#like. inherently in the doctrine they preach and accept

[deservedgrace]

something that's really been bothering me lately is how the church i was a part of would like... repackage doctrine to make it sound nicer and more acceptable. like, the belief that all humans are evil by nature and deserve eternal torture for the crime of existing is inherently violent and cruel. but my church didn't frame it like that. they framed it as "yes we're ALL evil and wicked and we ALL deserve hell to atone for our sin (being human) BUT god loves you despite you not deserving love or happiness or anything good at all and all you have to do to avoid the pits of hell is accept jesus as your savior isn't that so amazing????" and they framed the crucifixion as this beautiful, selfless act of god by taking our place on the cross instead of "this all-powerful being who created all the rules decided that he required torture, death, and human sacrifice to be able to tolerate us". and it's not "women will be viewed as lesser than men" it's "women must submit to their husbands the same way we all must submit to god it's not dehumanizing it's holy and yes women have different roles but that doesn't make them lesser than and sure we don't have any women in leadership positions in the church and we would never even consider it, come on now that's ridiculous, but that's just because men are supposed to lead because men and women are different and created for different purposes it's just biology". and there are plenty others! i know that the reframing of everything is part of how they can even get people to accept the doctrine in the first place, but being on the outside of it is kind of horrifying. when you get down to the actual beliefs that are held without the distortions and manipulation, so many are violent, cruel, dehumanizing, abusive. but they distort and manipulate these beliefs to make them seem acceptable, morally correct, and redefine what love is and should look like.

[anthroparis]

I think what makes disney's hunchback so incredibly touching and effective to me despite all the. well. bad parts. is that for myself (and I'm sure, many others) it does a really good job of encapsulating what it's like to be catholic. I relate to every singe character in that movie because every single character represents a different relationship to religion and it's so. gorgeous. esmeralda is a pretty good example of what it's like to feel abandoned by god (especially as a woman- in god help the outcasts she directly addresses mary, which always hits me really hard because mary has always been important to me) as someone who goes through intense hardship. and it's like, yes she feels abandoned and lost and outcasted by the very church that preaches acceptance and tolerance but she's also drawn to the religion itself as a source of hope and comfort during dark times and it's just ah. then there's frollo. I always think it's SO funny when people act like frollo being an insanely humanized villain despite all the terrible things he did is something revolutionary. like every single catholic on the planet has felt the same way he does by age 8 (minus the racism, hopefully). where everyone else sees yandere I'm seeing someone who is so weighed down with guilt and self-disgust for being unable to achieve an impossible goal (perfect purity) that the very thought of sin, whether from himself or others, is so utterly revolting it makes him violently obsessive. I think the big thing here is that he deflects blame onto others, but still knows deep down that he's at blame and he pities the people he can't stop himself from hurting. like we need to discuss the very concept of hell and eternal damnation itself when we talk about him cause. sigh. YES there's confession but that feeling of doing something "bad" never really leaves. it feels like once you've done something evil you will never save yourself no matter what you do to right it. I believe many people (myself included) have at one point or another, given up and chosen to just dig themselves deeper since we're already damned to hell anyway. I see that in frollo. then there's quasimodo. who I think reflects a lot of frollo's traits but to a separate degree: instead of blaming other people, he directs blame inwards. he believes he was born evil and wrong and he has to do things to make up for that. which is literally just like. ORIGINAL SIN. catholicism is very different from other branches of christianity in many ways but one of them is that you don't just. get into heaven for believing. you actually have to do good things. at least that's what was taught to me in church. I get that it's, you know, the setting (the book has a very different theme and tone imo but that's again for another day), but quasimodo literally being trapped inside a church is so. hm. his character arc centering around his freedom, rediscovering his self-worth, escaping oppressive morality... sighhhhhhh. I get it. but also at the same time I like that this movie takes the time to address the multifaceted aspects of religion. catholicism? not inherently evil or bad. there are certainly dated aspects of it but as we've seen, people tend to pick and choose what they follow. however, we also take the time to address how the doctrine can be twisted to support literal genocide. so. you know.

I really like this movie

[bear-of-mirrors]

Hey, as someone going into history do you have any recommendations for papers / articles / names to look into for work about the antisemitism inherent in the New Testament?

Obviously I don’t expect you to break down every instance of it in the New Testament, but considering I’m a gentile, And I was raised on the stuff, I feel like that would be useful to unpack; or don’t, and just delete this ask, whichever’s easier. Hope you have a nice day & thank you for your time

It’s not a bother at all.

Im gonna go into the dating and validity of the gospels first to put their date of composition into context of how they were written during the time when the religion had switched from trying to convert Jews and moved to trying to convert non-Jews within the Roman Empire. That’s to provide a base why they would have a motivation to demonize Jews in the eyes of Roman converts.

So Phene Perkins, in 1998, wrote in an article titled The Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: Telling the Christian Story that is in the collected books The Cambridge companion to biblical interpretation, that the Gospel of Mark dates to around 66-70 CE. Mitchell Reddish wrote in 2011 in his book An Introduction to the Gospels that Mark and Luke date to 85-90 CE. Andrew Lincoln wrote in 2005 in Gospel According to St John that the book of John was written some time around 90-110 CE. Reddish also recounts how, in spite of the position of internal church views and doctrines, there is scholarly consensus that all of the gospels were written by anonymous writers and not the people they’re named after, and that they were not written by eyewitnesses to the events they claim to cover.

Secular, non-Church affiliated, scholars also look at how there are contradictions between the gospels, even including certain aspects of Jesus’ supposed life being present in some of the four and not the other. Here’s a handy chart to explain that part:

There’s also a portion of historians that even doubt the historical existence of Jesus, such as Joseph Atwill, due to the lack of actual tangible primary source historical documents or archeological proof and since all that exists is religious writings.

As for direct antisemitism, first there’s Jesus’ attack on the Temple. The Gospels frame it as Jesus throwing out people who have defaced the Temple, but in actuality they were following a commandment from Torah, so that’s where I’ll get my next source.

So here in Deuteronomy, well before the First Temple was even built, there’s this commandment to help Jews observe Temple practices. Any kind of offering taken to the Temple, be it animal or grain, needed to follow certain criteria and be in pristine condition. The farther away someone was from wherever the Temple would be built, the greater the likelihood of their offering being harmed or damaged along the way there. That would mean those people would be unable to make those Temple sacrifices and thus unable to observe that crucial part of Temple Judaism. So in Torah there is a provision put in place where someone who lived far from the Temple could sell what they would sacrifice in their local area and community, bundle that money up, head to the outer courtyard of the Temple where such interactions were perfectly fine and acceptable, and exchange that money for the sacrifice they were going to make. It was all about equity and accessibility. But the gospels would have you instead view that effort as one of greed and defilement.

This isn’t the only instance of antisemitism in the New Testament though. Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, stated that are ten themes of anti-Jewish sentiment within the New Testament: “The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus – as such they are guilty of deicide.

The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus.

Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead.

The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."

The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.

The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.

By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.

Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.

Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath.

Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).”

This was in his 2013 historical monograph, Christians & Jews - Faith to Faith: Tragic History, Promising Present, Fragile Future.

While there are some verses in the New Testament that have some level of positive things to say about Jews, such as John 4:22 and Romans 11:28, these pale in comparison to other textual examples within the New Testament.

It was Judas, a Jew, who turned Jesus over to the Romans. Peter, another Jew, denied Jesus three times. Thomas, another, doubted Jesus’ resurrection. The people in Jerusalem, when offered a change by Pilate to have a prisoner released chose the criminal Barabas over Jesus and instead urged him to crucify Jesus. Some of the gospels go so far as to say that it wasn’t just a crowd of people, but also Jewish leadership in the Sanhedrin. This all is a measure of laying treachery, cowardice, stubbornness, and deicide (the death of Jesus) at the feet of the Jews.

Matthew 23:31-33 calls Jews a “brood of vipers,” with at least one translation saying “how can you escape being sentenced to hell?”

Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 call Jews the “synagogue of Satan” for the refusal to accept Jesus as the messiah.

And in a larger sense, many historians trace the antisemitism that caused the Holocaust all the way back to the New Testament itself. A. Roy Eckardt says this in 1967 in Elder and Younger Brothers: The Encounter of Jews and Christians. Other historians, such as James Dunn, state that the New Testament is responsible for the whole of Christian hatred and persecution of Jews across the younger religion’s whole history.

If you’d like more or you have any other questions, please feel free to shoot them my way and I’ll do what I can do answer them.

[pussystigmata]

Hi, I don't mean to ask this in a rude or inflammatory way at all so please don't think so, but are you a Christian? And if so, how do you marry those beliefs with also being a bisexual– with a clear conscience? Since the bible speaks against SSA?

Hey

I left this for a bit cos i was gonna do a whole exegetical response to different bible verses but thats been done and i have nothing new to add and there are better sources for all that info

My own personal feelings on that matter arent all that scholary but basically there are a few reasons why I am pro gay relationships and a christian.

i am pretty heterodox by mainstream christian standards in a lot of ways. i do believe in God and Jesus and the bible - whatever that means - but i guess cos i didnt get raised indoctrinated in a specific church im very vary of authority and religious leaders and cult like mindsets and im very pro individual spirituality. i dont take a lot of stock in what some particular church father or papal bull or doctrine says.

i do believe that the bible is "god breathed" but not the verbatim word of god. i take a pretty historical critical method of bible understanding. it was written over great periods of time in different genres to different people. i dont think humans are capable of accurately and perfectly describing god or absolute truth. i believe the bible was written by prophets expressing spiritual truths through their own human limitations and cultural contexts. so i believe the bible is "true" but has limitations and is a fundamentally human expression of religion rather than something that fell from the sky out of gods mouth.

what this means in my eyes is that revelation is progressive and god can and does uses different methods to communicate to different people at different times. we see this even within the bible itself, laws for israelties existed to meet their needs at a certain time but arent universal. even within the old testament there is reference to the inheritence and laws of other peoples being from god but not relevant or appropriate for the israelites.

i think this is obviously true for something like sex and marriage, where polgyny was clearly acceptable for the israelities at one time but not for christians anymore. when jesus speaks of marriage he says there is no marriage in heaven, its for earth. paul speaks abt marriage as a outlet for those who can not be celebate and how celebacy is a choice that can not be forced. we know more abt same sex attraction than we did 2000 years ago, where there was no understanding of natural innate monogamous attraction to consenting adults of the same sex. i dont see any difference between same sex and opposite sex marriages when theyre fulfiling this purpose. paul makes it clear that sex is marriage is permissable as a way of controlling sexual desire and not procreation. the only real difference between two same sex consenting adults and two opposite sex consenting adults is procreation, which is not what paul talks abt in relation to marriage.

christians are able to recognise context in pauls letters for other things. most christians dont expect women to cover their head in church and idk any churches that think women wearing braids as a sin. they recognise that this was because in his context that was associated with excessive vanity and wealth. likewise, the same sex intercourse paul was talking abt wasnt because theres something inherently wrong with ssa, its because in that context it involved rape and adultery and pedophilia.

i also just dont think abt it that much. ive never felt like theres anything wrong with same sex attraction and i cant find any arguments against it convincing. i dont think its particularly important. marriage is an earthly matter to help keep sexual desire in check. marriage has changed so much throughout history and even throughout the bible. i think getting hung up on individual verses while not thinking abt the world in which the author lived in or their understanding of what same sex intercourse was is useless and misses the bigger picture. i think having a relationship with god and loving god and your neighbour is more important. but it exists throughout nature and i do believe in the power of the holy spirit to discern the truth and jesus said we will know them by their fruit. same sex attraction doesnt cause suffering or harm while homophobia does.

idk i dont think i could convince someone who is steadfastly anti gay to change their mind. im not really one to do apologetics or preach at people. i have plenty of far more heretical views than my views on same sex attraction lol.

