The Massen of Drewgill

So drew and I decided to meet today for post-lunch. Anytime our paths connect, theological/philosophical/crazybaddass rhetoric ensues.

We talked of many things. I will try and paraphrase as best I can at 3:16am.

Truth exists. It's out there. A chair is true whether I believe it is or not. Its existence isn't contingent on my believing in it. I cannot know the entire truth of the chair, e.g. I cannot understand every physical structure of each atom (interestingly enough, quantum mechanics has totally demolished the contemporary atomic models, and have opened a huge realm of concepts few people, if any, grasp.) I will never know how each atom is colliding and/or repelling other atoms to give the chair its shape and composition. HOWEVER, there are some truths that I can know about the chair. Thus, one can achieve an understanding of limited truths in this universe.

When looking at God, whose nature is infinite (there are many good arguments for this, which I won't go into right now), one cannot possibly claim to know God completely. However, that does not limit us from knowing certain aspects of God.

However, apart from actually having faith and becoming part of the personal relationship with this said infinite God, one cannot prove Christianity to be true, whether it be with logic, history, etc. In my mind it stands as a very logical belief system on which to rest one's faith.

One logical aspect of Christianity is its description of the nature of man. Humans are by definition sinful. I realize this when I think about my motives - I always strive to seek what's best for me. While modern psychology would praise this ideal, this notion in fact flies in the face of Christianity. If by definition we are created for fellowship, for oneness with God, then our individuality, our self-seeking, our self-reliance is essentially sin. Any action, therefore, to promote one's interest over and above the interest of glorification of God is sin.

Contrary to the concept of sin is the theory of social evolution, specifically the evolution of morals and moral systems. One could argue that our morals have evolved to where they are today because they provide the most efficient and practical way to function as a society. This also appeals to me, although Drew had some choice words about this approach: "I believe that this approach is, well, what would one call it... WRONG." We didn't really argue specific ethics very much, as I agreed to the fact that my self-centered actions had hurt people in the past.

Ah, you say, personal feelings getting in the way of logic? Well, when is logic not influenced by personal feelings? How can one argue for a position if he/she doesn't feel drawn to that position in the first place? I digress.

So, Drew and I discussed the nature of sin and self, God and the infinite, the universe, society, and the core tenets of Christianity. His conclusion: a relationship to God is paramount. Everything else in life is secondary. Life's fundamental desires as answered in having that reserved seat at the dinner table. Heaven, so to speak, will be the fulfillment of every desire we have now, except fulfilled not in all of our tangible pleasures, but in God himself, the infinite being who has infinite wrath, a righteous anger, the perfect expression of this emotion; he has infinite love, something we in our corrupted society, corrupted bodies, corrupted art, corrupted logic, cannot possible begin to comprehend.

This was all in all a very rewarding conversation. Interestingly enough, you will never grasp the truth of the conversation that occurred fully. Ironically, neither will I. But here is a set of limited truth (the topics covered in conversation) that I can know absolutely to be, in fact, true.