong!  To be "richer for the experience", one must survive the experience.  Perhaps even more importantly, never forget that this is not from yourselves.  Your strength is in Christ, and through him only can you hope to brave the perils of this city.
          At the same time, perhaps the one with strongest will was the most vulnerable to the temptations posed by non-believers.  Perhaps you are left because your hearts are soft and abundant in grace and forgiveness.  Never lose these things, for these things are from God, and to God's glory will these things be made known to your adversaries, which are many.  Still, I urge you to add a thirst for righteousness and a strong will in God to that which you already possess; allowing you to live as Christ lived, accepting the sinner and rejecting the sin.
          Do not let slander touch your lips.  For it is written, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."  Slanderous lips shape a heart with slanderous thoughts; to speak like a fool is to be a fool.  And do not say to me, "These words are regarded as slanderous by the world, not by me."  If the world regards something as evil, how matchless is that evil!  Does not often the world mistake evil for good?  But if the world agrees that something is evil, and if the Word agrees that this too is evil, then that thing is truly evil.  As it is, the world and the Word both agree that slander is evil.  Therefore, have nothing to do with it.  It is evil through and through.
          Now, do not mistake me for saying that everything that the world says is evil is evil, for much of the world says that Christ himself is evil.  But the world is not free from the overwhelming influence of Christ and his Word, and some things that are largely accepted by the world are not of the world but of Christ.  Such is the power of Christ's influence, and it is our duty to discern whether or not a truth accepted as truth by the world is indeed truth.  As it is, the Word speaks out against slander, and so overpowering is the evil of slander that the world decided to agree.  The Word reveals to us the evil of slander, and the world is a witness to this evil.  Therefore, have nothing to do with it.  It is evil through and through.
           Keep away from lustful thoughts, most especially you young men, for lustful thoughts are the weakness of all men.  Adam chose to follow the word of Eve over the command of God, an act of idolatry that men have been committing against God with woman ever since.  Yet we are reconciled to God through his son Jesus; it is as if we had never put woman before God.  We must be wary, then, to never again make the same mistake as Adam, for it is at a great price that we were saved from his fate.
          Your body is first and foremost the LORD's; not until the you have been united to a woman in holy matrimony can you rightfully share your body with a woman.  Do not touch, do not talk, do not even look at a woman until you can be sure that your focus is on the LORD.  Do not spend time in the presence of a woman who has your affections until you have spent time in the presence of God.  If you wish to speak to a woman who has your affections, first speak to God.  
          This is not to say that you are permitted to lust after a woman after first lusting after God; on the contrary, speaking and spending time with God before woman ought to defend you from your own sinful lusts.  If you find yourself lusting after a woman, escape immediately and speak with God again, more intently than you did before you entered the presence of the woman.  If you lust, that lust is your master.  But the LORD must be your master; place nothing before him, especially your lust.
          Be especially careful not to tempt each other and lead them into evil, most especially you young women, for women are powerful temptresses of men.  Eve tempted Adam to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, seeing more value in her ability to control man than honor God.  Now that you are reconciled to God, you must not do such a thing again.  For while man himself sins, a woman sins and causes others to stumble, too.
          If one of your brothers is lusting after you, consult with the LORD and speak with him intently.  Clear your minds, complex as they are.  Have you done something to tempt him, whether on accident or on purpose?  Have you been playing with the weak heart of your brother in Christ?  If you search yourself and find yourself guilty of tempting him, repent immediately.  For lust and the intentional stirring of lust is no game; it is an offense to God.  As pleasurable as it is to toy with a man and his weakness to lust, you must do not such a thing under any circumstances.
          If you have searched your mind in God and God has not condemned you, ask your brother in Christ why he lusts after you.  Do not consider the embarrassment; too much is at stake!  If the answer of your brother is unclear, or if he says "because you are beautiful" without mentioning any action on your part, then consider your conscience clean.  The guilt is on your brother, let none fall on you.  If your brother mentions an action which you did not realize you did, apologize sincerely to him and your conscience will be clean.  
