Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part III

/in , , , /by

7) If you believe the creation account in Genesis is allegorical, they why don’t you treat Paul’s epistles in the same way since he references the creation account in Genesis as historical?

Paul uses the fact of creation throughout his epistles. Here are some examples:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Heb 11;3)

Since the person posing the question in this instance isn’t specific about which verses he’s referencing, it’s difficult to know what exactly he’s referring to. Typically, however, the difficulty with the Creation account is whether or not God completed everything in six literal days. Did He create the heavens and the earth in less than a week, or is a “day” nothing more than a literary device describing a timeframe that may have been significantly longer than 24 hours?

Fact is, there’s a great deal of compelling evidence that suggests the earth is not as old as some in the scientific community would have you believe (click here for more reading on that topic). The bottom line is that carbon dating and other traditionally accepted methods of dating fossils etc. are based on the assumption that the observable conditions of the earth have remained unchanged since the very beginning of time. Indeed, the atmospheric conditions were not necessarily the same, which means that carbon dating is not necessarily absolute.

While some calibration can be made in order to accommodate the atmospheric anomalies that may have been present at the time, those kind of distinctions can only be identified by whatever may have been documented. In other words, outside the context of recorded history, you have a very subjective landscape to navigate when it comes to dating articles of antiquity beyond a certain point.

On the other hand, when you compare Genesis 1:27 which says that God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day, to Genesis 2, it looks like the sixth day either had a great deal of activity packed into the daylight hours, or you have more time built into the term “day.”

Our culture is steeped in the notion that we inhabit a planet that is billions of years old. It’s a convenient thought in that you now have a theoretically comfortable timeframe to accommodate natural selection and the fortuitous evolution of life as we know it. While there is a fascinating amount of research that’s been done in terms of dating the earth according to a purely biblical model, which suggests that the earth is nowhere near as old as the champions of evolutionary theory would have our grade school classrooms believe, for the sake of this conversation the only pertinent Truth that needs to be affirmed is the fact that God did, in fact, create the universe.

However one wants to interpret Genesis and the age of the earth, the priority here, as far as the way in which Paul refers to creation, is to simply reinforce the fact that God was the Creative Force behind the origin of the cosmos and that is not allegory, that is the literal Truth.

8) How many donkeys did Jesus ride in His triumphal entry in Jerusalem? Was it one like Mark, Luke and John say, or was it two donkeys like Matthew says?

Matthew 21:2 says:

saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.

Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15 only mention one donkey. Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)

Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. Dr. Gleason Archer says as much:

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.1

So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.

9) Based on the genealogies for Matthew and Luke, who was Joseph’s father?

Luke follows the genealogy of Mary whereas Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph. Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy [Joseph]) and a blood relative of Nathan (Luke’s genealogy [Mary]). The confusion is clarified when you take the verbiage of Luke 3:23 into consideration.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Lk 3:23)

Luke is qualifying the list he’s getting ready to enumerate by stating up front that, while it was customary to trace a person’s lineage through the line of the father, the virgin birth represents a special situation. Hence the emphasis on Mary. That fact is further reinforced when you consider the original Greek and notice how Luke doesn’t say that Heil “begat” Joseph. Rather, he was Joseph’s father in law.

Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heil’s daughter (Mary) and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli.2

10) Was Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover, like the gospel of John says? Or the next day like the other three gospels say?

The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:

Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!”  (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added]) 

Matthew 27:62-63 says:

The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. “Sir, ” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ (Matt 27:62-63)

Mark 15:42-43 says:

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. (Mark 15:42-43)

Luke refers to the day that Jesus died in the 24th chapter when he says:

It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Lk 23:54)

“Preparation Day” was the day before the Sabbath, which was a Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was often  referred to as “Passover” because of the way the Passover meal served as the opening ceremony for the Feast.3 So, when John uses the term “day of preparation for the Passover,” he’s not referring to the day before the Passover meal, he’s referring to the day before the Sabbath of Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread). The NCV rendering of the verse makes that fact more evident:

14It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])

In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath.4 Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.

