Prove It! | Part III: The Old Testament

/in , , /by

Thus far in the “Prove It” conversation, we’ve looked at the practical reality of faith, how it’s something that we deploy in the context of our everyday living and it’s anything but a refusal to be rational as much as it’s just part of how you function as human being.

Then we looked at the Resurrection from the standpoint of someone who was needing some evidence apart from Scripture and we considered the secular writings that reference the Resurrection, not so much as a theological concept but as a historical reality.

In this segment, we’re going to look at the Old Testament and why we can be confident that we’re not just reading some pretty stories and wise words, but we’re hearing the Words of God Himself.

Archaeology

Josh McDowell’s book “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” devotes an entire section to Old Testament prophecy and it is a fascinating read. One prophecy that McDowell references is the prophecy made by Nahum pertaining to the city of Nineveh. Nineveh was the capital city of the Assyrian empire. It was an impregnable center of military might – the kind of stronghold you would expect to be the capital city of the most powerful empire in the ancient world at that time.

Nahum, in stark contrast, is a single individual belonging to a conquered people. For him to be proclaiming a message that translates to Nineveh’s ruin is ridiculous if not potentially lethal.

To give you an idea as to Nineveh’s size and overall presence, understand that the walls surrounding it were over a 100 feet high and wide enough to accommodate three chariots driving side by side. And this is just the first wall. You had two other walls reinforcing the first separated by a deep ditch. According to excavated remains, the distance from the inside of the inner wall to the inside of the outer wall was 2,007 feet or just under half a mile. Nahum declares that Nineveh would…

  • Be destroyed in a state of drunkenness (1:10)
  • Would be destroyed in “an overwhelming flood” (1:8; 2:6)
  • Would be burned (3:13)
  • Would be totally destroyed and become desolate (3:19)

Nineveh was attacked by a force consisting of Babylonians, Medes and Scythians. Here’s the account of the battle for Nineveh in the words of Lenormant and E. Chevallier in their book, “The Rise and Fall of Assyria:”

In 612 B.C. Nabopolassar united the Babylonian army with an army of Medes and Scythians and led a campaign which captured the Assyrian citadels in the North. The Babylonian army laid siege to Nineveh, but the walls of the city were too strong for battering rams, so they decided to try and starve the people out. A famous oracle had been given that “Nineveh should never be taken until the river became its enemy.” After a three month siege, “rain fell in such abundance that the waters of the Tigris inundated part of the city and overturned one of its walls for a distance of twenty stades. Then the King, convinced that the oracle was accomplished and despairing of any means of escape, to avoid falling alive into the enemy’s hands constructed in his palace an immense funeral pyre, placed on it his gold and silver and his royal robes, and then, shutting himself up with his wives and eunuchs in a chamber formed in the midst of the pile, disappeared in the flames. Nineveh opened its gates to the besiegers, but this tardy submission did not save the proud city. It was pillaged and burned, and then razed to the ground so completely as to evidence the implacable hatred enkindled in the minds of subject nations by the fierce and cruel Assyrian government.1

And in an account from “Diodorus of Sicily II,” we read of how the king of Assyria was overly confident in his city’s defenses, despite the presence of an enemy force camped just outside its walls. He began to indulge with his soldiers and in a feast that included a significant amount of food and alcohol. News of this reached the ears of Arbaces, the enemy general through deserts and a night attack was scheduled. Not long after, thanks to the walls that were now vulnerable as a result of the rain, Arbaces was able to take the city of Nineveh.2  

Science

2) Scientifically Validated
The Law
Sometimes the whole Hebrew Bible, or any part of it, is referred to as “the law.” In John 10:34 where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, He tells them that part of Psalm 82 is “written in your law.” In 1 Corinthians 14:21 there’s a quotation from Isaiah 28:11 that Paul describes as having been written “in the law.” And in Romans 3:10-19, there’s a chain of quotations from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah that is referenced as “whatever the law says.”

It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that the inerrant dynamic of Scripture was questioned.3 Independent thinking evolved into a scenario where the Authority of Scripture was cast off should its content prove to be inconsistent with current scientific trends or even personal preferences. Darwinism took it a step further by providing a scientific sounding platform that gave atheists more reason to dismiss God from their thinking as well as their lives. As has been mentioned earlier, Scripture doesn’t claim to merely accurate. Even in the Psalms, you hear David referring to the “law of the Lord” as perfect (Ps 19:7 [see sidebar]). That includes theological matters as well as scientific. Consider some of what the Bible has to say about the physical world:

ASTRONOMY: The Bible claims the universe had a beginning. Philosophers and scientists rejected that claim for over two thousand years, but now astronomers believe the universe had a beginning, the so-called big bang (though with a very different time frame).

ANTHROPOLOGY: The Bible claims that all humans are “one blood” descended from one man and one woman (Acts 17:26; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20). Some nineteenth-century biologists argued that different races descended from lower animals, but today genetics has verified that there is only one human race.

BIOLOGY: The Bible claims that God created animals “after their kind.” Nineteenth-century biologists argued that animals evolved from other, very different animals, but today biology confirms that creatures reproduce within their own kind.

GEOLOGY: The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood. Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.4

Accuracy

While the passion of the Talmudists and the Massoretes is admirable, it’s not necessarily conclusive as far as proving that what we have today is an accurate copy of the original given the fact that up until 1947, the oldest handwritten copy of the Old Testament was 900 A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, experts and scholars were thrilled to learn that the scrolls had been dated to around 125 B.C.. When the two manuscripts were compared to one another, the consistency was nothing short of noteworthy. This is why the Dead Sea Scroll discovery is so significant – because of the way in which the Old Testament was validated by comparing two manuscripts that were written 1,000 years apart and still matched almost word or word. The discrepancies were differences in spelling and nothing more:

Gleason Archer (noted author and scholar) states that the Isaiah copies of the Qumran community “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.5

Jesus

The table below represents 70 of the over 300 Old Testament references to Christ. Conservative estimates date these prophecies to be removed from their fulfillment by a period of at least 250 years!6

