Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part IV

/in , , , /by

Is Homosexuality sinful? There’s some who would insist that it isn’t based on a “trail” of reasons and logic that looks compelling at first, but is revealed as being less than credible once you really pop the hood on Scripture and examine the depth of what God has to say.

Welcome to Part IV!

Objection: The Bible promotes a variety of combinations when it comes to marriage including polygamy and other relationships where the woman is being subjugated and abused.

Overruled: God’s original design in Genesis, which is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, makes it abundantly clear that God’s definition of marriage is one man and one woman. The distortions that man has attempted to assert as acceptable substitutes have never, and will never be, regarded by God as holy, let alone healthy.

Documentation Versus Endorsement (Polygamy)

The problem with this objection is that it assumes that because the Bible chronicles the way in which man fell short of God’s ideal, that his actions are therefore condoned by God. That isn’t the case. Those in the pro-homosexual camp list these, “unions” as being supposedly endorsed in God’s Word:

Biblical Examples of Polygamy
Name Wives Reference
Jacob Leah and Rachel Gen 29:14-30
Gideon many wives Judges 8:30
David many wives 1 Chron 14:3
Solomon hundreds of wives 1 Kings 11:3
Joash Two Wives 2 Chron 24:3
This not a comprehensive list. Rather it shows examples of polygamy among some of the more well known personalities in the Bible.

There are a number of prominent personalities in Scripture who maintained more than one wife. But this wasn’t the original design as dictated by God. When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees in Matthew 19 about the issue of divorce, they were looking for a way to trap him knowing that His response could potentially turn the public against Him in light of the way in which marriage was so commonly practiced and perceived. There were two popular interpretations of the Mosaic Law as documented in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 at that point. One, belonging to the school of Shammai, a well known Jewish scholar of the first century, stated that the phrase in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 declaring that a man could divorce his wife for, “something indecent” referred to adultery. The other school of thought belonging to Hillel, another accomplished Jewish theologian of the first century, believed that, “something indecent” could be something as trivial as a poorly prepared meal.

They were hoping Jesus would side with one of those two camps at which point they could either declare Jesus an opponent of the Law for agreeing with an extremely liberal interpretation of the passage in Deuteronomy, or an enemy of the people because He was threatening a liberty the masses were fond of. Jesus’ response was brilliant. Rather than address those who would attempt to interpret the Law, Jesus instead went to the very beginning, emphasizing how man was created in God’s image and how Holy Matrimony was initially established as one man and one woman united in a bond that was not to be altered or terminated by man (see Gen 2:24 Matt 19:4-6).

When pressed to comment on why Moses had published directions pertaining to divorce, Jesus replied that those directives had been given to Moses by God in order to regulate the damage that had been done to the institution of marriage as a result of the Israelites’ rebellious nature (see Matt 19:8). In that one exchange, Jesus defined any and all unions and / or practices that deviated from God’s original design as being sinful -the only exception being in the instance of adultery. At that point, a person could divorce their adulterous spouse without being condemned. But every other type of divorce along with every humanly concocted version of marriage, be it polygamy or a homosexual union, was defined as sinful and therefore not recognized by Heaven as legitimate, let alone healthy. Polygamy has been a common practice since the days of Genesis. But has been mentioned before, just because the Bible chronicles a particular practice – that doesn’t equate to a Biblical endorsement of that practice.

Joseph Smith & the Mormons

In January of 1838, Oliver Cowdery, one of Joseph Smith’s earliest converts, wrote his brother about a teenager that had spent some time in the Smith household as a servant. Her name was Fanny Alger and Cowdery was convinced that Smith had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with her, describing it as the “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his [Smith’s] and Fanny Alger’s.”

Smith didn’t deny the relationship, but refused to define it as adulterous and instead maintained it as a Biblically based example of polygamy. Still the way in which the relationship was veiled by the absence of a formal ceremony and a declaration of her being a “plural wife” only after the relationship was questioned, made it very difficult to regard the relationship as honorable, despite Smith’s attempts to justify it.

Alger would later marry Solomon Custer and raise nine children, leaving her relationship with Smith to be left open to conjecture and speculation.4

Polygamy, that being one husband with two or more wives, is still championed today by a great number of people who passionately cling to a flawed interpretation of God’s Word and will point to several well known Biblical personalities as being examples of God’s favorable disposition towards this practice. Mormons are notorious for engaging in polygamy. Their founder, Joseph Smith, had several, “plural” wives, the first of which was allegedly Fanny Alger. What makes this particular situation problematic is that Smith’s relationship with Alger appeared adulterous in light of there not having been a wedding ceremony which would allow people to recognize Smith’s relationship with Alger as being holy and legally legitimate. In addition, Smith declared Alger a “plural wife” only after the relationship came under scrutiny, hence the ease with which one could point to Smith’s spin on polygamy as being a convenient way to justify extramarital affairs (see sidebar). Still, Smith maintained his innocence and others would follow his example. In the, “Journal of Discourses,” a 26 volume collection of sermons by the early leaders of the Mormon church, Heber C. Kimball, one of the original apostles in the early Latter Day Saint Movement, said:

I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors His work and word. 3

The problem with that statement is that it ignores Christ’s comments in Matthew 19 – one man, one woman for life. Some will argue that God’s design was intended as a starting point – that other combinations and variations would be considered just as holy once they became possible as a result of more people and more diversity in sexual appetites.

But that’s not an option in light of what Jesus said. By going back to the beginning, He was punctuating the fact that the only union that’s sanctioned in Heaven is the one that God created. Had God intended there to be an option for either divorce or polygamy to exist, He would’ve created, “spares” in order for that dynamic to exist.

Wives & Concubines

For the sake of clarity, it’s healthy to identify the difference between a concubine and a wife, only because some of the more dogmatic proponents of polygamy will reference a particular person as being a polygamist, when in fact he had one wife and a concubine, or perhaps several concubines.