Conclusion

G.K. Chesterton once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Many of the critics that circulate their jabs at Christianity on the internet occupy a philosophical position that refuses to concede the Reality of a Power and an Intellect that they cannot understand and / or agree with.  Their attacks are necessary in order to maintain a distance between themselves and a worshipful demeanor which they refuse to buy into. They have found it “difficult” and decided to deny its substance. It’s healthy to be able to respond to questions and attacks, but the nature of these kind of conversations goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. It is a spiritual contest that has to be engaged in a way that’s consistent with Scripture:

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)

Know what you believe and why you believe it. Pop the hood on the Word of God and be capable of defending it (1 Pet 3:15). And remember too, that oftentimes there’s a bigger picture that you want to expose. Squabbling over the number and the identity of the women who were at the tomb on the morning of Christ’s resurrection is subordinate to the fact that the tomb was empty. Arguing over the amount of time it took for God to create the heavens and the earth is secondary to the fact that God did, in fact, create the heavens and the earth. Dismissing the whole of Scripture because Matthew references both the donkey and its foal, whereas the other gospel writers mention only the foal, is like arguing over whether or not someone paid a ten dollar invoice using exact change or a twenty dollar bill.

The fact is, the debt was paid.

The details of Scripture are important, but you don’t ever want to become so absorbed in the minutia of the gospel that you overlook the fact that there’s a tomb out there that was occupied at one point that is now empty. And that empty grave is the Signature of One Who didn’t claim to be a mere messenger of God, but God Incarnate.

There will always be a critic and there will always be a situation where, regardless of how sound your reasoning may be, the spiritual elements that are involved will always see to it that “revelation” will remain seemingly inconsistent with logic (1 Cor 2:12). That’s not a cue to be less than compelling with your argument. But it’s not an argument that will influence a soul, it’s only the Power and the grace of God that makes the difference (John 6:65; 1 Cor 1:18).

Again, you don’t want to hide behind a “faith based perspective” that comes across as a decision made despite the facts, but rather as a decision made in light of the facts. Be ready to either answer the question being posed, or be ready to direct them to the myriad of resources that provide the science and the literary tools that address their quandary. But be sensitive to the fact that the moment the Name of Jesus is spoken, you’re no longer contending with purely academic themes. The parameters have been expanded and the stakes have been dramatically increased. You can be as compelling and as accurate as you want and still be found wanting. Not because of the substance of your argument, but because of the implications represented by your argument.

Should God be perceived as credible, it’s no longer a debate. Now it’s a soul-altering encounter and the forces referenced in Ephesians 6:12 will do everything they can to prevent that kind of dynamic.

So, be ready, but be wise and not just smart. It’s the Power of God in you that makes the difference and ensures that the outcome of your exchange is not just a willingness to agree with what’s in the Bible, but a desire to submit to the One Who authored it.

1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334
2. “The Companion Bible”, E.W. Bullinger, http://www.heavendwellers.com/38%20Luke%201427-1509.pdf, accessed on May 19, 2015
3. Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for  the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable. (NIV Text Note: “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582)
4. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p375

Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part II

/in , , , /by

This is Part II of “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer” – a response to a video on youtube that suggests that the questions being posed can’t be adequately responded to by believers. What follows demonstrates that such is not the case.

Here we go…!

6) When Jesus rose for the grave, how many women went to the tomb and which ones?

The gospel writers reference several women, both at the tomb as well as at the foot of the cross. Matthew 27:55 says that there were “many women” standing at a distance from the cross as Jesus was dying. Luke doesn’t ever name any of the women, he just refers to them as “the women” (Lk 23:49, 55). And with the exception of Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Mark and John reference either different women or use different descriptions to identify those who were there.

