Extreme Christianity
We live in the age of the moderate Christian. What do I mean by that? I mean the Christian who attends church on occasions and continues to live their life unchanged. My question is how is it even remotely possible to know the truth and yet be unchanged? The truth of the Gospel is so radical, so revolutionary, and so contrary to this world's philosophy that we simply can't come to know it without seeing visible change. Those that view God's Word without change must truly believe in their heart that either they are not in need of salvation or they simply must not care. These are extremely dangerous positions to hold. In Revelation 3:15-17 we see Christ say, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,' and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked." Christ says it is better for us to be cold than lukewarm! At least those who are cold have an excuse, but what excuse is there for us who know God's truth? You see, the truth is we are in desperate need of salvation, we are utterly hopeless and full of despair if not for the Gospel. We are "wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked." To be redeemed of that, to be given life, to be given freedom from our oppressions is such an outstanding gift that we should not be able to contain the passion and fire that it sets within us. To truly understand the Gospel is to experience life for the first time, it is to feel hope for the first time, it is to see for the first time, it is to be drastically changed from the inside out. So I repeat, how is it even remotely possible to know the truth and yet be unchanged?
As I have previously mentioned in "Arguments for Morality and Purpose," there can not be any possible purpose without God, that is to say our purpose comes from God and God alone. How can anything other than living for our purpose be of any interest to us then? How can we go about business as usual? Granted these are rhetorical questions and the obvious answer is sin, but then that raises the question "why do we refuse the discipline of overcoming our carnal desires?" To live life for anything other than God is to live life as if it has no purpose. If we believe we do have purpose, why aren't we living like it? The brass tacks is that we need to start living our life as if it has purpose, we need to stop living for the things of this world that are fleeting and empty, we need to instill enough discipline in ourselves to do so, and we need to start taking the responsibilities and consequences of our actions seriously because it goes far beyond just you and me. We can affect eternity and the eternity of others, we can be the tools that God uses to lead someone to salvation, their life or death may very well depend upon our discipline and resolve to live for things that matter.
James says in James 2:14-17 "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." Do you have faith, our very assurance of life, or is yours dead?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Depression
Depression
This is in response to two good friends who told me I should pray to God for my depression to pass and rather be encompassed by the joy of The Lord.
I don't see depression and joy as mutually exclusive. I know they sound contradictory, but I believe they fit in easily into the dichotomy of this world vs the next. I have my assurance in heaven and in The Lord so I have my Joy in Him, but seeing the truth of this world and the corruption of our nature only makes sense to lead to depression. It, just like any physical ailment, is a disease that comes from the fallen state of this world, and just like God can heal the lame doesn't mean He does every time. I look at 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 "Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." Paul boasts of his weaknesses because God's power shines all the more through it. Similarly if people can see the joy of The Lord through my depression, does that not reveal the power of Christ all the more? I don't believe God would allow this depression if I could not handle it. This depression is something I can and am willing to handle. If through my depression I can better reach out to another who is lost and broken and in need of salvation, then through my depression God has changed eternity! How can I be so selfish as to wish for that to change?
This is in response to two good friends who told me I should pray to God for my depression to pass and rather be encompassed by the joy of The Lord.
I don't see depression and joy as mutually exclusive. I know they sound contradictory, but I believe they fit in easily into the dichotomy of this world vs the next. I have my assurance in heaven and in The Lord so I have my Joy in Him, but seeing the truth of this world and the corruption of our nature only makes sense to lead to depression. It, just like any physical ailment, is a disease that comes from the fallen state of this world, and just like God can heal the lame doesn't mean He does every time. I look at 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 "Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." Paul boasts of his weaknesses because God's power shines all the more through it. Similarly if people can see the joy of The Lord through my depression, does that not reveal the power of Christ all the more? I don't believe God would allow this depression if I could not handle it. This depression is something I can and am willing to handle. If through my depression I can better reach out to another who is lost and broken and in need of salvation, then through my depression God has changed eternity! How can I be so selfish as to wish for that to change?
