Honestly, I can’t see any good reason to get too upset about this book.  A pastor wrote a book on what he thinks about spirituality, salvation, heaven, and hell.  I’m sure Bell believes that he is right(why else would he believe it), but I don’t think Bell believes that his opinions are 100% correct.  But remember, this is just a collection of a man’s thoughts.  A man.  A human being affected by our depraved nature.  Something in there is screwed up somewhere.  So don’t get bent out of shape if you absolutely disagree with something in Love Wins, its normal to have different opinions on grey areas.

And why are there grey areas about theology?  Why shouldn’t we think that what we believe is 100% correct?  Because, if we know everything about God then we have God figured out.  If we have all the answers, what do we need God for?  One of the questions I get asked a lot by atheists or agnostics is “How can you hold onto your faith when you have so many questions about salvation, theology, and God himself?”  I do have many questions that I can’t answer.  There will always be questions and grey areas and, quite frankly, I think its worse to claim/believe/lie to yourself that you have them all figured out.  Some things we can know for sure(what is 1+1?), some other things we cannot know(If God is 100% loving then why is my friend dying from cancer?), or know if we ever will know.  So why pretend?  Why say “HEY I HAVE THE ANSWER AND YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY!”  Lets be real about it.  We can discuss what we think about it and get good conversations going.  We might even learn something new!

But there will always be questions.  Sometimes we can answer them, sometimes we can’t answer them yet, and sometimes we never will be able to answer them.  God is bigger than us.  He operates at a higher dimension and we cannot comprehend how He works.  Personally, this is one of my favorite attributes of God; Him being beyond me.  There is always ways to fall in love with Him again.  And you can’t love something, or someone, after you’ve figured it out; the appeal is gone.

One of the most beautiful things I have heard regarding this idea was from a thread on reddit.

I do not claim to hold the truth. I claim that the Truth has gotten ahold of me, and I am merely doing my best not to lose sight of it.

Anther thing, I covered this above but I want to stress this again just like Bell did, “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me  I haven’t come up with a radical new teaching that’s any kind of departure from what’s been said an untold number of times”(XXX).  This is true.  Everything in this book has been said, taught, and believed before.  Inclusivism?  CS Lewis.  Multiple chances for Salvation?  Origen Adamantius.  Heaven isn’t the end destination?  NT Wright.  God loves everyone?  The Bible.

That’s more or less my attitude towards what the majority of what other people think.

What most people who have a problem with Bell or Love Wins will say is, “Bell says that people don’t need to know Jesus to be saved”  Well…what Bell actually says is, “sometimes people who have never heard about Christ and then who hear about Christ say “That’s who we’ve been looking for. Or that’s who we’ve been worshiping. You gave us his name.” Missionaries experience these stories.  How common is this?  It’s probably pretty rare, but I believe the missionaries are right and that those people were and are experiencing the true Christ.  How can they know the true Christ before ever hearing about Him?  “What [Jesus] doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and and restore the world is happening through him” (154).  Many, many, many people have a problem with this.  I don’t really.  As I explained it in part one, I am an inclusivist.

The Big Question

The big question Bell asks, “Does God get what God wants in the end?”  Its kind of a loaded question really.  Does God get his entire creation redeemed from our corruption and back in harmony with Him?  If not, can you still consider Him God if he can’t get what he wants?  If God is all powerful why aren’t we all saved if that is His desire?  The better question, in my opinion, ”Can God get what God wants in the end?”  Can it happen at all?  If God is all powerful it should be able to be possible, right?  Well…here inlies the title of the book I think, Love Wins.  In the end, we get what we want.  No we aren’t more powerful than God, but He did give us a little thing called free will.  He gave us an ability called love, which is a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature(I had to sneak in a Harry Potter quote in here somewhere).  Our ability to love or not to love God is our choice to choose or reject him.  And that is what ultimately wins, our choice.  Our love.

If you want to read some other thoughts on Love Wins then check out my friend’s take on it http://jobandthestorm.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/love-wins/

Check out my other thoughts on Love Wins

• Love Wins: What I Liked
• Love Wins: What I Didn’t Like

I’m going to do a brief outline of the plot and what I thought of each.  Massive spoilers here obviously…

