On the corrilations between the conditions of and surrounding physical birth and spiritual birth.

     People will sometimes ask me how I know that God exists. When confronted with they query I could dive into the cosmological, teleological, or moral arguments, but while those are all solid arguments for the existence of a deity, none of them fully encompass who God really is, and none of them can really prove anything. Logic will only get you so far, after all as C.S. Lewis pointed out: "You cannot prove rational intuition by argument because argument depends on rational intuition." So therefore how can you know for sure that God exists?

     To answer this question let us think back to before you first were. While you were still in your mother's womb you could not prove that there was such a thing as "mom", nor could you prove that there was life after birth. All that you knew was darkness. When the time came for you to be born you were suddenly and gloriously transformed from the world of "darkness" (literally) to the world of light. Still you were not fully aware that your mom existed because you were too undeveloped to be capable of such high thought, but you knew that there was more. After just a few years of development had anyone asked you if your mom existed you would immediately say (were you capable of communication) "yes of course!" and how would you know? You experienced her on a daily basis. From there as you got more and more developed physically and mentally* you would become more and more sure that your mother exists because you know her. Not do you just see her, feel her, or communicate with her, you actually know her on a intimate level. You know what she wants, how she wants it, and why she wants it that way. You know her will. 

    Now the cool part of this is relating this to the Christian life. When we were still yet unsaved we could not prove anything beyond the physical. We floated in a world of darkness and despair. How could we know if there was such a thing as "God" and how could we know if there is life after birth? When we were born into saving faith (by the grace of God, not by work of our own, just like physical birth) we suddenly were moved from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. No longer were we blinded, but we also had no means of comprehending what we had just experienced. We could not even fully prove that God is real, we just knew there was something more. After we started to develop in the faith we could slowly begin to have full confidence that God exists because we experience him on a daily basis, were anyone to ask us if he exists we could not necessarily prove it, but we could know for sure that he did. From there as we became more and more developed in the knowledge of God and maturity of faith** we began to become more and more sure that God was real because we had begun a relationship with him. From that point until death takes away all barriers we will be in a process of getting to know God more and more deeply, and although we will always be progressing in this knowledge we will never reach the bottom of the well, there will be no end to what we can know about God. We will know what he wants, how he wants it, and why he wants it that way. We will know His will. 

    There is a reason that Jesus used birth as an analogy for salvation. What then is the point of all of this? We do not have to be afraid that someone will come along and prove to us that God does not exist because just as someone can't make me disbelieve that my mother exists, there is no way to disprove that God exists in my mind because I have relationship with him. If you get to know God through talking and listening to him in prayer and reading the 66 book love letter he wrote you you will have confidence. Know God. 

*This is not a choice that we can make (we will grow up), we just grow despite what we would desire, unless we intentionally destroy our body through deprivation of food. The extent to which we grow and the health of our growth is greatly affected by how we treat our body and what food and exercise we give it. 

**Again this is not a choice that we can make (we will be sanctified), we grow despite what we would desire, unless we intentionally destroy our soul though deprivation of spiritual food (like the Word, and fellowship). The extent to which we grow and the heath of our growth is greatly affected by how we treat our soul and what food and exercise we give it. 

Recommended reading on the topic: 

-A Quest for Godliness

-Fellowship with God

-The Transforming Power of the Gospel

Also though I haven't personally read it yet John Owen's Communion with God is supposed to be good. 

Five Reasons I Reject "Five Reasons I Reject Unconditional Atonement"

I stumbled across a article (http://redemptionpictures.com/2013/07/13/election/) the other day that left me disturbed. The reason for my concern will become aparent shortly, but in this article Micah Murray lays out five reasons he thinks unconditional atonement is wrong. 

Now, without attempting to refute what he said or promoting Calvinism (in so far as I am able) I will lay out five concerns I have with what he presented. Do me a favor and read the last two paragraphs if nothing else:

1. Murray never quotes the Bible. 

Micah's entire argument scheme is based on feelings about how God should be, he never even mentions the Bible except to casually mention it supossedly supports his point (he even claims not to be a theologian, or God-studier). 

Scripture to consider: 2 Tim 2:15, 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Tim 4:2, Psalm 18:30, Hebrews 4:12, 1 Peter 2:2. 