          Let no lust be found among you, my brothers and sisters, for lust is of the world.  But greater than lust is joy; and this is of God.  Do not consider yourselves empty or neglected because you are not permitted to entertain your lust.  For in place of lust the LORD has given you joy, which is greater than lust by far.  Rejoice, then, and accept the gifts of the LORD!  For one gift of the LORD is worth one-hundred from the world.
          Above all, do not abuse the substances of the world under any circumstances.  I am convinced that drugs and alcohol are of the Devil, causing thousands upon thousands to stumble and become lost to God and found in darkness.  The world will insist that these are good things but do not listen, not for a moment!  The world is lying to you constantly, trust nothing they say.  For I have seen for myself the devastation of drunkenness with wine and drugs; the world has tried to cover it, but I have seen through their lies.
          So mountainous are their faults!  They are not merely drunkards, but drunkards and liars.  Once I realized that they were lying, I was livid.  Praise God that in my anger I did not sin!  I call you, too, to be righteous enough to be angry with sin.  For sin and its Master are ruthless; only through fierce opposition will you resist them.  But remember always that this strength is not of yourselves, for you were once included among sin and its Master.  Now, through Christ you are dead to sin and alive to the Light, and through Christ only can you resist the Devil.
          I urge you again, abuse no substances of the world.  They will master you; it matters not whether you want them to.  For one who does sin is a sinner, defined by their sin.  One who abuses drugs is a drug addict, defined by what defines them.  One who abuses drugs cannot be in Christ, for the one who is in Christ is defined by Christ.  Remember what you learned at camp, the "Gospel Identity".  Your identity is in the Gospel and in its Master, God your Father, God his Son, and God his Spirit in you.  As I said of lust, let nothing master you but Christ, including drugs and alcohol.  
          I cannot say it enough.  I'll say it again, abuse no substances!  This will prove to be a great temptation to you, but do not be afraid.  My prayers are with you, as are the prayers of your leaders.  Most especially, Christ himself is with you, and with him, all things are possible!
          If one of your brothers or sisters becomes enslaved to sin, rebuke them in love and compassion.  If they hate you and slander you where you stand, they stand condemned a fool, for it is written, "Rebuke a fool and he will hate you."  Give them three days to repent; if they do not, have nothing to do with them after that, they are a fool through and through.  Allow them to come to public readings and studies of the Bible, but do not listen to any answer they give to any question regarding the Word, for their answer will be uninspired by truth and will be rooted in falsehood.  Do not invite them to your feasts or parties, for in such a moment you will be less focused on Christ and you will be vulnerable to their temptation.
          If, after rebuking your brother or sister, they appear responsive, yet later go and do what you advised against, tell an authority figure and allow them to rebuke the sinner.  If they do not respond to authority, have nothing to do with them after that.  Allow them to come to public readings and studies of the Bible but exclude them from your festivities.
          If at any of these stages they repent, welcome them back into your family and keep yourself predisposed to their restoration in Christ.  In all things, under all circumstances, keep yourselves predisposed to the good of each other, being ready always to help one another on each other's journey in Christ.  Do not stand alone, but become pure and righteous for the sake of others and for the glory of Christ.
          Also, do not play truth or dare any longer.  For the last time we did, it did not bring about the things of God but the things of men.  Praise God that we went and celebrated at Prescott Pines camp before the ordeal got any worse!  Do nothing, play no games that your elders would be uncomfortable allowing you to play.  Not until you are much older can you hope to have sufficient wisdom even to begin to challenge them.
          Remember always your recent experiences at camp, for I'm convinced that such things are of God.  Do not discredit your own church in light of what you experienced, but instead learn to be content with worshipping among the elders.  In fact, learn to rejoice in this form of worship, not only so that Christ can continue his work in you but so that when next he gives you such an experience, you appreciate it sevenfold.  