• The Seven Potters: This scene was brilliant.  They kept it humorous and then turn into pure excitement in the chase.  As soon as everyone broke through those clouds there were curses and death eaters going every which way.  And that is how it should have been.  The only thing that could have been changed was the fact that the death eaters could already fly, so when Voldemort starts flying it isn’t  a huge deal.  But this was an unfortunate choice made in the 5th movie.
• At the Burrow: Nothing too important here.  Mostly filler time.  The Ginny birthday kiss was pretty funny, that was a welcome change I would say.  The wedding was done well.  Elphias Doge’s part was minimal, more on that later.  The escape from the wedding was cool, Kingsley’s patronus was a bit slow talking.  At first I really liked that they kept the Tottenham Court Rd scene, but then after the rest of the movie I thought they should have just tossed it(more on this later).
• Ministry of Magic: Kipping out at Grimmuald Place is easily filmed enough.  They got to show off Sirius’ room and then they found RAB.  They didn’t do a great job at explaining exactly what Kreacher/Regulas accomplished, but it wasn’t really needed in the movie.  Breaking into the Ministry of Magic was great.  They did a good job showing just how frantic and clueless they trio was during all this.  It was fun to see the decoy detonators work their magic in the nazi propaganda assembly line.  I don’t understand why the movies insist on having the actor’s voices while transformed by Polyjuice Potion, maybe to confuse the audience less?
• Camping: It was good to see this was kept to a minimum in the movie.  While the camping scenes were boring in the book, it was where a lot of the plot development happened with the trio.  I was glad to see that the movie wasn’t bogged down with this but they still showed the characters developing.  Ron’s departure was maddening and understandable as it was supposed to be.  The entire time the locket can be seen smugly atop their chests, draining their hope.  Let it be known, I loved the splinching effect they did with Ron.  Awkward Harry/Hermione dancing scene is awkward, still not sure who thought could ever be a good idea…Just bad writing really.
• Godric’s Hallow: I was a little disappointed in this scene.  Nagini did not erupt out of Bathilda Bagshot’s body like in a horror movie, Bathilda’s body kinda turned into the snake.  Maybe they didn’t want a rated R scene, but it was supposed to be terrifyingly creepy.  Also, Voldemort never came.  That was another moment where Harry escapes his wrath and I still don’t know why they left that out.  I mean if Voldemort wasn’t there, Harry and Hermione should have stayed to kill the snake right?  They knew it was a horocrux after all.
• Ron’s Return: I never really liked the patronuses(patronai?) they showed in the movies.  They looked too…whispy.  They didn’t even do Harry’s stag patronus right(I won’t forgive you either Alfonso Cuarón!) in the third or subsequent movies.  So the Doe was barely even recognizable I thought, now would it matter since they couldn’t make the connection that the stag+doe = James+Lily.  Harry trying to get the sword, the locket trying to drown him, and Ron showing up to save him was all good.  What I really liked(I loved it.  I thought it was brilliant.  On some level I think it should be long in the books) was when the locket was opened up.  It was like a bomb.  This great big mass of muck shooting out everywhere to fight Ron off was pure genius!  The horocrux attempting to crush Ron’s hope was executed perfectly, and when Ron pulls through stabbing the locket with the sword I almost got up and cheered.  I was really excited to see such a emotional part of the book done well.
• The Deathly Hallows: Little things I enjoyed after Ron’s return was the humor he brought back with him.  The audience knew that Ron regretted leaving and is back to his old self again.  Also adding the touch of Harry not being able to use another’s wand as easily was good to see.  Very interesting art direction of the Tale of the Three Brothers, I thought it was really good and set the mood well.  Again, didn’t like the death eaters flying around crashing into the Lovegood’s house.  Dumb useless additions…The end of this scene was pretty sloppy I thought.  The trio apparates away from the Lovegood’s residence right into some snatchers by mistake…and tries to run away?  What?  Just apparate away again!  Which brings me back to my Tottenham Court Rd point; there is never any explanation of the fact that the word Voldemort was jinxed so they could find you.  They kept the part at Tottenham Court Rd, but never explained why.  They could have easily had Harry or Hermione say Voldemort at night after their escape from the Lovegood’s and then get caught, but instead they do this stupid lucky snatcher bit.  This was one of my larger gripes with DH part one.