[unbidden-yidden]

I didn’t want to derail your post about the Trinity so I’m just sending this as an ask but I just studied all this in my Into to Western Religions class and I just wanted to say that girl who was preaching to you was actually heretical. It’s very funny because her analogy is a classic example of modalism, a 3rd(?) century heresy. I always think it’s funny when people evangelize while not even knowing the most basic stuff.

Hey no worries! For what it's worth, I don't think it would've been derailing at all, particularly since that post was a lot of me rambling and infodumping lmao

To your point though, I know, right?! It's so weird because I see variations of this everywhere on xtian stuff and have heard a number of them in person, too. There's actually one in the sources I linked:

There are others we could mention. An egg is made up of a shell, the eggwhite, and the yolk. All three are needed for an egg to be complete.

...

Like. This same source also explains that modality is a heresy?

What we don't mean

First of all, Christians don't believe in three Gods. That's a heresy called Tritheism. Second, we don't believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are three "forms" of God—like, steam, water and ice. That's the heresy called Modalism. Third, we don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "parts" or "pieces" or God. That would imply that Jesus is 1/3rd God, the Father is 1/3rd God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3rd God.

So... I'm really not sure why this keeps happening tbh. This particular source does clarify afterwards that all analogies are imperfect, at least:

It's important to remember that all illustrations fail eventually. They don't "prove" the Trinity, they simply help us understand the concept.

And like, look: for the xtians in the audience who are reading this, if any, please know that I am not trying to tell you what to think or believe. If this makes the most spiritual sense for you and is your way of connecting to holiness, I'm not going to pretend like I have The Answer(s). I do, however, have my answer, and it is that this is a form of polytheism that is totally unsupported and in fact thoroughly rejected by the Tanakh.

I think that when it comes down to trinitarianism, you either have a vested interest in xtianity being monotheistic and also worshipping Jesus, or you don't. If you do, probably one of the more cogent answers you're going to get is something along the lines of this:

The Trinity is a doctrine that all Christians believe but no one really understands. That much should be clear from this message. If you try to explain the Trinity, you will lose your mind. But if you deny it, you will lose your soul.

The Trinity sets the limits on human speculation about the nature of God.

There is so much we would like to know about God, but our finite minds cannot comprehend it. We are not free to create God in our own image. The Trinity sets the limits for human speculation. God is more than the Trinity, but he is not less than that.

The Trinity teaches us that God is beyond all human comprehension.

After all, if we could explain God, he wouldn't be God. I have no doubt that God is much more than "one in essence, three in Person," but since I can't even understand those simple phrases, I don't worry at all about what else might be true about God. If you feel baffled by the Trinity, join the crowd. The greatest minds of history have stood in amazement before a God so great that he cannot be contained by our puny explanations.

I can accept this answer as at least intellectually honest and as having the potential to be spiritually meaningful for some people, even if I thoroughly disagree with its conclusion and do not believe it to be true personally. I would even say that it is partially correct in the sense that if G-d could be fully known and explained, then it would inherently make G-d finite and thus no longer G-d. At the same time, I do not think that it then follows that trinitarianism can still be monotheistic, and thus this concept of God inherently cannot be the G-d of the Tanakh.

Point being, if you just straight up don't believe in the trinity and don't have a vested interest in making xtian theology work, then this looks like utter nonsense from that outside perspective. If you do, then that's your prerogative and theological dilemma to solve, or not.

[rametarin]

‘Super Straight’ is a terrible thing.

It fails conceptually to convey the argument it’s trying to make, and as a result, it serves as having the same sociological vulnerability in the discourse that, “reverse-racism” had back in the day.

The entire concept of reverse racism came about because for a brief window there, the radicals had groomed the shallow liberals into more and more extreme in what counted as racism, whom the term applied to.

So eventually, someone complained and argued they were being focus fired and their motives questioned, not because of the outcomes or their intentions in doing it, but because they were being accused and attacked for being white. And that was, “reverse racism.” The discourse of the era really hammered down on racism, but always using language, much like how domestic violence would always gender the abuser as he and the victim as she, that incriminated the white people of racism and bigotry and prejudice, never using examples of a black, or Asian, or indigenous American, as the perpetrator of racism.

This deliberate shaping of the discourse from people above was obvious. But, they also pretended, while deliberately using examples and terms of white bigotry and prejudice against other groups, that racism was just racism. That universally, racism was a problem, and the phenomenon was just bigotry and prejudice based on race.

You needed asterisks and clarification and to actually ASK whether that applied to people that weren’t white, and people either were afraid to ask, or if they asked, they were ignored, or if they demanded an answer and determination, were brushed off. Because it became obvious SOME so-called “progressives” believed racism was exclusively the phenomenon of white oppression against non-whites.

And if you pressed further and harder for clarification instead of “just putting the pieces together yourself” and taking your conclusions for granted, without questioning or making trouble, sometimes you’d get the liberal definition and sometimes a radical feminist would give you the real definition. Depending on if they felt they were in a place of impunity where there’s nothing you could do about it whether you knew or not, or they trusted you and believed you were on their wavelength.

If someone naturally concluded, by reading the room and seeing the examples in action, just coming to the conclusion themselves that racism was only considered racism when levied BY whites DOWN on black people, Asians, indigenous people, etc., then they’d say, “You’re just picking on me/antagonizing me for this because I’m white!! That’s racism!”

It’s at this point the radicals, if they were feeling bold and empowered- and many times, they were. Because they select and choose their social battles wisely, would pipe up:

“It’s not racism. You don’t get to say it’s racism. There’s nothing racist about trying to change a racist society by advocating this.” When, yeah, if you antagonize and harass and overindulge in haranguing the shit out of people in little Struggle Sessions, embellishing the offense caused by the background of a person, not based on the crime committed, you are being a racist shithead. It is racism to consider the background of the person that did the crime as to whether the crime was especially heinous, or not.

“FINE,” said the person being accused, “Then it’s reverse-racist!”

And it was. They’d been called out. The early Intersectional Feminists that belied something was exclusively and only ever racism when it was either white individuals or white society levied down on black, Asian or Indigenous People of Color, knew that something was happening. People were becoming aware that this discrimination was coming for white people, in specific and exclusion of anyone else. And while they were absorbing the sentiment in the void of actually indoctrinating them in plain english, they were rejecting it and created a word for their rejection.

Rejecting the idea racism was only racism when and if it was specifically BY a white person, TOWARDS anybody else.

Then came Liberal Progressive Damage Control.

The Liberal and Radical Progressive both said, in unison:

“There’s no such thing as reverse racism.”

The Liberal then clarified: “Racism is simply the phenomenon of racial discrimination and prejudice and bigotry, levied BY anybody on the basis of race, TOWARDS anybody on the basis of race! It applies to everybody equally!”

And they had to. Because these people’s reputations and ability to infiltrate and influence live or die based on how well other people are willing to tolerate them preaching their social doctrines. If their messages are rejected, they can’t control them.

The Radical Progressive/Feminist, however, maintained: “Racism is purely the phenomenon of white people or white society oppressing or discriminating detrimentally towards someone for being black, or Asian, or indigenous non-white. A non-white person cannot be racist, and a white person cannot experience racism.”

But the radical that said and believed that in the 80s and 90s, slunk away to the halls of academia. And they kept quiet, while liberal progressives breadcrumbed the people closer to university, where they’d have to pay to be steered further along in their, “social development.”

But the radical definition was always going to be the end-game for them. Liberal anti-racism was, in their eyes, just a step towards advancing society towards their radicalism. Not about actually ending racial discrimination and equality on a civic level, irrespective of race.

So. ‘Reverse Racism’ became a faux talking point, where liberal progressives would take this term, act as if it was a misconception purely born of overcompensating and insecure white people, and then speak as if the truth was, “it’s not reverse racism.. It’s just racism! Reverse racism doesn’t exist.”

Wholly ignoring the fact that people had experienced this nameless phenomenon of supposedly anti-racist people being intolerant or accusative towards those that had never committed any actual racism or bigotry, but were being singled out, focus fired and made public example of by their peers. They were experiencing SOME form of racial intolerance that treated them as if they were either perpetraotrs of racism by action, or by their background. Which is no different from expecting that a black person, just by being black, has either committed crimes like theft and assault, or will, because they’re black.

It was just generally accepted that if white people could be guilty of racism, then so could anyone else. Liberal progressivism, much the same way as they dissent when hate crime legislation is used to punish people for attacking white people on the basis of their race, “because those laws are meant to protect at risk minorities from white oppression,” didn’t like it. But, they had to maintain the illusion of impartiality and benignity. And so, they smiled and nodded and approved of the idea that racism was able to be applied universally to and by anyone. Even if, internally, they disagreed.

And so, they spun the discourse that had introduced “reverse-racism” purely as something insecure white people made up to squeal bloody murder about if they were getting called out heavy handedly or they felt unfairly for perpetrating racism. Speaking as if it only existed as a blubbering cope against the mean ole people that, “just liked equality and fairness and justice.”

Do you see how the evolution of this term and its perception shifted throughout the course of this story? How it came about, how it was created and why, how it was received and responded to, and ultimately what it became?

They took a word and concept used to define the outrage of the heavy handedness and made it into a point of mockery and profiled those most likely to use it as people like Rush Limbaugh.

After that, they used it as a tool of assumed intent and mockery if a situation ever arose in which a white person was talking about a situation in which they felt like the other person was being short or dismissive of them, and their assumed intentions, because of their race.

“Ohh? Am I being ‘reverse racist’ at you? Awwwww. Waaaaaaah. There’s no such thing as reverse racism. Cry harder.”

etc.

No one even had to accuse someone of it. But if you tried to explain the very real and very probable phenomenon where a person was treating you like shit or assuming the worst of your intentions on the basis of you being a white person doing it, and you attested the other person was discriminating against you racially for it, they whipped that out as if just by anticipating you were about to say it, you fit the profile of someone that was guilty of it and just trying to feel oppressed and outraged.

