The Blood Atonement for Dummies (part 3)

The Law to Guide Us

or maybe to point us to something else . . . ?

It all began with Abraham; it was with him that God made a covenant, thus creating Judeo-Christianity. From there followed his son, Isaac, and grandson, Jacob-- these three are known as the "Patriarchs;" Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim heritage from the Patriarchs. Jacob, whom God renamed "Israel" had 12 sons, whose decedents made up the 12 different tribes of Israel. When Moses led the twelve tribes of Israel out of Egypt, God dictated to Moses the Hebrew Law.

At the top of the law is the 10 Commandments. These are the serious, tip-top rules for following God, and avoiding his wrath. The 10 Commandments have endured throughout History, and form the basis (whether you like to admit it or not) for much of what we know as civil law today. After the 10 Commandments come 613 laws, also given to the Hebrews from God, through Moses. These laws are found in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible), and consist of 365 negative commandments, and 248 positive commandments.

-The commands range from moral issues, such as:
"Don't have sex with your mother/father" or "Don't extort money from the poor"
-theistic commands, such as:
"Love God above everything else," or "Do you best to emulate God's qualities"
-and ceremonial and ritual practices, such as
"Don't trim your sideburns," or "Don't eat meat and milk mixed together."

(If you want to see every one in a list, Wikipedia has compiled one)

This law taught the Jews how to live morally, and how to please God. Some of them, even though they seem strange and pointless, actually have very practical uses. God's wisdom is truly reflected in these laws, as you'll find rules that cater to things like germ theory, which mankind didn't even begin to understand for another 2000 years (This had to be from God, clearly. How else would the Jews have thought of that stuff?). But there is a huge problem with these 613 laws: NO ONE can POSSIBLY follow them perfectly. Once again, following the law to a T is IMPOSSIBLE.

However, the law also accounts for this, and in its fairness, it allows you to atone for your sins and failures to follow it in a number of ways, such as forgiving the debts of those who owe you bigtime. Still, the primary way to atone for your sins in Hebrew law is to offer animal sacrifices. There is a good deal of time spent in scripture discussing how these sacrifices are to be made, and in those scriptures, it becomes obvious that the thing of most importance is blood.

What kind of animal does the blood come from?
What qualifies a particular animal to be sacrificed?
How do you kill it?
Now use the blood in a ritual.
How much blood do you use?
Where does the blood go?
What happens to the bloodied things afterward?

See? For the Jews, it's all about blood when it comes to atoning for your sins before God.

Interestingly enough, the Old Testament, which people love to rag on for being antiquated, judgmental, and ritualistic to no end, actually says that this is all pointless. If you read Psalms, you'll notice it said a number of times that God really doesn't want blood and sacrifice. That's not what he's really after at all. What God really wants is your heart-- he wants you to have a humble spirit before him, and love him just as he loves you. If you truly love him, he doesn't care whether or not you offer sacrifices. Also, for a religious text that people typically associate with anger and judgment, you'll find references to God loving you and loving his people quite often, even in the books of law. Food for thought
. . .

The blood, of course, could only come from certain animals, such as doves, bulls or lambs. And it couldn't be any old animal, either-- your sacrifice had to be the best of the best, with no defects, diseases, or spots. If you were sacrificing a lamb, for instance, it's coat had to be perfectly white and spotless. Interesting regulation considering this perfectly white animal was about to be completely stained with blood. Had enough talk about blood yet?

Fast forward a thousand years or so, and we come to the birth of Jesus. I'm not going to get into how exactly we know that Jesus is the Son of God--this blog isn't about apologetics--so just accept that by faith for now so that you may understand the overall message. I may address Jesus' incarnation at another date. This time, I'm not going for how Jesus came to be, but why.

The Blood Atonement for Dummies (part 2)

The Beginning: God's Nature and the Fall to Sin

As I briefly touched on in my post, Thoughts on Grace, Part 2, sin is a natural state inherited by every human from the moment they are conceived. This idea of an "original sin" or "sin nature" is not a new concept, or even a uniquely Christian belief based largely in Greek philosophy (as some are), as we can see it in the Old Testament as well. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they had a perfect fellowship with God which was fully open and intimate. Consider the following three conditions: Adam and Eve . . .