There is a distinction between a concubine and a wife in that the wife was entitled to more in terms of inheritance and overall status. That isn’t to say that a concubine represents a Biblically endorsed substitute for marriage. It is, however, significant in that it shows that even in the midst of a flawed approach to the Divine standard for matrimony, there is still a higher regard for the spouse than there was for the woman who was simply maintained for the sake of bearing children.

The bottom line is that polygamy was introduced into the human equation by man and not by God. To insist that it’s a Divine institution on the same level as the marital relationship He put in place between Adam and Eve that was to serve as a template from that point on is to introduce a Scriptural dynamic that simply isn’t there.

The first time polygamy is mentioned in Scripture is in Genesis 4. Lamech, who would later have a son named Noah, was the first man recorded to have more than one wife. Lamech is documented to be an outrageously arrogant and prideful man that boldly proclaimed his independence from God. He was a descendent of Cain and his words and actions indicate his affinity for the same kind of rebellion that inspired Cain to sin against God and kill his own brother. For polygamy to be initiated by one so blatantly opposed to the lordship of his Heavenly Father demonstrates the self serving dynamic that characterizes polygamy in general. It is a deviation from God’s original design, one that was considered serious enough that it justified Christ Himself re-establishing God’s blueprint for one husband and one wife as the only marital relationship considered to be holy.

So, the bottom line is that God’s original design for marriage is the only, “marriage” deemed holy and legitimate. Any relationship that constitutes an edited version of God’s design for Holy Matrimony is neither holy let alone healthy.

A Rapist and His Victim

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that if a man rapes a woman, he is to pay the father of the victim a fine and then he is to marry the woman he has raped. On the surface ,this seems terribly unfair to the woman, especially if she has no interest in being bound to this man who has violated her. But there’s more to this directive than meets the eye and when you take a moment to study the text as well as the cultural dynamics being addressed, it makes sense. The key is to look at Deuteronomy 22:25. There is a distinction in the way the victim is being described in these two scenarios. In verse 25, you have a woman who is engaged to be married who is now being forced by a rapist to be intimate with him. The verbiage is very clear that she is being forcibly compelled to do what she does not want to do. It’s especially evident in the King James Version:

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. (Dt 22:25 [KJV])

In verses 28-29,however, the victim is described differently:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (Dt 22:28 [KJV])

There isn’t the same element of, “force” in the second scenario and that is significant because the difference in wording signifies that the woman in this case was not an unwilling participant. In verse 25, the man, “forces her and lies with her.” The word, “force” in the Hebrew is “chazaq,” means to prevail and overpower your adversary. In verse 28, he’s described as “laying hold” of the woman. “Laying hold,” in the Hebrew is, “taphas” and it means to “catch” as in to arrest or seize someone. The difference may appear to be nominal, in that there is an aggressive element in both instances, but it’s a distinction nevertheless and therefore is a situation like the one addressed in Exodus 22:16 where the woman has been placed in a compromising position, but not without her consent. “Gils Exposition of the Bible” lays this out in greater detail:

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,…. That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:

and they be found; in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy. (Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible [http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries /gills-exposition-of-the-bible/deuteronomy-22-28.html])

You don’t see that difference in other translations in that the word, “seize” is used in verses 25 and 28-29 but once you pop the hood and look at the original Hebrew, the distinction is there and it’s that distinction which allows the directive to make more sense. As far as the way in which the pro-homosexual camp wants to use this verse to cast a shadow of cynicism over the Scriptures that denounce homosexuality and same sex marriage, their logic is again revealed as flawed in that this verse is not adding insult to injury by compelling a victim of a violent crime to marry the guilty party, rather it’s a verse that’s in place in order to discourage sex before marriage. Should two people insist on disobeying God’s law, this Scripture compels them to get married and do things correctly.

Proceed to the final installment, Part V, by clicking here…

Is Homosexuality Sinful | Part III

/in , , , /by

Part III of an article designed to answer the question: “Is homosexuality sinful?”

Objection: The Old Testament’s objections pertaining to homosexuality were documented when the earth was still in need of being populated. That’s not the case now, so same sex marriages are permissible. Overruled: The issue isn’t the number of people on the planet, rather it’s the issue of disobeying God’s Instructions (a.k.a. sin).

Sin is against God. The number of people your rebellion affects, while that does matter, is subordinate to the fact that you’ve rebelled against your Heavenly Father. The fact that there were less people in the world when the Pentateuch was written has no bearing on the substance of the moral law that God laid down. If we were to extend the logic of this argument to its inevitable conclusion, then murder wouldn’t be as much of a problem because there are more people today than when God first said, “Thou shalt not kill.” The issue is sin and not the number of people that sin may or may not affect. A great verse to consider when you’re looking for a good example on how to process wrongdoing in general is 2 Samuel 12:13:

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Sam 12:13)

The prophet Nathan had just confronted King David with the fact that he had committed adultery and murder. David killed a man in order to cover up the fact that he had slept with his wife. Bound up within that one scandal, you had two capital offenses (see Lev 20:10; 24:17). Yet, David doesn’t respond according to the way in which a convicted felon might agonize over the manner of justice that’s about to be handed down by the courts, or how his actions affected the surviving family members of his victim. Rather, David responds by acknowledging that his actions, while they are crimes that will be processed and punished by human institutions, they are first and foremost sins against God. However sin pollutes and contaminates an otherwise innocent and healthy situation in a physical sense, it is in the spiritual realm where sin is first registered. Look at these verses:

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord. (Gen 13:13)

No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God? (Gen 39:9 [Joseph explaining to Potiphar’s wife that the compromise she was encouraging him to make would be registered, not only as a sin against his master, but more importantly, against God.])

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. (Ps 51:3-4)

Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. (Lk 15:18 [The confession the Prodigal Son made to his father upon his return.])