# Scripture Prophecy Fulfillment
1 Genesis 3:15 When sin first enters the world, God promises a savior — the Messiah — to resolve the problem of sin and reconcile people with God Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18
2 Genesis 3:15 The Messiah would be born of a woman — he would be a human, as opposed to an angel or other type of being Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18
3 Genesis 22:18 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham, because of Abraham’s great faith Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:34, Romans 4:13, Galatians 3:7
4 Genesis 26:1-5 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham’s son Isaac Romans 9:7, Hebrews 11:18, Matthew 1:2
5 Genesis 28:10-14 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham’s grandson Jacob (He would be an Israelite) Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:34
6 Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would be a descendant of Abraham’s great-grandson Judah (He would be a Jew) Matthew 1:3, Luke 3:33
7 Isaiah 11:1-10 The Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse, who is a descendant of Judah Matthew 1:6, Luke 3:32
8 2 Samuel 7:12-16 The Messiah would be a descendant of King David, who is a son of Jesse Matthew 1:6, Luke 3:31
9 Isaiah 11:1 The Messiah would appear after a great devastation for Jesse’s descendants (Babylonian conquest) Luke 3:1-23. History: The Babylonians destroyed the Kingdom of Judah and forced many Jews into exile and captivity (about 2,600 years ago).
10 Jeremiah 23:3-6 The Messiah would appear after the regathering of exiles Luke 3:1-23. History: Jews began returning to their homeland after the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (about 2,500 years ago).
11 Daniel 9:24-26 The Messiah would appear after the rebuilding of Jerusalem Luke 3:1-23. History: Jerusalem was fully rebuilt when Jesus arrived as the Messiah about 2,000 years ago.
12 Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would appear after a succession of rulers from the Tribe of Judah Matthew 2. History: Herod the Great became the first foreigner to reign from Jerusalem as king over the Jews in Israel. Jesus was born during his reign.
13 Ezekiel 21:26-27 The Messiah would appear after a disruption to the succession of Davidic kings, who were members of the Tribe of Judah Matthew 2. History: Zedekiah, who lived during the time of Ezekiel, was the last Davidic king until Jesus was born.
14 Micah 5:1-2 The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Matthew 2:1-12, Luke 2:1-21
15 Genesis 17:15-21 The predicted miraculous birth of Isaac foreshadows the predicted miraculous birth of Jesus Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38. Both births were the result of miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy.
16 Isaiah 7:13-14 Isaiah foretold the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus and The original Christmas story Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38
17 Isaiah 7:14 The Messiah would be called Immanuel (God with us) Matthew 1:23
18 Daniel 9:26 The Messiah would arrive before the (Roman) destruction of Jerusalem Luke 3:1-23. History: The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus appeared as the Messiah in about AD 30.
19 Malachi 3:1 The Messiah would arrive at a time when there was a Temple in Jerusalem Matthew 21:12. History: The Temple was destroyed AD 70, about 2,000 years ago, and has never been rebuilt.
20 Isaiah 40:1-9 The Messiah would be preceded by a forerunner Matthew 3:1-4
21 Malachi 3:1 A messenger would prepare the way for the Lord Mark 1:1-11
22 Daniel 9:24-27 The Messiah would arrive 483 years after a call to restore and to build Jerusalem John 1:29-34. History: Artaxerxes began giving permission to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in 457 BC. Jesus began his public ministy in AD 26.
23 Isaiah 61:1-2 The public ministry of Jesus is foreshadowed by Isaiah Luke 4:14-30
24 Isaiah 9:1-2 The Messiah would have a ministry in Galilee and be a light to Gentiles Matthew 4:12-17
25 Isaiah 35:4-6 The Messiah would perform miracles Matthew 4:23-25. Jesus performed miracles on 50 occasions, according to Jesus the Miracle Worker
26 Psalm 78:1-2 The Messiah would teach in parables Matthew 13:3, 13-15
27 Deuteronomy 18:15-18 The Messiah would be like Moses, who was a prophet, leader, intermediary, deliverer and miracle worker John 5:45-47, 6:14
28 Isaiah 42:1-9 The Messiah would be humble and meek Matthew 11:28-30
29 Psalm 2:1-12 The Messiah would have a father-son relationship with God Matthew 14:33
30 Isaiah 9:6-7 The Messiah would be a son who would be called Mighty God Matthew 1:23, John 10:30, 20:27-29
31 Zechariah 9:9 He would humbly announce himself publicly as the Messiah by riding a lowly donkey into Jerusalem Matthew 21:6-9
32 Jeremiah 31:31-34 The Messiah would be associated with a “new covenant” involving forgiveness of sin Hebrews 8
33 Psalm 41 Psalm 41 foreshadowed the betrayal of Jesus John 13:18
34 Psalm 22:6 The Messiah would be despised Luke 23:21-23
35 Psalm 118:22-24 The Messiah would be rejected even though he is the cornerstone of a plan from God Matthew 21:42-43
36 Isaiah 53:1-3 The Messiah would be despised and rejected Matthew 27:21-23
37 Daniel 9:24-26 Daniel predicted the timing of when the Messiah would be rejected Mark 15:1-15
38 Isaiah 53:7 The Messiah would be persecuted Matthew 27:27-31
39 Isaiah 53:7 The Messiah would be silent before his accusers Matthew 27:12-14
40 Isaiah 50:6-7 The Messiah would be spat upon and beaten Matthew 26:67, 27:30
41 Psalm 35:19, 69:4 The Messiah would be hated without reason or cause John 15:25
42 Isaiah 53:12 The Messiah would be ‘numbered with the transgressors’ Luke 22:37, 23:32
43 Isaiah 50:4-10 The Messiah would serve God with perfect obedience Matthew 26:39, John 8:28
44 Isaiah 50:4-10 The Messiah would willingly submit to the will of God and the abuse of people Matthew 26:47-56
45 Genesis 22:1-18 The near-sacrifice of Isaac foreshadows the sacrifice of Jesus John 19:1-37
46 Psalm 22 Psalm 22 foreshadows the crucifixion of Jesus Matthew 27:32-44, John 19:1-37, 20:27
47 Psalm 22:8 The Messiah would be mocked for his faith in God Matthew 27:39, 27:43
48 Psalm 22:17-18 The Messiah would be stripped of his clothing Luke 23:34-35
49 Psalm 22:18 Onlookers would cast lots for his clothing Matthew 27:35, Luke 23:34, John 19:23
50 Psalm 22:16 The Messiah’s hands and feet would be pierced John 19:37, 20:27
51 Psalm 22:15 The Messiah’s suffering would include thirst John 19:28
52 Psalm 22:1 The Messiah would cry out to God Matthew 27:46
53 Zechariah 12:10 Zechariah foreshadows the piercing of Jesus John 19:34-37
54 Isaiah 53:12 The Messiah would intercede for sinners Matthew 10:32, Luke 23:34, Romans 8:34
55 Isaiah 53:4-9 The Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of others John 19:1-37, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 4:10
56 Isaiah 53:8-9 The Messiah would be “cut off out of the land of the living” (executed) John 19:1-37
57 Daniel 9:26 The Messiah would be “cut off” (executed) John 19:1-37
58 Daniel 9:24 The Messiah’s sacrificial death would bring an end to the problem of sin Galatians 1:3-5
59 Genesis 3:15 The Messiah would defeat evil at his own expense John 19:1-37, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 4:10
60 Isaiah 53:9 The Messiah would be buried in a rich man’s grave Matthew 27:57-61
61 Psalm 16:8-11 God’s holy one (the Messiah) would be resurrected John 20:1-18; Acts 2:29-32, 13:32-37, 1 Corinthians 15
62 Isaiah 53:10-12 The Messiah would be resurrected and see the results of his atoning death John 20:1-18, Acts 1:8
63 Psalm 110 The Messiah would be seated at the right hand of God the Father, meaning he would ascend into heaven Matthew 26:64, Luke 24:50-53, John 20:17, Acts 1:1-12. Jesus ascended 40 days after his resurrection.
64 Isaiah 11:10 The Messiah would appeal to Gentiles Acts 1:8, 13:47-48. History: Christianity is the world’s largest religion.
65 Isaiah 42:1-4 The Messiah would affect people throughout the world Matthew 28:19-20, John 12:18-21
66 Isaiah 42:6 The Messiah would be a light to people around the world Luke 2:22-40
67 Zechariah 9:9-11 The Messiah would have a worldwide impact Acts 1:8, 13:47-48.
68 Isaiah 49:6 The Messiah would bring salvation to the ends of the earth Acts 13:47-48. History: Christianity is the world’s most widespread religion.
69 Psalm 110 The Messiah will return to preside over Judgment Day Daniel 7:13-14, 12:1-2. To be fulfilled in the future when Jesus returns.
70 Daniel 7:13-14 The Messiah will reign eternally over the Kingdom of God, also known as the Kingdom of Heaven Luke 1:31-33
this content comes from about-jesus.org
Dr. Peter Stoner