1. Walked with God, easily looking upon and talking with him.
2. Were completely naked, and not even aware of such a thing as nudity. In their eyes, there was nothing wrong with their bodies.
3. Worked for God, essentially tending the garden and naming animals, in perfect harmony with his will. Their work pleased God.

However, once Adam and Eve sinned, all three of these conditions (and more that I haven't mentioned) were thrown out the window, and have been for all of human History since that day. To understand why these conditions were thrown out, we must understand the nature of God. I'm going to have to get Theological here.

Now, we know from the Old Testament that God is Holy (which means "set apart, different") and perfect. God is so perfect, actually, that he cannot live with sin, as his holiness repels its presence. In the same way that light and darkness cannot coexist, but rather, light repels darkness, God's presence repels sin. The difference between God's light and that of an oven light is that the oven light can only repel darkness as far as its luminosity allows, whereas God's glory and holiness has no limits to it; there are no degrees of luminosity or standards by which God's holiness can be measured. It would reason, therefore, that sin cannot even exist in the same universe or plane of existence as God, since the idea of his light repelling darkness would imply that there is a limit to his holiness outside which sin could exist. Consider that if God were the oven light I just spoke of, then this separate universal plane on which sin exists is the darkness that prevails when I close the oven door. Consider the inside of the oven Heaven, and everything else as Hell. Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but I hope you understand the point I'm making concerning light and darkness.

So Adam and Eve sinned, and now conditions 1, 2, and 3 are gone forever, seemingly.

Condition 1 is gone because, as creatures of sin, Adam and Eve can no longer behold God. In order for them to behold God, they would need to return to his universal plane of holiness, but are kept from it because of their sin.

Condition 2 is gone because, as creatures apart from God, Adam and Eve can no longer see his glory, or even the glory that would be reflected in his creations. Therefore, they see themselves as shameful and needing to be covered up-- not holy creations of a Holy God.

Condition 3 is gone because, as creatures not in perfect communion with God, Adam and Eve cannot hear his voice, and therefore cannot do his will.

Grace can, of course, restore these conditions at any given time to a degree. A degree, though, will not be enough to return us to God. Calling the fall of man to sin “disastrous” would be putting it lightly.

This is where God's great plan of rescue must begin. Now, you may believe that God knew we would sin, and therefore wrote the great plan of rescue before time began. You may believe that, while God can know everything, this doesn't mean that he must. Perhaps God chooses not to know everything. Then again, the existence of Jesus as preceding time along with God the Father may indicate foreknowledge of sin. I think there are good arguments for each stance, and it is not my intent to discuss this matter at this time.

Let it suffice that, regardless of its origin, this is where the plan is set into motion. We will next move forward to understand Judaism, and the law of YHWH.

The Blood Atonement for Dummies (part 1)

I'm very excited for this series of blogs. If I come off as obstinate and absolute on some things, and that turns you off, I apologize. I feel this topic is full of absolutes, as it defines the very foundation of Christianity, and I have to write it in accordance with the dictates of my conscience.

So, let us begin . . .

I guarantee that everyone who reads this post has, at one time or another, heard the phrase "Jesus died for our sins," or something to that effect. Now what I cannot guarantee, however, is whether or not everyone who reads this post has ever:

a) considered why exactly, he died at all
b) wondered what that death actually meant to us as individuals, and what 'our sins' have to do with it
or, dreadfully
c) given that phrase the slightest thought whatsoever

I am especially concerned for those who would profess agreement with the phrase, and yet would not be able to say anything more than that. If it wasn't for Christ dying, we wouldn't have Christianity--surely, we can find more time as "Christians" to understand it.


It's unfortunate that when we are saturated with a maxim, no matter how wise and true it may be, it loses all meaning to us. The Bible says that Angels . . . Angels, mind you, struggle to understand what Jesus did on the cross. Certainly, if these spiritual beings who exist on the same universal plane as God Almighty struggle to comprehend what exactly Jesus did, it follows that we, who live on the physical plane, separated from God, are made absolute fools when we think we understand it.

What Christian isn't guilty of that? Don't we sit there in church, and when the preacher starts to speak of the cross and Jesus' death, tune out because we apparently know it all? Well, for those of you who haven't really thought about it before, or simply for a refresher (heck, everyone needs those when it comes to core Christian doctrines), here is my take on the blood atonement. I'll attempt to be both comprehensive and brief . . . which is inherently impossible, I suppose.