Matthew Henry offers some great commentary on this Truth:

That it was committed against God. To him the affront is given, and he is the party wronged. It is his truth that by wilful sin we deny, his conduct that we despise, his command that we disobey, his promise that we distrust, his name that we dishonour, and it is with him that we deal deceitfully and disingenuously. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Psalm 51)

The substance of sin cannot be dismissed by suggesting that because a particular act affected only a few, that it’s no longer categorized as wrongdoing. Granted, the sins of those in Sodom are referenced throughout Scripture as being especially significant in that their acts were not only twisted, they were also blatant (see Is 3:9). And while some want to insist that God loves the sinner and hates the sin, fact is there are some who have worn out their welcome and God allows them to experience the full extent of the consequences their chosen depravity produces (see Ps 11:5; Rom 1:18-32). But the point is that regardless of the intensity of a person’s sin, it is sin and it is an offense against God. The argument that homosexuality is not an issue anymore because an abundance of human offspring is no longer a priority, leaves out the fact that homosexuality is a sin because it is first an affront to God. Whatever dynamics are produced from a human standpoint are secondary to the fact that it is God Who is offended and that is the determining factor. Avoiding sin translates to a quality life Throughout Scripture, you’ve got a formula:

Obedience to God = Blessing | Rebellion Against God = Trouble

First off, if you love God then obedience is expected (see Jn 14:21). Someone who claims to love God, yet maintains a consistent pattern of disobedience to God’s commands falls under the category described 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)

Being obedient isn’t always easy. You see that struggle described in Romans 7 where Paul elaborates on the constant tension that exists between the obvious good represented by being obedient to God’s Leadership and the pointless mirage of seemingly logical and attractive options provided by one’s sinful nature. But while it isn’t easy, it’s more than do-able and the payoff makes the effort more than worth it. The key is to simply let Christ work in and through you:

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ…13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live…(Rom 8:9, 13)

for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Phil 2:13)

To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me. (Col 1:29 [see also Heb 13:20-21])

However attractive or insignificant sin may appear to be, or however trivial a certain sinful behavior seems, it’s counterproductive to the success and prosperity we all long for (see Josh 1:8). So rather than trying to justify it, the smart play is to simply recognize it for what it is and avoid it altogether. To proceed to Part IV click here…

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.

Bad Bunny

/in , , /by

A pastor posted his “struggle” in trying to identify which half time show represented the more Christlike response to the tension created by selecting Bad Bunny as the half time show artist.

This was my response…

Let me get this straight: You’re “struggling” to figure out if the TPUSA half time show option represented more of a Christlike response to the NFL that chose for its half time artist a guy who sings this particular song:

He’s acting like she doesn’t know me (Like she doesn’t know me; no, no, no)
But in my bed, I gave it to her on all fours and in all the positions (In all the positions),
eh I eat her out fully, no one is finding out (JHAYCO)

It’s not that complex. You’ve got a performer who celebrates sexual decadence in his music. That’s not someone I want to listen to and for it to be implied that unless I do listen to it and endorse it as “inclusive,” I’m somehow either a bigot or I’m not especially Christlike, is insane.

And you think because Bad Bunny references the fact that love is superior to hate, that somehow translates to something more aligned with the gospel than Kid Rock’s performance?

Here’s what the Bible says:

First of all, Satan quoted Scripture (Matt 4:5-6). Just because you reference a biblical Truth, unless it’s quoted in its proper context, it’s nothing more than a vice disguised as a courtesy. “Love,” as referenced by folks who see themselves as their own bottom line, are not referring to “love” as its defined in 1 Corinthians 13, in that their idea of love absolutely delights in evil.

The Bible says to flee sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and to obey the governing authorities (Rom 13:1, 4). Bad Bunny has denounced the enforcement of immigration law and you can read some more his sexually perverse lyrics by visiting https://www.vibe.com/lists/bad-bunny-songs-translated-into-english/titi-me-pregunto/.

Kid Rock’s performance began with a rehearsal of what he used to be, followed by an extended string section that then segued into a tune where he sang about the transforming Power of Christ.

And you’re trying to figure out which of those most closely aligned with a Christlike perspective?

And let’s end this dilemma about “judging.” Jesus never said not to judge (John 7:24; Eph 5:11). He said not to make things worse by being a hypocrite (Mat 7:3-5). If you were to extend your interpretation of Scripture to its inevitable conclusion, you would be hard pressed to present the gospel because of it being seemingly “wrong” to address someone as a sinner.

You’re not wrong in recognizing that this tension is a spiritual one and it isn’t remedied by an alternative broadcast (Eph 6:12). But we are commanded to be salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) and both of those get totally lost when you endorse decadence as a ministry.

The choice was obvious to anyone who’s looking at the Bible as a whole, as opposed to some judiciously selected verses that conveniently allow a person to take a seat rather than taking a stand.

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. 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.

The SIC-ness of the Left

/in , , /by

There are times when you’re talking to someone and, while they may push back initially, once they see your logic and understand that there’s more to the issue then what they originally thought, they change their mind and you’re now both in agreement.

But there are other times when you’re going back and forth with someone and regardless of how obvious the truth may be, they simply refuse to change their mind.

They’re not just “stubborn.” It goes deeper than that. It’s as though they’re invested in something that will not allow them to consider any perspective other than they’re own.

Its as though they’re basing their assessment of the issue on a scale that is calibrated according to a fluctuating standard as opposed to a fixed point of reference. The end result is a conviction that is not at all consistent with reality.

When you’re confronted with this kind of individual, you want to be able to understand the way they think and what is the root cause of the irrational vitriol that often characterizes these kind of situations.

Buckle up!