Peter Stoner (June 16, 1888 – March 21, 1980)[1][2] was a Christian writer and Chairman of the departments of mathematics and astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College, 1953–57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College; and Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City College. (Wikipedia).

His book “Science Speaks” is considered to be a classic in the context of Apologetics.

In his book, “Science Speaks,” the author, Dr. Peter Stoner, looked at 8 prophecies and then calculated the chances of one man in history fulfilling all of them.

1) “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).

2) “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me” (Mal. 3:1).

3. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation: lowly, and riding upon … a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:9).

4. “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends”(Zech. 13:6).

5. “And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12).

6. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (Zech. 11:13).

7. “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).

8. “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet”(Ps. 22:16).

Let us try to visualize this chance. If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all of the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far s he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom. (Science Speaks)
Every Book of the Bible is About Jesus

In Genesis, I was the Word of God, creating the heavens and the earth.
In Exodus, I was the Passover Lamb, whose blood was sprinkled on the doorposts of your heart so that you could escape the bonds of slavery.
In Leviticus, I was the temple, the holy place where you met with God.
In Numbers, I was your ever-present guide, your pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.
In Deuteronomy, I was the prophet coming who is greater than Moses.

In Joshua, I was the conquering warrior leading you into the Promised Land.
In Judges, I was the broken Savior rising up to rescue you.
In Ruth, I was your kinsman-redeemer.
In 1&2 Samuel, I was the pure-hearted shepherd king, who rushed out to face your giants all alone.
In 1&2 Kings, I was the righteous ruler.

In 1&2 Chronicles, I was the restorer of the kingdom.
In Ezra, the faithful scribe.
In Nehemiah, the rebuilder of the walls.
In Esther, I was your advocate, risking my life to restore you to royalty.

In Job, I was your living Redeemer.
In the Psalms, I was the one who hears your cries.
In Proverbs, I am wisdom personified.
In Ecclesiastes, I am the meaning that lets you escape the madness.
In the Song of Solomon, I am your lover and your bridegroom.

In Isaiah, I was the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, wounded for your transgressions and bruised for your iniquities.
In Jeremiah, I am the Spirit that writes God’s laws on your hearts.
In Lamentations, I was the weeping prophet.
In Ezekiel, I was the river of life bringing healing to the nations.
In Daniel, the fourth man in the fire.
In Hosea, I was the ever-faithful husband pursuing my unfaithful bride.
In Joel, I was the restorer of all that the locusts have eaten.

In Amos, I was your burden bearer.
In Obadiah, the judge of all the earth.
In Jonah, the prophet cast out into the storm so that you could be brought in.
In Micah, the everlasting ruler born to us in Bethlehem.

In Nahum, the Avenger of God’s elect.
In Habakkuk, your reason to rejoice even when our fields are empty.
In Zephaniah, I am the great Reformer.
In Haggai, the cleansing fountain.
In Zechariah, the pierced Son whom every eye on earth will one day behold.
And in Malachi, I am the Sun of Righteousness rising with healing in my wings.

In Matthew, he’s the King of the Jews.
In Mark, he’s the Son of God.
In Luke, he’s the Savior born to us in the city of David, Christ the Lord.
In John, he’s the Word become flesh, dwelling among us.
In Acts, he is Christ the risen Lord, proclaiming salvation to the nations.
In Romans, he’s the Justifier.
In 1&2 Corinthians, the Spirit at work in the churches.
In Galatians, he is the righteousness imputed to us by faith.
In Ephesians, our righteous armor.
In Philippians, the God who meets our every need.
In Colossians, the firstborn of all creation.

In 1&2 Thessalonians, he’s descending from heaving with a shout, coming to meet us together in the clouds.
In 1&2 Timothy, the one mediator between God and man.
In Titus, our faithful pastor.
In Philemon, our Redeemer, restoring us to service.
In Hebrews, our great high priest.

In James, the life at work in our faith.
In 1&2 Peter, our living cornerstone.
In 1, 2, and 3 John, our advocate, pleading his righteousness in our place.
In Jude, he’s God our Savior, the one who keeps us from stumbling and presents us blameless in his presence with great joy.

And in Revelation, he’s the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
(J.D. Greear Ministries)

Bottom line: The Old Testament provides a very specific historical address for Jesus. Everything from His lineage, the place of His birth, His crucifixion, how He would be introduced by John the Baptist, the way in which He would be betrayed…It’s an amazing list of details, some of which pertained to things that weren’t even in existence at the time the prophecy was first documented.

For example, crucifixion. While impalement is referenced in Genesis 40:19, it’s specifically referenced in Deuteronomy 21:23 as being indicative of God’s curse being on the person being impaled (see also Gal 3:13).

