Vivat Agnus Dei

Amazingly, the fact Christ never said, “Behold! I am God!” is often used as an argument against His divinity.[1] In dialogue with such arguments, it is helpful to pose the classic trilemma (and sometimes quadrilemma if you add “legend” which is the claim of some poor historical scholarship): was Christ Lord (all He said and did was truly derivative of human-Divine hypostasis and Christianity is true), Liar (He was skilled at deception and nothing He said or did is of value, and He was killed for it and His followers partook/partake in the lie also to their deaths; not far from some heresies), or Lunatic (He was crazy enough to believe and did all that He did knowing it would get Him killed and His followers partook in His delusion)? If Christ is not divine, then Christianity is the delusion/lie atheists like to claim it is. However, do the arguments as mentioned above against Christ’s Divinity satisfy the condition of the latter statement? Through the examination of fulfilled prophecie

Have you ever had to make a difficult choice, one that has poor circumstances and very little room to avoid unideal (if not morally problematic) outcomes or means? Indeed, the more our lives are consumed with sin the less ideal our choices become because we give up our freedom when we sin, inviting new, less-than-ideal circumstances into the picture. Morality as a whole can be understood as living the best life, simple and righteous. Those who love us are necessarily pulled into such circumstances. To answer this question, we first need to know Christ and His mission, and then understand that it is we who made the choice between Christ's death and ours. Man, in all his depravity, could only be saved by Christ coming to stand in front of man running from God, all the way down. Yes, many still ran past Him but others stopped dead in their tracks and found the love that they were looking for and which they thought best to find apart from Him, until the moment God’s love was manifest t

"Then Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.’ So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one

We often hear it said that we should, "treat others as we would like to be treated". Of course, it is given no context nor can we truly understand how "we would like to be treated" without God's love. Growing up in a public school, this phrase is repeated often and is seemingly intended to serve as the moral theory behind our praxis without citing any specific religious tradition. This adage is adapted from the Gospel, however, once it is removed from its context, it loses its foundation (cf. Mark 12:31). If one is still moved to assimilate this adage, the question remains: "What do I deserve, that I can understand what others deserve?" This question if left unanswered can bring many problems. Jesus counterbalances this relativity saying, "Love each other as I have loved you"(John 15:12-14). However, one must first receive Christ's love to understand in what way and to what magnitude Christ has/does love us. Despite this relative ambiguit

Fish are inedible, and there is nothing you can say or do to have me believe anything like the contrary. Am I wrong? Well, it seems people eat fish, so I guess I am wrong. Nevertheless, I very well may choose starvation instead of eating fish, despite the latter point. There are some who, in despising what relativism does, assert the opposite extreme (what we shall call "Objectivism"). However, this really creates the same general problem, placing objectivity where there is none is the same as inventing one’s own truth. The question remains what balance is there? To answer this question, we must clarify our question. Our question is fundamentally an epistemological one. How do we know what our perception of the truth and what is truth itself? Opinion and personal taste are valid independent of objective facts because they are formed of our subjectivity. But here is where the problem arises, when our fallenness is involved in forming our perspective on what is objective truth