• Malfoy Manor: This was more or less straight from the book.  Everyone is terribly excited that they may have caught Harry Potter, Bellatrix goes nuts when she spots the sword and kills most of the snatchers(I loved that they kept that bit in there), and then Ron and Harry are scuttled off to the dungeon while Hermione is tortured for information.  Down below, Dobby shows up and starts the rescue.  I didn’t like that they didn’t even kill off Wormtail in the movie.  I mean what gives, do all the bad guys die except for Wormtail?  Harry gets Malfoy’s wand, a very important part of the plot.  Then they are at the standoff with Bellatrix about to slit Hermione’s throat, this is where I thought the scene went down hill.  Dobby shows up and takes several minutes to unscrew the chandelier(Seriously, what was that about?  Was it supposed to be funny?) to fall on top of Bellatrix, who decides that pushing Hermione towards Harry/Ron and falling backwards is the best way to overcome this problem.  Then, Dobby decides to make an even longer speech about friendship and Harry Potter while there are about 5 wizards pointing a knife and a couple of wands at their heads.  Finally Dobby disapparates them all to shell cottage, but not before the audience BLATANTLY sees Bellatrix throw the knife into their disapparating mess.  Now everyone knows that Dobby is going to die, and that kinda ruined it.  It was still sad to watch Dobby utter his last words, but it just wasn’t the same feeling as in the book when it was a surprise.  Also, in the movie Hermione just watches Dobby die when she can easily use some magic/dittany to save his life, so much for her love of house elves.  Overall this scene was good, I just wish it had the same sense of surprise and sadness that JK Rowling accomplished in the book.  Not to mention this is where DH part one ends, it should have been a big shocker and go out with a bang instead of trying to force some humor before an obvious death.
• Shell Cottage: Dobby’s grave was nicely done, keeping it being dug by hand was another nicety.  Griphook’s responses were the same, but they threw in a HEAVY hint about Snape.  I wasn’t too sure how I felt about that.  I didn’t like the fact that Ollivander knew, and shared, about the Deathly Hallows.  Him not knowing about them made them seem more mystical, more crazy/impossible to be true.  They kept Bill’s warnings about Griphook and the goblins in.  Didn’t show too much about the planning of their break-in, but I guess they didn’t need to show it.
• Gringotts: I thought they showed the imperious curse very well, which I thought would be pretty hard to pull off.  Helena Bonham Carter did a great job being Hermione trying to act like Bellatrix.  For some reason they had it appear as if Harry/Griphook were just invisible and not under the cloak.  Come to think of it, they didn’t even mention the cloak to be a Hallow.  Man they never do explain anything about James Potter, bit of a shame really.  They kept the germino charm on the goods in the vault, but didn’t bother with the flagrante curse.  The dragon escape was pretty good.  After they disembark the dragon Hermione yells at Harry to stop letting Voldemort ‘in’, but Harry is definitely not letting Voldemort ‘in’.  They didn’t address this when they should have in Shell Cottage, Harry finally overcomes his occlumency problem.  A problem in the plots consistency.  Even though I liked that they showed Voldemort killing people out of frustration, I didn’t like how they killed Griphook and show the sword vanish.  To heavy a hint, like the one about Snape earlier, kinda ruins the coming surprise.
• Return to Hogwarts: Even though they completely threw out the entire Dumbledore trust issues plot from the book, they kept Aberforth’s appearance.  The entire scene in the Hog’s Head is really explaining key plot points that they never really brought up in the first place: Dumbledore’s backstory, the mirror, and witches/wizards giving up hope.  I guess this was their way of trying to fit everything in at the last minute.  I probably could have forgiven them if they never did anything with Dumbledore.  They couldn’t really not explain the mirror.  I dunno, I really saw it as a filler scene for the movie; not terribly important but not bad either.  When they finally get into Hogwarts its a good sight.  The room of requirement is done up right.  I’m not sure if I liked the Harry revealing himself bit in the great hall to Snape, I definitely didn’t like the lame McGonagall vs Snape duel(this is sadly the trend for the rest of the personal duels).  Where was the epic two(McGonagall & Flitwick) on one(Snape) fight?
• Battle for Hogwarts: This was pretty cool.  Artistic license all the way throughout the battle.  Big shield surrounding Hogwarts gets set up and is taking shots from the death eaters, McGonagall summons the (stone?) suits of armor to defend Hogwarts(I didn’t care too much about her funny line), Neville’s bridge trap, the deatheaters flying around blowing up parts of the castle, very-fast-shots-of-wizards-getting hexed on both sides, etc.  It was all good show, I really enjoyed it.  The Ron/Hermione scene was alright, I still say the original scene Rowling wrote is better.  After a rather weird scene with Harry and the Grey Lady they are off to the room of requirement to find the diadem.  Finding the diadem was kinda lame, when did Harry get horocruxdar?  The Fiendfyre was pretty sweet, not exactly how I imagined it but it worked.  I do NOT like how Voldemort can feel a Horocrux get destroyed, it goes against what they try to reinforce in the very next part(that Voldemort has become subhuman from his horocrux creation).  Voldemort loosing his temper again and killing of Thicknesse was a cool tidbit, seeing his emotional state again.
• Snape’s Memories: Maybe it was just me, but I thought that the Voldemort voice that everyone could hear sounded nothing like Voldemort.  The Snape death scene was decent.  I always thought it was a bit funny that they were so close to Voldemort during that scene.  Not sure what Snape’s memories were doing leaking out of his eyes, weird.  They added another line for Snape, “You have your mother’s eyes.”  I’m not usually one to like that kind of stuff, but I thought it fit and added more depth to the scene.  Then they had the “look at me” line, but Harry’s eyes STILL AREN’T GREEN.  Back to the castle; RIP Remus, Tonks, and Fred(JK Rowling I will never forgive you for that).  They killed off Lavender for some reason, kinda sad.  The actual memories were pretty good.  And now LILY’S EYES AREN’T GREEN EITHER.  WTF.  Alan Rickman didn’t get a big variety in his acting of Snape over the movies, but his scenes in the memories were brilliant.  I was very impressed with how they did the Dumbledore scenes in the memories, captured it extremely well I thought.  I don’t remember, did they leave in the “Sometimes I think we sort too soon” line?