But it’s in Isaiah 53, where you encounter specific references to the way Christ was going to be “pierced…”

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Is 53:5 [see also Ps 22:16])

It’s here where you see a picture of a criminal having been nailed to a pole or a tree, which matches the image of crucifixion – a practice that was virtually unknown until the time of the Romans.

The history of crucifixion as a mode of punishment for cime must be studies as a part of the Roman system of jurisprudence…The Hebrews, for example, adopted or accepted it only under Roman compulsion: under their own system, before Palestine became Roman territory, they inflicted the death penalty by stoning.

…In 63 B.C., Pompey’s legions cut their way into the Judean capital. Palestine became a Roman province, though nominally a puppet Jewish dynasty survived.

Thus, the type of death picture in Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 did not come into practice under the Jewish system until hundreds of years after the account was written.7

Conclusion

In addition to the way in which the credibility of the Old Testament can be validated from an academic standpoint, it’s the way it so vividly describes Christ that demonstrates its True reliability. You could argue that every book in the Bible references the Son of God in some way, shape, or form (see sidebar).

From that perspective, yes, the text of the OT can be trusted, but it is the Message that needs to be embraced and believed.

For even more information about the credibility of the Old Testament, click here

1. The Rise and Fall of Assyria”, Lenormant and E. Chevallier, LM Publishers
2. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p299
3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Enlightenment” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/, accessed April 8, 2017
4. AnswersInGenesis, “Scientific Accuracy”, https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/5-scientific-accuracy/, accessed April 8, 2017
5. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1979, p58
6. Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc, 1972, 1979, p144
7. Ibid, p161, 162

Prove It! | Part I: Faith

/in , , /by

It says in Scripture that without faith, it’s impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).

Why? Why is it so important to accept something to be true based solely on faith as opposed to being able to prove that it’s credible?

Critics often sneer at Christianity. Christopher Hitchens, a very vocal opponent of Christianity, once said that Christianity, “…can’t be believed by a thinking person.1” Richard Dawkins, the author of  “The God Delusion” said, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”2

On the surface, faith seems to be something that exists only in the context of a willingness to believe in the supernatural – something that can’t be proven in the context of something you can touch, understand, and anticipate.

But that’s not the case.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
The universal experience of paleontology,,,[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. the intermediaries have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.3

You cannot function as a human being without deploying a measure of faith in some way, shape, or form.

Think about it.

When you drive down the expressway, you can’t “prove” that the driver coming at you from the other direction is going to stay in their lane. You’ve got to trust that when you take public transportation, the driver isn’t going to steer you into the ditch. Whenever you board a commercial flight, you’ve got to have faith in both the aircraft and the pilot.

Anytime they put you under to do some surgery on you, you’ve got to have faith in the anesthesiologist and the surgeon.

Evolution requires an outrageous amount of faith in that you have no fossil evidence or logic to substantiate the idea that something can come from nothing, or that a fish can grow wings and become a bird (see sidebar).

At the end of the day, those who sneer at faith, not only ignore the extent to which they embrace faith as part of their everyday activities, they use their sarcasm to conceal the fact that their criticisms aren’t rooted so much in the absence of “proof,” as much as it’s about the lack of  “control.”

Even Darwin had faith. When he first published his Origin of Species, while he was very aware of the logical inconsistencies that existed between his theory and the geological record that existed at the time, he had “faith” that, in time, the record would validate the credibility of his theory.

Faith isn’t the problem. You see that dynamic documented in Lee Strobel’s book, “The Case for Christ” when he admitted that part of his skepticism as an atheist was partly inspired by not wanting to answer to a standard other than himself.5

The challenge isn’t the need to have faith, as much as it’s the need to relinquish control.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why non-believers refuse to consider the evidence that validates the Christian faith, but it’s also something for believers to ponder when they feel as though they’re “struggling” to have faith.

When you perceive the difficulties of having faith as a subliminal resistance to a lack of control, the dialogue changes. It’s not so much about the object of your faith and the evidence that validates your confidence in what you believe to be true, as much as it’s about not wanting to surrender control of your situation.

Maybe that’s why God says it’s impossible to please Him without faith. Until you’re willing to, not only give up your control, but to admit that you were never in control to begin with, you keep God and what He can accomplish at a distance (Phil 2:13).

It’s important to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it (1 Pet 3:15). Saying that, “…you just believe” doesn’t resonate as something that indicates you’ve actually thought things through. So, from that standpoint, being familiar with the discipline of Apologetics is a healthy exercise.

But in the end, the issue is control on a profoundly spiritual level (Jn 6:65). Your witness to the unbeliever, as well as the mindset you deploy when dealing with both triumphs and trials needs to factor in the bottom line of control and Who’s ultimately in charge. That is the beginning of the faith Scripture refers to and that is the faith that changes lives.

1. “Goodreads”, “Christopher Hitchens > Quotes > Quotable Quote”, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/919133-let-s-say-that-the-consensus-is-that-our-species-being”, accessed April 7, 2026
2. “Goodreads”, “Richard Dawkins > Quotes”, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1194.Richard_Dawkins, accessed April 7, 2026
3. Michael Denton, Evolution a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1986, 162
4. In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin says: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” (“Darwin Online”, http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1859/1859-484-c-1860.html, accessed April 8, 2026)
5. Lee Strobel explained his inclination to dismiss Christianity in part because of the way it would compel him to surrender his right to himself. “Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.” (“The Case for Christ”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998 Kindle, LOC 233)

Who Hit You?

/in , , /by

It’s a little before 6:00 am on Good Friday. By now, the “trial” is wrapping up and the Pharisees have been able to manipulate things to the point where they feel comfortable going to Pilate and demanding that Christ be crucified.

There was a breakthrough at one point, when things weren’t lining up in a way that promoted the Pharisees intention when they finally felt as though they had gotten Christ to admit something they could legitimately label as heresy.

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matt 26:62-68)

Excrutiating

The word, “excrutiating” literally means “out of the cross.” It’s a term used to describe an unbearable pain and Jesus was knew it was coming. In addition to the cross, He would be flogged according to a Roman approach that didn’t stop short of 41 lashes.  Rather, He would be beaten until those responsible for “chastising” Him felt like they were through.

Last night, He had His last meal with His disciples where He revealed all of the symbolism that had been instituted centuries beforehand when Moses introduced the Passover Meal. He was the Passover Lamb. And while the disciples were not quite sure of what Jesus meant when He said, “This is my body broken for you…” their uncertainty would deteriorate into shock, fear and disbelief as they watched their Teacher be tortured and put to death.