2. Murray claims that "if unconditional election is true God cannot be trusted". 

This flies directly in the face of Romans 9:13-15 which, even if it isn't speaking of salvation, shows God's ability to be just and fair and sti favor some people over others. 

Scriptures to consider: 1 Thess 1:4, Romans 9, Job 38:2.

3. He claims that salvation of a few would be "unfair" and "unloving" of God. 

God is just, this is clear in scripture, and should he choose to bless some and give others what they deserve is that unfair? Read the parable at Matt 20:13, God deals with people unequally. Job 40:2,8 clearly shows that God is soverign over suffering and cannot be acused of wrong (Romans 9:13-15 again) so should God choose to save some from damnation that is pure grace and mercy for those who are chosen; we cannot incure that God is in the wrong for something he does in the Bible often. 

Scriptures to consider: Ecclesiastes 11:5, Matt 20:13, Job 38:1ff; 40:2,8; Isaiah and 40:18. 

4. Murray makes the implication that if unconditional election is true then sharing the gospel is unnecessary because it doesn't affect the chance someone will be saved. 

This isn't just a false accusation of the implications of election, but its illogical, and poor theology/hermeneutics. False accusation because Calvinists have for years been preaching the gospel to the unsaved believing it was commanded and effective. Illogical because we do not know whether our witness will be what God uses to save our neighbor and we can only do all we can do for our neighbors. Poor theology because Romans 11:33-35 (also Isaiah 40:11-14) proclaims the fact that God's ways are not understandable by human finite minds (Ecc 11:5). We don't have the right to NOT do what he has clearly told us to do elsewhere in scripture (Acts 1:8, Matt 28:18-19). 

Scripture to consider: Romans 11:33-35, Isaiah 40:11-14, Ecclesastes 11:5, Acts 1:8, and Matt 28:18-19. 

5. In claiming that creation would be an act of cruelty with election he is condeming his own god, and forgetting the whole old testament. 

There are people now who have never heard of Jesus. Lots of people living now, and many more who died never having heard. You cannot say that a perfect God allowed all those people to die unsaved without having a chance and also say that God would be cruel to allow people to no have a choice about their own repentance. Throughout the whole Old Testament and especially Joshua people are being killed by God without ever having a witness to them except the rumors of Israel's God. God is totally just to punish whom he pleases because Romans 3:23 clearly shows the depravity of mankind and the necessity of a substitute. God has mercy on whom he has mercy, blessed be the name of the Lord. 

Scripture to consider: Exodus 7-12, Psalm 135:10, Romans 3:11, and Romans 3:23.

Finally the most crucial section of my response has come; I think that even if we all disagree on whether election is true we can agree that there is nothing in us which allows us to WANT to know God (Roman 3:11, Psalms 14:1-3) and even if we wanted to know God we cannot believe it by our own power (1 Corinthians 1:17-31; 3:6) so regardless of whether you believe in election or not you must allow for the fact that God is involved in the process so the very arguments that attack election or even free will can destroy our very assurance of salvation and cause divisivness and division (1 Corinthians 3:1-23) and therefore we should be very careful when accusing other people of such serious charges that Murray levels against Calvinists. 

Search the scriptures for yourself (Acts 17:10-15) and understand why you believe what you believe but don't let yourself oppose your brothers in such a way that causes you to lose fellowship (which is a different level of accusation for different people so be VERY careful, 1 Cor 3:18, 21-23) and lose sight of the MOST important thing, which is a personal relationship with Christ. 

Keep the main thing the main thing. 

Unity in Christ

     What does it mean to be "one" with one another? In scripture we often see familiar themes, and over and over again throughout the letters we see the phrase "One in Christ", but what does that look like, what does it accomplish, and how is it achieved? Looking at Philippians 1:27-2:2 among others we will see what is meant by "unity in Christ".

     Philippians 1:27-2:2 in the ESV says: "²⁷ Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, ²⁸ and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. ²⁹ For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, ³⁰ engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Christ's Example of Humility

2 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, ² complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind."

