Guys I don’t know if you read people’s comments or if you even manage your UA-cam page personally but I hope one day you’ll see this. You are my favorite band of all time and always will be. There is a Relient K song for every meaningful, impactful moment of my life. The way your music has inspired my soul toward Christ is an incredible gift. I know it all comes from Him but He used you as that conduit of light in this rebels heart. Where there was devastation in my life I found reform. Where there was failure I found that I was more than useless. I am understood by God and I have been forgiven. He is my escape. I’ve watched people peel out and drive out of my life and it ended in divorce. I have hated who I was and never wanted to go back. I’ve gone down and threw out everything I learned disregarding it only to have to wake up and take the blame of my own selfishness. God has touched my heavy heart and made it light through your music over and over and at times I truly believe that God used your songs to save my life. I have listened to most of your songs countless times and every time they ring truer and deeper and I fall in love with them more and they never get old to me. The subtlety of your Bible references are so profound to me now. The masterful satire of your songs followed by the ending filled with potent truths resonate with me so deeply it has shaped the way I evangelize. This song particularly spoke to me of how hard it is for the people of this world to see truth and accept it for what it is. That it is universal for all and that the good news is for everyone. Jesus is the prize and He is the one at the end of life when we lay in our own death beds, reaching out to us and making us brand new and glorifying us in His presence. All because one night in our lives when the lights were off we asked for that forgiveness in prayer and found our way to that narrow road. We passed through the narrow gate and our hearts became one with His. So because of Him and what you have taught me I will give until there is nothing left and tell the truth at all costs even if that means giving up everything. To live is Christ but to die is gain. Thank you Matt and everyone from Relient K for writing my favorite songs and always speaking the truth.
Musically, I love this song. Lyrically, I cannot stand it. Relient K is my favorite artist of all time, in no small part because of their poetic and thoughtful lyrics. But the lyrics of this song hold in high regard the thing I dislike most about religion: its incompatibility with critical thought. This song can be summarized as "logical critical thought is telling me that religion is man-made nonsense, but I'm going to suppress that so that I can continue believing."
Interesting. I've been struggling with the question of whether or not Christian faith is necessarily reconcilable with rationalism myself. I've made up my mind that the transcendent nature of our Heavenly Father, at the very least, means that we can only speak of Him in abstract terms. Of that I am quite certain. But my efforts to reason about His existence have been disappointing thus far. I thought I had something when I applied some additional analysis to Anselm's ontological argument, but the theological implications rendered his argument arguably incompatible with the Christian faith, even if he meant well by it. One major element that bothered me was his definition of GD as a being than which none greater could be thought. I worry that this definition fails to capture the extent of His greatness. I will elaborate on this later. I also worry that the necessity of a cosmic standard for perfection would imply that a similar standard exists for imperfection, which could raise certain theological problems regarding how evil is recognizable as wrong. C.S. Lewis mentions in "Mere Christianity" that there is a system of belief known as dualism that holds that good and evil are two deities who have existed since the dawn of time, which he states renders it impossible to determine which is necessarily wrong, since evil only exists as a perversion of good. This dilemma may not necessarily arise, but I have also determined that the quality of either being's existence is essentially a side-effect of its qualities. The existence of either being is justified as necessary because it increases the effect its qualities have on the world. This is an edit I made to the argument, which simply removes an unnecessary element that I find many get hung up on. Even so, GD and the devil can not be equal in power, and regarding both as having such an effect on the world as would emphasize the qualities of either seems to suggest that they could be to me. Returning to the issue I promised to return to earlier, I will add that I find it nearly impossible to sum up the qualities of GD without the risk of understatement, and I am not trying to prove that an understatement of the living GD exists, but that the living GD exists. As you may be able to imagine, this inability to define GD's qualities leaves me unable to determine a further course of reason. I must prove the existence of a specific GD, but I mustn't suggest that He is in any way limited, and I must maintain His sovereignty over all things. The first two rules, while not necessarily incompatible, are extremely difficult for any human intellect to apply, if not impossible, since specificity requires some degree of definition, and to define is almost always to limit. I can work around some of these challenges, but not those regarding GD's definition. On top of all this, my recent readings of Ecclesiastes have left me uncertain as to whether or not GD's existence is even meant to be proven. I hope to continue pursuing such proof, but many things have drawn me to a more fideist approach to GD's existence. I love rationalism, but I sometimes wonder if rational proofs of GD's existence aren't just some pseudo-intellectual pretension pushed by insecure believers. It's a strange conflict between my intellect and my overall sense of religious piety. I've never hated the spirit of rationalism, but I've sometimes hated its aspirations out of this vague sense that they are some breed of fraudulence that I merely entertain out of pride. Blaise Pascal has suggested as much of fellows like me, saying that we seek knowledge only so that we can talk about it. Anyway, I hope none of my words have offended. I am eager to know your thoughts on the matter. Are you especially persuaded by some theory in particular? If so, why? Have I committed any notable heresies in my reasoning? I am always open to correction. On an unrelated note, do you enjoy reading? Which authors do you enjoy? I hope I don't seem pretentious or inept. I just enjoy talking about these things.