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
A Brief Response to the Ted Talk by Dr. David Eagleman
A Brief Response to the Ted Talk by Dr. David Eagleman
Dr. David Eagleman is the creator of a rather new religious belief called Possibilianism. It is more or less a version of Agnosticism and he gave a Ted Talk over this belief, which I will link right here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A). Catching up with an old friend of mine who is a Possibilian, he advised me to watch the video. I did. The following is my response to the video, highlighting just a few key points he made in his 22 minute speech.
The idea everyone is an atheist, I just believe in one less god than you do. - Preposterous notion. Atheism is believing there is no god, so I am not an atheist when it comes to any other religion.
You look at some religion and think its weird and they look at you thinking the same thing. - This is entirely subjective and does nothing to refute the objective claims and assertions of religions.
There is too much we don't know to make an assertive claim. - On the contrary, there is quite enough that we do know to make an assertive claim. Of course you can not absolutely claim any case, but there is enough to make a very logical and reasonable claim that God exists based upon our knowledge of cosmology, epistemology, ethics, logic, instincts, and our inherent knowledge amongst others.
Brains absorb what is poured into them. - Religions and the lack of religion are universal, this view doesn't explain conversions, and doesn't remotely refute or even dispute the facts and evidences brought to the table by religion. It also certainly doesn't explain my Agnosticism and Atheism before I looked into other religions and eventually became a Christian (to tie back into conversions with a more personal and radical example).
Mocking of the Genesis account. - He mocks (granted in a lighthearted way) the Genesis account of Adam and Eve while calling it the Christian account of our origin and the origin of the universe. I will later bring up how we should view the Bible but as for now I will simply say that discrediting the Genesis account certainly does not discredit Christianity.
"I'm not suggesting that the story of Adam and Eve is suspect because there are competing stories I'm suggesting it is suspect because the available scientific evidence weighs so strongly against it." - See both above and below. Also he makes the assertion that we have enough scientific evidence to weigh so strongly against the Adam and Eve account, and yet he refuses to make the claim, in fact his entire doctrine is rooted in the claim that we don't have nearly enough evidence for any positive assertion. This is a very one-sided argument and he clearly commits the Taxi-Cab Fallacy here.
Young-Earthers. - He then goes on to talk about Young-Earthers, specifically mentioning that the Bible accounts the world to be roughly 6,000 years old. As a Christian I see nothing wrong with the view of the Earth being 4.5 billion years old (I myself believe it). The whole thing you have to look at when reading the Bible (as I alluded to with the Adam and Eve rebuttal) is the intended audience of it. Many skeptics look at the Genesis account and equate it to ancient mythology, when in fact it is very demythologizing in nature. It doesn't consider all of the stars, earth, sun, moon, etc as gods but rather as mere creation. From as best as we can tell, Moses is most likely the author of Genesis and was divinely inspired to write it by God. Now do you think Moses and more importantly the layman of Israel at that time would have any clue about contemporary cosmology and the origins of the universe like the Big Bang, Hartle-Hawking Model, Steady State Model, etc? Certainly not. So it was written to show that the whole universe and everything in it is a creation of God and that, as far as Adam and Eve goes, the fall entered into the world through sin which man made by defying the will of God by giving into the temptations of the devil.
Know too little to commit to strict atheism but know way too much to commit to a specific religion. - This again seems to be merely showing the negative cases against religion but I haven't seen any rational argument against Christianity other than his mention of the Genesis account to which I have already retorted. Also we know quite enough to commit to at the very lease a god (Deism) while denying atheism (again, does not mean 100% indisputable but rather a strong case and far more plausible than the alternative. But if we must have 100% indisputable evidence before we can commit to any claim then I challenge you to prove you are not merely in the matrix or simply a brain being probed by a scientist in ways that stimulate your mind to make you perceive all that you experience, or even that you are not a part of my imagination or subconscience. 100% certainty really doesn't seem plausible even for our most basic and rudimentary knowledge.)