     500 years before Paul wrote this letter there happened a very important event: the Battle of Thermopylae. The Persians were invading Europe from the east in an attempt to conquer the world (common theme in history). Fortunately the Persian army would have to come through a small pass called Thermopylae and the Spartan general and king Leonidas saw this as an opportunity to stop their advance. Unfortunately the Persians would be coming through the pass on an important religious festival for the Spartans, during which no one was allowed to fight. Leonidas ignored the command from the counsel to wait, and because the whole army would not leave he took his personal guard of only 300 men to defend the pass against the Persian army of over 1,000,000 soldiers including the dreaded "immortals" who had never lost a fight. Long story short the heroic Greeks held out for three days against incredible odds, which allowed time for the rest of Sparta to wake up and get prepared for war. How did 300 men stop one million? Well it helped that they were Spartans, but they had also perfected the art of the hoplite phalanx, which basically was a large group of men fighting as one giant spear (ch 1 vs 27b). When opposing soldiers saw the phalanx coming for them, they knew that their destruction was imminent (ch 1 vs 28b).

     Just as the strength of the Spartan phalanx was in its unity, so the Christian church is strongest when each member realizes that he is part of a whole, and does not try to be a lone wolf. Isn't that the deffiniton of friendship? Two people striving side by side for a common purpose? How do you become unified with your brothers and sisters in the Church? Become friends. Find a common goal and strive together toward it (chapter 1 vs 27b). Also read Philippians 4:3. The word used to describe unity in chapter 2 verse 2, "σύμψυχος" [sympsychos], also shows up in 1 Corinthians 1:10 and Hebrews 4:2 (and also Judges 20:11). Both times Paul (and whoever wrote Hebrews) are encouraging unity for the purpose of the advancement of the gospel. 

    So what is does it mean to be united in Christ with your brethren? Practically it means to be striving side by side with them for the advancement of the gospel (Phil 1:27). It means that you sacrifice your own personal desires (Phil 2:4) for the common good willingly because you want to do whatever is necessary to obtain the resurrection of the dead (Phil 3:11) not because it somehow makes you righteous (Phil 3:7-9) but because its what Christ did (1 Cor 11:1). 

Tattoos

     The last decade has seen an extreme and sudden rise in the amount of tattooing going down. A recent survey put the figure at as much as 40% of adults aged 20-35 have at least one tattoo. From this arises the natural question: "Is it wrong to get a tattoo if you are a Christian?" It seems like everyone has a strong opinion on the subject, but who is right? Passages such as Leviticus 19:28, 1 Corinthians 6:19, and Galatians 5:1 can help shed some light on the topic.

     Leviticus 19:28 (ESV) says: "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord." The answer to our seems like it should be simple then, right? Well while it is true that the Israelites were not allowed to Tattoo themselves they were also not allowed to shave their temples, have a scraggly beard [Leviticus 19:27], eat catfish [Leviticus 11:12] or eat any meat with blood in it [Leviticus 19:26]. I've never heard anyone debate whether or not its right to eat steak, so clearly this Leviticus verse is not conclusive. 

     In 1 Corinthians 6:19 Paul reminds the Corinthians that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. It is often argued that just as one wouldn't deface a regular temple or church by putting graffiti on it one should not mark up one's body. This logic is faulty however because not only do we write names and Bible verses on our churches but with some hermeneutical research it becomes clear that Paul is talking about sexual immorality and defacing your body with sin (Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. [1 Corinthians 6:18 ESV]). Therefore, to say that 1 Corinthians was intended to keep Christians free from tattoos is more than just a stretch, its misinterpreting the verse and losing valuable meaning of the body being a temple. 

     Finally lets take a look at Galatians 5:1-3. Here Paul points out the obvious, if we try to keep the law because its the "law" them we are subject to the authority of the whole law. We are free in Christ and therefore all things are lawful for us. We see in 1 Corinthians 9:21 that we are clearly no longer under the Old Testament law. Anyone who would say that he keeps the law is a liar and starts to go down the road of Phariseeness. Clearly there are right things and wrong things (Romans 6:10), but these are illustrated in the 10 Commandments, the moral code of God. Therefore the question becomes not "Is it lawful" but instead "Is it a good idea" as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23. As we see in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 if your ministry field is among those who tattoo themselves then it only makes sense to get a God-glorifying tattoo to relate to them, make acceptance of your teaching easier (no strict laws), and show everyone a constant reminder that you belong to Christ. 