I see this exact outcome happening with the term, ‘Super Straight.’ Only, rather than the subject being racism and race discourse, it’s transgenderism and social constructionism.

And to be honest, it feels like this was surgically implanted into 4channer boards and perpetuated to make it LOOK like a “neckbeard altright dudebro” meme. The fact many are perpetuating it doesn’t help, but it feels... ingenuine.

It almost feels like those fake egg accounts on twitter and other social media that supposedly sent Sarkesian and Zoe Quinn that hate. And those 4chan posts that they oopsied over posting, revealing it was them giving themselves anon-hate and trying to get the mob to attack them just for victim clout points.

Super Straight as a concept and a joke feels like weaponized, “It’s Okay To Be White,” but put into 4channer mouth specifically to then use against them.

First, Super Straight cedes the idea that being straight includes any context in which a cishet man wants to suck a penis. It goes, “Okay, we will accept being straight includes sucking the penis of transwomen and seeing them as women sexually, so obviously to be SUPER STRAIGHT means to not do that!” Inherently doing that, you admit defeat and bow to social constructionism that says to be a man or woman is purely gender, and sexuality hinges upon gender, not sex. To be Super Straight creates a new definition that says straight isn’t exclusive to cishetero, but Super Straight is.

If you wanted to mock their expectation that all gender not just shift its definitions to make room to validate and legitimize the trans, but redefine sexuality and gender itself to make both cis and trans equally validly male and female with absolutely no credence or relevance paid to biology or chromosomes whatsoever, then this is not the way to do it. It’s not clever, it’s not succinct, it doesn’t force them into a logical or linguistic dead-end.

The argument put forwards by those giggling about, “super straight,” is that a cishetero person, in this case, a man, won’t be attracted to a transwoman, and creating a word to make that a valid thing is no different than using words to validate other things. Such as, “Grey ace demiguy.” Trying to use the same system of assumed validation for sex and gender against itself, without the tangential institutional control in place in academia, just doesn’t work. For it to work you have to assume whatever absolutism coming out from on high from the academic class can be respected equally without coming from that academic class, whom insist they define standards and norms, now.

Instead, they should be arguing for something like, “Cis-orientation.” If a homosexual is a term for a valid sexuality where a person is not attracted to the opposite sex, be they male or female, and that’s not considered, “heterophobia,” and arbitrarily acceptable just.. because... then obviously there’s SOMETHING that makes sexual attraction to the same sex valid, but sexual attraction to only someone of the opposite sex regardless of their gender somehow invalid and a phobia.

Yet, these people will defend homosexuality as valid, while arguing to not want to see transgendered people as viable candidates for romance or sex are transphobes.

They miraculously will not insist a lesbian just has, “phallophobia” or “cisphobia” if she won’t even at least ATTEMPT to, “get used” to it. They will acknowledge to be gay is simply to be unchangable oriented how they are, and they should not try and make them straight.

But bizarrely they WILL expect a lesbian to suck girldick, as, “that’s a female. You’re a lesbian, you like girls, so you should consider sucking female penis.”

Lysenkoism but for socio-sexual theory. That you can use words and self-identification to ignore or bypass someone’s sexuality. And it’s, “totally not -phobia or oppression, because it’s not being used to hurt a minority and you can’t oppress the majority.”

If there was any genuine interest in the rights and fairness and equality for the respect of people based on their gender orientation and sexuality, they would not be so queer-centrist in execution.

Instead, they would recognize that they cannot just redefne the universal words of man, woman, gay and straight, to suit an agenda that treats there as being no distinction between a trans or cis person. We simply cannot have that, unless of course the intention is to invalidate the biology of all parties involved, and remove the material, physical components for consideration.

That would mean devolving all gender and sex and orientation merely to arbitrary classes, which are imagined, not real. That would mean there being no difference between thinking you can forcibly convert someone’s sexuality from gay to straight, or straight to gay, as those things no longer would be considered to be concrete based on indivisible aspects of your biology and self, merely attitude and beliefs.

Not only would it do that, but it’d insist that chromosomes and reproductive role are arbitrary and absolutely detatched from a person’s identity, no different than assuming their blood type or astrological sign was attached to their gender.

This is quite literal denial of science and physical reality in the name of ideology. This isn’t trans rights, it’s masquerading as such. And keeping very tight lipped about anything outside the purview and real meaning behind how they’re selling their model of trans rights.

For Super Straight to be a recognizable talking point, it basically just creates a sacrificial lamb. Something that any social constructionist can attack in effigy and then say, “Well I’ve already debunked the popular idea that ‘super straightness’ exists, so stop clinging to the idea a cishetero person that DOESN’T date trans people is anything other than a bigot.”

Something they can “totally PWN with LOGIC and REASON”, broadcast how they’ve “defeated” the argument that a straight man would not suck a penis, no matter how much glitter and perfume on it, and invalidate any suggestion to the contrary by saying it has already been thoroughly debunked so they’re just going to yell “KUNG POW PENIS LOL” until their opposition gets bored and leaves.

I can’t help but feel like the whole concept was deliberately constructed allegedly by their ideological opponents in order to perform smugness and superiority over them.

[dfroza]

to stand firm in faith

just as a mountain or a Tree

this is a necessity in this world, in the face of opposition and the fear of man.

Paul writes of this in his Letter with Today’s reading from First Thessalonians:

[Timothy’s Mission]

When we could bear it no longer, we decided that we would remain in Athens and send Timothy in our place. He is our beloved brother and coworker with God in preaching the gospel. We knew he would strengthen your faith and encourage your hearts so that no one would be shaken by these persecutions, for you know that we are destined for this. In fact, when we were with you we forewarned you: “Suffering and persecution is coming.” And so it has happened, as you well know. For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I sent our brother to find out if your faith was still strong, for I was concerned that the tempter had somehow enticed you and our labor would have been in vain.

But now, Timothy has just returned to us and brought us the terrific news of your faith and love. He informed us that you still hold us dear in your hearts and that you long to see us as much as we long to see you. So, our dear brothers and sisters, in the midst of all our distress and difficulties, your steadfastness of faith has greatly encouraged our hearts. We feel alive again as long as we know that you are standing firm in the Lord.

How could we ever thank God enough for all the wonderful joy that we feel before our God because of you? Every night and day we sincerely and fervently pray that we may see you face-to-face and furnish you with whatever may be lacking in your faith.

Now may our Father God and our precious Lord Jesus guide our steps on a path straight back to you. And may the Lord increase your love until it overflows toward one another and for all people, just as our love overflows toward you. Then your hearts will be strengthened in holiness so that you may be flawless and pure before the face of our God and Father at the appearing of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones. Amen!

The Letter of 1st Thessalonians, Chapter 3 (The Passion Translation)

Today’s paired chapter of the Testaments is the 12th chapter of 2nd Kings that describes work done to fix the Temple in Jerusalem:

[Joash of Judah]

In the seventh year of Jehu, Joash began his kingly rule. He was king for forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Gazelle. She was from Beersheba.

Taught and trained by Jehoiada the priest, Joash did what pleased God for as long as he lived. (Even so, he didn’t get rid of the sacred fertility shrines—people still frequented them, sacrificing and burning incense.)

Joash instructed the priests: “Take the money that is brought into The Temple of God for holy offerings—both mandatory offerings and freewill offerings—and, keeping a careful accounting, use them to renovate The Temple wherever it has fallen into disrepair.”

But by the twenty-third year of Joash’s rule, the priests hadn’t done one thing—The Temple was as dilapidated as ever.

King Joash called Jehoiada the priest and the company of priests and said, “Why haven’t you renovated this sorry-looking Temple? You are forbidden to take any more money for Temple repairs—from now on, hand over everything you get.”

The priests agreed not to take any more money or to be involved in The Temple renovation.

Then Jehoiada took a single chest and bored a hole in the lid and placed it to the right of the main entrance into The Temple of God. All the offerings that were brought to The Temple of God were placed in the chest by the priests who guarded the entrance. When they saw that a large sum of money had accumulated in the chest, the king’s secretary and the chief priest would empty the chest and count the offerings. They would give the money accounted for to the managers of The Temple project; they in turn would pay the carpenters, construction workers, masons, stoneworkers, and the buyers of timber and quarried stone for the repair and renovation of The Temple of God—any expenses connected with fixing up The Temple. But none of the money brought into The Temple of God was used for liturgical “extras” (silver chalices, candle snuffers, trumpets, various gold and silver vessels, etc.). It was given to the workmen to pay for their repairing God’s Temple. And no one even had to check on the men who handled the money given for the project—they were honest men. Offerings designated for Compensation Offerings and Absolution Offerings didn’t go into the building project—those went directly to the priests.

Around this time Hazael king of Aram ventured out and attacked Gath, and he captured it. Then he decided to try for Jerusalem. Joash king of Judah countered by gathering up all the sacred memorials—gifts dedicated for holy use by his ancestors, the kings of Judah, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, along with the holy memorials he himself had received, plus all the gold that he could find in the temple and palace storerooms—and sent it to Hazael king of Aram. Appeased, Hazael went on his way and didn’t bother Jerusalem.

The rest of the life and times of Joash and all that he did are written in The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. At the last his palace staff formed a conspiracy and assassinated Joash as he was strolling along the ramp of the fortified outside city wall. Jozabad son of Shimeath and Jehozabad son of Shomer were the assassins. And so Joash died and was buried in the family plot in the City of David. His son Amaziah was king after him.

The Book of 2nd Kings, Chapter 12 (The Message)

my personal reading of the Scriptures for Thursday, december 17 of 2020 with a paired chapter from each Testament of the Bible, along with Today’s Psalms and Proverbs

A set of posts by John Parsons that points to the Light of our Creator:

It has been said that the Greek mindset regards what is beautiful as what is good, whereas the Hebraic mindset regards what is good as what is beautiful. The difference is one of orientation. Doing our duty before God, in other words, is what is truly beautiful, not merely appreciating the appearance of symmetry, order, and so on. This explains why moral discipline (i.e., musar, מוּסָר) is so prominent in Hebrew wisdom literature. True beauty cannot exist apart from moral truth.

The word chinukh (חִנּוּךְ), “education,” shares the same root as the word "chanukah" (חֲנֻכָּה, dedication). Unlike the Greek view that regards education as a pragmatic process of improving one's personal power or happiness, the Jewish idea implies dedication/direction to God and His concrete purposes on the earth. Disciples of Yeshua are likewise called talmidim (תַּלְמִידִים) -- a word that comes from lamad (לָמַד) meaning “to learn” (the Hebrew word for teacher is melamad (מְלַמֵּד) from the same root). In the New Testament, the word “disciple” is μαθητής, a learner or a pupil of a διδάσκαλος, or a teacher. True education is therefore foundational to being a disciple of the Messiah...