Complete absence of evidence. - He claims that there is complete absence of evidence which is really what lead me (as well as my previous rebuttals) to my conclusion that this wasn't very well thought out and he hasn't simply put in enough time into the topic. The argument for morality, the argument for purpose, and the Ontological Argument are simply 3 arguments which I gave to you to read. But let us also consider the Cosmological Arguments (there are two), the evidence given through the fine-tuning of the universe, and Leibniz' Argument from Contingency just to name a few (the list goes on). These arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of deity. Ockham's Razor then leads to the rational conclusion that it is a single deity. Anselm's view on the greatest conceivable being then shows that this deity must be all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. For the sake of argument let us call this deity by the name God. Now this brings us to the monotheistic faiths: Deism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Then we must look at the specific revelations and evidences to make up our minds from there, but we shall cross that bridge when we get to it. Which reminds me, if you make the claim that it is possible that a god could exist, why then should we believe this god has given no revelation to its creation? i.e. religion? Simply by acknowledging that God could exist we acknowledge that, most likely, if He were to exist one of these religious claims must be true about Him. Here Possibilianism falls apart. To me, Possibilianism seems to desire the benefits of Atheism while being able to plead ignorance and thus removing the need to back up its own beliefs. Certainly no man of science should have this mindset in his field, then why so in the field of religion? To end, let me be clear that there is no ad hominem attack in that last sentence or anywhere throughout this brief response, I am not trying to attack the man's character or likewise anyone who follows this belief, I am simply bringing up valid arguments against it.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Love of Praise
Love of Praise
For a while now, I have been wanting to write on the topic of desiring praise and recognition. Well, in my reading tonight I came across just that. St. Augustine (354-430) perfectly tackled this issue in Book V, Chapter 14 of City of God (London: Penguin Books, 2003) and I really cannot add or contribute to his writing so I will simply let his words speak for itself.
"14. Love of human praise is to be checked, because all the glory of the righteous is in God
There can be no doubt that it is better to resist this passion than to yield to it. A man is more like God, the purer he is from the contamination. In this life it cannot wholly be rooted out from the heart, because even those souls which are making good progress are not exempt from the temptation. But at least the greed for glory should be overcome by the love of justice; and so, if things which are themselves good and right 'lose lustre' because of general disfavour, then the love of human praise itself should be ashamed, and yield place to the love of truth. For this vice is an enemy to devout faith, if the greed for glory is stronger in the heart than the fear or the love of God; so much so, that the Lord said, 'How can you believe, when you look for glory from one another, and do not seek the glory which comes from God alone?"48 Again, the Evangelist speaks of those who believed in Christ but were afraid to confess it openly, when he says, 'They loved the glory of men rather than the glory of God.'49
This was not how the apostles behaved. They preached the name of Christ in places where that name was not in 'general favour', and we recall Cicero's statement: 'All pursuits lose lustre when they fall from general favor.' They preached in places where, in fact, Christ's name was held in utter detestation. They kept in mind what they had been told by their good master, the physician of souls, 'If anyone denies me before men, I will deny him in the presence of my Father in Heaven', or 'in the presence of the angels of God.'50 Amidst curses and slanders, amidst the severest persecutions and the harshest punishments, all the clamorous hostility of men did not stop them from preaching men's salvation. The divine quality of their actions, their words and their lives, their triumphs, as one may say, over hard hearts, and their introduction of the peace of righteousness; all these brought them immense glory in the Church of Christ. And yet they did not rest on that glory, as if they had attained the goal of their own virtue. They ascribed it all to the glory of God, whose grace had made them what they were.51 And this was a torch which kindled the fire of the love of God in the hearts of those they guided, the torch was to make them such as the apostles were. Their master had taught the apostles not to be good in order to gain glory from men. He told them, 'Take care not to perform your righteous acts in the presence of men, so as to be seen by them: or you will have no reward with my Father, who is in heaven.'52 On the other hand, so that men should not put a perverse interpretation on this injunction and reduce the influence of their goodness by concealing it, in fear of winning men's approval, the Lord explained to what purpose they ought to seek publicity. He said, 'Let your work shine in men's sight, so that they may see your acts of goodness, and glorify your Father, who is in Heaven'; 53 so the purpose is not 'to be seen of them', that is, with the intention that they should be converted to you, because by yourselves you are nothing, but 'so that they may glorify your Father, who is in Heaven', and so that they may be converted to him, and become what you are.