Then Why Theo Thoughts?

I write a blog about how I prefer faith and prayer to Theology, and yet here I am, writing in a blog I've titled "Theo Thoughts," right?

I chose "Theo," not to indicate Theology, but God (Theos=God). The URL, you'll notice, is kevinsgodthoughts. What I originally wanted, theothoughts.blogspot.com, is actually the personal blog of a Canadian guy named Theo.

Go figure.



I'm currently writing a post about the Blood Atonement. Stay tuned.

Raison d'etre

This French phrase means "reason for being." The connotation is a personal, philosophical belief supporting one's actions. Duty to country should be the raison d'etre for seeking elected office, whether or not this is true for most; "to protect and serve" is the raison d'etre for being a policeman. Make sense?

We will come back to this at the end.

Today, I'd like to take you on a brief journey into my own personal faith life--my own raison d'etre.

I've been a committed Christian my whole life, but only in the past 3 years have I become intensely interested in Theology, and there are very simple reasons for that. Three years ago, I began dating the woman who would eventually become my wife. That woman was Catholic. I didn't know how to best reconcile myself to that, as a 98% Pentecostal and 100% Fundamentalist Christian (so a Myspace quiz told me), but I figured the best way to do it was to vociferously find out everything about Catholic Theology. With this goal, I originally figured one of the following three things would happen:

a) I would prove Catholicism to be a false (or at least inferior) faith, and Rebecca would leave the Catholic church for my church.
b) We would both stay in our respective faith upbringings, and somehow manage to make our family work (yeeeeeeeeah). At least I would understand her better.
or
c) I would eventually become convinced that Catholic Theology was right, and become Catholic.

I think it goes without saying that I in no way thought possibility 'c' was a possibility at all. While 'a' would have most gratified my ego, I was realistic enough to know think that the most likely option was 'b.' I was not, however, realistic enough to know that 'b,' is pretty much impossible, especially when you take the rearing of children into account.

"Brevity is the soul of wit," so for times' sake, imagine a two-year montage, which shows me continuously learning about new Catholic theologies, being flabbergasted by them, passionately confronting Rebecca about them with awesome logic and scriptural support, Rebecca crying, and us being left nowhere.

Plain and simple: the stuff did not make sense to me. Once in a while, a moment would come and I would understand a scripture in a different light, or the practical merit behind a teaching, but in general, this did not motivate me to study Theology--a desire to settle this matter as quickly and thoroughly as possible motivated me.

By the way, we had a long distance relationship. When she was with me, we would attend my Assembly of God church and church events, and when I visited her, we would do Catholic things instead. During this time, I was also meeting her very Catholic extended family, whom I came to have a lot of affection for. Come the 1-1/2 year mark, my soul was in turmoil. I bore this burden almost entirely alone (though Christ was always there for me, to share the burden with his love and assurance), and for my friends who are reading this, I want to apologize for not sharing this with you. I just couldn't. I was afraid of what people would say, and too much in flux to articulate what I was feeling. I'm sorry for keeping this from everyone, but it was what had to be done. Now, what was the turmoil? I was torn between a church that made sense to me, though I didn't always feel at home there, and a church that, even though it didn't make sense to me, began to feel more and more like a home. I'm a strong believer in absolutes (even if that absolute is moderate), and thus, this was particularly trying. The overall message of this, and what I finally became sure of in October of 2008, was that God himself was calling me to become a Catholic.

The time of turmoil was waxing, and now began the time of preparation. If I was going to do this, I needed to do it without holding back. If I didn't believe certain Catholic Theologies, I at least needed to understand them.

The beauty of being a Catholic is that there is a hierarchy of teachings, and most of what is required for all Catholics to profess/believe is stuff that most Christians could agree on. From there down, the Catholic church has almost infinite ideas and official teachings, but the "primacy of conscience" is what is most important. This is the idea that, if you look into certain theologies with an open heart, pray about them, and still cannot come to believe them, you must follow the dictates of your conscience. Primacy of conscience is not a license, but a responsibility; you must educate your faith in order to claim primacy of conscience.