(Note that the Hebrew word “rabbi” comes from the word rav (רַב), which means "great." The word rabbi (רִבִּי) is formed by adding the 1st person singular ending, i.e., "my great one," or "my reverend." In Yiddish the word is rebbe. Yeshua told us not to call anyone other than Him "rabbi" or "father" since we are all brothers and sisters and He alone is our Master (Matt. 23:8)).

Following Yeshua, then, first of all means submitting to His authority and learning from Him as your Teacher (Matt. 23:8). Only after spending time with Him are you commissioned to go “to all the nations and teach...” (Matt. 28:19). This is accomplished not only by explaining (propositional) doctrine but by kiddush HaShem -- sanctifying the LORD in our lives. We are called to be a “living letter” sent to the world to be “read” (2 Cor. 3:2-3).

During Chanukah we recall the courage and faith of Judah the “Maccabee” and his brothers. The name "Maccabee" is said to be an acronym [מ כּ בּ י] for Moses’ affirmation of faith: מִי־כָמכָה בָּאֵלִם יהוה / “Who is like you, LORD, among the mighty?” (Exod. 15:11). Since God alone is the Supreme Ruler of the universe, we do not need to live in fear of man. As King David wrote: יהוה אוֹרִי וְיִשְׁעִי מִמִּי אִירָא / “The LORD is my Light and my Salvation - of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1). Yeshua the Messiah is our true Light (ha’or ha’amiti) and our Salvation (yeshu’ah). He has said, “My peace I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled; neither let it be afraid. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (John 14:27, 16:33). [Hebrew for Christians]

12.16.20 • Facebook

We are commanded not to love the world (κόσμος), nor the things this world values, since doing so embraces a philosophy of life, or spirituality, that is at war with the Father and contrary to the truth of the Eternal (1 John 2:16; James 4:4). The fallen world values "the flesh" and the "desire of the eyes" that is patterned according to the "arrogance of life"; it is a "beauty pageant" that esteems others based on their accidental qualities instead of their inner and essential qualities....

The world values other people as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, and therefore is inherently violent and exploitative. The flesh is the realm of the all-too human, the selfish, the natural, the ordinary, and the tit-for-tat, where love and acceptance are extended solely in conditional terms (Matt. 5:46-47). In this connection, let me quote from the late Henri Nouwen and his book “Return of the Prodigal Son”:

"At issue here is the question: To whom do I belong? God or to the world?" Many of my daily preoccupations suggest that I belong more to the world than to God. A little criticism makes me angry, and a little rejection makes me depressed. A little praise raises my spirits, and a little success excites me. It takes very little to raise me up or thrust me down....

As long as I keep running about asking: "Do you love me? Do you really love me?" I give all power to the voices of the world and put myself in bondage because the world is filled with "ifs." The world says: "Yes, I love you if you are good-looking, intelligent, and wealthy. I love you if you have a good education, a good job, and good connections. I love you if you produce much, sell much, and buy much." There are endless "ifs" hidden in the world's love. These "ifs" enslave me, since it is impossible to respond adequately to all of them. The world's love is and always will be conditional. As long as I keep looking for my true self in the world of conditional love, I will remain "hooked" to the world - trying, failing, and trying again. It is a world that fosters addictions because what it offers cannot satisfy the deepest craving of my heart." [Hebrew for Christians]

https://hebrew4christians.com/

12.17.20 • Facebook

Today’s message from the Institute for Creation Research

December 17, 2020

Cursed or Blessed

“Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17:5)

Jeremiah provides for us a striking contrast between the self-assured humanist and the one who has placed his trust in God. The man who looks to his own abilities or those of others to save him in time of trouble is “cursed.” His existence will be one of futility, just as is that of a parched desert plant (v. 6). Why? Because his “heart departeth from the LORD” (v. 5), the source of strength and salvation.

Jeremiah uses a play on words here. The words for “man” in our text are different: the first means “warrior” or “strong man,” and the second a “normal man.” The warrior who should be strong is cursed because he is trusting in one who is weak; in this case, any other man’s wisdom or might, or even his own strength, when overestimated. What sense is there in that?

In contrast, “blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD” (v. 7). “He shall be as a tree planted by the waters,...and shall not be careful [i.e., anxious] in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit” (v. 8). Why? Because his “hope the LORD is” (v. 7). We see the warrior—one who might be considered strong—trusting solely in the true “strong man,” the Lord.

It is a tragic fact that even many Christians fall into the mindset of the autonomous humanist and attempt to live their lives (even “the Christian life”) under their own power. Do we trust in our own feeble power or in the Lord? Every heart, whether humanist or Christian, “is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (v. 9). Make no mistake! “I the LORD search the heart” (v. 10); He knows our inner motives. Let us recommit ourselves to trust in the Lord and make Him our hope. JDM

[crystalelemental]

To me, Edelgard vs Dimitri is the difference between gradualism and revolution. I dont hate Dimitri, but I think his beliefs are nonsense. To think that forcing your beliefs on others is just self-indulgence... sometimes, forcing your beliefs on others is the only way to save the people those others are hurting, imo. I think Claude is also right, of course. It's just that class inequality isn't really a main focus of his, but regional/racial inequality. Which is also very worth addressing.

There's a lot to this, and I'm gonna do my best at it.

I think it ties in a lot to that sense of "what are the limits of free speech?"  If someone is actively causing harm with their speech and beliefs, then is it acceptable to let them continue?  No, of course not.  Unconditional freedom will eventually lead to restrictions placed on the most vulnerable.  In a scenario like with the Church, they are fairly permissive.  People can sort their own shit out, as long as their shit sorting doesn't rock the boat too much.  Which, by inference, means that things like the Tragedy of Duscur and blood experiments taking place in the wake of the emperor's loss of power, were permissible.  They're allowed within the Church's framework.  The Church itself may not condone the actions of the seven noble houses, or of Faerghus' decimation of the Duscur people, but those in power didn't intervene and indirectly permit these atrocities.  Allowing that to continue is definitely the wrong course.

In terms of how each route handles it, I still think Claude is the most correct of the three.  But I'm going to go in reverse order.

Dimitri's absolutely the least interesting, and frankly, least correct of the bunch.  He's purely the status quo route.  Nothing at all is addressed in his route aside from the immediate conflict.  None of the context that addresses what happened is ever talked about, the route solely focuses on Dimitri and his trauma.  Which...is weird, considering how much trauma every other kid in the house should also have, but never really gets to express in the main story.  Particularly with Dedue, but that's a different talk for a different post.  Dimitri's route just doesn't actually address anything.  It's a powerful personal story, but for the world at large, his outcome is the worst.  Nothing with the church is addressed.  Nothing with the Agarthans is resolved.  Nothing changes, at all, aside from a very standard "good guy beat bad emperor" ending.  Which in any other game would be fine, but in this game stands out as the least compelling.

With Edelgard's route, I see what you're saying, and agree for the most part.  You can't let injustice keep happening, and sometimes you do have to push for change.  Taking it to war is the extreme route, but is Edelgard's inherent philosophy incorrect?  Well...no, not really.  The people of the church are generally all nice people.  I like Rhea, I love Seteth and Flayn, and a lot of the knights are interesting too.  But an institution that's going to sit back and allow tragedies to occur, solely because they're about not intervening beyond what directly challenges them?  That can't be allowed to stand as a power, and Rhea's made very clear that she's not about to let go of that control, unless it's passing the baton to someone else who would continue to hold that control (Byleth in pretty much every ending).  I think Edelgard's right in that the Church needs to be dismantled, or at least its control over Fodlan removed, but...I think Claude did it better.

You mentioned that Claude's racial inequality wasn't the main focus.  And that's true.  But that's because, like he states, the story is taking place within Fodlan.  Fodlan is incredibly wrapped up in its own internal politics, and doesn't interact with the outside world in any capacity.  Hell, Claude even comments that the Church preaches against coexistence with other nations, likely so Rhea can keep Fodlan as a safe haven for the remnants of her family.  Outside interference could mean humans seek power again, and that could lead to harm for the few that remain of her people.  So it's understandable why Rhea's like this, but it's not the correct course of action.

I'm getting off-topic.  My point is, consider Claude's goal with opening the borders.  Free flow of goods, but also of ideas.  Of philosophy.  Almyra has its share of troubles, but also has things going well for it.  Claude believes that, if Almyra and Fodlan could make peace and communicate with one another, that they'd not only come to understand each other, but also the systems they live in.  Think about that.  For an isolationist territory like Fodlan, they'd have no means of grasping what could be different.  This is just how things are, you either continue to follow what's been done (Dimitri) or, as a radical with no outside reference of what's needed, go full on anarchy and decide the only thing to do is smash the whole system (Edelgard).  Claude offers a compromise that can avoid this binary choice.  Open your frame of reference.  The Almyrans don't have the Church.  They don't have strict doctrine.  Nor did the people of Duscur.  Yet they're societies, with some kind of power structure that, while it has problems, is working in other ways for them.  If the ideas are communicated freely between territories, perhaps the people of Fodlan can find that, hey, this other place is doing really well in this area, why aren't we doing that?  Instead of a pure "Smash the system" approach, there could have been a non-violent way to approach the problem, as Claude believes.  Better still, his solution, if it works, is one that helps expand the worldview of the populace.  If successful, it's not just expanding ideas about race relations, but about all sorts of issues, effectively allowing people to address every issue in due time.  His immediate concern isn't exactly the same as Edelgard's, but I feel like Claude's solution would eventually lead to a solution for Edelgard's problem, while Edelgard's solution would not do the same for Claude's.

For Edelgard to purely be in the right, I think what we'd need is the proof that the populace of Fodlan seeks that change, but the Church refuses.  That the Church is an active authoritarian structure itself.  But that also completely changes the context for Edelgard's character and actions, and I'd think for the worse.  That would create a simple black/white morality binary, and that's not what makes this game so good.  It's the fact that everyone has a point but also has their faults.  Dimitri's well-intentioned and thinks very carefully about the lives of his people, but that comes at the cost of ignoring pretty much every societal issue in Fodlan.  Edelgard recognizes society's problems and is willing to do whatever it takes to change them, but at the cost of instigating a war for the entire continent.  Claude's route seems the best on the outside, but I think his drawback is that his solution is based on a lot of faith.  There's no guarantee it will work.  People may not assimilate well, and exchange of ideas may not result in mutual improvement, but could become mutual digging in of heels that their way of life is better, and reinforcing the isolation.  Claude's route is correct in the moment, but long-term it's hard to say.  Edelgard's addresses the problem immediately, but...well, barring the ending cards (which I don't believe), would likely create equal problems with a central, unchecked locus of power for the entire continent once she dies.  Successors could easily unmake all her progress.

For me, I think Claude's the most correct in terms of context for this reason.  The Church does seek to keep Fodlan under control, but hasn't turned against the people's wishes just yet.  A non-violent approach is preferable in this situation.  If it didn't work, or if the Church tried to reinforce its authority by rejecting these changes, then Edlegard's route would have a bit more merit.  But I think setting up a situation in which she in the right, is only possible when the other sides aren't, which ruins the balance of morality the game is playing.  It's far more interesting to have the extreme approach pulled at this point in a societal change, because it raises that question of when a revolution is appropriate, and when is it something that’s just serving whoever’s going to inherit power in the aftermath?