The martyrs followed in the steps of the apostles. They did not inflict suffering on themselves, but they endured what was inflicted on them; and in so doing they surprassed the Scaevolas, the Curtii, and the Decii54 by their true virtue, springing from true devotion, and by their countless multitude. Those Roman heroes belonged to an earthly city, and the aim set before them, in all their acts of duty for her, was the safety of their country, and a kingdom not in heaven, but on earth; not in life eternal, but in the process where the dying pass away and are succeeded by those who will die in their turn. What else was there for them to love save glory? For, through glory, they desired to have a kind of life after death on the lips of those who praised them."
He continues in chapter 15 by saying
"When such men do anything good, their sole motive is the hope of receiving glory from their fellow-men; and the Lord refers to them when he says, 'I tell you in truth, they have received their reward in full.'... They have no reason to complain of the justice of God, the supreme and true. 'They have received their reward in full.'56"
We must take heed to what Augustine wrote 1600 years ago, for his words are just as true today in 2014 as they were in 415 when he wrote them.
48. John 5:44 49. John 12:43 50. Matthew 10:33; Luke 12:9 51. cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10
52. Matthew 6:1 53. Matthew 5:16 54. cf. Bk IV, 20nn. 56. Matthew 6:2
For a while now, I have been wanting to write on the topic of desiring praise and recognition. Well, in my reading tonight I came across just that. St. Augustine (354-430) perfectly tackled this issue in Book V, Chapter 14 of City of God (London: Penguin Books, 2003) and I really cannot add or contribute to his writing so I will simply let his words speak for itself.
"14. Love of human praise is to be checked, because all the glory of the righteous is in God
There can be no doubt that it is better to resist this passion than to yield to it. A man is more like God, the purer he is from the contamination. In this life it cannot wholly be rooted out from the heart, because even those souls which are making good progress are not exempt from the temptation. But at least the greed for glory should be overcome by the love of justice; and so, if things which are themselves good and right 'lose lustre' because of general disfavour, then the love of human praise itself should be ashamed, and yield place to the love of truth. For this vice is an enemy to devout faith, if the greed for glory is stronger in the heart than the fear or the love of God; so much so, that the Lord said, 'How can you believe, when you look for glory from one another, and do not seek the glory which comes from God alone?"48 Again, the Evangelist speaks of those who believed in Christ but were afraid to confess it openly, when he says, 'They loved the glory of men rather than the glory of God.'49
This was not how the apostles behaved. They preached the name of Christ in places where that name was not in 'general favour', and we recall Cicero's statement: 'All pursuits lose lustre when they fall from general favor.' They preached in places where, in fact, Christ's name was held in utter detestation. They kept in mind what they had been told by their good master, the physician of souls, 'If anyone denies me before men, I will deny him in the presence of my Father in Heaven', or 'in the presence of the angels of God.'50 Amidst curses and slanders, amidst the severest persecutions and the harshest punishments, all the clamorous hostility of men did not stop them from preaching men's salvation. The divine quality of their actions, their words and their lives, their triumphs, as one may say, over hard hearts, and their introduction of the peace of righteousness; all these brought them immense glory in the Church of Christ. And yet they did not rest on that glory, as if they had attained the goal of their own virtue. They ascribed it all to the glory of God, whose grace had made them what they were.51 And this was a torch which kindled the fire of the love of God in the hearts of those they guided, the torch was to make them such as the apostles were. Their master had taught the apostles not to be good in order to gain glory from men. He told them, 'Take care not to perform your righteous acts in the presence of men, so as to be seen by them: or you will have no reward with my Father, who is in heaven.'52 On the other hand, so that men should not put a perverse interpretation on this injunction and reduce the influence of their goodness by concealing it, in fear of winning men's approval, the Lord explained to what purpose they ought to seek publicity. He said, 'Let your work shine in men's sight, so that they may see your acts of goodness, and glorify your Father, who is in Heaven'; 53 so the purpose is not 'to be seen of them', that is, with the intention that they should be converted to you, because by yourselves you are nothing, but 'so that they may glorify your Father, who is in Heaven', and so that they may be converted to him, and become what you are.