I Am My Own Absolute

This is a portion of a speech given by Katherine Maher, President and CEO of NPR. In it she elaborates on how Wikipedia doesn’t pursue the truth as a bottom line, as much as it looks for a positive consensus. At one point, she uses the phrase “minimum viable truth” to describe an approach that sets aside bigger belief systems and instead focuses on what appeals to the majority. It translates to a nonsensical contradiction in that while she says truth needs to be processed as something that’s different for everyone, she then goes on to say that, “…the truth of the matter is…” As though what she is saying now transcends the definition of truth she just articulated.

Now, that is not to say that the truth doesn’t exist, nor is it to say that the truth isn’t important. Clearly, the search for the truth has led us to do great things, to learn great things. But I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.

And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us.And so in the spirit of that, I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They’re based on things like where we come from, how we were raised, and how other people perceive us. (Katherine Maher)

In many instances, the person who refuses to change their mind is someone who sees themselves as their own absolute. They see themselves as not only entitled to discern the difference between right and wrong, they live in a manufactured reality where they have the right to dictate the difference between right and wrong.

It breaks down into three main poisons:

Three Poisons

Truth

Katherine Maher, in a speech she made at a Ted conference said that truth is based on many things and for that reason cannot be restricted to a singular viewpoint. In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me. The problem with that perspective, however, is that if truth is not based on a fixed point of reference, then all knowledge is reduced to a meaningless collection of personal preferences.

People who want to pretend that truth is whatever it is they want to believe ignore the fact that by saying that they have declared themselves to be irrelevant. According to their own logic, they don’t have a point, they have only a preference.

Right

A right is a term that’s been emptied of its original meaning, as far as the way its used in the Declaration of Independence, and instead is used to justify being selfish and immoral.

According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. They are Divine entitlements that exist independently of the way any human convention may try to alter them. That’s what makes them immutable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The moment you remove God from the equation, however, while you have eliminated the transcendent nature of the “right” you want to assert, you have also removed the moral standard that you would otherwise be accountable to.

That is the intent of the person who sees themselves as the gauge by which all things are measured. Whatever is sacrificed in the context of now being dependent on like minded individuals in order to secure a legal endorsement for one’s behavior, that is a trivial concession when compared to the way in which a person can now be morally accountable to no one other than themselves.

Victim

A self-serving paradigm can’t be championed directly without sounding both absurd and pretentious. But you don’t have to get people to agree with you if you can get them to feel sorry for you. You can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how a person who sees themselves as their own bottom line can avoid having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

S.I.C

People who think this way do not process those who disagree with them as intellectual adversaries as much as they see them as existential threats. You are not questioning their logic, you are challenging their authority. This is what shapes the way in which they attempt to defend the way they think and this is how you can tell when you’re talking to someone who sees themselves as their own absolute.

Rules for Radicals

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) (Saul Alinski’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Instead of attempting to refute the substance of what’s being said, they attack the character of the person who’s speaking. By making them look bad, anything that they say is now assumed to be corrupted and therefore something you don’t need to listen to. They do this in three phases…

Stupid (They’re not qualified)

Phase One is to criticize their intellect. You don’t need to pay attention to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Immoral (They can’t be trusted)

Phase Two: If your opponent’s platform can’t be effectively refuted by accusing them of being “stupid,” the next phase is to accuse them of being immoral. You don’t have to have any basis for your accusation. Your opponent now has to prove their innocence before they can be perceived as credible, and because of the way it’s assumed that a guilty person will insist they’re innocent, apart from something irrefutable, there is now a shadow of suspicion that will linger over anything your adversary would say.

Criminal (They can’t be supported)

The final phase is to indict them. Charge them with a crime and make it difficult for anyone to support or agree with them given their criminal status.

Untouchable

Embedded within each of these accusations is the idea that the person who’s having to contend with these dynamics is being forced to conform either to an inferior intellect or a depraved character. They are sophisticated victims attempting to stand up against uneducated villains. And because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without being labeled cruel or hateful, all a person has to do is claim to be either offended or oppressed and they become untouchable – perpetually excused from having to explain themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

Joseph Goebbels was a National Socialist politician and propagandist. He held several roles in the Nazi Party. He served as Nazi Party chief for Greater Berlin from 1926 until 1945. From 1930 until 1945 he was head of propaganda (Reichspropagandaleiter) for the Nazi Party. In 1933, Adolf Hitler appointed Goebbels Reich Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, a position he held until 1945. Goebbels was an unconditional follower of Hitler and a radical antisemite. (Holocaust Encyclopedia).

This is a portion of a speech he made to an audience gathered in Nuremberg in 1934 where he talked about the power and the influence of propaganda…

The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. Even today, large parts of world opinion are convinced that the typical characteristics of German propaganda are lying, crudeness, reversing the facts, and the like. One needs only to remember the stories that were spread throughout the world at the beginning of the war about German soldiers chopping off children’s hands and crucifying women to realize that Germany then was a defenseless victim of this campaign of calumny. It neither had nor used any means of defense. (Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934)

This is how bad ideas and solutions that don’t work get introduced into the marketplace. Not because of their intellectual or practical merit, but because of the way anyone who opposes them is dismissed due to their supposed lack of intelligence or integrity. But they’re not accusations as much as they’re distractions. By keeping the focus on the person speaking rather than on what is being said, topics are replaced with tactics and principles are subordinated to preferences.

What’s truly bizarre is the way people who see themselves as their own bottom line will accuse others of the very thing they themselves are doing. By pointing an accusatory finger in the opposite direction, it’s assumed that the person making the accusation is innocent of the stupidity, immorality, and criminality they would insist is being perpetrated by another. This was a tactic applauded by Joseph Goebbels, the head of Nazi Propaganda during the second World War (see sidebar).

Ask the Right Questions

Overcoming these tactics is not accomplished by reason and debate. All the boundaries otherwise established by truth, logic, and common sense are nonexistent once truth has been redefined as something that is based on a personal preference as opposed to a fixed principle. In addition, if you’ve been labeled in a way that makes everything you say resonate as something either stupid or sinister, you first have to prove you’re credible before you can prove that you’re right. Given the way guilty people are expected to claim that they’re innocent, regardless of how compelling the defense of your character may be, there is nevertheless a shadow of doubt that’s been cast over your platform that you can never completely eliminate.