• Forest Scene: Was not a fan of Harry telling Ron and Hermione he was off to go die.  First of all, it just isn’t in Harry’s character.  Second, they were too okay with it.  They’ve spent the last 7 years facing certain death with Harry, always trying to find their way through, but here they’re just “Oh okay.  I guess this is it.”  Hermione gives him a little hug and Ron just looks at him.  What was that?  No last mention to Neville about the snake, more on that later.  Resurrection stone was done alright, the snitch opening was pretty cool.  Then here comes Harry right into Voldemort’s camp, where we finally get to see Hagrid, to get blasted by Avada Kedavra.
• King’s Cross: Let it be known that I loved this part of the book.  Might be my favorite chapter in the entire series.  So I was ready to hate on this scene.  I can’t.  It was near perfect.  Voldemort’s sickly damaged soul, Dumbledore’s answers, Harry’s confusion, it was all great.  They one thing they didn’t explain was the bit about Voldemort using Harry’s blood, too complex for the movie audience I guess.  And that last line stayed the same, “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”  Loved it.
• Final Battle: They kept Narcissa asking if Draco was still alive, that was good.  Sadly, this is when the movie takes a turn for the worse.  Voldemort and his posse troop back to Hogwarts with ‘dead’ Harry in tow.  For som reason there is an awkward hug between Voldemort and Malfoy, who wrote this?  Three different characters’ paths were ruined following this scene.  First up: Neville Longbottom.  Neville was on his way to becoming the BAMF he was in the book.  But instead of taking a heroic stand against Voldemort ending in a headless Nagini, Neville makes a long winded speech.  By not having Harry tell Neville to kill the snake, Neville has no clear direction of what to do.  There is no clear break in the action for Harry to get away without being noticed, and in this movie Harry just gets up and runs.  No invisibility cloak here either.  Immediately the fight breaks out again and Neville gets blasted backwards into the Great Hall.  Now several minutes have passed, Harry and Voldemort have run off fighting somewhere else, and now Neville gets up, looks around confused, picks up the sword and walks away.  This isn’t badass Neville.  This is the same Neville we saw in movie 4 or before.  He doesn’t know what he’s doing.  For some reason Neville walks AWAY from the fight in the Great Hall, doesn’t use his wand for anything, and happens upon Ron, Hermione, and Nagini.  His reaction was correct, kill the big mean snake that is about to eat my friends, but the setup was all wrong.  Next character: Molly Weasely.  Yes they kept the scene where she kills Bellatrix.  Yes they kept the “Not my daughter you bitch!” line.  Rightfully so, both of those things were important to show.  But again, the setup was all wrong.  Bellatrix looks like a bully pushing Ginny around in front of about four other grown witches/wizards.  There wasn’t any epic duel, just Mrs Weasley stepping in and saying a spell or two to get rid of Bellatrix.  Mrs. Weasley didn’t even show much fury, her famous line was a little more than a whisper.  Disappointment.  And the final character: Harry Potter.  The running/battling up the stairs in Hogwarts was actually pretty cool.  It showed some cool spells/moves from both wizards and it showed how frantic Voldemort had become now that all his horocruxes had been destroyed(post Nagini).  Just had a thought, Harry never really knew that Nagini was killed did he, hmmmmm.  All the way up to the bell tower they fight…and then it gets stupid.  Harry barely mentions his knowledge of the Elder Wand, and then they both fall/fly all the way down to the courtyard.  Here it gets even more stupid.  This is the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort.  In the book, this is where Harry calls him Tom Riddle and Voldemort can’t stand it, this is where everyone is watching what is happening, this is where Harry doesn’t out duel Voldemort but plays him for the coward that he is.  But in the movie, this is where barely any words are said, no one is watching, and it is confusing as to what actually happens.  And then, Voldemort, the most powerful dark wizard of all time, dissolves into paper and floats away.  What.  The.  Heck.  No suspense, no action, no surprises being revealed.  Just a mellow duel with a lot of confusion.  Two seconds later, everyone is happily having tea in the Great Hall.  There isn’t even a “good job Harry!”  Then Harry walks outside with Ron and Hermione and explains to them what actually happened with the Elder Wand.  How stupid.  It was way better throwing this in Voldemort’s face and seeing the look of panic on his face when he realizes he may have not worked it out correctly on his own.  Then, without repairing his old wand mind you, Harry snaps the Elder Wand in two and throws it away.  What is he going to do, use Draco’s wand for the rest of his life?  Such a sad way to ruin to the climax from what you had going…
• Epilogue: The epilogue was good.  All the older-looking kids looked funny, but that’s what you get when you try to make young twenty-year olds look much older I guess.  Funny names aside, what Harry says to Albus before he leaves for Hogwarts is always heart warming.  No mention of Neville being a Hogwarts professor, another way they shaft him out of what he should be…