So I continued to study Theology, now with the perspectives of a number of strong Catholic-Christians to take into account (those who are a part of my Confirmation classes). Between various books, the Vatican's website, Wikipedia, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, essays by scholars, and official church documents, I've read a lot of Theology. I've come to be known among the people in the RCIA process as quite the Bible scholar and theologian, but here's the thing: when I consider my own faith life, how I live, and what I want to be known for, it's not Theology.

One of the things I greatly admire is when a truly great mind is great enough to know that it knows little. The same can be said of those who have done great deeds, and view themselves in true humility.

-George Washington, the father of our country, did not seek the greatness he is known for, nor did he even want it, preferring his farm and his solitude.
-I've been told that shortly before he was assassinated, Dr. Martin Luther King privately spoke of his desire to scale back his civil rights work, and return to being a pastor and a Christian teacher.
-Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 13th century, is still known to this day as one of the greatest theologians in History. His writings on Theology and Philosophy are still studied by people of many different denominations, religions, and political worldviews. Aquinas' most famous work, Summa Theologica, could be described in modern terms as Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About . . . God. Near the end of his life, I think he began to truly understand what his works and writings were, when he called it all "straw."


I don't want to be known for what is obvious and external--the breadth of what I know (which really isn't much)--but what is not obvious or external: my unshakable faith in God, my love for Christ, and my desire to pray to, with, and in him. Now, my study of Theology has deepened my faith, certainly, and I hope and pray that my insufficient thoughts and writings convey that faith, but ultimately, Theology is not my chief end.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism is a series of 107 questions that are intended to prove one's faith. The very first question and answer read:

Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

My raison d'etre is my faith, and my love for the Lord. Everything else is straw.

I am now nearing the end of the initiation process, and will soon be able to call myself a Pentecostal-Catholic. I still study Theology, but not for the original "a,b, and c" reasons. Now I study Theology so that, when the day of my initiation comes, I will be able to make the profession of Catholic faith honestly, and without reservation. This does not mean that I agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches--far from it. I study Theology so that I have the right to claim "primacy of conscience;" so that my profession of faith is honest.

After three years, I am tired of Theology. I look forward to the day when I no longer need to study it so intensely. I wish only to work my way through Theology so that I may return to my simple, firm faith in God the Father, his son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit of truth. Theological understanding has not been the goal, but a means to an end. The end has been an honest profession of Catholic faith.

With that goal met, my life will return to my raison d'etre: my faith, my love.

Everything else is straw.

The End of My Life

What will my legacy be? Great deeds and accomplishments? Fame throughout the world? No. My legacy will not be known in one hundred years, but it will be seen. What is my legacy? These, my children, are my legacy. Observe their character, their mature temperament, their faith. Observe their knowledge, their wisdom, their hearts for others. Observe their keen minds and their kind hearts. Observe their greatness, and its contrast with their humility. When I am gone from this earth, my greatest works-- my children-- will remain. These children are my life's work, my masterpiece. I did not change the world in my lifetime. In time, my children will pass my legacy to my grandchildren, and my grandchildren to their children. I did not change the world in my lifetime, but 200 years after I have died, I will have changed the world. I simply began the chain.

I think it is better for me to not have done great deeds-- I posit that it was not my place here. My ability is to mold, teach, and love. I will have no legacy of my own-- they will be my legacy.



I, Kevin, do not know where my life is headed, or what God has for me. Perhaps I will indeed do "great" things while I am sojourning here. Perhaps not. I may be President of the United States, or I may simply be a day-job working Deacon. I don't know the answers. I do know one thing, however: if, one day, I lie on my deathbed and can only claim what you read above, my life will have been enough. I will have lived as a Giant.

Thoughts on Grace, Part 2: Will and Sin

In order to more deeply understand grace, and how it works in our lives, we must first understand the reason grace is even necessary: sin.

Sin is the base of all the problems mankind has. At it's core, sin is simply an action, thought, or lack of action, that does not line up with God's will. Adam and Eve were made without sin, and indeed, they didn't even know it was possible to be out of line with God (hence why the tree whose fruit they ate was the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'). But when they sinned, they forever stained humanity, and each of us, as a result, is born with the stain of sin upon us, and in our very being. Catholics call it "Original Sin." Augustine called it "Inordinate Desire." I prefer to call it our "Sin-Nature," or as St. Paul often says, our "flesh."