If Matthew’s “mother of James and Joses” is John’s “wife of Clopas” and the woman John describes as “Mary’s sister” is the woman Mark calls “Salome,” you’ve got a total of four women and it looks like this:

 The Women at the Cross (each color represents one particular woman that’s described differently by the gospel writers)
verse Mary (Jesus’ mother) Mary Magdalene Mary, wife of Clopas Mary, mother of James and Joses Mary’s sister mother of Zebedee’s sons Salome
Matt 27:56 ✔ ✔ ✔
Mk 15:40 ✔ ✔ ✔
Jn 19:25 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

While you have four different accounts, at no time does Matthew or John state that the women they reference were the only ones present, they simply chose to acknowledge a particular person or persons. Same thing with Mark. He only lists three, but he doesn’t qualify his trio to the point where he rules out the possible presence of other women.

Bottom line is we don’t know for certain who all was there, all we can do is connect the dots as they appear in Scripture. We can be confident that Mary’s mother was there along with Mary Magdalene. As far as the other two Mary’s and Salome, all we do is speculate as to whether or not the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joses and Salome was Mary’s sister.

You’ve got the same kind of dynamic at the empty tomb. Again, Luke refers to them as “the women” (Lk 24:1). Matthew, Mark and John again highlight certain personalities that were present:

 The Women at the Empty Tomb
verse Mary Magdalene Mary, the mother of James the other Mary Salome
Matt 28:1 ✔ ✔
Mk 16:1 ✔ ✔ ✔
Jn 20:1 ✔

Thanks to having looked at the way the same writers referred to “the women” at the foot of the cross, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Matthew’s “other Mary” is the woman he described as “Mary, the mother of James and Joses” in chapter 27. That means that he and Mark are probably referring to the same woman in their respective accounts, as far as the “other Mary.” Matthew doesn’t mention Salome and John only references Mary Magdalene. So, of “the women” that were present, we know of three for certain, although there might’ve been others. Mary Magdalene is a definite as well as “the other Mary” and another woman named Salome.

Over the years, several great minds have tried to more specifically identify the players that were present. Again, we’re looking at a situation where the Bible doesn’t clarify things as well as we might like, but there are two things we want to avoid in these kinds of situations:

#1 – fail to appreciate the big picture
#2 – attempt to edit Scripture in order to manufacture a scenario that’s easier to process

Dr. James D Tabor does a great job of presenting a case for Mary, the wife of Clopas, to being the mother of Jesus based on the fact that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is conspicuously absent from the New Testament shortly after his having brought his young family back to Nazareth from Egypt (Matt 2:19-23). It would’ve been customary for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widow based on Jewish law. When you couple that with the fact that Clopas was the father of James and Joses and Jesus had two brothers named James and Joses, it becomes fairly obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (wife of Clopas) are actually the same person. Should that prove to be accurate, the women at the tomb, based on Dr. Tabor’s theory and a comprehensive snapshot of Scripture would be:

  • Mary Magdalene
  • Mary – the mother of Jesus, James and Joses
  • Salome

That sounds downright compelling right up to the point where he suggests that the book of John has been edited.1 Regardless of how “logical” a particular explanation may be, if it involves having to change the content of the Bible in order for it to work, at that point the Bible is no longer inerrant and you no longer have the Word of God, rather  you have a flawed text.

Granted, what we have with the gospel writers is not conclusive in terms of the women that were there at the empty tomb. It’s not that they contradict one another as much as their decision to reference certain women in lieu of others results in a list of characters that’s speculative. But it’s not who was at the tomb, it was the fact that no one was in the tomb – that’s the point the gospel writers are making.

It could very well be that there was a whole congregation of women at the tomb which would mean that neither Matthew nor Mark nor John chose to document everyone that was present. But that doesn’t mean that their respective accounts are contradictory, nor should it distract from the fact that Christ had risen from the grave.

So, the short answer to our critic’s question is three, based on what we have in Scripture coupled with some speculation. But in the end, the emphasis should not be on who was not AT the tomb, rather the issue is Who was not IN the tomb!

Click here to read Part III!

1. “Something seems to be going on here. John knows something that either he, or those who later edited his gospel, chose to veil.” This is a portion of the post made by Dr. James D. Tabor entitled “Sorting Out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters at http://jamestabor.com/2012/12/27/sorting-out-the-jesus-family-mother-fathers-brothers-sisters/, accessed May 31, 2015

Why the Democrat Party is Never Wrong

/in , , /by

The Modern Day Democrat is never wrong because they are always hurt.