The martyrs followed in the steps of the apostles. They did not inflict suffering on themselves, but they endured what was inflicted on them; and in so doing they surprassed the Scaevolas, the Curtii, and the Decii54 by their true virtue, springing from true devotion, and by their countless multitude. Those Roman heroes belonged to an earthly city, and the aim set before them, in all their acts of duty for her, was the safety of their country, and a kingdom not in heaven, but on earth; not in life eternal, but in the process where the dying pass away and are succeeded by those who will die in their turn. What else was there for them to love save glory? For, through glory, they desired to have a kind of life after death on the lips of those who praised them."
He continues in chapter 15 by saying
"When such men do anything good, their sole motive is the hope of receiving glory from their fellow-men; and the Lord refers to them when he says, 'I tell you in truth, they have received their reward in full.'... They have no reason to complain of the justice of God, the supreme and true. 'They have received their reward in full.'56"
We must take heed to what Augustine wrote 1600 years ago, for his words are just as true today in 2014 as they were in 415 when he wrote them.
48. John 5:44 49. John 12:43 50. Matthew 10:33; Luke 12:9 51. cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10
52. Matthew 6:1 53. Matthew 5:16 54. cf. Bk IV, 20nn. 56. Matthew 6:2
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
What Started the Rise of Atheism?
What Started the Rise of Atheism?
In our culture, Atheism seems to be on the rise. As a Christian this became a concern for me and I wished to see what was causing this trend. It seems to be the popular opinion that Atheism is the intellectual religious stance and that in order to be considered educated you must line up with this view. Why is that? I believe this question can be answered by taking a look back into history, but first let's take a look at the Shema as Jesus recited it in Mark 12:29-31 "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is one; you shall love The Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Part of being a Christian is loving God with our whole mind, to be intellectually engaged. For a while, there really wasn't any intellectual questions or disputes against Christianity. Atheism is a fairly new viewpoint and was wildly unpopular for the longest time. For a while, if you were an atheist it was something you kept in the closet, it wasn't really a viable option. So when people started to have doubts and questions, the church did not have an answer because they had become intellectually lazy. Jump to modern day and it almost seems like there is a dichotomy of Faith vs Reason/Science, which I can assure you is a false one. Many people believe that you must follow the answers of science or follow the answers of faith, as if they don't line up. I came to be a Christian through apologetical material and now regularly study apologetics. Through my studying of the sciences and of philosophy, I've discovered that they affirm or attest God's existence and presence. Recently Faith has begun to see a rise in scholarly fields and I believe it will only continue to grow as we begin to uncover more about our universe and ourselves.