Yes I was being extremely critical, it is what I do.  Overall, I thought the movie was great.  Both part 1 and part 2 of The Deathly Hallows were some of the best film adaptions of a book I have seen.  They are easily the best of the Potter films.  I look at this last midnight release as the end of my childhood.  Here I am graduated from college, holding a fulltime salary job, and looking to buy a house in the coming months to live in.  No more new Potter books or movies are coming, but I will always have these 7 books to dive back into when I feel the itch.

Thank you JK Rowling for writing such awesome books about faith, love, friendship, sacrifice, unity and fighting for what’s good and true at all times.  They truly were magical.

Second part of my thoughts on Love Wins.  Love Wins: Other Thoughts will come next week sometime.

What I didn’t like about Love Wins

While I touched briefly upon Bell’s talk regarding a personal relationship with God, he also makes the argument that a personal relationship with God isn’t even found in the Bible.  Well this is kind of awkward Bell, because it certainly is.  Maybe not the exact phrase personal relationship with Jesus is in the Bible, but the idea certainly is.  What did Adam and Even have with God?  What did Abraham have with God?  What about Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, or Elijah?  What about the word covenant?  Doesn’t it mean something personal to both parties?  I don’t think Bell was insinuating that God isn’t personal since he tends to talk very much about this in his other books, but for the sake of his argument Bell kinda oversteps and implies this.  If Bell was trying to make the point that there is more to salvation than this idea of a personal relationship with God, I think there are better ways to do this rather than “the problem, however, is that the phrase ‘personal relationship’ is found nowhere in the Bible.”(10)

Bell takes many(if not all) of the verses he discusses at face value.  Prophets saying that everyone will be in Heaven(34, 99), Jesus giving water to Israelites in the desert(143), Jesus explaining that everyone will be saved through Him(155), and many many others.  Now, I’m not saying that some, or all, of these verses could, or even should, be interpreted as Bell does(I don’t know).  But from what I’ve heard from many different friends studying in seminary or comparative religions, ancient languages are always a challenge to translate.  Where it says ‘everyone’ could also mean ‘a lot of people’, or it could very well mean ‘everyone’.  On top of that, what if the author was writing metaphorically?  Then where it says ‘everyone’ could very well literally mean ‘everyone’ but the author meant ‘a lot of people’ instead.  I’m not asking for a thesis on each Bible verse and what its implications are, but I would love to hear more about the text especially when your book is under attack for being heretical.  It is also not only flippant but inaccurate to say Gehenna is merely the town dump — it is a metaphor for divine judgment.  Sure it was a metaphor for an undesirable place the Jews knew in their present day, but Jesus wasn’t just talking about the local trash pile…For this reason, I thought many of this arguments less then compelling.  What good is a Biblical argument that you back up with flimsy verses?

Not much elaboration in key statements.  Multiple places Bell states something and then carries on using it as a basis for the rest of the chapter or idea.  He does this in a couple different places, one in particular that struck me was talking about multiple(if not infinite) chances to repent to God.  In my head I was thinking, “Whoa, wait up.  Where did this come from?”  I’ve never really heard it discussed much in a Christian setting so I was interested in how Bell thought about it.  Too bad because you won’t get any elaboration about it in this book.

And connected to that last point, my one major problem with the book: What the heck do you believe Bell?!?  Maybe its just not in the spirit of the book, but the book contains absolutely zero arguments for any particular theological position.  I love Bell’s parade of ideas and questions, but give me some content to chew on please!

As you can see, much less things that I didn’t like than I did like; but my desire for content is pretty big so I saw that as quite a large problem…

Check out my other thoughts on Love Wins

• Love Wins: What I Liked
• Love Wins: Other Thoughts

What I liked about Love Wins

I really liked a big focus on the fact that the age to come(the Kingdom of God) is starting NOW.  This isn’t something we have to wait to be swept up into.  We can partake and initiate it here on earth today.  God is yearning for a complete restoration of his creation, and we get to participate in that.  The other age starts NOW!  Along with this mindset, an important biblical truth is brought up–heaven isn’t our final destination.  Bell briefly goes over the difference between what Jesus talks about as heaven, or paradise, and the new creation.  A new heaven and a new earth.  You can read about this in more depth in other books, but the idea is that we will stay in a temporary location before God’s Kingdom is renewed on earth.  While we greatly anticipate that day, we can help change things today!  Get involved in a community outreach program!  Go buy a povertee!  Help fund a well in Uganda.  You can further God’s Kingdom right now.  On the flip side, the opposite of the Kingdom of God can be present here today as well.  Rape, murder, abuse.  I’m fairly sure we all know these things aren’t from God or His Kingdom.  Both of these realities need to be seen as present and future states that we need to address.  I love the emphasis on this way of thinking because Jesus came down to help the sick, not the healthy.  We are to help destroy the hells on earth, and in their places bring about the Kingdom of God.

One excerpt that I really liked was about our craving for justice and judgement.  I’m just going to quote right from the book because I thought it was perfectly laid out there.(37)

God says no to injustice.  God says, “Never again” to the oppressors who prey on the weak and vulnerable.  God declares a ban on weapons.

It’s important to remember this the next time we hear people say they can’t believe in a “God of judgement.”

Yes, they can.  Often, we can think of little else.  Every oil spill, every report of another woman sexually assaulted, every news report that another political leader has silenced the opposition through torture, imprisonment, and execution, every time we see someone stepped on by an institution or corporation more interested in profit than people, every time we stumble upon one more instance of the human heart gone wrong, we shake our fist and cry out, “Will somebody please do something about this?”

We crave judgement, we long for it, we thirst for it.  Bring it, unleash it, as the prophet Amos says, “Let justice roll on like a river” (chap 5).

Same with the word “anger.”  When we hear people saying they can’t believe in a God who gets angry–yes, they can.  How should God react to a child being forced into prostitution?