They are either offended or oppressed. Either way, they’re in pain, and you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and hateful. This is how the Democrat party champions every policy, every talking point, and every attack. You are not disputing their logic as much as you are ignoring their tears. As a result, Democrats are never evaluated as much as they are accommodated because to disagree is to be immoral.

When you’re arguing with a Democrat, you’re talking to someone who will tell you that truth is whatever an individual wants to believe. This why you’ll often hear them say “You can’t force you beliefs on me” because, in their mind, there are no principles, only preferences. The boundaries that would normally be established by logic, common sense, medical realities, and the rule of law are now nonexistent and anyone who would suggest otherwise is not a perspective to be considered as much as they are a tyrant that needs to be silenced.

They are the party of the justified, and the validated, not because they’re right, but because they are uncomfortable…

…and that is why the Democrat party is never, ever wrong.

Click here to watch the video…

Prove It! | Part II: The Resurrection

/in , , /by

I) Intro

Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כּוֹכְבָא Šīm‘ōn bar Kōḵḇāʾ‎) or Simon bar Koseba (שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר כֹסֵבָא Šīm‘ōn bar Ḵōsēḇaʾ‎), commonly referred to simply as Bar Kokhba,[a] was a Jewish military leader in Judea. He lent his name to the Bar Kokhba revolt, which he initiated against the Roman Empire in 132 CE. Though they were ultimately unsuccessful, Bar Kokhba and his rebels did manage to establish and maintain a Jewish state for about three years after beginning the rebellion. Bar Kokhba served as the state’s leader, crowning himself as nasi (lit. ’prince’).[3] Some of the rabbinic scholars in his time believed him to be the long-expected Messiah. (Wikipedia)

Why does no one know about Simon bar Kokhba (pronounced “COKE-bah”)?

Well, because he died…

…and he didn’t come back to life.

The Resurrection of Christ is the very archway of Christianity.

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.”7

It’s more than just a “point of doctrine,” it’s the very thing that Christ referred to as what would ultimately validate Him as the Son of God.

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away. (Matt 16:4)

II) How Do You Prove It?

But how do you prove it? There’s no film to refer to, all of the eyewitnesses are long gone so what’s left as far as a credible source of information?

And let’s take this a step further.

Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the Bible is not admissible as evidence, apart from those things that can be regarded as historical events. The approach that we take then is the same approach that is taken in academic circles when seeking to establish the historicity of a particular event or person. You assemble all those things that mention that person or event and then draw your conclusions based on the substance of their testimony.

First of all, the fact that Jesus died and that His body was never recovered is not a matter of conjecture or speculation. The resurrection of Christ is an event in history where in God acted in a definite time-space dimension.

Concerning this, Wilbur Smith says,

“The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence.8

Jesus did exist and He did die and His body was never definitively accounted for after He was laid to rest. That much can be determined from the wealth of literature, art and even the presence of the Christian church as an institution in that it is based on the historical as well as the theological reality of Christ.

What happened to Christ’s body is the question.

Critics have either been looking for a corpse or insisted that one did exist for over two thousand years. But they make that assertion in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence that cannot be overlooked without the risk of being less than objective in your analysis.

III) Secular Accounts

A) Josephus on the Resurrection

Josephus was a Jewish historian that lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He was employed by the Romans and he mentions this about Jesus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.9

In many ways, this one quote is a slam dunk. Here’s a man who had access to people who were contemporaries of Christ. He was born only seven year after Jesus died and the fact that he mentions Jesus’ resurrection in what would be considered a secular text is equivalent to Christ’s Resurrection being reported in the news. Some have very vehemently attempted to discount this quote as something that Josephus could not have written. However, this same passage written by Josephus was quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century and is included in the most recent Loeb edition of his works.10 It is credible.

B) Tertullian’s Apology

Another example of a secular text that references Jesus’ resurrection would be Tertullian’s Apology.