Flesh, of course, is the proper contrast to the "spirit." Flesh is the natural status of every human being apart from Christ-- enmity toward God. Flesh hates God, is steeped in pride, and seeks only to gratify itself. Spirit, on the other hand, is the result of the rebirth experienced by one who has come to know Jesus Christ. Instead of being born from a sinful ancestry (Adam and Eve), The spirit is born fresh from water and the Spirit (note, capital S: the Holy Spirit), and thus is free from the ancient stain of sin. Much of St. Paul's epistles discuss how we must make the choice daily between living in the flesh (earthly desire) and living in the spirit (God's desire).

ALRIGHT! Now that we've established that as our basis, we can move into an exposition on Grace.

You'll notice that I made the distinction of choice between flesh and spirit. I am, after all, a believer in free will-- God doesn't force himself on us

. . . or does he?

See, the most insidious thing about our sin-nature is that it causes our will to naturally choose sin. It makes us fully-willing slaves to sin, being able to do nothing but sin, all because it's our natural inclination. As I discussed in 'Thoughts on Grace, Part 1', Grace, somewhat merited and somewhat bestowed, is what allows us to choose Jesus, instead of rejecting him.

Here is the problem: I know that plenty of professing Christians (a billion or two of them, as a matter of fact), believe it or not, have chosen Jesus Christ, and yet continue sinning! Heck, I chose Jesus at such a young age that I've hardly lived at all without him, and even I sin all the time! You'd think that choosing to follow Jesus would be enough to keep us from sinning, but apparently, something keeps us from following him in every given moment.

Enter: the sin nature, the flesh-- that which causes all, even Christians, to sin. Now, most Christians know (or at least, I hope most do) that the key to not sinning is grace. You're not going to get sin out of your life by trying really hard-- that's prideful thinking, and God will resist you. You need the Grace of God to live rightly. The most popular method of obtaining Grace, for those who are really eager to get rid of sin in their life, is to ask God for it. There are other paths for Grace to come by (sacraments, excessive sin resulting in excessive grace, the will of God), but I really do think asking for it is the best.

But here's the thing: If my fleshly will naturally chooses sin, and I'm asking God to give me Grace, which will effectively stop my will from naturally choosing sin, am I . . .

asking God to take away my free will?

Yes. Yes I am, and that's okay. After all, my wicked self is in no way going to choose God's way-- it's going to have to be forced. Whether that 'force' is really me choosing to have it forced, or God actually forcing me, is really the question. For my part, I don't think it's entirely either one, but rather, both.

If my very nature is evil, then I'm always going to use my God-given free will to choose evil. It is only through grace-- God lifting my free will for a moment that I may see him-- that I am able to choose holiness over sin, life over death. But that's not where it ends, after all, because many many Christians fall away due to sin, and you can't tell me that God wouldn't prefer they stayed with him. After God initially lifted my free will to allow me to see him, I have to make the choice to give up my free will (which would previously have lead me to sin), in order to follow him better.

God, by Grace, takes away a sliver of our free will in order that we may choose him. We must then use our free will to choose to give up free will, in order to follow God.

I really do think this is the moderate position on the matter. You can feel free to disagree with me if you want-- I welcome discussion.

From John Wesley

A great man of God he was. Few throughout History have been able to match John Wesley's fusion of both strong conviction, and action on those convictions for the salvation of countless others.

Like many powerful Christians, Wesley began from a place of weakness. He was ordained as an Anglican minister, but his efforts as an evangelist and pastor resulted in a rebellious church and a failed ministry. In his own search for God, Wesley felt as though he lacked a true, saving faith, and was constantly struggling to live rightly. He wanted to follow Christ, but did not know how. Wesley's turning point came on May 24th, 1738:


"In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death."


Would that we could all have such a warming of our own hearts.

Relational Prayer

Prayer is one of those things that is essential to live as a Christian in this world. Without it, I hesitate to call you a Christian, for it is essential for every Christian to communicate with God and Jesus Christ.

After all, that's what prayer is, right: communication with God?

Perhaps. Some Christians have very, very broad definitions of prayer. For my part, I take a narrower view (as I do with most things), and tend to see prayer as a direct communication with God, and almost always one that was initiated by the person. After all, how many times do you read in scripture something like "God spoke to Kevin, saying 'x,y,z,' and when Kevin had finished praying . . ."