[poison-prayer]

Restructuring New Eden Teachings

Okay! I have had enough of the Catholic church so it’s time for some major overhaul of Daniel’s religion. Rather than preaching New Eden Catholicism, Daniel’s doctrine is being changed to New Eden Baptism. 

Daniel’s teachings have always been closer to Baptism than Catholicism, because I, as a person, cannot bring myself to act like Catholic values are Normal And Okay! I’ve also been calling Daniel a Pastor since the beginning of this blog, which is incorrect for the Catholic church, in which he would be a Priest, so that’s one less thing I have to think about.

Since the conception of this blog I’ve strived to write Daniel as realistically as I can, relying on months of research regarding the operation of cults, poisons, manipulation, and abuse. One thing that always eluded me, however, was the accuracy of Daniel’s religion in accordance with the Catechism. This change, allowing Daniel’s beliefs to align more with his proposed religion, is meant to rectify that. 

Priesthood, Celibacy, and Marriage:  Because Priesthood involves the vow of celibacy and the inability for Priests to marry and have a family, it would be literally impossible for generations of Bakers to have led their church - there would be no family line, and no Daniel (which, as you can imagine, would be a problem.) In addition to this, Daniel himself would have taken a vow of celibacy upon committing himself to pastoral duties, and ultimately would have to choose between his position in the church (which, as a cult leader and alleged prophet, he is unable to give up without abandoning the church all together) or the religious and moral and religious implications of breaking his vows to pursue marriage and the possibility of a family, which is ultimately something he wants. 

Family Issues:  The church holds the belief of the goodness of familial hierarchy and that the woman should be under the authority of her husband, as the husband is under the authority of the church, and mankind is under the authority of Christ. This is not to say that women are inferior to the husband, but that she should look to him first and foremost for guidance and love and safety - and in the reciprocal, that he should look to her for compassion, understanding, and support, effectively creating a balance of partnership. In the matter of same-sex marriages, there is no patriarchal authority, and they should look to the church for ultimate guidance and each other for the support and compassion that should be inherent in any healthy relationship. This does not, however, mean that a woman is under subjugation by her husband, or must mold herself to traditional gender roles. It’s believed that a woman can both devote herself to her husband and maintain a sense of independence.

New Eden Baptism strongly maintains the right to bodily autonomy. The husband being the head of the Familial Hierarchy does not supercede a woman’s bodily autonomy. This includes matters of abortion - though support and resources related to childbirth are offered first and foremost in matters of accidental, consensual conception. 

Contraceptives aren’t considered sinful, and are considered a deeply personal decision to be made by a couple for whom children would be a possibility otherwise. 

Infertility or Impotence, or any complications that prevent a rightfully married couple from having children, is not sinful and will not invalidate a marriage in the eyes of the church. 

Adultery and other forms of spousal abuse is a grave offense and can only be forgiven by the wronged spouse. Counseling will be offered in an attempt to repair a marriage, but annulment and divorce is considered an option in which one spouse is the victim of adultery or abuse in a marriage. 

Queer Issues:  Baptism is much more inclusive and accepting of queer people and, specifically, same-sex marriage. In Catholicism, no matter how nice someone is about it, they still consider it a sin, and any union between same-sex partners is considered invalid and non-sacramental. Within the baptist denomination of New Eden, same-sex marriage is considered valid so long as the requirements of a valid marriage are met. Marriage within the baptist church is not considered a sacrament. Daniel, being bisexual, refuses to perpetuate that doctrine that refuses validity to same-sex marriage. His father though, despite not being Catholic in this scenario, is still a really terrible person and homophobic in his doctrine - also which Daniel refuses to perpetuate, and thus is one of the reasons he left the church his family has led for generations. That part doesn’t really change all that much. 

Baptism:  Baptism is done by full immersion in the Baptist church, rather than by sprinkling or pouring water. Baptism is done upon conversion to the church for adults, and confirmation for children born or brought into the church once they can understand the importance and true meaning of religion and God’s grace. This refers to genuine baptism and excludes Daniel’s use of “baptism” as a mechanism of control. 

Church Teachings:  New Eden Baptism does not subscribe to the One True Religion ideals that the Catholic church does. Community with other denominations, and the idea that all Christians who believe that Christ is the savior and give themselves to his salvation are saved - rather than the Catholic idea that only those within the Catholic church are worthy of salvation. The church does, however, teach that New Eden Baptism is the only correct religion, thus dissuading members to seek religious fulfillment elsewhere since it is still a cult. 

Daniel’s church, unlike the Catholic church, is an independently governed body. There is no religious government like the vatican. Daniel is the ultimate authority in his church and teachings. He is the one and only prophet of New Eden Baptism and his word is law in the doctrine. 

New Eden Baptism believes that the bible is the final authority on the teachings and history of Christianity. It is an honest account of humanity and our relationship to God and faith, but should be interpreted through the lense of the limits of human understanding and literary tools such as allegory, hyperbole, and metaphor. 

[marshmallowsandmedicine]

“You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”

This is a little out of the norm for what I post on this blog, yet it’s a story of coming full circle - of the way that learning the practice of medicine has helped heal me.  And so, I think it fits.

I grew up in a conservative Christian family and from a young age was taught about modesty.  There were certain body parts that were “private” and should always be kept under wraps.  Two-piece swimsuits were out of the question, along with short-shorts, tank tops, tube tops - anything that showed too much skin.  My inquisitive prepubescent 9-year-old mind had a really hard time accepting this, mainly because I couldn’t fathom what my mom meant when she said that kind of clothing caused boys to have “bad thoughts.”  Resentfully, I complied, inwardly wishing I could wear the same outfits “cool kids” wore.

Fast-forward to middle school and my family moved north to south, where we started attending a much more conservative, hard-line church.  Now the leotards I used to wear in ballet were preached against from the pulpit.  The one-piece swimsuits in my closet?  Forget about it - girls and boys shouldn’t even be swimming together anyway!  I knew families who wouldn’t let their kids swim even fully clothed because apparently the sopping wet wrinkly look left too little to the imagination.  Necklines were high, pants had to have a certain amount of give, skirts were knee-length or longer, and shorts were really out of the question.  Better just stick to capris.

By high school I fully endorsed the modesty standards of my church (mostly).  I was the girl who told people they shouldn’t go to prom, the girl who read “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” and absorbed the critical underlying premise of purity culture: girls’ bodies are a stumbling block.  I believed that God wanted me to dress modestly, yes, but I also believed that if I didn’t, guys around me would be all but forced into objectifying me and lusting after me.  The implied reason for dressing modestly was that I needed to cover up my body, which was a tantalizing piece of meat.  Although I had a diverse and positive high school experience which gave me a multi-faceted identity, somewhere in the back of my mind the dangerous thought was planted, that I was my body, and my body was a sexual object - a potential cause of sin.

College was a time of struggle and obsession over body image.  It was nearly 3 years of disordered eating, which although not reflected in the scale, certainly reflected in lost productivity, lost happiness, and low mental health.  When things went wrong, when people didn’t like me, I assumed it was my body.  I must be too fat (forget that I had always been, and still was, borderline underweight).  Dropping a pound meant happiness, success - because in my mind, I was my body, and to be thin was the highest goal.  Eventually, with maturity and greater self-kindness I overcame my demons and turned over a new healthier leaf, for a while.

Two years ago, I met a boy.  First we were friends, then we were more.  He was sweet (sometimes awkward) and deeply spiritual.  As we grew closer, he became one of the few guys I had ever met who really inspired me to be better.  I looked up to him.  He was so disciplined, so self-controlled, and he seemed to know the Bible inside and out.  At first I didn’t think I could be good enough for him, since the word on the street was that his standards were high.  But somehow I made the cut and we set out on an ill-fated journey.  There were warning signs along the way, but don’t we always see what we want to?  1) He had grown up going to the same conferences as the Duggars, the Institute of Basic Life Principles, led by the now-disgraced Bill Gothard (a legalistic “Christian” sleazebag accused of inappropriate relationships with young interns).  2) All the women in his family wore skirts and never wore pants.  3) He attended a tiny, exclusive church with extra-restrictive doctrines which taught that churches like mine were in “error.”

I should have read the writing on the wall.

It was a slow, insidious process.  One month of being reeled in and falling in love, and then the strings came out.  I’ll love you IF...  There were many strings, many conditional clauses, many things I needed to change to please him, but the biggest battle was what I wore.  As a clinical scribe, my daily outfit was scrubs.  You’d be hard-pressed to find a more relaxed and baggy pair of pants aside from sweats or pajamas.  And yet he told me, “When you move, I can see everything.”  “Guys aren’t like women, we’re very visual.”  “Why is it necessary to show every crack and cranny?”  And in so many words, “Wearing jeans that fit is basically like wearing nothing at all.”  We argued in circles.  Why isn’t it a double standard that men can wear pants if pants are too form-fitting?  I countered.  Well, men’s bodies aren’t attractive that way, he would answer.  In other words, it’s YOUR BODY that’s the PROBLEM.  You are sexual and create sexual thoughts in men, just by virtue of existing and being visible.

In the end, I stood my ground.  On principle, I don’t barter my integrity or views for a relationship, I don’t want love that comes with those kind of terms.  But the guilt lingered.  It was more than the typical breakup fallout, it was a deep sense of shame, of being not good enough, not holy enough, not modest enough.  And as someone who self-identified as modest and does care about dressing decently, this cut deep.  It meant spending endless hours of googling “are pants immodest” and perusing every article I could find.  It was questioning my intuition.  It was feeling that hot sense of anxiety and self-consciousness when I bent over or walked around clinic in my scrubs.  What if I was tempting some guy to check out my butt?  Who was looking?  What were they thinking?  I was, in short, viewing myself through the eyes of a pervert.  Objectifying myself.  Internalizing yet again the idea that I was a piece of meat.

***

I firmly believe in the power of a single idea.  (Didn’t Inception teach us anything?)  And our deepest emotional wounds are often not the result of external circumstances, but the way we choose to internally narrate the stories of our lives.  Often, it is a single false premise, a pesky, faulty, misbelief that must be brought to the light, inspected, and discarded before the healing can occur.  For me, one of these was the idea that I am my body, and my body is inherently sexual.

What needed to change was the way I saw the body.

Who knew that the key to this change looked like my student ID, scanning me into the cadaver lab?  There I started to see the human body differently, in all its post-mortem humility and frailty, but also as an amazing intricate masterpiece of coordinated systems.  I touched hearts and livers, fascia and genitalia.  The bodies of our donors lay before us, totally bare.  No clothes, no skin.  And it was not profane, not indecent, but sacred.