     As we have seen it is neither unlawful to get a tattoo, nor is it morally wrong according to the moral code that God has implanted in each of our hearts and written in the Ten Commandments. To say that one must not tattoo one's self is legalism and makes cheep the grace of God. However, while it is never wrong to tattoo oneself, it is not always a good idea because of circumstances or prejudices. Whether or not tattoos should be utilized depends on to whom one is planning on ministering to. Ultimately the decision should be based on heart condition. If one wants a tattoo because they are "cool" then it shows that one's heart is focused inward instead of outward, and a tattoo would not be useful, however if one wants a tattoo to further ministry and glorify God then it can be a very good thing. 

Science

Science.

Science frustrates me, not because I don't like studying it, I do, but because it is misused so often to try to prove untrue things. The phrase "scientifically proven" drives me up the wall especially, first because its technically impossible to prove anything, and second I can actually "prove" that weight lifting makes you weaker using science, and that is obviously not true. I guess the thing that makes me so biased against science is it is twisted the most in the two areas that I spend the most time researching, studying, and debating: the origin of everything, and bodybuilding.

In the area of bodybuilding the hard thing is there isn't one "truth". Everything is subjective, there isn't one cookie cutter that everyone fits into to get the most results. But every week there are 22.7 new ideas about what gets the best results and what you HAVE to do to get ripped, and they all contradict each other. I'm pretty old school, you do what gets results. Forget about the exact science behind every single exercise, just work out hard, eat well, sleep lots, and be consistent and you will get in shape.

For apologetics and the origin of life things are less complicated. There is only one truth and our job is just to find it. Therefore saying that "science" has "proved" something is not only incorrect but also quite prideful, because no one was there, even their fancy "dating" methods are just like telling the time a candle has been burning by the amount left, with no idea how long it was at the beginning. I prefer logic and reasoning (two other horribly misused words) to find the origin of life. We have lots of facts, so we need to find a theory that best fits the facts. I am convinced that Christianity gives the best explanation for the facts. In fact it works so well that the more information I find, the better the theory works. I have actually won every single debate I've conducted in the last four months without much of a fight whatsoever. Every atheist you debate will use science as their biggest "proof" so if you can discredit science the battle becomes a cake walk. When you are right, both sides figure out pretty quickly.

So basically, next time someone tries to hook you on a new product or a new idea that has been "proven with science" spit in their eye!

Young or Foolish?

So I haven't posted for a while... Here is something to chew on:

Young or foolish?

Young does not necessarily mean foolish. Foolish means foolish, it is not determined by age. You can have 90 year old idiots and 12 year old geniuses. Wisdom, the opposite of foolishness, is made up of three things: knowledge, experience, and understanding. You can have a very experienced and knowledgeable old fellow who has no understanding, you can also have a young guy who has lots of knowledge and understanding, but limited experience, neither of these people qualify as wise. Wisdom is something that you can not self diagnose, it must be obvious to other people. This is why God is the most wise being that has ever existed; he has ultimate amounts of every facet of wisdom, he is all knowing, all understanding, and has infinite experience.

Why do so many scientists believe in evolution?

The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case. But is that true, really? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye?

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.


G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself

Biblical worrying.

Biblical Worrying (7)

This actually was not one of the lectures but I decided to talk about it today.

Is it biblical to worry?
My first inclination is to say no. It must not be because it says to worry about nothing:
Matthew 6:27, 34
Philippians 4:6,7,19
1 Peter 5:7
Luke 12:29
John 14:1

A closer look at these verses changed my mind. I separate worry and concern. (I'm just using these for what I'm saying, not for their actual definitions...)
Worry is noticing that you have no bread for tomorrow and staying up fretting.
Concern is knowing that your son is out fighting in Iraq and feeling anxious about him.

I think that it is biblical to be concerned about other's welfare, although it should not become a distraction that prevents a perfect relationship with Christ. As it says in 1 Peter 5:7 you should cast your concerns and anxieties on Jesus and let him handle the stress.

Worry is always wrong. It shows a lack of faith in God's providence and ability to provide for your needs. This is strongly supported by the verses above.

Image of the Logos

The Image of the Logos (6)
Being a word eater, part 1.

Key verses: But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4 ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 ESV)

The most significant event of the 20th century was the decline of the age of typography and the ascent of the age of television.