No, you don't see that. God does speak directly to people in scripture (provided they have ears to listen), but I don't recall ever seeing that referred to as "prayer." Narrowing it down a little more, this shows us that prayer is a petition, or a seeking, done by mankind toward God. Seeking . . . blessings? Relationship? Solving of Problems? Deeper Understanding? Greater love toward him? All of the above? I would say so, sure. But how does one pray? It ought to be fairly intimidating to think that you're going to address the creator of the universe directly, and that he is going to listen to you, considering you could go to address someone of as little cosmic significance as . . . a mayor, and have them be too important to listen to you. Because of this, people are often afraid to pray, because they feel they don't know how.

The simplest prayer is always the best, I've heard it say. Do I believe this? Well, I'd certainly say that a simple prayer is a wonderful starting point. After all, one needs practice. But if we're going to approach this idea of God as we would a relationship with a person here on Earth, then ultimately, the simplest is not the best. The deepest relationship any person has (typically) is that with your spouse, and that one is far from simple.

To those who are new to the Lord, I exhort you: do not be ashamed of your simple prayers! God treasures them the same way that my wife (before we were even dating, when she had a huge crush on me) once treasured the most mundane conversation with me. But in the same way that today, my wife desires and needs a far deeper communion with me, God will eventually expect and desire more from you. There is a difference between childlike faith, which God treasures, and immature faith, which God does not desire in the slightest.

After all, we can't subside on milk forever-- we have to chew meat eventually. Really, we should have been chewing meat already . . .

To those who have had their faith for a long time, but have yet to truly learn to pray: it's time to shape up. Don't trick yourself into thinking you're so gracious by offering God a couple of sentences now and then. Don't let yourself think "I'm doing alright"-- alright is never alright! He deserves far more than what you're giving him-- he deserves your whole heart. Talk to him. Tell him how you're feeling. Tell him what's going on in your life. I know these sound kind of stupid because, after all, if he's God, he already knows that stuff. AND? Don't you think he would rather hear it from you, whom he loves more than you know? Tell him that you love him. But he knows, right? If a major university did a psychological study on me and found that I indeed love my wife, do you think she would find much comfort in that data, if I never told her myself? Why should God receive less discourse (and as a result, less love) from you than your earthly partner does? He loves you more than your earthly partner, it's time you returned his affections, in prayer. Don't have them? That's probably to be expected if you've never developed them, but you have to start somewhere. You can't wait for God to start it, because he's not going to force himself on you-- he's too much of a gentleman and an advocate of free will to do that. Besides, the fact that you're even wondering if this applies to you is already proof that God has started it: he's working on your heart.

Pray. Don't give up, either. It may seem hard if you haven't honestly tried to have relational prayer with him, but give it time. Don't give up. Don't give up when you feel you have nothing more to say-- you know you do. Don't give up when it seems like he isn't talking back; it's not that God doesn't want to speak to you, he just has to knock down your barriers first. By not responding, God forces you to continue to pray, trusting in faith that he's actually listening. As you exercise this faith more and more, your heart will be softened, and you may come to hear him. But please, for the love of God (truly), don't give up. You can do it, you just need to try.

Pray. Pray unto the Lord, that you may come to know him. Know the Lord, that you may come to love him. Love the Lord, that you may be able to spend all eternity with him. Trust me, there is no better company.

Theological prowess? Hardly

Nothing of what I say here is going to be original. Honestly, it's about once in a millennium that a person has a new idea about God. Christianity had Augustine as our best theologian until . . . Thomas Aquinas? That was like 800 years! No, I'm not going to wow anyone here-- it's all been said.

In fact, I hope not to. If I can restate something that's been around for a long time in a way that speaks to you, that's the best I can do. I heard David Jeremiah once say something like "If you have a new idea about God, and you look into it and find out that NO ONE else agrees, you probably ought to rethink your idea." I would actually feel validation if I were to find a bunch of theologians throughout history who said the same thing, without me reading them or otherwise knowing they did. I don't read nearly as much theology as most people probably think, anyway (have yet to figure out if this is a good thing or not).

Besides, I'm keeping this blog fairly basic. I'll save my more far-out revelations for my wife's tired ears, or otherwise the privacy of my own head, where I delude myself into thinking they actually make sense. You don't need to hear what goes on in there-- it just might scare you off. ;)