After the Passover Meal, Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane where He would pray with the kind of terrible passion that accompany’s a man’s complete confidence that soon He will be subjected to an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering.

Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition where the subject perspires drops of blood. When you blush, your emotions trigger blood flow to a point just below the surface of your skin, hence the reddish tint to your complexion. In this instance, your emotions force blood out through your pores and you appear to be sweating blood (Luke 22:44). In the aftermath, your skin is sensitive to even the slightest touch. Luke says that this anomaly was experienced by Christ when He was praying. That means the pain from every punch, every lash, every slap, every cut was going to be amplified 100 fold.

It’s easy to gloss over verse 68 in the above text because we’re already familiar with what is getting ready to happen which, admittedly, is going to be far more dramatic.

But this is where it starts.

This is more than a “sting” or a solid punch to the face. This is the kind of pain that must’ve made Jesus wonder how He was going to endure the next several hours.

It’s hard not to get emotional when you meditate on the cruelty and the pain that was exacted on the Son of God that was willingly absorbed in order to pay a debt on behalf of the one who asked, “Who hit you?” Especially when you realize that, given the reality of our rebellion and need for redemption…

…we were the ones who hit Him.

God Loves Everyone

/in , /by

It’s not uncommon to encounter someone who wants to justify what can be rightfully identified as a bad attitude or sinful behavior by saying that “God loves everyone.”

That’s true.

God does love everyone (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:8).

But the question isn’t whether or not God loves you, the question is, “Do you love God?”

You can’t say you love Him if you don’t obey Him…

Cheap Grace

The term “cheap grace” can be traced back to a book written by German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, called The Cost of Discipleship, published in 1937. In that book, Bonhoeffer defined “cheap grace” as “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.” Notice what is emphasized in Bonhoeffer’s definition of cheap grace and what is de-emphasized. The emphasis is on the benefits of Christianity without the costs involved; hence, the adjective cheap to describe it. (gotquestions.org)

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (Jn 14:21)

Obviously, no one is perfect. But we’re not talking about a perfect performance as much as we’re talking about an honest confession. There is no forgiveness if you’re unwilling to admit that you’re wrong…

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn 1:9)

You see this problem addressed in 1 John 3:6:

No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 Jn 3:6)

John isn’t talking about “committing” a sin as much as he’s referring to the “practice” of sin. It’s often manifested as a lifestyle of perpetual and intentional rebellion that one attempts to conceal by advocating the idea that God’s Love equates to a Divine endorsement of sin.

That’s not the way it works.

Saying that you believe that Jesus died for you doesn’t amount to much, in that the demons believe and they “shudder” (Jas 2:14-26).

What qualifies you as a believer is the way in which the Holy Spirit is now a part of who you are (Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 1:21-22). That doesn’t happen apart from establishing Christ as your everyday Authority, and not just your spiritual mechanic. (Rom 10:8-9).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer described that as “cheap grace,” which translates to a meaningless doctrine because there’s no real transformation (2 Cor 5:17).  Instead, it’s just a pointless declaration that’s intended to reduce Christ to a noble sounding sentiment as opposed to the Lord of your life.

Again, the question isn’t whether or not God loves you, as much as it’s whether or not you love God. And you can’t say you love Him if you’re determined to ignore Him. God does love you, but it’s your willingness to surrender to His Authority that qualifies you as a believer, and not your ability to sound appreciative of a love you’re unwilling to reciprocate.

Scientists Say You’re Wrong

/in , , , , /by
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex
Sexual Behavior

Dr. Francis S. Collins, current Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, asserted that homosexuality “is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA” and that “whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” 6

The 2008 American Psychological Association’s brochure Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding states, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”7

GLBT-oriented men and women may not choose their attractions, but, short of force, they do choose their sex partners. From a national health perspective, the issue is not the origins of homosexual or GLBT orientation, but the consequences of engaging in such sexual activity.

The negative health consequences of alternative sexuality are made more understandable by first recognizing the nature of the sexual practices at issue. A 1979 survey in the book The Gay Report revealed the percentage of gay men who engaged in the following practices: 99% oral sex, 91% anal sex, 82% rimming (analingus), 22% fisting, 23% golden showers (urination on another), 4% scat (defecation on another). 8 The book’s two authors were of same-sex sexual attraction. A May 2011 medical journal article found that felching (“sucking or eating semen out of someone’s anus”) was a sought-after practice in one-sixth of men’s profiles in “one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for partners for unprotected sex.”9

The Gay Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site describes the following detrimental effects associated with same-sex sexual practice: higher rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, depression/anxiety, hepatitis, sexually transmitted illnesses (anal papilloma/HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia), certain cancers, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, eating disorders, and (in subsets) obesity.10

In February 2009 a Canadian GLBT group filed a human rights complaint against the Canadian government and Health Canada asserting that the Canadian GLBT population had poor statistics for life expectancy (twenty years short of standard), suicide, alcohol and illicit drug/substance abuse, cancer, infectious disease, HIV/AIDS, and depression. This is noteworthy in that it challenges the assertion of those claiming the negative health statistics attributed to individuals of GLBT orientation are merely a function of the lack of acceptance of such individuals, and that said statistics would improve with their increased acceptance. Canada provides a highly supportive government, celebration from liberal churches, and a public coerced into silence by hate speech codes, yet the poor health indicators for the GLBT populace remains. This demonstrates that acceptance and affirmation of same-sex sexuality is not the promised antidote for the problems inherent in GLBT sexuality…

The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site features the page Ten Things Lesbians Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider, which states the following: “Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.” And “Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers.”23 (Christian Medical and Dental Associations)

6. Collins, F. S. (2006). The language of god, a scientist presents evidence for belief. (New York: Free Press) p. 257-263.
7. http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx.
8. Jay, K., Young, A., The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979)
9. Klein, H. “Felching Among Men Who Engage in Barebacking (Unprotected Anal Sex).” Arch Sex Behav. 2011 May 14. [Epub ahead of print].
10. http://glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=690 and http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.
23. http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691.

Scientists Say You’re Wrong

“Scientists say you’re wrong…”

That’s what you’ll hear from time to time when someone wants to try to ignore what’s obvious by insisting that “experts agree,” or “studies show,” or “recent polling indicates…”

There’s two kinds of information: The kind that brings clarity to the truth and the kind that distracts from it.

Subject matter experts and polling data can be very instrumental in helping to guide and reinforce sound judgement. But when you intentionally distort the criteria you use to gather and analyze your information, not only are your conclusions flawed, but they have the capacity to make a bad situation worse because of the credibility that’s associated with institutions that are being asserted as unbiased.