There is, however, another approach that can prove very effective in revealing the lack of intellectual and practical merit that characterizes a particular perspective.

Simply ask the right questions.

Jesus did this every effectively when the Pharisees tried to trap Him with a topic they thought would incriminate Him.

When you ask a question, in that moment you control the conversation. Your opponent is now obligated to provide an answer that will either resonate as logical or hesitant. That hesitation can do more for proving your point than the argument you would articulate, regardless of how eloquently you might be able to state your case. Instead of providing the necessary space for tactics and distractions to be deployed, you’re now able to clear the field of everything save the reality that your opponent needs to either qualify or dismiss entirely.

You can see several examples of this approach that cover topics such as Racism, Homosexuality, and Voter Fraud by clicking here. Another issue that serves as a great example of the way those who recognize standards that exist independently of the way a person thinks or feels are accused of being “SIC,” is Illegal Immigration.

Those who would label the current administration as a Nazi operation, given its direct approach to the deportation of illegal immigrants, will not sound especially confident if compelled to answer the following questions honestly.

Illegal Immigration
Question Answer
Who said the following: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” Barack Obama in a speech given in 2005 (Obama’s 2005 remarks reflect strong stance on controlling immigration. Barack Obama deported more immigrants than any President in history (abcnews.com)
Who said this: “I think if they committed a crime, deport them immediately! No questions asked…” Hillary Clinton, 2008
Which administration has deported the most illegal immigrants? Obama or Trump? The Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in the 20th century. According to the Department of Homeland Security, that number was around 3 million. The Trump Administration has deported only 675,000. 2.2 million have self-deported.

For more info on the way the Democrat party has changed their attitude towards illegal immigrants, Nicole Russell from USA Today wrote a great piece which you can access by clicking here.
Is entering the country illegally a crime, or is just a civil infraction? Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense. This means that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can place a person in removal (deportation) proceedings and can require payment of a fine, but the federal government cannot charge the person with a criminal offense unless they have previously been ordered deported and reentered in violation of that deportation order. (American Immigration Council).

However…

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien)

While it is possible to apply for naturalization, that only can be done if you initially entered the US legally. Should you try to leave the US and re-enter according to Immigration Law, you’re barred from doing so for a period of at least 3 years. If you try to re-enter illegally, that is considered a felony.

But an illegal immigrant engaged in criminal activity is to be immediately deported with no questions asked.
Mockers resent correction, so they avoid the wise. (Prov 15:12)
Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.(Prov 9:8)
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. (Prov 18:12)
Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe. (Prov 28:26)
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves. (Ecc 4:5)
Like the crackling of thorns under the pot, so is the laughter of fools. This too is meaningless. (Ecc 7:6)

While you often see “SIC-ness” in the context of Politics, it’s not limited to the disagreements between Conservatives and Liberals. Anytime you encounter someone who sees themselves as their own bottom line, you inevitably encounter the approach where what’s being spoken is being ignored in favor of trying to discredit the person who’s speaking. While that’s not always inappropriate, it is a common tactic used by someone who doesn’t have something to say as much as they’ve got something to hide.

In the end, it’s a spiritual darkness, given the way it can be accurately described as a person elevating themselves to the status of a deity. While that’s not something you can completely address from a human standpoint (Eph 6:12), we are nevertheless doing well to be capable of effectively explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15).

Being able to ask the right questions is a good start. It’s an effective strategy that protects something we can’t live without…

The Truth…

COEXIST

/in , , , , , /by

COEXIST. It sounds great and it’s a necessary and healthy thing to get peoples of different faiths to cooperate and to peaceably live alongside with one another and respect each other’s convictions. As an organization, it’s a powerful force for good. But there’s an underlying message being promoted that says every religion is fundamentally the same and we’re all just travelers opting for different paths to a common destination.

That’s not true.

And while those differences don’t have to be processed as justifications to war with one another, it is important to recognize the essence of each religious school of thought, especially in those instances where the creed in question is being used to support acts of violence and terror.

I) We’re All Different

Here’s the thing: Not everybody thinks the same way. Two well read and educated individuals can look at the same issue and come up with two completely different viewpoints. We are all different. Those differences can, and should, create a dynamic where, because we’re working together, our distinctive perspectives can compliment one another and the resulting effort is far more comprehensive and effective than it would be otherwise.

That’s the premise behind the “COEXIST” organization that you can read more about at coexist.org. You’ve probably seen the bumper sticker they publish and it truly is a noble effort. There’s one particular story about how one community, racked by violence as a result of religious differences, came together in the context of a cooperative effort to produce coffee. It’s hard to argue with success, it really is. A neighborhood, that was nothing short of a war zone, has been transformed into a situation where people of different faiths are working side by side and creating a successful product.

II) Slander No One

From a Christian’s perspective, this resonates with Titus 3. The idea is that we’ve got a great Truth that we want to communicate to people and we do that by living lives that draw people in. It says in verse 2 “…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”

The process of going from a  spiritual corpse to someone with a spiritual pulse is not going to be facilitated through an argument or the tip of a sword. It’s God Who does that and our role is to be a witness to all that Solution entails and not a mere protester of all that is bad in the world. That’s not to say there isn’t a time to take up arms and defend what is right (Ecc 3:8; Lk 22:36-38; Rom 13:4), but when it comes to championing the gospel, that’s a spiritual war and we’re obligated to use spiritual weapons if we want to be both obedient and effective (2 Cor 10:3-5).