This semester we were introduced to the hallowed ritual of the physical examination.  We learned to become comfortable inspecting, auscultating, percussing, and palpating, and also taking off our shirts in front of our peers.  Stripping away clothing, we were also chipping away at the cultural lies that tell us our bodies are inherently sexual.  We learned to look with respect and touch with kindness.  

Today was our final OSCE.  It might seem like a small thing, but today I stood before one of my classmates, a male, in just shorts and a sports bra.  This was the first time I’d ever worn so little in front of one of my male peers.  And I knew in that moment, that he was not undressing me in his mind.  He was looking at me through a different lens, one of respect and dignity.  And in that moment, I understood once and for all.  My body is not, and has never been, a problem.  My body is not the reason someone catcalls or objectifies me.  The issue isn’t what there is to see, but the way we choose to see it.

“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?  But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts — murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.  These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

(Matthew 15:16-20)

[christianstevefinnell]

THE DEVIL IS THE FATHER OF DECEIT  BY STEVE FINNELL

Satan was a liar from the beginning in the Garden of Eden. Satan deceived Eve and Eve convinced Adam that that deception was factually correct.  (Genesis 3:1-13.....And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done? And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me and I ate."'NKJV)

The Devil is the father of lies. He is the great deceiver. (John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil.....When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. NKJV)

Men are still being deceived by the Devil and in turn are deceiving others. It does not matter if a person is deceived and then deceives others, the results are the same for both of them.

There are some so-called Christians who claim Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven.

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God you will died in your sins. (John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in yours."NKJV)

If the master of deception convinces men that immersion in water is not essential for salvation and the deceived teach others the same, then, they are both dupes of duplicity.(Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...)

Adam and Eve were both deceived. The, I was deceived by the serpent excuse, did not save them from death.

If what men are being taught is contrary to Scriptures, then, they are being deceived. What will be the consequences of accepting doctrine contrary to the Bible?

Pride and the lack of honest prayer and dishonest Bible study leaves people subject to becoming dupes of duplicity.

Satan is the father of deceit!

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

10:56 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS JESUS GOD THE FATHER? ---BY STEVE FINNELL

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NASB)

Yes, Jesus was and is God.

Matthew 24:35-36 Heaven and earth will pass away...36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.(NASB)

Jesus does not know the end of time date. Only the Father knows. Jesus is not God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 But now Christ has been raised from the dead....24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and authority and power.........28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB)

Jesus is God, however, He is not God the Father.    

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:14 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2016

5 Reasons Racism is Ridiculousby

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Atheism has no rational basis upon which to call anything objectively just or unjust, including racism. If mankind is merely the result of billions of years of mindless evolution and is nothing more than animals (as atheistic evolution contends; Marchant, 2008), then man can logically make evolutionary-based racist remarks that are consistent with the godless General Theory of Evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog,” atheist Thomas Huxley, did just that in his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White.” He alleged, for example, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less superior, of the white man.” In truth, if there is no God, mankind could just as easily look down upon and mistreat others (whom he deems are less evolved), as he does roaches, rats, and orangutans (

Lyons

, 2011;

Lyons and Butt

, 2009). Those who are Christians, however, logically contend that since (1) God exists, and (2) the Bible is the Word of God, racism is morally wrong—and completely ridiculous for the following five reasons.

#1—ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Not only did God specially create Adam and Eve in His image and vastly different than all other living things on Earth (Genesis 1:26-27), since then, every human being has been made according to God’s likeness. While preaching to Gentiles in Athens thousands of years after the Creation, Paul, a Jew, did not contend that man was once the offspring of God; he said, “We are” the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29). [The Greek word esmen in 17:28 is the first person plural of eimi (to be). This recognition of being God’s offspring served as a basis for his argument, as the next verse indicates: “Being then the offspring of God….”]James wrote: “But the tongue can no man tame; it is a restless evil, it is full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing. My brethren these things ought not so to be” (3:8-9, ASV, emp. added). [The English verb “are made” (ASV) derives from the Greek gegonotas, which is the perfect participle of the verbginomai. The perfect tense in Greek is used to describe an action brought to completion in the past, but whose effects are felt in the present (Mounce, 1993, p. 219).] The thrust of the expression, “who are made after the likeness of God” (Greek kath’ homoisosin theou gegonotas), is that humans in the past have been made according to the likeness of God, andthey are still bearers of that likeness. For this reason, praising the Creator at one moment, while hurling unkind, racist remarks at another time, is terribly inconsistent in a most unChristlike way. All human beings (of every color and ethnicity) are divine image bearers.

#2—GOD ONLY MADE ONE RACE—THE HUMAN RACE

Although people come in different colors, shapes, and sizes, and although they often associate more closely with those whom they find more similar in ways to themselves, the fact is, there is only one human race. Racism is ridiculous because we are all related, not by means of naturalistic evolution, but by special Creation. No one person is inherently of more value than another person. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve—the specially created couple whom God made thousands of years ago in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20). What’s more, we are also sons and daughters of Noah and his wife, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the worldwide Flood of Genesis 6-8.As the apostle Paul informed the idolatrous Athenians 2,000 years ago, God “made from oneblood every nation to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Adam and Eve had children, who had children, who had children…who had you and me. We are all physically related. We are all of one race—the one human race. We are all (as modern science classifies us) of the same human species—Homo sapiens. We all trace our ancestry back to Noah, and then back to Adam. We may have different skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc., but we are all brothers and sisters! We are family—a part of the same human race.

#3—GOD DOESN’T PLAY FAVORITES…AND NEITHER SHOULD WE

Although God is omnipotent, He is actually color-blind. His all-loving, perfectly just nature will not allow Him to love someone more than another based upon the color of a person’s skin or the nation in which one was born. Similar to how God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), God cannot show favoritism.Moses wrote: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:17-19). Peter said: “God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35, emp. added). According to Paul, God “does not receive a face” (Galatians 2:6, NASB literal footnote rendering); that is, “God does not judge by external appearance” (Galatians 2:6, NIV).In short, it is impossible to hold “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, (the Lord) of glory, with respect of persons” (James 2:1, ASV). The Christian’s care and concern for his fellow brother by Creation and by Christ is to be color-blind.

#4—LOVE IS NOT RACIST

Whereas racism is fueled by earthly ignorance and hate, the Christian is filled with the fruit of Heaven’s Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). The child of God is directed by an omniscient, omni-benevolent Father Who expects His children to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). To the Philippians Paul wrote, “And this I pray,that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (1:9-11, emp. added). In two of the more challenging sections of Scripture, Paul wrote: “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6, ESV). “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another…. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse…. Repay no one evil for evil…. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:9-18).No Christian can be a racist, and any racist who claims to be a Christian is, in truth, a liar. As the apostle John explained, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).“[W]hatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor [regardless of his or her color and ethnicity—EL]. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10, NIV).

#5—JESUS IS EVERYONE’S SAVIOR

In one of the earliest Messianic prophecies, God promised Abraham that it would be through One of his descendants that “all the nations” and “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18; 12:3, emp. added). It certainly was an honor for Abraham’s family to be chosen as the one through whom the Savior of the world would come, but Jesus did not come only to save the Jews. God did not enact a plan of salvation to save one particular color of people. He did not send Jesus to take away the sins of a particular ethnic group or nation. Jesus is the answer to the whole world’s sin problem; He is “the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, thatwhoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17, emp. added).“God…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4, emp. added). For this reason, “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:47, emp. added)—to people of all colors, in all cultures, in whatever countries.The Gospel “is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16, emp. added). And when individuals in the world “obey the Gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8; see

Lyons and Butt

, n.d.) and are added to the Lord’s Church by God Himself (Acts 2:47), we allbecome one in Christ Jesus. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29).

CONCLUSION

I do not claim to be an expert on race relations, but I know that some people genuinely struggle with the sin of racism. Some struggle with being the recipients of racism, which in turn may cause them to be tempted to react in racist ways. Others struggle with cowardly silence as they tolerate the sin of racism in their homes, churches, schools, businesses, and communities. Still others seem so preoccupied with advancing their own racial agenda that they appear to hastily interpret most everything as a racial problem, when most things are not.Jesus once taught the hypocrites of His day, saying, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). May God help us to see as He sees: “for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). What a better world this would be if everyone realized the foolishness of judging a book by its cover. Racism really is ridiculous.

REFERENCES

Huxley, Thomas (1865), “Emancipation—Black and White,” http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html.Lyons, Eric (2011), “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4101&topic=95

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),

http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Receiving%20the%20Gift%20of%20Salvation.pdf

.Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Darwin, Evolution, and Racism,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2654

.Marchant, Jo (2008), “We Should Act Like the Animals We Are,” New Scientist, 200[2678]:44-45, October 18-24.Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Copyright © 2015 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

8:38 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS BAPTISM SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE?---BY STEVE FINNELL

Is baptism essential to receive forgiveness of sins or is it simply an act of obedience?

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

Baptism is essential to forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them , "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

Baptism is not simply an act of obedience it is in order to receive forgiveness from sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT ARE NOT FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

1. Attending worship services.

2. Acts of evangelism.

3. Financial support of the Lord's church.

4. Doing good works.

5. Loving your neighbor as yourself

Simple acts of obedience are not in order to the forgiveness of sins.

ACTS OF OBEDIENCE THAT SAVE MEN.

1. Faith: John 3:16

2. Repentance: Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19

3. Confession: Romans 10:9-10

4. Immersion in water: Marl 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16

BAPTISM IS NOT SIMPLY AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE. THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN BAPTISM AND SALVATION

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

7:44 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

WATER BAPTISM DENIERS BY STEVE FINNELL

Water baptism deniers claim that you can ignore Mark 16:16 because some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20. The problem is there are 60+ Bible translations that include those verses. I know of no English translation of the Bible that omits Mark 16:9-20. Yes, these same deniers have Mark 16:16 in the Bible they read. That does not keep them from explaining away that truth of Mark 16:16.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)

If the deniers cannot convince you that Mark 16:16 is not the inspired word of God. They will deny that "and" is a conjunction.

And Defined: A conjunction is used to grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses.[Ref. Dictionary.com]

Examples

1. Mark 16:16  He who believes and is baptized will be saved..(NKJV)

2. Acts 2:38 ...Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...(NKJV)

3. You need an engine and gasoline to start your automobile. You cannot start your car by the engine alone.

4. Your doctor says you need surgery and a blood transfusion in order to live. You cannot live by surgery alone.

5. You must have a house with walls, and a roof and a heating system to keep your house warm in winter. You cannot keep warm by a house with walls alone.

Denying that the Bible includes Mark 16:16 does not prove that water baptism is not essential in order to be saved.

Denying that "and" is a conjunction does not mean that you can have your sins forgiven without being baptized in water.

It takes a skilled professional to convince men that immersion in water (that is baptism) is not essential in order to be saved from the penalty of sin.