A lot of thoughts and questions were shared about salvation in general:

A really early point Bell brought up is a thought that while many Christians claim that no action earns you salvation, accepting Jesus into your life does; the personal relationship with Jesus.  Bell points out that accepting Jesus is also an action.  This, I think, was really brought up a to support that we cannot really know what entails salvation, possibly nudging at inclusivism.  Another point was even the demons believe, will they get salvation?  This easily explained away before it gets too out of hand.  Simply believing is not enough.  Yes, even the demons believe that God exists, but do they believe in what God stands for?  Apparently not since they continue to defy Him.  Same for people, believing in who God is and what He is about is the real deal here.  ”I will show you my faith by my works.”(James 2:18)

What Bell is saying that there is a danger in thinking of salvation as transactional; it could be simplified down to that transaction, that action, that work.  We cannot get into a mindset where salvation happens, it is done, we own it.  What salvation is usually thought of is transactional then transformative because there needs to be that point in time when it all starts.  When someone says that prayer, when someone is baptized, when someone decides to throw their life away and give it all to Christ.  That is our transaction and everything afterwards is our transformation.  I would say that we think of it in this way(as a transactional, having a definite start) because that is how we work.  In the same way that we cannot imagine God without beginning or end, we try to nail down t=0 for our salvation.  Maybe it is easier to think we trade belief for salvation from Jesus.  I don’t think Bell is saying that there isn’t a start to it, just that there is a danger if we really care that there is.  Bell is saying that this gift isn’t transactional in nature(or else it would be pointless) but transformative in nature!  When you deny your own idea of what happiness is and embrace God’s love, that isn’t a transaction but transformation!  When you take that leap of faith, you are already being transformed.  What is this gift of salvation?  Its God’s love, correct?  And love isn’t transactional in the same way that buying milk from Trader Joes is.  I don’t decide to trade x for love.

The age of accountability, a belief that young children won’t get judged on what they can’t understand as per their age and will receive salvation.  I’ve always had trouble in this belief.  What, at 12 years old the child suddenly becomes responsible for knowing who God is, what He wants for mankind, and if not they lucked out because their parents took care of them?  If this was true, wouldn’t the humane thing be to kill your children before they reach this age?  What about an atheist who turned 12 a week ago, was that seven day window all the time they had to get salvation?  What would they have to do in those seven days?  Can people be saved without explicitly knowing Jesus’ name?  Inclusivism is a popular view of salvation where salvation can extend to other “neighbor beliefs”.  How far this “inclusivist” gap is is up for debate and quite scary to give a definite answer about.  Can someone brought up in Islam who gets all the finer points of a merciful god wanting to redeem his creation through sacrifice and calling mankind to something greater catch salvation?  No because they call God by Allah?  No because they don’t know who Jesus is?  No because they weren’t baptized?  No because they find truth in the Quran?  On the other side of the coin, “Imagine a high-school student whose family is part of a Christian church.  She belongs to a Christian youth group, has only Christian friends, reads only Christian books and has to attend Christian chapel service, because it’s mandatory at the Christian high school she attends.”  While being SO CLOSE to good teaching, doctrine, community, and intentions she just doesn’t get Christ at all, yet she “believes”.  Will she catch salvation?  Yes because she knows Jesus is God?  Yes because she knows Jesus died on a cross?  Yes because she was baptized?  Yes because she finds truth in the Bible?

Some similar thoughts from another of my favorite authors, CS Lewis.  “There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points.”(Lewis)  Can people belong to God without knowing it?

I’ll admit it, I’m an inclusivist.  I’m on board with CS Lewis.  I believe God cares more about you then what you know about Him, to an extent.  If you have ever read The Last Battle in the Chronicles of Narnia, I think it paints a beautiful picture.  Another metaphor could be like a kid observing the effects of gravity.  He notices objects fall down from higher to lower places.  He gets it, to an extent.  Maybe he doesn’t know the equations surrounding gravitational pull or that larger masses generate stronger gravitational forces.  Maybe he doesn’t even know its called gravity.  But he gets it, to an extent.  Would it be beneficial to learn more about it?  Yes.  Would he gain more insight if he knew everything about gravity?  Duh.  But he still gets it, to an extent.  Yes, it is a metaphor.  It breaks down in the same way that the story at the end of The Last Battle breaks down, because it is a metaphor.  But in some ways it is very similar.  Do I think I know how far this extent can go?  No.  Like I said before, it is quite dangerous to make presumptions about it.  But I, personally, can’t see Jesus being strictly exclusive.  If there is anything I’ve read in scripture, it is that Jesus is very much inclusive.  To an extent.

Bell revisits the parable of the lost son with a different take at the ending party scene involving the two brothers.  Bell states that the two brothers, while both at the party, represent the broken finding mercy and heaven while the proud find themselves in hell. The key point here is that they are both at the party.  You have the option to join in, to recognize that what God wants is perfection, but you don’t have to.  ”To reject God’s grace, to turn from God’s love, to resist God’s telling, will lead to misery.  It is a form of punishment, all on its own.”(176)  I don’t think Bell is suggesting that both heaven and hell are in the same location, or similar except our attitudes, but that you can be “at God’s party” without really partaking in God.  You can have done everything “right” in your life, but then not really understand who God is.  Similarly, a lost son who has squandered his dad’s wealth can return home to be a VIP at the party.  Hell is being at the party and refusing God in his face.