III) Be Vigilant

The fact that it’s a spiritual battle is a cue to be that much more vigilant, as far as popping the hood on spiritual issues and ensuring that what may appear harmless and even noble, doesn’t have a sinister dynamic as its basis. That’s not being overly critical or even pessimistic, rather it’s being wise (Matt 7:15; 1 Pet 5:8). The notion of being able to peaceably coexist with people of other faiths is biblical and therefore entirely appropriate, as seen in Titus 3. But many perceive the “coexist”campaign as an encouragement to process all faiths as fundamentally the same and that’s where you get into things that are not appropriate, let alone logical.

Let’s take a look at that for a minute.

IV) The Symbols of COEXIST

The “C” in COEXIST is the crescent moon that represents Islam. According to islam.about.com, the crescent moon was actually a symbol that had been adopted by the emperor of Constantinople to represent his empire. When the Seljuk Turks conquered the city in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol and, over time, the crescent moon became the symbol of Islam.
The “O” represents “peace.” In 1958, Gerald Holtom designed a symbol that was to be used as part of a march organized for the purpose of promoting nuclear disarmament. The letters “N” and “D,” which stood for “nuclear disarmament,” were superimposed on top of one another in the context of semaphore symbols. Holtom’s design would later be adopted by the anti-war movement and by the end of sixties, the “peace sign” had crossed several cultural and international boundaries and was widely recognized as an icon that stood for the promotion of a non-violent approach to conflict.
The “E” is an artistic embellishment of the letter “e” with the symbols that represent male and female. To the left, the first symbol is the female symbol which is derived from the astrological sign that represents Venus. Below that is the male symbol which, again derives from the astrological community. In this instance, it is the sign for Mars. This element symbolizes cooperation and peace between the sexes.
The “X” is the “Star of David” which represents “Judaism” The “Star of David” is not referenced in the Bible or any authoritative Jewish religious resource. But while its origins are unclear, it has been in use for centuries. Some were not especially keen on it being representative of Israel, let alone the Jewish faith, because of the way its shape has been associated with pagan religions. But its use has become cemented as a result of the things such as the Holocaust when Jews were required by their Nazi counterparts to wear a Star of David that identified them as Jews as well as the Zionist movement that established the design of the Israeli flag to be blue and white with the Star of David positioned in the middle.
The “I” is dotted with a pentagram which represents witchcraft. While the pentagram is used to represent more than just witchcraft (it’s also used as a symbol in Mormonism and the Bahai’ faith), it’s traditionally associated with magic and the occult. The five points of the star represent the five classical elements in Wicca; earth, wind, fire, air and spirit.
The “S” is the “yin-yang” symbol which comes from Chinese Philosophy that states that the universe consists of opposites that interact and compliment one another. This as opposed to the more base perception that says opposites conflict with one another. The symbol itself is difficult to define in terms of its origins in that no one has ever claimed to be the sole author. Still, there is substantial evidence that points to a classical approach to Chinese Philosophy that strove to create visual representations of fundamental patterns that govern the phenomena of the universe. It was this 15th century effort that produced the graphic that we now know as the “yin yang” symbol.
The “T” is the cross of Christ which represents Christianity. Because the cross was recognized as a gruesome form of execution and not the the sort of visual symbol that inspired pleasant thoughts, there was a fair amount of hesitation on the part of early Christians to adopt the crucifix as an icon. But by the second century the symbol of the cross was so associated with followers of Christ that Clement of Alexandria, an early Christian theologian, could use the phrase “the sign of the cross” without fear of ambiguity.

The “O,” the “E” and the “S” are not necessarily religions per se. While Chinese Philosophy does include Buddhism, the “yin-yang” dynamic isn’t really emphasized as something that is central to their doctrine. So, for the most part, those three letters are symbolic of different types of cooperation and coexisting peaceably. Islam, Judaism, Witchcraft and Christianity, however, are religions and when you pop the hood on these three doctrines you have three very different ideologies serving as the foundation for each of these creeds. Getting the followers of these different religious schools of thought to cooperate with one another is one thing, but it’s another thing entirely to suggest that the fundamentals of what they believe are the same.

V) Islam    

 A) Unstable Eternity – the Nature of Allah

What separates these three religions right away is the nature of the “god” that serves as the principle deity. At the core of Islam is the doctrine of tawhid. It is documented in Quran 112:1-4 and basically means that Allah is one. He is one, central god that cannot be known and is completely distinct from all that’s been created. That in and of itself is distinct from Christianity where God is a personal God and desires a personal relationship with His creation (Is 43:1; Rev 3:20).

Allah is just (Quran 4:40) but it’s here where things get a little confusing. While Allah is just and is therefore obligated to punish all sin, he is also forgiving, but his forgiveness is reserved for those who ask (Quran 4:110). On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad, but should you die before you’ve sought forgiveness for all your sins, you have a potential problem on your hands. In addition, Christianity doesn’t simply advocate an increased effort being put forth on the part of the believer in order to avoid wrongful behavior. Instead, God offers His Holy Spirit to teach and to guide (Jn 14:26). You are made new when you accept His gift of Redemption and it is through the Strength He provides that you’re able to think and perform in a manner that’s pleasing to Him (Jn 14:26; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 2:13)

In short, your status in the eyes of Allah fluctuates according to your behavior. You’re responsible for seeking the grace of Allah. Should you have anything outstanding at the moment of your death, your eternal security is unstable. In addition, your earthly existence is unassisted. It’s not Allah working in and through you, as is the case with a follower of Christ. Rather, it’s you laboring to please Allah according to your own sense of resolve and discipline.      

B) Who is Christ?

A good Muslim is going to discipline himself to be moral by keeping the Quran on his lips and and his behavior in check. It’s entirely up to him, as far as how he appears before Allah. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on God sending His Son to atone for the shortcomings of humanity and making available His Holy Spirit to strengthen an otherwise weak and uninformed resolve (Is 41:10; Jn 14:26; Phil 4:13; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Jn 4:4).