          Above all, be leaders, for that is what your city needs.  Let no boundary stop you from growing in Christ as quickly and maturely as possible.  "They ought to be the mature ones because I am young," do not listen when your mind says such things.  It is true, there are many among you much older than you who are less mature than you; not in the church, of course, but in the world.  Do not look at your elders in the world and suppose that they are exemplary for you; I tell you the truth, many are more childish now than they were when they were born.  Instead, follow the example of your elders in the church, compiling their wisdom within yourself and becoming the best of each person.
          Even so, however, be careful to obey your authorities, even if they are of the world, in every instance that does not result in disobedience to your true authority, which is God.  By doing this, you will embarrass them beyond belief, not merely saying but proving that you are more mature than they.  This in turn will further the kingdom of God, established through his Son, by simultaneously winning converts and dispelling heretics.  
          Again I say, be leaders in the faith, for this what you need.  Israel survived only through her leadership, doing good when being led to do so and doing evil after her most recent leader's death.  This is the pattern of humanity, and in light of it we must be ready and willing, whenever God should call us, to lead.  Whether you lead in writing, such as myself, in speech or in deed, lead each other in Christ, to Christ, through Christ.  Amen.
          It has come to my attention that many of you have already experienced fearsome trials from the world, and by it I am deeply saddened.  Evan, Jacob, I have only begun to know of your troubles, and I imagine there are deeper things among you and the others that I cannot comprehend.  Among those sympathetic to you is Christ, not merely because he is a loving being but because he experienced worse things even than you.  He was rejected not simply by a few, like you are, but by the whole world, which he had nothing but love for.  Never forget that Christ does not condemn you, but instead saves you not only from your own human nature but from the sadness and sorrows of the world.  
          Why be saddened that you must surrender everything you are to Christ?  I tell you the truth, he repays this sevenfold.  Not only do you store up treasures in heaven but already, here on earth, you have many rewards.  I see now that those bound for heaven live in heaven on earth, a life almost bizarrely disconnected from outside circumstances and connected instead to joy and peace and love in Christ.
          Therefore, have no fear of what the world throws at you!  For you are not bound to the world but to Christ, and Christ's love for you is not merely perfect but is truly the definition of perfect.  Our dictionaries ought to have the definition of "perfection" as "Christ's love for us".  Don't be afraid.  Don't be ashamed.  Don't be arrogant.  There is no need for any of these things, for by surrendering them you will receive things that are better and pure and permanent.  
          
          How inspiring it is that my rambling is as eternal as Christ's love!  Yet since I am human, as are you, I think it best to end this letter at some time or other.  Do not get flustered if you cannot understand my flowering language; perhaps it is God's will that you return to and read this when you are old enough and possess enough knowledge to understand my words.  I urge you to read this each and every time you are troubled, remembering my care for you and thus remembering God's care for you through me and all your blessed brothers and sisters in Christ.  I believe, with all my heart, that these are the words of God, spoken through his servant Codey.
          Peace, love, and light from the Father to the Son to the world.  Amen.   

Suicide or Sacrifice?

          I remember once having a discussion with two of my friends at a Denny's after performing in a show.  Somehow, we got onto a more serious line of discussion regarding what we would do in a zombie apocalypse scenario.
          A question somewhere along these lines was brought up, "If you knew you were infected and you were going to turn into a zombie, would you charge into a hoard of zombies and commit suicide to hold them off and help your 'team' escape?"
          "Well, I'm a Christian, so I belive that suicide means..." at this, the friend speaking pointed down, insinuating damnation.
          "Impossible," I thought quietly, "Do people really think this is what Christians believe?  So uninformed..."  I said nothing, of course, having no plan for how to say what I wanted to say.
          Even these many years later I think of that conversation and how I could have responded to better my friend's wisdom.  If charging into a hoard of zombies to save your friends is suicide, then didn't Jesus technically commit suicide?  (These points are from the Christian perspective.  If you disagree, feel free to imagine that I am telling a fictional story.)  He chose to come to earth in full knowledge that he was going to be crucified.  Should he not be condemned for commiting suicide?  Instead, he is not only commended for "sinning" but exalted for his sacrifice.  I don't think anyone would condemn Jesus for his actions because, after all, his death saved the souls of everyone there and everyone to come for eternity.