@@RustyShackleford-eq8ie I should start by clarifying (just in case, even though it's probably obvious) that I am not religious, though I come from a Christian background. My mother is quite devout and sent me to a Christian (Lutheran) school for K-8, with religion classes every morning and chapel services once a week. Plus church and Sunday school every Sunday, and youth group every Wednesday, the works. On top of that, most of my extended family is Catholic, so I've attended Catholic mass many times in my life as well. All that is to say, I'd consider myself fairly familiar with Christian doctrine, but on the other hand, I'm not very familiar with many of the philosophical positions and arguments that you mentioned. From some quick reading on the internet, I suppose that you'd consider me a rationalist. To the goal of ascertaining truth, I have a hard time understanding how anything other than evidence and logical reasoning can be useful, and I would certainly consider faith to be anti-productive. I think that, by any reasonable definition of faith, a person using faith has chosen their beliefs independently of any corresponding evidence or logic. Absolutely anything, be it true or false, is equally justifiable by faith. As a result, if faith ever produces any beliefs that are true, it is purely by random chance. I have to say that I'm not particularly interested in the sorts of ontological arguments you've mentioned. They rely on definitions of good, evil, and GD (I assumes this means the same as God?) which are fuzzy and ill-defined, and I doubt that clear definitions are attainable. You are coming from a position of pre-existing belief, a belief which you have presumably previously accepted on faith (correct me if that's wrong), and you are now trying to justify that belief logically. I'm not surprised that you've been unsatisfied with what you've found. Put another way, I don't see any reason to try to convince myself that Christianity is true, any more than I see a reason to try to convince myself that any of the other countless religions are true. They are all built on faith, and faith is the opposite of reason. If any of them are true, an honest accounting of the universe around me should shed light on it. But in my experience, the opposite is the case. The more thought I put into religion, the more clear it becomes that there isn't anything supporting it. Anyway, I also hope that I haven't offended you. To answer your question about reading, I'm interested in mathematics, and to be honest I don't read a whole lot other than math books and things like that. I should probably branch out a little more lol
Hey! C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” might help a lot :) it’s a very clear and easy but still well thought out book so I recommend giving it a try based off your comment
Guys I don’t know if you read people’s comments or if you even manage your UA-cam page personally but I hope one day you’ll see this. You are my favorite band of all time and always will be. There is a Relient K song for every meaningful, impactful moment of my life. The way your music has inspired my soul toward Christ is an incredible gift. I know it all comes from Him but He used you as that conduit of light in this rebels heart. Where there was devastation in my life I found reform. Where there was failure I found that I was more than useless. I am understood by God and I have been forgiven. He is my escape. I’ve watched people peel out and drive out of my life and it ended in divorce. I have hated who I was and never wanted to go back. I’ve gone down and threw out everything I learned disregarding it only to have to wake up and take the blame of my own selfishness. God has touched my heavy heart and made it light through your music over and over and at times I truly believe that God used your songs to save my life. I have listened to most of your songs countless times and every time they ring truer and deeper and I fall in love with them more and they never get old to me. The subtlety of your Bible references are so profound to me now. The masterful satire of your songs followed by the ending filled with potent truths resonate with me so deeply it has shaped the way I evangelize. This song particularly spoke to me of how hard it is for the people of this world to see truth and accept it for what it is. That it is universal for all and that the good news is for everyone. Jesus is the prize and He is the one at the end of life when we lay in our own death beds, reaching out to us and making us brand new and glorifying us in His presence. All because one night in our lives when the lights were off we asked for that forgiveness in prayer and found our way to that narrow road. We passed through the narrow gate and our hearts became one with His. So because of Him and what you have taught me I will give until there is nothing left and tell the truth at all costs even if that means giving up everything. To live is Christ but to die is gain. Thank you Matt and everyone from Relient K for writing my favorite songs and always speaking the truth.
This is beautiful. Thank you for writing this
You aren't the only one. Parallel life here.
Musically, I love this song. Lyrically, I cannot stand it. Relient K is my favorite artist of all time, in no small part because of their poetic and thoughtful lyrics. But the lyrics of this song hold in high regard the thing I dislike most about religion: its incompatibility with critical thought. This song can be summarized as "logical critical thought is telling me that religion is man-made nonsense, but I'm going to suppress that so that I can continue believing."