It’s not so much you working to get to God, rather it’s God pursing you and equipping you with what you need to access Him. This is all represented in the Person and the Ministry of Christ. It is the Identity of Christ that defines Christianity and if any religion claims to be similar than it will follow that their regard for Jesus will be the same. If, on the other hand, they deny Christ as being God Incarnate, than you have all that you need in order to conclude that their doctrine is distinct from a Christian creed (1 Jn 4:3).

Islam regards Jesus as a good Muslim and nothing more. The Qur’an doesn’t record the words of acts of Christ, it simply attempts to assert that Scripture is corrupted by saying that: Jesus was never crucified…

And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (sura 4:157)

Jesus was / is not the Son of God…

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (sura 5:75)

The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (sura 9:30)

The Identity of Christ, as far as Him being the Son of God, is central to the Christian faith and it is the resurrection that Christ Himself identified as proof of Who He was.

He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:39-41)

H.P. Liddon, an accomplished British theologian who lived during the 19th century said:

Faith in the resurrection is the very keystone of the arch of Christian faith, and, when it is removed, all must inevitably crumble into ruin.1

Should you deny the resurrection, then you’re denying the fact of Christ’s deity and you’re reducing Him to a mere teacher that died a tragic death. By doing so, you categorize yourself under the heading of 1 John 2:22 where the apostle John says:

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.     (1 Jn 2:22)

In other words, you can’t be more at odds with the Christian doctrine than by declaring that Jesus didn’t rise from the grave. It’s not a matter of simply questioning a historical occurrence as much as it’s denouncing His being God Incarnate.

VI) Judaism

While Jews and Christians share a great deal in terms of the Old Testament, the similarities cease after the book of Malachi. The deal breaking issue is the Identity of Jesus as being the Messiah. Jews do not subscribe to the Truth that Christ is the “Anointed One.”

The reasons behind the Jewish platform for not believing in Jesus as the Son of God are varied, but the one thing they conveniently sidestep is the Resurrection of Christ. This is, and always will be, the bottom line as far as whether or not Christ was all that He claimed to be.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19-20:

If we hoped in Messiah in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. (1 Cor 15:19-20)

In effect, what he’s saying is that if Christ didn’t rise from the grave, all Christians are pathetically deluded and are clinging to a school of thought that’s more trouble than it’s worth.

Jews and Christians have disagreed since the very beginning, starting with Christ Himself who infuriated the Jewish religions authorities with His claim to be God Incarnate (Jn 10:33). In Acts 4, Peter and John are brought before some of the same authorities that had condemned Christ to death (Annas and Caiaphas [Matt:26:57; John 18:13; | Acts 4:5-6]) and with several threats demanded that they stop speaking about Jesus despite the fact that they themselves could not deny that Jesus had risen from the grave (Acts 4:16).

The resolve of the Hebrew nation continues to this day, as far as insisting that the Messiah has yet to arrive. It’s because of their unwillingness to accept Jesus as the Son of God that they fall under the heading of 1 John 2:22 and their doctrine is totally different from that of the Christian creed where it matters most.

VII) Wicca

Thus far we’ve been able to determine that, despite some harmless sounding similarities, Islam and Judaism differs dramatically from Christianity in that their view of Christ falls short of His being Divine.

The same thing applies with Wicca. While Wicca doesn’t claim to be a religion, it references religious ceremonies in its “13 Principles of Wiccan Belief.” Their ceremonies and rites involve a poly-theistic approach in that there’s not one God, but rather multiple gods.

Portraying them as sinister looking people dressed in black clothing with pointy hats is neither appropriate nor accurate. Their “Rule of Three” encourages the idea of reciprocity. In other words, what you contribute, be it positive or negative, will be returned to you three fold. Hence, being kind and friendly is encouraged.

Where Wicca differs from Christianity is in the way Jesus is marginalized as a great teacher and an extraordinary human being. He is not the “Son of God” and any notion that He represents the only way to God is dismissed as absolutely wrong.

Here again, you see a dramatic fork in the road as far as two religions being revealed as very distinct from one another. While you can compare and contrast the details of Christianity with different religions to the point of mental exhaustion, the bottom line is and always will be, “Who is Jesus?” If the answer to that question is anything other than God Incarnate, you’ve got something that is totally distinct from the Christian doctrine.

VIII) Sanctified Violence?

Depending on what resource you reference, Islam is touted as being the fastest growing religion in the USA. Given the Islamic foundation for the acts of terror that have been perpetuated around the world for last three decades, it’s difficult to understand how a creed that is apparently so supportive of violence against “infidels” can resonate so strongly among so many.

A) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Yes?

Some will say that Islam is generally a peaceful religion that doesn’t seek to promote violence and they’re correct as long as they restrict their intake of the Quran to specific verses, such as:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (sura 2:256)

…and sura 15:94:

Then declare what you are commanded and turn away from the polytheists. (sura 15:94)

B) Is Islam a Peaceful Religion? Not So Much…

The problem is that these verses were written before other texts which, in the minds of some Muslims, nullify their relevance. In other words, the texts you need to revere are the ones that were “revealed” most recently. That being the case, you how have a different approach to violence as seen in verses from the Quran such as:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. (sura 2:191)

and..

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and Faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (sura 2:193)

So while some Muslims can accurately say that Islam is a religion of peace, they can only say that if they ignore other verses in the Quran which are passionately embraced as justification for the outrageous acts of terror  perpetuated by organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria).

These organizations are not having to engage in a series of theological calisthenics in order to arrive at a “holy” foundation upon which to build their zeal and depravity.