Two last things I really liked about the book:

• If something is wrong with your God, nothing can save you.
  • This is closely related to the idea of God being unfair.  Many people will say that they can’t believe in a God that is unfair and mean.  Now the real question in this case I think is whether their reason is truly “unfair” or not, but if it is then I would agree with them.  Why should I believe in a God who is out to get me?  Or others?  I don’t want any part in that.  I rejoice in the fact that my Jesus is the opposite, unfair and nice.  Jesus is here for you, wants to help you, and loves you.  He will actually go further than what is required of Him to try and ensure your salvation.  That is a God that I can and want to know, not someone who is waiting for others to mess up so He can punish them or send them to hell.
  • Some people will bring up the point that “we cannot say what is fair, only God can”.  To that I say, if we as humans are unable to comprehend or recognize simple things such as fairness and/or justice then we have no room to discuss or point things out about it.  I believe God didn’t create us completely out of His loop, we can grasp Him but never entirely understand Him.  Otherwise, what is the point of anything?
• God’s Kingdom isn’t about ‘getting in’
  • I love this.  I think Rock Harbor said it very well in a sermon a couple weeks ago: the reward for following Jesus isn’t heaven, riches, or a wife.  The reward for following Jesus is…following Jesus.  What you learn about Him(your creator), and a great way to go about life.  You get Jesus.
  • God’s Kingdom isn’t a lot of hard work and a reward at the end.  You don’t earn it.  And it is not “unfair” or “pointless” if other people can get in.

Check out my other thoughts on Love Wins

• Love Wins: What I Didn’t Like
• Love Wins: Other Thoughts

In other news:

• I am graduating college in about a month
• I have secured my first full time job for after I graduate
• I am getting better at Starcraft

Anyway, the article talks about several myths associated with the introvert persona.  I think most of them make sense so I’m going to put them here.  I’d suggest that you read them if you have friends that are introverts or even if you yourself are an introvert.  A couple of them taught me something new(like #9).

Myth #1 – Introverts don’t like to talk.
This is not true.  Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say.  They hate small talk.  Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days.

Myth #2 – Introverts are shy.
Shyness has nothing to do with being an Introvert.  Introverts are not necessarily afraid of people.  What they need is a reason to interact.  They don’t interact for the sake of interacting.  If you want to talk to an Introvert, just start talking.  Don’t worry about being polite.

Myth #3 – Introverts are rude.
Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries.  They want everyone to just be real and honest.  Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings, so Introverts can feel a lot of pressure to fit in, which they find exhausting.

Myth #4 – Introverts don’t like people.
On the contrary, Introverts intensely value the few friends they have.  They can count their close friends on one hand.  If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life.  Once you have earned their respect as being a person of substance, you’re in.

Myth #5 – Introverts don’t like to go out in public.
Nonsense.  Introverts just don’t like to go out in public FOR AS LONG.  They also like to avoid the complications that are involved in public activities. They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.” They’re ready to go home, recharge, and process it all. In fact, recharging is absolutely crucial for Introverts.

Myth #6 – Introverts always want to be alone.
Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts.  They think a lot.  They daydream.  They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve.  But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with.  They [just] crave authentic and sincere connection[s] with [fewer people] at a time.

Myth #7 – Introverts are weird.
Introverts are often individualists.  They don’t follow the crowd.  They’d prefer to be valued for their novel ways of living.  They think for themselves and because of that, they often challenge the norm.  They don’t make most decisions based on what is popular or trendy.

Myth #8 – Introverts are aloof nerds.
Introverts are people who primarily look inward, paying close attention to their thoughts and emotions.  It’s not that they are incapable of paying attention to what is going on around them, it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them.

Myth #9 – Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun.
Introverts typically relax at home or in nature, not in busy public places.  Introverts are not thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies.  If there is too much talking and noise going on, they shut down.  Their brains are too sensitive to the neurotransmitter called Dopamine.  Introverts and Extroverts have different dominant neuro-pathways.  Just look it up.  [This is factual and kinda tripped me out a little]

Myth #10 – Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.
A world without Introverts would be a world with few scientists, musicians, artists, poets, filmmakers, doctors, mathematicians, writers, and philosophers.  That being said, there are still plenty of techniques an Extrovert can learn in order to interact with Introverts.  Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race.  In fact, one study (Silverman, 1986) showed that the percentage of Introverts increases with IQ.

Well I thought this was a good way to break my zombie status.  Amidst my last quarter at UCI, searching for a full time job, and setting up and posting on my professional website I have neglected this a bit.  I hope to not as my life gets a little less complicated soon enough.

Sean Dorrance Kelly-Sean Dorrance Kelly believes that we’ve lost the notion of what’s sacred in our existence (06:48)

So what do you think?  I don’t think that it means you can’t literally EVER laugh at something or it looses the sacredness(?). But laughing as in ridiculing it for being what it is. Laughing at something funny/ironic is different than ridiculing something to destroy its image.  So I think there is a middle ground we should tread here.  I mean after all, satire is a genius way of getting a point across.  And I love to laugh at satire.