Tertullian (pronounced “ter-TUH-lee-uhn) lived from 160 – 220 AD. He was born in Carthage, Africa when it was a Roman province. By this point, Rome had become violently opposed to Christianity thanks to Nero who blamed the great fire that decimated most of Rome on the Christians in 64 AD. Subsequent Caesars followed suit and while much of the more heinous persecutions had faded by the time Tertullian was championing the Christian faith, local proconsuls still made it very hazardous to claim Christ as Savior.

It was in this cultural climate the Tertullian wrote his Apology. It was a letter written to the Roman government basically challenging them to consider the logic of their predisposition against Christianity. He crafts a very compelling defense and at one point when he is describing the Christian faith, he says:

But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at the time Roman governor of Syria, and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified…At his own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work.

In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it was an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world- portent still in your archives.

Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulcher, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulcher was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror; without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One.

C) Ignatius’ Last Words
A Man of History

The Eclipse…

The eclipse that happened around the time that Jesus was crucified was documented by the Romans and you can read more about it by clicking here. Greek historian Phlegon wrote: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was an eclipse of the Sun which was greater than any known before and in the sixth hour of the day it became night; so that stars appeared in the heaven; and a great Earthquake that broke out in Bithynia destroyed the greatest part of Nicaea.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica

The latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica uses 20,000 words in describing this person, Jesus. His description took more space that was given to Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed or Napoleon Bonaparte.

Concerning the testimony of many independent secular accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, it records:

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times event the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time on in adequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Here’s Life Publishers, 1972, 1979), 87)

But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both the spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, give it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked by delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the word, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven, – a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus.11

Again, this is not “biblical.” This isn’t a Bible study. Rather, this is a concerned citizen appealing to the Roman decision makers on the basis of logic. In his explanation of the Christian faith, He refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection as things that happened as opposed to things that are merely believed to have happened. The fact that he punctuates his account of Christ by referencing the eclipse that happened when Jesus was killed highlights how some of these things can be verified by referring to their own records. He is not laboring to convince his audience based on mere conjecture. Rather, he’s providing an account of what happened and how those events provided the basis of the doctrine that Christians subscribe to.

Another example that demonstrates the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection that comes from a secular source would be the account of Ignatius who lived from 50-115 A.D. He was the Bishop of Antioch, a native of Syria and a pupil of the apostle John. Enroute to a martyr’s death, he wrote his “Epistles,” and this is what he said of Christ:

He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, nad not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He also rose again in three days…”12

IV) Conclusion

There’s no amount of facts or data that can change the mind of someone who’s personally invested in a lie. To alter the way they think, you first have to change who they are and only God can do that (Jer 17:9; Jn 6:65).

Nevertheless, faith comes by “hearing” the Word of God and we are commanded to be His witnesses…

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. (Rom 10:7 [see also 1 Pet 3:15])

Hopefully you can see how a part of your response to a skeptic can include the fact that there is a substantial amount of secular documentation that references the Resurrection, not as a spiritual fiction, but as a historical fact. And this is in addition to the Scriptures which are beyond authentic, which we’ll discuss in another session.

He is risen!

He is risen indeed!

To view the citations, refer to the “I Dare You” series which you can access by clicking here.

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.

Voter Fraud

/in , /by

The House just passed the SAVE Act – legislation I cosponsored to safeguard the integrity of our elections by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. ThisThere’s Nothing to See Here

If you do a search online for “voter fraud,” among the first articles that come up is one that comes from the Brennan Center for Justice entitled, “The Myth of Voter Fraud.” At one point in the article, it says:

Politicians at all levels of government have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections were marred by large numbers of people voting illegally. However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots, which are secure and essential to holding a safe election amid the coronavirus pandemic.1

That is the idea proliferated throughout the mainstream media; that voter fraud is rare and therefore irrelevant to any discussion pertaining to the validity of election results.

The problem with that assessment is that it doesn’t make the distinction between the existence of fraud and the extent to which it can be prosecuted. If you can’t prove it in a court of law, it’s assumed that it doesn’t happen.