In other words, just because you’ve got some letters after you name, doesn’t mean you get to speak into reality things that aren’t true. That’s not science, that’s gossip.

When it comes to transgenderism and homosexuality, you have a perspective that is supposedly informed by educated sources that insists these things are either normal or explained by anomalies that cannot be criticized, only accommodated.

Ryan T. Anderson received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He went on to receive his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.

In his book, “When Harry Became Sally,” he reveals the contradictions and the harm being suffered by those who are being encouraged to subscribe to an sustainable distortion of reality, all in the name of “science.”

He makes a great point by saying, “On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be.” (Transgender Ideology is Riddled with Contradictions. Here are the Big Ones)

You can’t acknowledge Biology as a definitive science, and, at the same time, say that it becomes subjective, depending on the way a person feels. That is the fundamental claim of the “science” supporting transgenderism. In that context, transgenderism isn’t supported by science, as much as it’s refuted by it. It’s like a detective who isn’t looking for evidence, as much as they’re trying to create a verdict. In this instance, however “complex” the problem might be, you’re not bringing clarity to the truth as much as you’re distracting from it by insisting that a man can have a uterus.

How Does This Concern You?

Attempting to introduce a bottom line that exists independently of the way a person thinks or feels is toxic to some people because of the way submitting to thatr eality requires a willingness to be held accountable to something greater than yourself.

You can’t champion that kind of approach directly without sounding either selfish or foolish. But you can effectively avoid being revealed as not having a rational argument by accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being either overbearing, hypocritical,  or unethical. At that point, the focus isn’t on what’s being said as much as it’s the supposed character flaws of the one who’s speaking.

You see that approach manifested in several comments: “You can’t force your beliefs on me,” “What’s true for you isn’t true for me,” “I’m not hurting anyone,” or “How does this concern you?”

Embedded within each statement is a dynamic that implies truth is based on preferences more so than principles. Therefore, any attempt to assert a reality that cannot be altered based on a person’s disposition is an inappropriate act of aggression that is hurtful and disrespectful.

It can easily shut down any legitimate dialogue because of the way most will rush to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful.

Sexually transmitted infections among
homosexual and bisexual men who
have sex with men…

In this comparative cross-sectional study, we analyzed the records of all male STI patients who reported at least one male partner who attended our STI clinic from January 2015 to December 2023 for demographic details, sexual history, clinical examination, and laboratory findings.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test and logistic regression were utilized.

Results:

The number of MSM attending STI clinics showed a rising trend, with a sharp decline during the pandemic followed by a significant rebound. Bisexuals outnumbered homosexuals until the lockdown, after which the trend reversed. About 42.6% of homosexuals and 26.7% of bisexuals reported first sexual exposure before the age of 16 (odds ratio (OR) = 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17–3.55, P = 0.01). Syphilis was the most prevalent STI (70.6%), followed by HIV (29.8%) and condyloma acuminata (16.6%). Homosexuals had a significantly higher prevalence of syphilis (adjusted OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.94–11.93, P < 0.01) than bisexuals. 51.4% of HIV cases were newly diagnosed on evaluation after attending the STI clinic.

Conclusions:

There was a sharp rise in the number of MSM attending the STI clinic, especially homosexuals. Syphilis was the most prevalent STI, particularly among homosexuals, which frequently coexisted with HIV. (National Library of Medicine)

Out of the Closet, Into the Clinic: LGBT STD Statistics
Felching Among Men Who Engage in Barebacking (Unprotected Anal Sex)

You can, however, counter those tactics by bringing the conversation back to the subject matter being discussed and emphasizing how the truth isn’t something you can ignore just because you don’t like the way it’s packaged.

For example, when someone wants to discredit your platform by suggesting that since you’re not being impacted,  you have no reason to be critical…

  • Just because my money isn’t in the bank that’s being robbed, doesn’t mean that I can’t rightfully oppose stealing.
  • Should they choose to say that, since they’re not hurting anyone, any criticism is unnecessary, you can remind them that, more often than not, that phrase is used by people who’ve decided that regardless of the problems their choices produce, if it doesn’t matter to them, it shouldn’t matter to anyone else. That’s not making an argument, they’re just declaring their indifference.

When it comes to homosexuality, you’ve got three things going on simultaneously.

1)  Not good for you

From a physiological standpoint, you have a lifestyle that represents a parade of STDs, some of which are lethal. You also can’t procreate, which qualifies your perversion, not only as something that’s detrimental to your health, but also as a complete departure from the way the human species is designed. (see sidebar)

2) Bad for the team.

This is coming from SAGE Publications, the world’s largest independent scholarly publisher.  This captures both the physiological problems as well as the problems that impact society in general.

Are homosexuals “not dangers to society” and is homosexuality “compatible with full health”? To answer these questions 4,340 adult respondents drawn via area probability sampling from 5 metropolitan areas of the USA self-administered an extensive sexuality/public order questionnaire of over 500 items. Bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) as compared to heterosexuals: (1) more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards (e.g., sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces); (2) exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (e.g., more frequently admitted to participating in orgies, reported considerably larger numbers of sexual partners); (3) more frequently reported participating in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls); and (4) more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating). From the standpoints of individual health, public health and social order, participating in homosexual activity could be viewed as dangerous to society and incompatible with full health. (National Library of Medicine)

Growing up with gay parents:
What is the big deal?

A ground-breaking study from the University of Texas at Austin (Regnerus 20121) found that young-adult children (ages 18–39) of parents who had same-sex relationships before the subjects had reached the age of 18 were more likely to suffer from a broad range of emotional and social problems.

The study is noteworthy for several reasons:

(1) his study sample was large, representative, and population-based (not a small, self-selected group);
(2) Regnerus studied the responses of adult children rather than asking same-sex parents to describe how their young dependent children are doing; and
(3) he was able to draw comparisons on up to 80 measures for children who had lived with (or had) parents who fell into one of eight categories—intact families with both biological parents who were married to each other, lesbian mothers, gay fathers, heterosexual single parents, parents who later divorced, cohabiting parents, parents who adopted the respondent, and other (such as a deceased parent).

The children of lesbians and gays fared worse than those in intact heterosexual families on 77 of the 80 outcome measures. Exceptions related only to the voting habits of children with gay fathers, and alcohol use by children of lesbian mothers (National Library of Medicine).

1. Regnerus M. 2012. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research 41: 752–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Some want to try and justify Homosexuality by insisting that homosexuals were born that way. But according to the “American Psychological Association,” There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.”1

3) You have to pretend there are no rules.