Should I make a separate page for these work related things and keep the personal blog somewhere else? Another thing, is the actual address(www.padfoot240.com) unprofessional to be on a resume telling people to check out what I am working on?

Tell me people in the workforce, because I don’t know. I haven’t been there before.

• Totally Free
  • This is always the more preferred model from a customer’s point of view.  I mean hey, its free!  After buying a game, any online functionality is free of charge.  You can play, chat, friend request to your heart’s desire.
  • The most recognizable company that usually always uses this model is Valve and their multiplayer games(Left4Dead, Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2).  Valve has a key difference here when facilitating online play for its games, the servers are for the most part owned by the users.  When a user wants to play a game he can either join a server already hosting one or create his own.  This functionality drops Valve’s cost to host all the multiplayer games almost down to $0.  Valve doesn’t have to keep up the maintenance to ensure no lag or keep all the servers patched up, the users do.  Valve merely hands them the tools along with the game and says, “Go have fun!”  I think this is genius.  Not only does it keep the product’s cost down, it makes the users happy because they don’t have to pay to play, AND gives the users the tools to create and modify the game’s mechanics on their own servers.  If you want to have zero gravity when fighting zombies, you can do that.  If you only want your friends to play on your server, you can do that.  As long as the users want to play this game online, they will find ways to do it because they have to.  Meanwhile Valve can focus time and energy on making new games.  Starcraft also uses this model, one of the most popular games of all time.  I think it is important to mention that the fact that these games are targeted for the Computer platform instead of a console is important here.  You can’t host your own console game server as easily, but maybe that problem should be looked into…
• Pay to Play
  • Conversely, this is the model that a big majority of online gamers hate.  ”Why should we be charged continuously for a game we just bought?” they ask.  World of Warcraft is an excellent example of this model, racking in millions of dollars every month from its monthly subscription costs alone.  Most MMORPGs use this model because of the HUGE upkeep it takes for the environment to always be online so all the users can play together.
  • The biggest company that uses this model is Microsoft with Xbox Live.  Now, technically someone can argue that XBL falls in the next category, but since you can’t really play games online with XBL Silver(Microsoft’s free service) I am just going to talk about XBL Gold as the standard here.  XBL costs about $60 for 12 months of service($5 per month).  The features included are online multiplayer gaming(guests playing on your Xbox with you can also play), free and exclusive betas/game demos/premium downloadable content/Microsoft Game Store items, Netflix integration(if you have netflix streaming), friend list, movie rental service, and they also just added free ESPN3 through your Xbox.  Since Xbox is a console system the game servers can’t be hosted anywhere so Microsoft has to do some upkeep with their servers for most of these services; I don’t think Microsoft themselves hosts the multiplayer game servers since the actual companies who produce the games do that.
• Pay for Premium Features
  • I see a lot of online systems use this model since it has the best of both words from the other two.  The consumer gets the free functionality to a point, but if they want some better features or items then they have to pay for a premium service.  This premium service may very well be the same functionality and price as the Pay to Play model.
  • Playstation Network uses this model.  The PSN is the free service; features include online game play(no guests allowed), access to the Playstation store, Netflix integration(if you have netflix streaming), friend list, and movie download service.  PSN+ offers these features plus some more for $50 for 12 months of service($4.17 per month); free/exclusive betas/game demos/premium downloadable content/PlayStation Store items, and a free subscription to Qore(online gaming magazine).

If quality games produced by Valve can make them free to play online then why aren’t all the other companies doing that?  ”Well duh, they are greedy” you might say.  I’m not entirely convinced of that argument.  I won’t say that turning a profit doesn’t have anything to do with it, but I think that fact that console game servers are propriety(at least for now) means that we will have to pay to have other people(mainly the game companies) maintain them.  PSN isn’t some magic where the multiplayer servers don’t cost anything, Playstation probably covers that cost.  Playstation knew that Xbox already had a hold over the console multiplayer gaming with XBL so it decided to offer its service for free in order to appear as a better alternative.  Unfortunately, PSN still couldn’t offer everything for free that XBL could for a price and that is where PSN+ came into the picture.  A more concrete idea is that even for a cross platform popular game like Modern Warfare 2, the Xbox sales were almost double that of the PS3 sales.  This translates to bigger server upkeep, more cost, for the Xbox multiplayer servers.

So, why should I have to pay for an online gaming service?  Well, because gaming online takes work to upkeep the servers you play on and update the game if needed.  And that work costs money.  And if you aren’t going to do the work(or can’t), then you are going to have to pay someone else to do it for you.  Personally I don’t mind paying $5 a month for XBL.  Heck, I usually find 12 months for XBL on sale for $40 and buy one or two in advance(only $3.34 per month).  Yes I am glad that gaming on the PC is free, but I don’t see anything wrong or complain worthy with paying Microsoft to ensure I have a good online gaming experience to play Halo, Perfect Dark, or NBA Jam.

But right now, something needs to be shared.

Gamer shows his mom a reflection of Starcraft from Day[9], and she posts her impressions in her blog.  This blog is a must read.  A truly remarkable summary of so much that the gaming community strives for.  I am so glad that someone who gets it speaks out and posts it in a public place.  We need more of this and less of the “gaming is for losers bro” posts.