          I have come to give two seperate words for the simple, everyday suicide we see in the newspaper and the kind of suicide that you would have commited had you charged into that zombie hoard.  There is suicide and there is sacrifice; one is bad and one is good.  The question is why?  Why is one good and the other bad?  What are the identifiable differences between the two?  These are the questions that this essay will answer.

          I would like to start off by saying that I do not believe that suicide is a one way ticket to hell.  I believe that salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ and that no action can interfere with that salvation.
          That said, let us kick off this essay discussing how suicide is immoral.  The reverse argument for suicide stands on logic such as, "It's their body and they can do what they want to do with it.  It's their life, if they choose to reject it then they have a right to do so."  I have no quarrel with this argument.  It uses logic that is irrefutable.  It is absolutely true that someone can do whatever they want with their body.  But should they?
          For those of you who read my first post, "Battle Against Modern Ideals", you will probably find this logic similar to the logic in that post.  I put forth this question, "Is that person's body truly their own?"  Think of what you are trying to justify when you put forth the path of reasoning "it's their body".  To take one's own life is to exercise complete authority over one's own life.  So when you say "it's their body" to justify suicide, you mean "it's their body" completely and totally.
          Bottom line: the justification of suicide requires that the offender have absolute ownership of his/her life
          "Is that person's body truly their own?"  I argue that the answer is no.  For some perspective on my judgment, let's observe how ownership is achieved in the usual world.  There are several methods, but the one I want to put the spotlight on is creator and creation.  When someone creates something, they get the created substance copyrighted to ensure that absolute ownership of the created material remains with the creator.  The copyright does not extablish ownership; in other words, the creator's ownership of the creation was acheived by him creating it, not by getting a copyright.  What I am getting at is that absolute ownership of an object belongs to that object's creator.
          Bottom line: absolute ownership of an object lies with the object's creator
          Allow me to ask you a trick question.  "Did you create yourself?"  "Um... no," you may awkwardly answer.  Awkward as the answer may be, the answer is correct.  You did not create yourself (obviously).
          What I love about this little nugget of wisdom is that it does not depend on what you believe.  You may believe that you were created by God, or Fate, or just a sperm uniting with an egg.  Whatever you believe, it's irrelevant.  You did not create yourself.  You did not exist prior to your own existence, let alone existing to such an extent that you could create yourself or otherwise orchestrate your own creation.  If ever you existed to such an extent, that would make you some sort of god.  Having no knowledge now of ever having been a god makes you a very questionable sort of god, don't you think?  I'm willing to bet that a god could don a human body, but to literally demote himself from god to human to the point that he forgets that he is a god and loses all of his god-like power?  Sounds far fetched, if not impossible.  Can a human forget their past at will?
          So you did not create yourself.  Therefore you do not have complete ownership of yourself.  Suicide is an exercise of absolute authority; you are taking control of everything you are.  You, however, do not have authority over everything you are.  Therefore, when you commit suicide, you are exercising authority which you do not possess.
          Think of it this way: your life is a gift.  Is destroying it for your own pleasure honoring to its creator?  Would you smash a trophy given you by a friend merely because it pleased you to do so?  Or consider this footnote: your life is not a gift you get to keep forever.  Instead, it is merely borrowed.  Someday, you must return your body to its creator.  When you die, your existence leaves your body and the fate of the creator's creation is back in the hands of the creator.  Would you return his creation battered and mutilated?  Unintentionally, no harm done.  But intentionally?  Rather disrespectful, don't you think?
          Principle declaration: suicid is immoral because it is an exercise of authority which its participant does not possess
          I think I should clarify something about what I just said, about returning one's body to its creator mutilated.  I do not believe it is a sin to practice in dangerous sports which frequently inflict injury on you.  If your creator obviously created you as a sports person, then you ought to do sports.  Your friend would likely think nothing of a serious mutilation, reparable or irreparable, inflicted on the bike he gave you, given that it happened while you were having fun riding the bike.  I think not wearing a helmet, etc., is being extraordinarily careless but other than that I have nothing against sports which are taxing on the body.