When you’re a part of a team, you have a responsibility to contribute in a way that benefits the team as a whole. You don’t just wear the jersey, you play in a way that helps move the ball down the field. But if you’re determined to believe that there are no rules and you can play however you want to, that puts an unnecessary strain on the team’s ability to succeed. In that context, you’re not “independent,” you’re just selfish.

The person who wants to see themselves as their own absolute will not confess to being selfish, however. Instead, they’ll insist that their rights are being violated – that they are victims of an intolerant society. They won’t admit to being irresponsible or negligent, instead they’ll say that there are no boundaries and anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or cruel.

The problem with that mindset is that it ignores reality. They want to pretend that they can speak a standard into existence, simply because they want it to be true, rather than submitting to a standard because it is true.

The result is a compromised collective. It’s not about a lack of variety or an intolerant authority, as much as it’s an unnecessary increase in pain and problems that stem from a resolve to reduce truth to a tradition.

The LGBQT community requires that husbands and wives, along with moms and dads have to be redefined as social constructs as opposed to fundamental institutions. They dismiss the consequences of their perversion as “risks” and any objective evaluation of their behavior as “discrimination.” This is the only path that can be taken if their approach to the human experience is going to make any sense, and it is the same kind of path that is used by everyone that wants to normalize a flawed way of thinking: Replace what’s real with a manufactured reality where there are no bottom lines and truth is whatever an individual wants to believe.

The problem with homosexuality, or any kind of sexual misconduct, is the way that it poisons society by compromising both the definition and the function of a healthy family. Adultery and fornication lead to children who are either unwanted or reduced to pieces of property being fought over by two angry adults. Homosexuality is incapable of producing children, and the kids that are raised in a homosexual household struggle because of the way they’re constantly being told that truth is nothing more than a tradition.

In short, in order for the homosexual lifestyle to make any sense, the human experience has to be reinvented, medical realities have to be ignored, societal damage has to be dismissed, and morality in general has to be redefined.

It Makes No Sense

It makes absolutely no sense when you consider that, among the negative health consequences of same sex behavior, you have:

  • Reduced Life Expectancy
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  • Cancer
  • Mental Health Issues
  • Domestic Violence
  • Increased Suicide Risks

And yet…

Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred, harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical literature.2

The Fundamental Dispute

Attempting to defend Homosexuality by saying that “Science says you’re wrong,” is ignoring the fact that it’s raining because it wasn’t forecasted by your favorite weatherman.

When you say “Science says your wrong,” you’re implying a conclusion shared by a majority that is neither questioned or disputed. But that isn’t the case.

At the end of the day, there’s more to these disagreements than a competing collection of facts and studies. The fundamental dispute comes down to how you define truth. You define it either according to what’s real or how you feel. If you define it according to how you feel, you’re inevitably restricted to what amounts to an unsustainable hypocrisy. If you’re determined to justify yourself by saying that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe, then you can’t logically disagree with someone and say they’re wrong if there is no right or wrong.

LGBTQ, Socialism, ProChoice – all of these things depend on a perspective that maintains the individual as his own bottom line. Any policy or personality that threatens the authority of the person who’s empowered themselves to dictate the difference between right and wrong is going to be first criticized, then ignored, and then, silenced.

You don’t counter that kind of agenda without incorporating an approach that addresses the philosophical poison that refuses to acknowledge the boundaries of truth, common sense, and sound reasoning. You’re not questioning their logic, you’re challenging their authority, and apart from asking those questions that reveal the self-defeating aspect of their philosophical foundation, in their mind, they’re either different or they’re damaged, but they’re never wrong.

For further reading, as far as the biblical perspective on Homosexuality, read the “Is Homosexuality Sinful” series by clicking here.

1. “Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality”, “American Psychological Association”, https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation, accessed June 7, 2026

2. “Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior”, “Christian Medical and Dental Associations”, https://cmda.org/article/negative-health-consequences-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/, accessed June 7, 2026

Johnny the Walrus
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – this elaborates on Dr. Francis S. Collins’ assertion that Predisposition is not destiny.
Same Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
Key Health Concerns for MSM (Men Who have Sex with Men)
Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order
Are Some People Born Gay?
Fatherhood and Motherhood in a Diverse and Changing World

What is That Feeling?

/in , , , /by

What is that “feeling?”

Why do you “feel” a dark presence when you walk into a situation that is celebrating something that God has defined as heinous?

When you’ve got God’s Spirit living in you, it impacts, not only the way you think, but it resonates in that place that constitutes the sum total of who you are (1 Cor 2:12; Eph 1:13-14).

The Bible calls it your heart (see sidebar). It’s more than just your brain or a mere emotion. It’s an awareness that is as unmistakeable as it is substantial.

The Heart

Heart – the inner self that thinks, feels and decides1

The heart is the core of our being, and the Bible sets high importance on keeping our hearts pure…(gotquestions.org)

Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. (Prov. 4:23)

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”
(Jer 17:9-10)

From within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean.
(Mk 7:21-23)

Jesus references it specifically in John 16:

When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (Jn 16:8-11)

In verse 13 of the same chapter, He says:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (Jn 16:13 [see also Matthew Henry Commentary])

What Does it Look Like?

You can see examples of the way the Spirit guides a person in the way Simeon was “moved by the Spirit” so that he could meet the promised Messiah…

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: 29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss[d] your servant in peace. 30 For my eyes have seen your salvation, 31which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: 32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” (Lk 2:25-32)

You also see the way the Spirit prevented Paul from making his way into Bythnia…

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. (Acts 16:6-7)

No doubt, this gets into subjective territory, but it is real nevertheless.

Observe, It is the great privilege of Christians that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. (Mathew Henry)

Paul talks about us having the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). In Romans, it talks about how the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). So, when you combine the Biblical Realities of God being able to speak through the thoughts you have in your head, as well as the deep seated conviction that the Holy Spirit triggers when God wants to get your attention, you have an empirical basis for the “feeling” you sometimes get when you walk into an environment that doesn’t have God’s approval. Generally speaking, those are not healthy scenarios and you want to remove yourself from that situation, not just because it might make sense to do so, but because you want to be obedient to what God is telling you.

Conviction of sin is one of the rarest things that ever strikes a man. It is the threshold of an understanding of God. Jesus Christ said that when the Holy Spirit came He would convict of sin, and when the Holy Spirit rouses the conscience and brings him into the presence of God, it is not his relationship with men that bothers him, but his relationship with God. (Oswald Chambers)

1. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, p466

Apologizing to a Fool

/in , , , /by

How do you handle someone who insists that you have hurt their feelings, despite the fact that you’ve done nothing wrong?