C) The Reality of “Abrogation”

Muhammad ash-Shawkani was a respected Islamic cleric who lived from 1759 to 1834 who is considered an authority on Islamic doctrine and law. Among his writings is a book entitled, “Alsaylu Jarar” which states:

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.   [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case. (“Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices from Inside Islam” [p63])

Jihad Against Jews and Crusader
World Islamic Front Statement
February 28, 1998
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” (click here to view entire text)v

Given that sort of disposition, the directive authored by Osama bin Laden and endorsed by five Islamic caliphates which ordered the killing of all Americans, is not a nonsensical interpretation of Islamic thought. It’s simply a practical application of the Quran.

D) The Violence of Christianity

Some critics will assert that Christianity is just as violent as Islam as demonstrated by the Crusades and the military campaigns of Charlemagne.

Rome was not very accommodating when it came to Christianity prior to February 313 when Emperor Constantine issued the “Edict of Milan” which ordered all of Rome to treat Christians benevolently. Up to that point, Christians were viewed as enemies of the state because of the way their creed directed worship towards God as opposed to Caesar. Under Constantine, that dynamic was eliminated and while it allowed Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution, it introduced the idea that heads of state were also leaders in the church and were responsible for the spiritual health of their subjects.

1) Wealth and Power Over Truth and Worship

This deteriorated into a situation where an accurate interpretation of Christian doctrine gave way to political agendas and economic strategies. In 392 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the only “legal” religion. In 785, Charlemagne issued a decree that dealt with the way in which his administration was to handle the conquered Saxons by saying:

If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.2

And then of course, was the Crusades. The thing that’s significant about the Crusades is that while you had knights brandishing shields emblazoned with the symbol of the cross, it’s wrong to assume that their inspiration was nothing other than the liberation of the Holy Land in that it ignores the fact that the Muslims had occupied Jerusalem for almost 400 years prior to the first Crusade.

Consider this: In 638, Omar took Jerusalem from the Jews. It wouldn’t be until 1096 that the Pope would call upon the people of Europe to liberate the Holy Land. If it was the Islamic control of Jerusalem that was the central reason behind the Crusades, then it follows that a military effort would’ve been launched well before Urban II declared that Christ had commanded it. But the Muslims’ control of the Holy Land was never an issue to the Pope until the Seljuk Turks made it clear that they were planning on expanding their influence to include Constantinople. At that point, Alexis I, the emperor of the Byzantine Empire humbled himself before the Pope and offers him the opportunity to assume control over the Greek Orthodox Church (the respective popes of the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox church had excommunicated each other).3

This was an unprecedented act of submission and demonstrates the sense of urgency Alexis I felt as he looked over the horizon and saw the coming of the Turks. But it was the way they threatened his kingdom and not his worship that drove him to seek help from Rome, and it was Pope Urban’s quest for power that drove him to respond to Alexis’ request for a band of mercenaries with an immense host of  European soldiers.

The Babylonian Talmud

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to perse all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

(Fulcher of Chartres recollection of Pope Urban II’s call to arms)

In order to accurately determine what the true Christian disposition is towards combat, it’s not the way Scripture has been abused that needs to be considered as much as it’s Scripture itself. In other words, before you take up arms against an enemy because a church leader states that “Christ commands it,” you need to be able to locate the verse in the Bible that says as much.

The Old Testament contains a number of military campaigns, the most notable being the conquest of the Promised Land and the battles fought by King David. The question on the table is whether or not these scenarios constitute a biblical justification for the way in which certain historical figures have exacted acts of violence on their fellow man. The short answer is “No.” Whether the personality in question is Charlemagne, Pope Urban II, Alexis the First or Emperor Theodosius, the common denominator is a quest for control and power. The wars fought in Scripture were founded on God’s Purpose and were manifestations of His Justice.          

2) The Difference Between a Cause and an Excuse

The land of Canaan was promised to Abraham in Genesis 17:8. The Canaanites were a vile people and engaged in the kind of idolatry that was nothing short of heinous and profoundly offensive in the eyes of God (Dt 18:9-12). It was because of the Canaanites’ outrageous immorality that they were singled out for punishment and it was that verdict that translated to the Israelites being empowered to utterly destroy them (Dt 9:5).

David’s exploits were similar. In his day, it was the Philistines that represented Israel’s most significant threat. The Philistines were descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s three sons who distinguished himself by being especially disgraceful (Gen 9:18-25). Throughout the Philistines’ history, they were enemies of Israel and thus enemies of God. Jeremiah 47 details God’s final interaction with them in the form of total and complete destruction. David’s successes were not merely the triumphs of a military tactitian. Rather, they were the manifestation of God’s Justice facilitated through a man who was humble and courageous enough to be obedient in the face of overwhelming odds (1 Sam 17:45-47; 23:1-6).

2 Samuel 8:6 sums it up best by saying “The Lord gave David victory wherever he went.” The point is that the victories that the Israelites won were not merely military triumphs as much as they were Divine Judgments exacted on those who chose to oppose God. That is the litmus test for truly sanctified violence and unless an individual’s or a nation’s actions can line up with said test, theirs is an enterprise that cannot be categorized as holy let alone right.

And that is the difference between a legitimate cause worth fighting for as opposed to a mere excuse to justify a violent pursuit of a self-serving agenda. So, all that to say, that a proper interpretation of God’s Word does not result in a creed that’s even remotely similar to the Islamic deployment of violence and prejudice. Islam is very distinct in that way and while it is our Christian duty to accommodate those of differing beliefs as articulated in Titus 3, it is just as important to be discerning and recognize what is true as opposed to what is false (1 Chron 12:32; 2 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 4:1).

IX) Conclusion: The Bottom Line

Coexist? Absolutely! But do so beneath the umbrella of Truth. Otherwise, it’s not coexisting as much as it’s compromising things that cannot and should not be ignored let alone diluted.

1. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA, 1972 1979, Josh McDowell, p181
2. Munro, Dana Carleton (Trans.) (2004). Selections from the Laws of Charles the Great
3. Williams, Paul (2002), Idiot’s Guide to the Crusades (Kindle DX Version) retrieved from amazon.com