Honestly seeking God's truth trumps the erroneous teaching of skilled professionals every time it is tried.      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:41 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

DOES PREACHING THE TRUTH PROMOTE HARMONY AND UNITY?----BY STEVE FINNELL

Does preaching the Biblical truth found in the new testament Scriptures lead to harmony, unity, and acceptance by the world and by believers in Jesus Christ? No, it does not.

Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.(NASB)

Anyone who has the audacity to preach or teach

the truth as found in the new testament Scriptures will not only be criticized by family members, but ostracized by fellow Christians and the world as well.

The truth in Christ promotes conflict with those who reject God's written word.

Jesus was crucified for not only preaching truth, but for being the Truth.

Eleven out of the twelve apostles were executed for preaching the truth.

Truth that causes conflict.

1. Teaching that immersion in water is essential to salvation. (Mark 16:16)

2. Proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven. (John 14:6)

3. Teaching that is a sin to worship by praying to the Virgin Mary.(Matthew 4:10)

4. Teaching that Christians can lose their salvation.(1 Timothy 4:1-5)

5. Teaching that Christians should avoid those who cause division by teaching false doctrine. (Romans 16:17)

6. Teaching that men have the free-will to accept or reject the gospel. (John 3:16)

Preaching God's truth does not promote peace among those who do not love the truth.(2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.)NASB

         Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:39 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2016

TRUST GOD OR NOT? BY STEVE FINNELL

When Christians are ask if they trust God; most would respond in the affirmative. Do Christians really believe God is trustworthy?

How do Christian respond when asked, do they believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God? For many, the trust, in God starts to wane at this point. An all too common reply, is of course the Bible is God's word, however, the Scriptures were recorded and translated into other languages my mere men. We know men make mistakes.

What is mystifying to me is how believers in Christ can proclaim that they believe God created the heavens and the earth, but do not believe God has the power to direct men to record and translate His word without error. Would that be a God you could trust?

Matthew 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone , but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" (NASB)

Jesus said men should live on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. How would that be possible if the Bible is not the infallible word of God?

1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.(NASB)

John said we know Jesus if we keep His commandments. If the Bible is not God's incontrovertible truth, how can we know we are keeping the commandments of Jesus?

THE GOD I WORSHIP HAS THE POWER TO PRODUCE A BIBLE THAT IS INERRANT, FACTUAL, INFALLIBLE, FREE FROM ERROR, LITERAL IN HISTORICAL ACCURACY, TRANSLATED CORRECTLY, AND YES, INSPIRED BY GOD HIMSELF.

There those who agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God but then state that you have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to understand the meaning of Scripture.

In order to understand the Bible you have to understand whatever language translation you are reading. If English is your first language then you should use an English translation, if German is your primary language then read a German translation, if you are Greek then read a Greek translation etc.

It is not ironic that they do not believe you have be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar to under Joshua 10:13, however, in order to understand Acts 2:38 you have be not only have to be a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scholar, but an English professor as well.

Joshua 10:13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

The "scholar police" accept Joshua 10:13 at face value; as well they should.

The "scholar police" believe you have to be a Greek scholar and an English professor to understand Acts 2:38.

The "scholar police" have an agenda. There goal is to convince the world that water baptism is not essential to have sins forgiven.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The Thompson Chain -Reference Bible NIV)

You do not have to be a Greek scholar or an English professor to understand what "so that your sins may be forgiven" means.

Acts 2:38 Peter told them, "you must repent  and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus , so that you may have your sins forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips)

If you have a fifth grade reading level you are capable of understand the meaning of "so that you may have your sins forgiven."

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Let each one of you repent and be immersed, in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (The Better Version of The New Testament by Chester Estes)

"In order to the remission of sins" means the same thing whether you are a Greek scholar, a professor in English or a novice Christian.

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

It does not matter if you are a Greek scholar, or an English professor; "for the forgiveness or your sins" means exactly what it says.

DO NOT LET THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" CONVINCE YOU, THAT ONLY AN ELITE FEW CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.

CONTRARY TO THE "SCHOLAR POLICE" WATER BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE YOUR SINS FORGIVEN!      

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

2:00 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28, 2016

EVOLUTION OR CREATION?   BY STEVE FINNELL

Where did mankind come from? Evolution Or God?

Evolutionists claim man came from bacteria through monkeys.(A theory)

The Bible claims man was created by God through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 3:9....God who created all things through Jesus Christ; NKJV)

Two choices. Only one answer.

Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

1:14 PM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY?  BY STEVE FINNELL

Is it possible to teach God's truth about Jesus Christ and be intellectually dishonest?

Example: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NASB)

Would it be intellectually honest to say that baptized for the forgiveness of sins actually means you are baptized because your sins have already been forgiven?

Would it be intellectually honest to say that to repent for the forgiveness of sins actually means you have repented because your sins have already been forgiven? [Repentance is the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and to repent of unbelief and to turn toward God]

When you take an aspirin "for" a headache you are not taking an aspirin because your headache has already been cured.

To say that "for" in Acts 2:38 does not mean "in order to" is being intellectually dishonest.

Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins, (NASB)

It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that Jesus shed His blood because the sins of men had already been forgiven. Jesus shed His blood "for" [in order to] the forgiveness of sins.

     Posted by

Steve Finnell

at

11:45 AM

No comments:

Email This

BlogThis!

Share to Twitter

Share to Facebook

Share to Pinterest

SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 2016

13 Objections to Baptismby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

S

ome churches historically have taught that water immersion is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. This means that a penitent believer remains unforgiven of sin until buried in the waters of baptism (Romans 6:4). Much of the denominational world disagrees with this analysis of Bible teaching, holding instead that one is saved at the point of “belief,” before and without water baptism. Consider some of the points that are advanced in an effort to minimize the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

OBJECTION #1: “JESUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BECAUSE HE WAS SINLESS; THEREFORE, PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. THEY MERELY IMITATE JESUS’ EXAMPLE.”

The baptism to which Jesus submitted Himself was John’s baptism (Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9). John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This truth is particularly evident from the fact that when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism, John sought to deter Him, noting that, if anything, Jesus needed to baptize John (Matthew 3:14). Jesus did not correct John, as many seek to do today, by falsely arguing that baptism is not for remission of sins. Rather, Jesus, in effect, agreed with John, but made clear that His baptism was an exception to the rule.Jesus’ baptism was unique and not to be compared to anyone else’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism had the unique purpose of “fulfilling all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, it was necessary for Jesus to submit to John’s baptism (1) to show His contemporaries that no one is exempt from submitting to God’s will and (2) more specifically, Christ’s baptism was God’s appointed means of pinpointing for the world the precise identity of His Son. It was not until John saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus and heard the voice (“This is My Son...”) that he knew that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-34; Matthew 3:16-17).Of course, John’s baptism is no longer valid (Acts 18:24-19:5). John’s baptism paralleled New Testament baptism in the sense that both were for the forgiveness of sins. But John’s baptism was transitional in nature, preparing Jews for their Messiah. Baptism after the cross is for all people (Matthew 28:19), in Jesus’ name (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:5), into His death (Romans 6:3), in order to be clothed with Him (Galatians 3:27), and added to His church (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must not use Jesus’ baptism to suggest that salvation occurs prior to baptism.

OBJECTION #2: “THE THIEF ON THE CROSS WAS NOT BAPTIZED, AND HE WAS SAVED.”

When we “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), we see that the thief was not subject to the New Testament command of immersion because this command was not given until after the thief’s death.¹ It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It was not until Christ’s death that the Old Testament ceased, signified by the tearing of the Temple curtain (Matthew 27:51). When Jesus died, He took away the Old Testament, “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).The word “testament” means “covenant” or “will.” The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament, which consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ. If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (salvation, forgiveness of sin, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will for which Christ is mediator (Hebrews 9:15), for “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).So prior to the Lord’s death and the sealing of the New Testament, the baptism for the forgiveness of sins that would be in effect after the crucifixion was not a requirement for those who sought to be acceptable to God. Indeed, while Jesus was on Earth in person, He exercised His authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6). People now, however, live during the Christian era of religious history. Prior to Christ’s death, there were no Christians (Acts 11:26). For a person to reject water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the basis of what the thief did or did not do, is comparable to Abraham seeking salvation by building an ark—because that’s what Noah did to please God. It would be like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19) refusing Christ’s directive to sell all his possessions—because wealthy King David did not have to sell his possessions in order to please God.The thief on the cross could not have been baptized the way the new covenant stipulates you and I must be baptized. Why? Romans 6:3-4 teaches that if we wish to acquire “newness of life,” we must be baptized into Christ’s death, be buried with Christ in baptism, and then be raised from the dead. There was no way for the thief to comply with this New Testament baptism—Christ had not died! Christ had not been buried! Christ had not been raised! In fact, none of God’s ordained teachings pertaining to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10), and in His body the Church (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:22-23), had been given. The church, which Christ’s shed blood purchased (Acts 20:28), had not been established, and was not set up until weeks later (Acts 2).

2

We must not look to the thief as an example of salvation. Instead, we must obey “from the heart that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17)—the form of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6:3-4). Only then can we be “made free from sin to become the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18).

OBJECTION #3: “THE BIBLE SAYS, ‘CHRIST STANDS AT THE DOOR OF YOUR HEART,’ AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO BE FORGIVEN OF SIN AND BECOME A CHRISTIAN IS TO INVITE HIM INTO OUR HEARTS.”

It is no doubt startling to discover that the Bible simply does not say such a thing. The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually invoked to support the idea. But examine what Revelation 3:20 actually teaches. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 consist of seven specific messages directed to seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor in the first century. Thus, at the outset, we must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed toChristians—not non-Christians seeking conversion to Christ.Second, Revelation 3:20 is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into a lost condition. The members were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They had to recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language indicating their need to repent (3:19). They needed to return to the obedient lifestyle essential to sustaining God’s favor (John 14:21,23).Observe that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus comes into their heart and they are simultaneously saved from all past sin and have become Christians. The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.Does the Bible teach that Christ comes into a person’s heart? Yes, but not in the way the religious world suggests. For instance, Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heartthrough faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When Bible truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22). Thus Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [i.e, repentance—DM] and our bodies washed with pure water [i.e., baptism—DM]” (Hebrews 10:22).

OBJECTION #4: “A PERSON IS SAVED THE MOMENT HE ACCEPTS CHRIST AS HIS PERSONAL SAVIOR—WHICH PRECEDES AND THEREFORE EXCLUDES WATER BAPTISM.”