In our culture, Atheism seems to be on the rise. As a Christian this became a concern for me and I wished to see what was causing this trend. It seems to be the popular opinion that Atheism is the intellectual religious stance and that in order to be considered educated you must line up with this view. Why is that? I believe this question can be answered by taking a look back into history, but first let's take a look at the Shema as Jesus recited it in Mark 12:29-31 "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is one; you shall love The Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself." Part of being a Christian is loving God with our whole mind, to be intellectually engaged. For a while, there really wasn't any intellectual questions or disputes against Christianity. Atheism is a fairly new viewpoint and was wildly unpopular for the longest time. For a while, if you were an atheist it was something you kept in the closet, it wasn't really a viable option. So when people started to have doubts and questions, the church did not have an answer because they had become intellectually lazy. Jump to modern day and it almost seems like there is a dichotomy of Faith vs Reason/Science, which I can assure you is a false one. Many people believe that you must follow the answers of science or follow the answers of faith, as if they don't line up. I came to be a Christian through apologetical material and now regularly study apologetics. Through my studying of the sciences and of philosophy, I've discovered that they affirm or attest God's existence and presence. Recently Faith has begun to see a rise in scholarly fields and I believe it will only continue to grow as we begin to uncover more about our universe and ourselves.
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State
I've always found that the notion people have of separation of church and state is grossly inaccurate. Separation of church and state has been used as a way to prevent prayer in public schools, stop politicians from voting according to theological belief, removing nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments from public property, etc. and has essentially turned into the slogan for a political correctness campaign. These are deviations from its original meaning and intent. But in order for us to understand what "separation of church and state" actually means we must first look at it's historical context. The term began as a way of expressing the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the first amendment which state "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's it, it comes straight from our First Amendment. The reason it was written was because of the Church of England which was established by Henry VIII as a way to divorce his wife, which the Catholic Church denied. He created his own church in order to do as he pleased. The Church of England was ruled by the head of the country which caused corruption and oppression, the very reason many pilgrims came to settle the colonies. This country was founded upon religious freedom from oppression and the separation of church and state simply guarantees that the government cannot be the head of any church or religious organization.
I've always found that the notion people have of separation of church and state is grossly inaccurate. Separation of church and state has been used as a way to prevent prayer in public schools, stop politicians from voting according to theological belief, removing nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments from public property, etc. and has essentially turned into the slogan for a political correctness campaign. These are deviations from its original meaning and intent. But in order for us to understand what "separation of church and state" actually means we must first look at it's historical context. The term began as a way of expressing the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the first amendment which state "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's it, it comes straight from our First Amendment. The reason it was written was because of the Church of England which was established by Henry VIII as a way to divorce his wife, which the Catholic Church denied. He created his own church in order to do as he pleased. The Church of England was ruled by the head of the country which caused corruption and oppression, the very reason many pilgrims came to settle the colonies. This country was founded upon religious freedom from oppression and the separation of church and state simply guarantees that the government cannot be the head of any church or religious organization.
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Over-Religious
The Over-Religious
I've mentioned this topic before in brevity but I believe it to be something that should be addressed all on its own. Many people today claim that some are over-religious and I claim the opposite. Your religion (or lack thereof) tells you who you are, where you came from, what your purpose is (if any), and where you're going. The answers to those questions should be the base on which we build our entire lives. Saying that people are over-religious is already having the notion that religion is not important and ultimately begs the question for atheism. If we are to believe in God, we are to believe that giving Him anything less than our entire lives is being under-religious. I believe the truth behind this claim is that those who are "over-religious" make us feel uncomfortable and so the issue must lie with them when in actuality the issue lies within ourselves.
I've mentioned this topic before in brevity but I believe it to be something that should be addressed all on its own. Many people today claim that some are over-religious and I claim the opposite. Your religion (or lack thereof) tells you who you are, where you came from, what your purpose is (if any), and where you're going. The answers to those questions should be the base on which we build our entire lives. Saying that people are over-religious is already having the notion that religion is not important and ultimately begs the question for atheism. If we are to believe in God, we are to believe that giving Him anything less than our entire lives is being under-religious. I believe the truth behind this claim is that those who are "over-religious" make us feel uncomfortable and so the issue must lie with them when in actuality the issue lies within ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)