Interesting. I've been struggling with the question of whether or not Christian faith is necessarily reconcilable with rationalism myself. I've made up my mind that the transcendent nature of our Heavenly Father, at the very least, means that we can only speak of Him in abstract terms. Of that I am quite certain. But my efforts to reason about His existence have been disappointing thus far. I thought I had something when I applied some additional analysis to Anselm's ontological argument, but the theological implications rendered his argument arguably incompatible with the Christian faith, even if he meant well by it. One major element that bothered me was his definition of GD as a being than which none greater could be thought. I worry that this definition fails to capture the extent of His greatness. I will elaborate on this later. I also worry that the necessity of a cosmic standard for perfection would imply that a similar standard exists for imperfection, which could raise certain theological problems regarding how evil is recognizable as wrong. C.S. Lewis mentions in "Mere Christianity" that there is a system of belief known as dualism that holds that good and evil are two deities who have existed since the dawn of time, which he states renders it impossible to determine which is necessarily wrong, since evil only exists as a perversion of good. This dilemma may not necessarily arise, but I have also determined that the quality of either being's existence is essentially a side-effect of its qualities. The existence of either being is justified as necessary because it increases the effect its qualities have on the world. This is an edit I made to the argument, which simply removes an unnecessary element that I find many get hung up on. Even so, GD and the devil can not be equal in power, and regarding both as having such an effect on the world as would emphasize the qualities of either seems to suggest that they could be to me. Returning to the issue I promised to return to earlier, I will add that I find it nearly impossible to sum up the qualities of GD without the risk of understatement, and I am not trying to prove that an understatement of the living GD exists, but that the living GD exists. As you may be able to imagine, this inability to define GD's qualities leaves me unable to determine a further course of reason. I must prove the existence of a specific GD, but I mustn't suggest that He is in any way limited, and I must maintain His sovereignty over all things. The first two rules, while not necessarily incompatible, are extremely difficult for any human intellect to apply, if not impossible, since specificity requires some degree of definition, and to define is almost always to limit. I can work around some of these challenges, but not those regarding GD's definition. On top of all this, my recent readings of Ecclesiastes have left me uncertain as to whether or not GD's existence is even meant to be proven. I hope to continue pursuing such proof, but many things have drawn me to a more fideist approach to GD's existence. I love rationalism, but I sometimes wonder if rational proofs of GD's existence aren't just some pseudo-intellectual pretension pushed by insecure believers. It's a strange conflict between my intellect and my overall sense of religious piety. I've never hated the spirit of rationalism, but I've sometimes hated its aspirations out of this vague sense that they are some breed of fraudulence that I merely entertain out of pride. Blaise Pascal has suggested as much of fellows like me, saying that we seek knowledge only so that we can talk about it. Anyway, I hope none of my words have offended. I am eager to know your thoughts on the matter. Are you especially persuaded by some theory in particular? If so, why? Have I committed any notable heresies in my reasoning? I am always open to correction. On an unrelated note, do you enjoy reading? Which authors do you enjoy? I hope I don't seem pretentious or inept. I just enjoy talking about these things.
@@RustyShackleford-eq8ie I should start by clarifying (just in case, even though it's probably obvious) that I am not religious, though I come from a Christian background. My mother is quite devout and sent me to a Christian (Lutheran) school for K-8, with religion classes every morning and chapel services once a week. Plus church and Sunday school every Sunday, and youth group every Wednesday, the works. On top of that, most of my extended family is Catholic, so I've attended Catholic mass many times in my life as well.
All that is to say, I'd consider myself fairly familiar with Christian doctrine, but on the other hand, I'm not very familiar with many of the philosophical positions and arguments that you mentioned. From some quick reading on the internet, I suppose that you'd consider me a rationalist. To the goal of ascertaining truth, I have a hard time understanding how anything other than evidence and logical reasoning can be useful, and I would certainly consider faith to be anti-productive. I think that, by any reasonable definition of faith, a person using faith has chosen their beliefs independently of any corresponding evidence or logic. Absolutely anything, be it true or false, is equally justifiable by faith. As a result, if faith ever produces any beliefs that are true, it is purely by random chance.
I have to say that I'm not particularly interested in the sorts of ontological arguments you've mentioned. They rely on definitions of good, evil, and GD (I assumes this means the same as God?) which are fuzzy and ill-defined, and I doubt that clear definitions are attainable. You are coming from a position of pre-existing belief, a belief which you have presumably previously accepted on faith (correct me if that's wrong), and you are now trying to justify that belief logically. I'm not surprised that you've been unsatisfied with what you've found.
Put another way, I don't see any reason to try to convince myself that Christianity is true, any more than I see a reason to try to convince myself that any of the other countless religions are true. They are all built on faith, and faith is the opposite of reason. If any of them are true, an honest accounting of the universe around me should shed light on it. But in my experience, the opposite is the case. The more thought I put into religion, the more clear it becomes that there isn't anything supporting it.
Anyway, I also hope that I haven't offended you. To answer your question about reading, I'm interested in mathematics, and to be honest I don't read a whole lot other than math books and things like that. I should probably branch out a little more lol
Ah. My bad. Thanks for engaging, anyway. GD bless.
Hey! C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” might help a lot :) it’s a very clear and easy but still well thought out book so I recommend giving it a try based off your comment
Not at all. It’s talking about letting go of your own will and trying to control your own life and giving God the reins and having faith