Look at What All is There

The SAVE Act

Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or the SAVE Act

This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.

Specifically, the bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship.

Further, the bill (1) prohibits states from registering an individual to vote in a federal election unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship; and (2) requires states to establish an alternative process under which an applicant may submit other evidence to demonstrate U.S. citizenship.

Each state must take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, which shall include establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens using information supplied by certain sources.

Additionally, states must remove noncitizens from their official lists of eligible voters.

The bill allows for a private right of action against an election official who registers an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.

The bill establishes criminal penalties for certain offenses, including registering an applicant to vote in a federal election who fails to present documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. (congress.gov)

To fully appreciate the scope of voter fraud, you first want to understand the multiple ways in which a fraudulent ballot can be cast.

  • Forging signatures on petitions
  • Voting out of jurisdiction
  • Voting more than once
  • Voting while ineligible
  • Voting for deceased or inactive voters still on the active roster
  • Voting on behalf of someone not mentally capable of voting
  • Stuffing the ballot box (there are several ways to do this)
  • Altering official counts (electronically or on paper)
  • Destroying ballots or records during required retention periods
  • Registering ineligible persons (illegal immigrants etc)
  • Registering fictitious identities to vote
  • Inflating voter rolls (such as false registrations or by not removing known deceased, moved and ineligible voters as required by law)
  • Paying someone to vote
  • Coercing someone to vote
  • Using physical violence, threats or intimidation to discourage voting
  • Misdirecting voters (providing false polling date, time, location)
  • Certifying false statements or documents
  • Access disparities (providing unequal polling place locations or core resources per capita – excessive lines and unreasonable inconvenience may discourage and suppress voters in targeted areas)
  • Improperly accepting or rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots
  • Ballot harvesting schemes (there are a few super-easy ways to cheat)
  • Swearing false oaths (such as vouching for someone living in a particular district when they don’t)

It’s not difficult to cheat, but what’s even more difficult is to prove it court. For example…

Voting with a false identity is nearly impossible to prosecute after the fact, because there logically can be no list of people who don’t exist and if two votes by the same person are detected, short of an admission, there is no way to know for certain who cast the second fraudulent ballot. This is why properly identifying voters before they cast a ballot is important. Once in the box, ballots are anonymous. There’s no way to fish back out a fraudulent ballot once it’s been cast. 2

The best way to prevent voter fraud is to require proper ID when you vote.

A Photo ID

What’s So Bad About Voter ID Laws?
Voter ID laws have long been debated in the United States. While supporters argue that voter photo ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of elections, reality tells a different story. Not only do these measures disproportionately impact Black, Native, elderly, and student voters, but they also fail to effectively address any real issues related to election integrity — the very thing advocates say these measures are designed to do. (League of Women Voters)

You need a photo ID to:

  • Travel: Boarding commercial flights (TSA checkpoints), checking into hotels, or renting a car.
  • Government/Legal: Voting, applying for a marriage license, visiting federal buildings, or entering military bases.
  • Age-Restricted Purchases: Buying alcohol, tobacco, or tobacco-related products at retailers or bars.
  • Financial & Professional: Opening a bank account, withdrawing large sums of cash, or starting a new job (Form I-9).
  • Medical & Security: Picking up prescriptions at a pharmacy or entering a secured workplace.

To insist that requiring proper identification is a form of oppression and should not be required is absurd (see sidebar). When you consider the above mentioned activities that require a photo ID, it’s pretty obvious that if you want to operate as a fully functional adult in today’s society, you need to be able to properly identify yourself. You’re not being oppressed when you’re being asked to be responsible.

But while there is little to no opposition in having to produce a photo ID in order to get a driver’s license, for some reason, having to show a photo ID to vote is condemned as something sinister.

Those who oppose the SAVE Act describe it as “…a discriminatory and disastrous bill designed to block millions of eligible voters from free and full access to the polls.”(Legal Defense Fund) Part of their argument insists that it doesn’t significantly impact the integrity of elections.

