That seems to be God's general modus operandi. Man is the glory of God, and creation is to be set free from corruption via obtaining the freedom of the glory of the children of God. God pours into us, we pour into others. One might call this an "economy of gifts", vs. an economy based on law and just exchange.

thx. again interesting that you characterize it as a drought in grace bc honestly that's how it was and is slowly starting to change.

this may sound trite or i don't know self serving or righteous or whatever but i thought to myself you know what maybe i am here to shine alittle light of christ into this situation. like i said its weird how much humility and willing someone's good in spite of their faults can change things.

Ahh, but at some point, "much harder" becomes "impossible". One way for God to convince us that his grace truly is needed, is to withhold it, like Elijah withheld the rains for three years. If we stop being thankful (Rom 1:21), the last resort is for God to stop giving the gifts for a time. Then we humans can sort out what it's really like to experience God's absence:

God came from Teman,    and the Holy One from Mount Paran. SelahHis splendor covered the heavens,    and the earth was full of his praise.His brightness was like the light;    rays flashed from his hand;    and there he veiled his power.Before him went pestilence,    and plague followed at his heels.(Habakkuk 3:3–5)

In the decades leading up to WWI, I am told that scientists and intellectuals were glorying at the World Fairs about how awesome humans were and how many great and fantastic things they would do. It seems to me that they were operating under the assumption that "God is dead.", regardless of what words they uttered (compare to "the temple of the LORD" in Jer 7). Perhaps God let them see what it would be like if he were dead?

P.S. I always love hearing about the results of an outbreak of grace. It sounds like there was a drought where you were, such that even a few drops were met with delight, and perhaps a bit of confusion at first.

i suppose but i am still trying to get comfortable with what is meant by grace but yeah i get it.

you know it's funny but i tried that approach to 'build someone up' and to trust them at work, even though this person had done some pretty bad things to me but i really practically tried to 'will his good' and i swear it started working almost immediately.

now i know i could have done that without the 'grace' or w/o faith but those things help imho. w/o them without something like that which we label 'grace' or whatever it would have been much harder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're realizing is that trust in other persons, in their grace and forgiveness and wisdom, is how reality was intended to work. God is the origin of all grace, but we all mediate that grace to each other. We can build each other up, make repentance as easy as it can be, and generally look more toward deepening relationship and knowledge of one another and less toward taking advantage of every mistake and chink in the other's armor.

what's interesting about that is how recently i've realized via prayer and thinking about my faith that what i really lack is faith in wife and family and myself. now i don't mean a cheap bravado or self centered ness but a humble faith in practical terms. i'll obsess over things my wife said and so reveal a lack of faith in her or i'll reanalyze who i acted or whatever and reveal a lack of faith in myself.

i am rambling but i had this un original epiphany that faith of all stripes starts with humility.

I think it boils down to whether humans are constructing order ex nihilo, and can therefore excuse events such as the crucifixion of Jesus as "necessary to sustain a precarious social order", or whether humans are cooperating with God, for whom might does not make right. The problem is that we would have to actually trust God, and trust is not the "in" thing, these days. (See the decline in Americans trusting each other in the US, from 56% in 1968 → 33% in 2014.)

I agree with the elegance part. Definitely with the elegance part.

yes of course but that all turns on the defn of course on the word "world".

i am new to this but it seems to me that the christian is saying that there are natural ends for which human beings are made and we can know those ends via reason and that therefore our end is to use reason to help us achieve those natural ends, ends of course 'put into' the world by some divine/transcendent intelligence which is 'moving' all things in the universe to their natural end - and this 'intelligence' is according to the church the god who revealed himself and said that his name was i am who i am.

the atheist it seems to me believes bc his reasoning is fixated on the hard sciences that the discoveries in those rule out definitely all purpose or ends and natures - all things are in a state of flux, therefore there are no ends, no Kinds but only individuals. as such the only 'testable' point is practical success no matter what it looks like which is why by far most atheists see morality as more a tool than a guide i guess.

anyway i am new to this but have been reading on it and obv find it fascinating especially as i used to be thoroughly secularized but came back to the church after realizing that atheism can not be true imho.

There is elegance in the way heavy elements are forged in the death throes of one star then irradiated into organic compounds through the birth pangs of another. It's as though stars exist for the purpose of creating and nurturing life.