Why is this significant?
Because with no words you can not think. With no way to organize your thoughts into things with meaning you do not think. This is shown by Helen Keller.

She remembers when she didn't know how to communicate everything was just black nothingness in her mind. There was no meaning to anything. It was only on March 3, 1887, when she learned her first word that she said that she first had a thought and was excited for the next day to
come. She calls that day her soul's birthday.

The imago dei---what is it?
(Image of God)
We have five basic non-physical attributes of a non-physical God.
This is also what separates us from animals. Animals have the first three but to a lesser degree because of the lack of words.
•Intelligence- Language enables a much higher level of intelligence. With no language Helen Keller would have peaked at a low level of smarts. As it works out she was a genius.
•Personality- Animals have a certain level of personality but it is more in their breeds then the individuals. Golden retrievers are more friendly while terriers are more fierce.
•Gregariousness- (a fancy way of saying we like to hang out with other people). Animals form groups too but it is mostly for survival purposes. We group together because humans are attracted to each other.
•Morality-We have innate morality while animals do not. They have no problem killing each other.
•Creativity-We are the only creatures that create for our pleasure alone.

We should consume words.

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV)

Being a question asker (part 2)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11 ESV)

When we are consuming words we should not always do it by ourselves. Sometimes we must have discourses with others.
There are three ways we should do this:
•Language acquisition-hearing words.
•Oral discourse-Asking questions of people.
•Literary discourse-Having conversations with authors and books by reading them.

We are a generation raised by appliances. We are raised more by computers than by people. This is not a good set up for learning. The messages might be true but there is no room for questions.

So what is the difference between images and words?

Images:
-Communicate immediately and intuitively.
-Are impressionistic
-Are scanned subjectively
-Can not be judged true or false

Words:
-Communicate through abstraction and analysis
-Are precise and exact
-Are read in linear, logical fashion
-Can be judged as true or false.

The Principle Thing

The Principle Thing

Ok let's face it. Logic and reason are good but there is something better: wisdom.

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15, 16 ESV)

Wisdom is ALL OVER in the scriptures. READ IT. It goes from Job to the Song of Solomon.

If we live by open doors and green lights we will never get anywhere. We must have wisdom to discern for ourselves what is the path to choose and not just go with the path of least resistance.

There is basically two types of wisdom:
1) That which is from man.
2) That which is from God.

These OFTEN CONFLICT. Obviously the wisdom of God is always gonna be right and because we are often wrong then they are not always gonna go hand in hand.

Wisdom is NOT: What you THINK.
Wisdom is NOT: What YOU think.
Wisdom IS discerning truth.
Foolishness is inventing truth.

Wisdom requires the same thing as a building:
Fortifica/Foundati
Basically that means that you need both a foundation and fortifications. But they must be in their proper place.

A Theory of Wisdom:
-Wisdom starts with worldview
-Wisdom is the consistent outworking of (a) belief (b) action (c) discernment from worldview.

Basically it means wisdom is deciding what to believe and what not to believe.

Three times in the Bible (Proverbs 1:7,9:10, Psalm 111:10) it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I don't know a whole lot but I do know that when the Bible says something three times it means that it is REALLY important.

So what does it mean to fear God?
1. Establish the right relationship with Him.
2. See the world as he sees it, through His eyes.

Let's look at two examples of people who took different ways in life, one is man's wisdom and the other is God's wisdom. Watch how it turns out:

1. Path of Pleasure
Man: Solomon

And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 2:10, 11 ESV)

It doesn't make you happy. It leaves you with the feeling that you accomplished nothing.

This is man's wisdom: Avoid pain, pursue pleasure.

2. Path of Pain.
Man: Job

Then Job answered the Lord and said: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.' I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:1-6 ESV)

You go to any public school, raise your hand in class, and tell the teacher that you despise yourself and repent in dust and ashes and you will probably be sent to counseling...

The truth is pain teaches a lesson.
The lesson: the inscrutability of God's ways and our need to glorify Him regardless.

God's wisdom:
Believe truth (the Bible), do good.

Clearly the second option looks foolish but in factuality it is the wise one. Does this mean that you should seek suffering and try to fail? No! It will come soon enough, just read 1 Peter 3:14b-17. It just means that you shouldn't try to avoid pain and pursue pleasure with all you've got.