It seems to me that there’s more to that kind of situation than what some insist is a blanket command to “confess your sins to one another,” in order to fulfill the biblical command to be Christlike.

23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift. (Matt 5:23-24)

OK, but if your brother, in this case, is a fool that’s trying to leverage a situation in a way that doesn’t so much help him recover from being wounded, as much as it helps him promote his agenda, that’s not someone who wants an apology, that’s someone who wants power.

In that instance, you want to ensure you’re applying the whole of God’s Word, and not just those portions than can be manipulated in a way where the end result falls short of the Truth.

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. (Prov 26:4)

If I’m talking to a fool, I’m interacting with a person who’s not hurting as much as they’re hunting for opportunities to conceal their true purpose by posing as someone who’s in pain.

I’m not being Christlike by endorsing a sinful perspective. I’m being complicit, which is neither wise nor obedient.

 

Why is American Christianity so Disgusting?

/in , , , , /by

That was the question on quora. com.

Sometimes, it’s hard not to speculate that those kinds of questions aren’t anything other than just an invitation for atheists and agnostics to spew their discontent with the Reality of Biblical Absolutes.

But this was my response…

It depends on what you mean by “American Christianity.”

There aren’t different versions. You’re either a Christian or you’re not (Rom 10:9–10).

And while there are a number of people who’ve got it in their head that just saying they believe in the empty tomb somehow qualifies them as a believer, the demons believed that Christ rose from the grave. So, a belief in the resurrection, from a biblical standpoint, goes beyond acknowledging Christ’s having risen from the grave as more than a historical truth. It’s a personal reality that’s represented by the Spirit of Christ living inside of you (Rom 8:9–10; 1 Cor 2:16).

One thing that often gets distorted is the idea of “love.” In the absence of Truth, love is nothing more than selfishness and neglect. In 1 Corinthian 13, it says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” So, when you’re breaking the law and justifying it by saying that you have the right to be happy, or when you’re attempting to defend something perverse by saying that love is stronger than hate, that’s just a coward wanting to be accommodated rather than evaluated.

You can’t disagree with “love,” so you make that your storefront in order to conceal what you’re actually selling.

It’s the same thing with the way people either claim to be a Christian, or criticize Christians in that they want to maintain themselves as their own moral bottom line while simultaneously sounding “godly.”

Just like the gospel says that you are more than your mistakes, the Truth is more than a personal preference. And when that “preference” is threatened, it’s then that some will try to reduce institutions to traditions, and an authentic relationship with Christ to a flawed opinion.

Jesus Wasn’t a Socialist

/in , , , , /by

Jesus wasn’t a Socialist.

At no point does Jesus try to classify people into two categories, as far as those who own the means of production and those who don’t.

That’s the supposed problem that Socialism tries to solve – the idea that rich people are corrupt and poor people are oppressed. To solve that problem, Socialism controls both the supply and the demand and categorizes anyone who would attempt to disagree as being opposed to the concept of sharing and the common good.

The problem is that when you replace personal responsibility with a default corporate endorsement, the end result allows for a toxic level of mismanagement and neglect that leads to poverty and death.

Jesus praised and promoted industry, not subsidies in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14–30). In the same chapter, He emphasized accountability in the first 13 verses. The book of Proverbs is rife with condemnations of the “sluggard” (Prov 21:25; 26:13–14). 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says if you don’t work, you don’t eat.

Thomas Sowell said that the strongest argument for Socialism is that it sounds good. The strongest argument against Socialism is that it doesn’t work. Margaret Thatcher echoed the same sentiment when she said that the problem with Socialism is that you inevitably run out of someone’s else’s money.

Socialism appeals to two kinds of people: Those who want to appear compassionate without having to sacrifice anything, and those who want to be given what they would otherwise have to earn.

Sharing and Compassion are obviously promoted in Scripture. But sharing is not controlling, nor is compassion a subsidy. Both, in the sense that they are commanded in Scripture, are voluntary acts of service and obedience that are ultimately done as a way to honor God, not compulsory gestures of good will designed to empower the government.

According to What You Prefer

/in , , , /by
A question on Quora came up that asked how you can support President Trump as a Christian.
As you can imagine, there are people, both unbelievers and believers, who are hell bent on insisting that you can’t call yourself a Christian if you support President Trump.
I weighed in because I believe in the empty tomb. And I also believe that you don’t necessarily support a personality as much as you support the policies that he champions.
But that doesn’t register with some people. They’re determined to believe that anyone with a manner and a past that doesn’t line up with what they would prefer is not only unsuitable for any leadership position, but anyone who supports such an individual is obviously not a believer.
Here’s the last response I got:
…the Word of God says friendship with the world is enmity with God! That we’re either hot or cold, lukewarm individuals He said He’d spit them out! There is no way ANY child of the Holy and Righteous God can support DJT and what he’s doing and how he’s doing it! He is like his father the devil and is doing his father’s bidding! And I don’t use the word Christian anymore because some have just muddled it up😟! Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
Here’s how I responded:
Remember how Jesus was tempted? Satan actually quoted Scripture, but he took it out of its original context. And my relationship with Christ is based on the empty tomb, not the way I vote (Rom 10:9–10).
That’s the first thing…
Secondly, I don’t support adultery or vulgarity. But that didn’t stop me from serving in the Marine Corps or pursuing a career as a national recording artist or being employed in general. If you extend your rationale to it’s inevitable conclusion, you don’t have a mission field, you have a support group (1 Cor 5:9–10).
Third, my support of President Trump is based on his policies, not his theology. King Cyrus didn’t know or acknowledge God. For an orthodox Jew, that must’ve been a hard pill to swallow given the fact that Cyrus was not only a Gentile, but he was an idolater. Yet, God referred to him as “my shepherd” and it was through Cyrus’ administration that the Hebrews were able to rebuild their capital city (Ezr 1:2-4; Is 44:28; 45:5).
Fourth, if you refuse to engage the world as it is and support those who God is using, despite their manner or their past, you’re not being Christlike, you’re being disobedient. (Mk 9:39–40; 1 Cor 5:9–10). What makes sin heinous is not so much the sin, as much as it’s Who you’re sinning against. From that standpoint, if we use your approach, no one is qualified to lead. And I’m not saying that you excuse bad behavior by saying “We’re all sinners.” I’m saying you don’t dismiss however God is working simply because it’s not packaged according to what you prefer.