                 
          Now that that is out of the way, let's discuss sacrifice. How is sacrifice right while suicide is wrong?  To gain a clear, measurable contrast let's compare sacrifice to the same principle by which suicide is declared immoral; the principle I declared one paragraph up.  Suicide is declared immoral under the principle that no one has that level of ownership of his/her life.
          How does sacrifice compare with this principle?  At first glance, sacrifice is compared and found wanting as much as suicide.  Sacrifice is still the act of taking one's own life, isn't it?  That is a violation of the principle, is it not?  Picture the zombie scenario again, where the survivor charges into a hoard of zombies to hold them off long enough for his friends to escape.
          Some of you may question, "Technically, the zombies took the man's life.  His action doesn't even fall close to an act of suicide!"  This line of reasoning is flawed for this reason: if someone jumps in front of a bus, do we say that the bus killed them?  We might, but not to the point that we no longer consider it to be an act of suicide.  That would be foolish!  It was the persons intent to kill themself.  It was they who knowingly, by force of will, set into motion an event that resulted in their death.  In essence, they "started it", and are therefore responsible for the outcome.  So our zombie scenario is an act of suicide because the person knowingly, by force of will, set into motion an event that caused his death.
          Bottom line: to knowingly, by force of will, set into motion an event that causes death is to be responsible for that death  
          There are other circumstances to consider about this zombie scenario, circumstances that also have to do with the principle.  Imagine what would happen if the survivor did not charge into the zombie hoard.  Assume that it is guarunteed that without the survivor holding them off, the zombies would finish everyone.  Now, the man can save everyone in his group; by not committing suicide, he is condemning each and every one of them.  He is condemning each and every one of them by not committing suicide.
          Sounds harsh?  Harsh as it is, it's true.  Remember the bottom line above this paragraph.  The bus may have killed that person, but it was that person who jumped in front of the bus.  They knowingly, by force of will, caused their death.  It's the same for the zombie survivor.  Assume that he knows of the group's doom.  To not kill himself would be to knowingly, by force of will, cause the death of his team.  Though to an indirect extent, he did indeed kill them.
          Compare this to the principle.  Does he have the authority to condemn them?  Did he create anyone on his team?  Even if one of them in the team was his child, he did not "create" his child, he merely engaged in a natural process that caused the creation of the child.  He does not have absolute authority over the life of anyone there, therefore when given the choice to save or condemn them, he does not have the authority required to condemn them justifiably.  He must do what he can to save them or he will be condemning them and simultaneously exercising authority over them which he does not have.
          Bottom line: either option in a sacrificial scenario is an exercise of authority which you do not possess.
          When a scenario like this presents itself, you are at an impass.  If you save them, you kill yourself.  If you save yourself, you kill them (assume that somehow you would live).  Violation of the principle of authority is inevitable.  From here, you must focus not on the "right" choice, per se, but the "best" choice (which is by any standard the "right" choice anyway).  The best choice, then, is the selfless choice; to put the needs of others before your own.  That's why sacrifice is fully justified.  It puts the needs of others before your own needs.  Suicide, on the other hand, puts your own desires over your own needs and probably the desires of others (including your creator, depending on what you believe).
          Bottom line: sacrifice is in the right because it is selfless as opposed to selfish  
  
          I was thinking of adding an extensive addition here spelling out as many distinctions as I could find between sacrifice and suicide.  However, I often forget that I am writing a blog, not a book ;) and therefore leave the discerning into your, hopefully capable hands.
          As a final note, I must lament that fact that this will probably not help anyone who is suicidal, since someone so frail does not need to be impersonally told "this is wrong" as much as they simply need a hand to hold or a counselor.  For those of you who are suicidal and who did make it through this blog, I commend you for enduring my incredibly raw assault of your actions.  I encourage you, then, to find your resources and find rest from the cruel, relentless forces of depression!