But that’s not the case…

A Specious Strawman

A common talking point among fraud deniers who oppose requiring photo identification to vote is that “ID only stops voting with another voter’s identity, which is exceedingly rare, so showing ID is an unnecessary burden.”

This argument is a specious strawman, however. Photo identification would help prosecute ineligible voters by establishing proof that they cast the ballot themselves. State-issued photo ID may also contain information that could indicate a voter’s ineligibility based on citizenship. Combined with an electronic pollbook (also known as electronic rosters) capable of instant eligibility verification, like the 2010 Minnesota Voter ID bill required, ineligible felons and wards would also be prevented from voting illegally.3

“Specious” means “to be superficially plausible, but actually wrong.” “Strawman” is a term used to describe the practice of characterizing your opponent’s argument in a way that’s intentionally exaggerated and distorted so it’s seemingly easy to defeat.

To say that requiring a photo ID doesn’t significantly impact the potential of someone illegally voting is a specious strawman argument.

More often than not, those who don’t have something say as much as they’ve got something to hide won’t make an argument as much as they’ll make an excuse. They hide behind the idea that they’re either wounded or they’re trying to protect those who are. But the fact of the matter is they can’t champion their platform directly without sounding either selfish or foolish so instead of trying to get people to agree with them, they try to get people to feel sorry for them.

It can be an effective strategy because of the way most will go out of their way to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful. But it’s revealed as a bogus excuse when it’s brought into the light of real results and common sense thinking.

In an article in the New York Post, the point is made that in most countries around the world, providing a photo ID in order to vote is commonplace and to perceive it as an authoritarian takeover of the electoral process is ludicrous.

This Works

In 2008, Al Franken was declared the winner of his state’s Senate race after a lopsided and legally questionable recount by a margin of 312 votes. Despite being able to demonstrate serious discrepancies in the voting process, including proof that ineligible felons had voted illegally at a rate that was three-times Franken’s margin of victory, Franken went on to give the Democrats a 60 seat super-majority in the Senate who would then go on to pass Obamacare, a financially unsustainable enterprise that every Republican voted against, both in the House and the Senate.4

In 2018, 22-year-old Abdihakim Amin Esa of Minneapolis was charged with 13 counts of voter fraud. He claimed that he was working on behalf of a candidate’s campaign committee and while he declined to give the name of the candidate, it was widely circulated that it was Ilhan Omar. (5)

The only people that want to insist that fraud doesn’t occur are those that benefit by it. When they say it doesn’t happen, what they’re referring to is the number of court cases that have been successful in the context of prosecuting a crime committed by a party that is next to impossible to track.

The best, if not the only, way to ensure a secure voting process is require a photo ID. Absentee Ballots are still available for people in the military and those that represent legitimate voters. But to vote in person, in order to ensure you’re not illegally voting on someone else’s behalf or voting in a jurisdiction other than your own, or any of the fraudulent options previously listed, a photo ID makes sense and it works!

Prove that you have legal permission to participate in the voting process and stop insisting that the country is being limited by excessive requirements when, in fact, it’s being liberated from sinister concessions.

1. “Brennan Center for Justice” “The Myth of Voter Fraud”, https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/voting-elections/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud, accessed March 28, 2026
2. McGrath, Dan, “The Voter Fraud Manual”, Dan McGrath, 2023, Kindle LOC 230
3. Ibid, LOC 243
4. Ibid, LOC 98-99
5. Ibid, LOC 1062

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 Predisposition is not destiny.

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 assumed to be unbiased.

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 am 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 the reality 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.

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 to reason to be critical…

Same sex marriage – tf you’re not personally impacted by two people of the same gender getting married, why would you criticize their behavior?

You can respond by saying you don’t have to be robbed to oppose stealing. Just because someone’s not currently breaking into your home doesn’t mean that you need to refrain from condemning the idea that a person can take something that doesn’t belong to them.

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.

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.

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]

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 incapable, 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 rules 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 Fundamental Dispute

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.

Johnny the Walrus
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior
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.