To suggest that all one has to do to receive the forgiveness of God and become a Christian is to mentally accept Jesus into his heart and make a verbal statement to that effect, is to dispute the declaration of Jesus in Matthew 7:21—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” To be sure, oral confession of Christ is one of the prerequisites to salvation (Romans 10:10). But Jesus said there is more to becoming a blood-bought follower of His than verbally “calling on his name”

3

or “inwardly accepting Him as Savior.” He stated that before we can even consider ourselves as God’s children (Christians), we must show our acceptance of His gift through outward obedience—“He that does the will of My Father.” Notice the significant contrast Jesus made: the difference between mental/verbal determination to accept and follow the Lord, versus verbal confession coupled with action or obedience (cf. James 2:14,17). This is why we must do everything the Lord has indicated must be done prior to salvation. Jesus is telling us that it is possible to make the mistake of claiming we have found the Lord, when we have not done what He plainly told us to do.Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus also stated: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Honestly, have you accepted Christ as your personal savior—in the way He said it must be done? He asks: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, emp. added).

OBJECTION #5: “WE ARE CLOTHED WITH CHRIST AND BECOME HIS CHILDREN WHEN WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN HIM.”

Read Galatians 3:26-27: “You are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The words “put on” (NKJV) are a translation of the Greek verb enduo which signifies “to enter into, get into, as into clothes, to put on.” Can we be saved prior to “putting Christ on” or “being clothed” with Christ? Of course not. But when and how does one put on Christ—according to Paul? When one is baptized in water. Those who teach we can be saved before baptism are, in reality, teaching we can be saved while spiritually naked and without Christ! Paul affirms that we “put on” Christ at the point of our baptism—not before.Paul wrote these words to people who were already saved. They had been made “sons of God by faith.” But how? At what point had they “been clothed with Christ”? When were they made “sons of God by faith”? When were they saved? Paul makes the answer to these questions very plain: they were united with Christ, had put on Christ, and were clothed with Christ—when they were baptized. Ask yourself if you have been clothed with Christ.

OBJECTION #6: “BAPTISM IS LIKE A BADGE ON A UNIFORM THAT MERELY GIVES EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON IS ALREADY SAVED.”

The New Testament nowhere expounds the idea that baptism is merely a “badge” or “outward sign of an inward grace.” Yes, baptism can biblically be referred to as a symbolicact; but what does it symbolize? Previous forgiveness? No! Romans 6 indicates that baptism symbolizes the previous death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the benefits of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (remember, Jesus’ blood, which blots out sin, was shed in the context of His death, burial, and resurrection) are realized and received by the individual when he obediently (in penitent faith) submits to a similar ordeal, i.e., the death of his own “old man” or “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), burial (immersion into a watery tomb), and resurrection (rising from the watery tomb).Denominational doctrine maintains that forgiveness of sin is received prior to baptism. If so, the “new life” of the saved individual would also begin prior to baptism. Yet Paul said the “new life” occurs after baptism. He reiterated this to the Colossians. The “putting off of the body of the flesh by Christ’s circumcision” (Colossians 2:11) is accomplished in the context of water immersion and being “risen with Him” (Colossians 2:12). Chapter 3 then draws the important observation: “If then you were raised with Christ [an undeniable reference to baptism—DM], seek those things which are above” [an undeniable reference to the new life which follows—not precedes—baptism].

OBJECTION #7: “BAPTISM IS A MERITORIOUS WORK, WHEREAS WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE, NOT WORKS.”

“Works” or “steps” of salvation do not imply that one “merits” his salvation upon obedient compliance with those actions. Rather, “steps” or “a process” signifies the biblical concept of preconditions, stipulations of faith, or acts of obedience—what James called “works” (James 2:17). James was not saying that one can earn his justification (James 2:24). Rather, he was describing the active nature of faith, showing that saving faith, faith that is alive—as opposed to dead and therefore utterly useless (2:20)—is the only kind that is acceptable to God, a faith that obeys whatever actions God has indicated must be done. The obedience of both Abraham and Rahab is set forth as illustrative of the kind of faith James says is acceptable. They manifested their trust by actively doing what God wanted done. Such obedient or active trust is the only kind that avails anything. Thus, an obedient response is essential.The actions themselves are manifestations of this trust that justifies, not the trust itself. But notice that according to James, you cannot have one without the other. Trust, or faith, isdead, until it leads one to obey the specifications God assigned. Here is the essence of salvation that separates those who adhere to biblical teaching from those who have been adversely influenced by the Protestant reformers. The reformers reacted to the unbiblical concept of stacking bad deeds against good deeds in an effort to offset the former by the latter (cf. Islam). Unfortunately, the reactionary reformers went to the equally unacceptable, opposite extreme by asserting that man need “only believe” (Luther) or man can do nothing at all (Calvin). The truth is between these two unbiblical extremes.From Genesis to Revelation, faith is the trusting, obedient reaction that humans manifest in response to what God offers. This is the kind of “justification by faith” that Paul expounded in Romans. Like red flags at the very beginning (1:5) and at the end (16:26) of his divinely inspired treatise, he defined what he meant by “faith” with the words “obedient faith” (hupakoeinpisteos), i.e., faith that obeys, obedience which springs from faith.

4

This fact is precisely why God declared His willingness to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham: “because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). Hence, in Romans Paul could speak of the necessity of walking “in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had” (Romans 4:12). Until faith obeys, it is useless and cannot justify.The Hebrews writer made the same point in Hebrews 11. The faith we see in Old Testament “men of faith” availed only after they obeyed God-given stipulations. God rewards those who “diligently seek Him” in faith (vs. 6). Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” when he “prepared an ark.” If he had not complied with divine instructions, he would have been branded as “unfaithful.” The thing that made the difference, that constituted the line of demarcation between faith and lack of faith, was obedient action—what James called “works,” and Paul called “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In this sense, even faith is a “work” (John 6:29). Hebrews 11 repeatedly reinforces this eternal principle: (1) God offers grace (which may at any point in history consist of physical blessings, e.g., healing, salvation from enemies, land or property, etc., or spiritual blessings, e.g., justification, forgiveness, salvation from sin, being made righteous, etc.); (2) man responds in obedient trust (i.e., “faith”) by complying with the stipulated terms; and (3) God bestows the blessing.It would be wrong to think that man’s obedient response earns or merits the subsequent blessing. Such simply does not logically follow. All blessings God bestows on man are undeserved (Luke 17:10). His rich mercy and loving grace is freely offered and made available—though man never deserves such kindness (Titus 2:11). Still, a non-meritorious response is absolutely necessary if unworthy man is to receive certain blessings.

OBJECTION #8: “NOT ONLY IS BAPTISM NONESSENTIAL TO SALVATION, EVEN FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD TO A PERSON. MAN IS SO DEPRAVED THAT HE IS INCAPABLE OF BELIEVING.”

Surely, God’s infinite justice would not permit Him to force man to desire God’s blessings. God’s intervention into man’s woeful condition was not in the form of causing man to desire help or miraculously generating faith within man. God intervened by giving His inspired Word, which tells how He gave His Son to make a way for man to escape eternal calamity. Faith is then generated in the individual by God’s words which the person must read and understand (Romans 10:17; Acts 8:30). The individual then demonstrates his faith in obedience.Did the walls of Jericho fall down “by faith” (Hebrews 11:30)? Absolutely. But the salient question is: “When?” Did the walls fall the moment the Israelites merely “believed” that they would fall? No! Rather, when the people obeyed the divine directives. The walls fell “by faith”after the people met God’s conditions. If the conditions had not been met, the walls would not have fallen down “by faith.” The Israelites could not claim that the walls fell by their own effort, or that they earned the collapse of the walls. The city was given to them by God as an undeserved act of His grace (Joshua 6:2). To receive the free gift of the city, the people had to obey the divinely stipulated prerequisites.Notice the capsuling nature of Hebrews 11:6. Faith or belief is not given by God. It is something that man does in order to please God. The whole chapter is predicated on the fundamental idea that man is personally responsible for mustering obedient trust. God does not “regenerate man by His call, thus enabling man to respond.” God “calls” individuals through, by means of, His written Word (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In turn, the written Word can generate faith in the individual (Romans 10:17). How unscriptural to suggest that man is so “totally depraved” that he cannot even believe, thus placing God in the position of demanding something from man (John 8:24) of which man is inherently incapable. But the God of the Bible would not be guilty of such injustice.Some people approach passages like Romans 10:17 in this fashion: (1) God chooses to save an individual; (2) God gives him the free gift of faith; and (3) God uses the Gospel to stir up the faith which He has given the person. Yet neither Romans 10:17, nor any other passage, even hints at such an idea. The text states explicitly that faith comes from hearing Christ’s Word. Notice verse 14, where the true sequence is given: (1) the preacher preaches; (2) the individual hears the preached word; and (3) believes. This sequence is a far cry from suggesting that God miraculously imparts faith to a person, and then the Holy Spirit “stirs up” the faith. Such a notion has God giving man a defective faith which then needs to be stirred up. The text makes clear that God has provided for faith to be generated (i.e., originated) by the preached Word. God does not arbitrarily intervene and impose faith upon the hearts of a select group of individuals.According to 1 Corinthians 1:21, mankind did not know God, so God transmitted His message through inspired preachers so that those who respond in faith would be saved. Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that this gospel message is God’s power to save those who believe it. Notice that the Gospel is what Paul preached (vs. 15). Thus the preached message from God generates faith and enables people to be saved.We see the same in Acts 2:37. What pierced the hearts of the listeners? Obviously, the sermon. Acts 2:37 is a demonstration of Romans 10:17—“faith comes by hearing…the word of God.” God did not change the hearts of the people miraculously; Peter’s words did. If denominational doctrine is correct, when the Jews asked the apostles what they should do, Peter should have said: “There’s nothing you can do. You are so totally depraved, you can’t do anything. God will regenerate you; He will cause you to believe (since faith is His ‘free gift’).” Yet, quite to the contrary, Peter told them that they needed to do some things. And they were things that God could not do for them.First, they were required to “repent.” Biblical repentance is a change of mind (Matthew 21:29). A “turning” follows repentance (Acts 3:19) and consists of some specified action subsequent to the change of mind. John the Baptizer called this turning activity, which follows repentance and serves as evidence that repentance has occurred, “fruits” (Matthew 3:8). After being convicted (Acts 2:37—i.e., believing the truth of Peter’s contentions), they were told to “repent,” to change their minds about their previous course of life. What else were they to do?Peter did not tell them to “repent and believe.” Their belief was already abundantly evident in their pricked hearts and their fervent petition for instructions. What was lacking? Peter said (i.e., God said) they still lacked baptism. Remember, the only difference between dead faith and saving faith is outward action—compliance with all actions that God specifies as necessary before He will freely bestow unmerited favor in the form of forgiveness.Thus baptism marked the point at which God would count them righteous if they first believed and repented. Baptism served as the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. Jesus’ blood could wash their sins away only at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #9: “THE PREPOSITION ‘FOR’ IN THE PHRASE ‘FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS’ IN ACTS 2:38 MEANS ‘BECAUSE OF.’ HENCE, THEY WERE BAPTIZED BECAUSE OF SINS FOR WHICH THEY WERE FORGIVEN WHEN THEY BELIEVED.”

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward. We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the inspired grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction. The same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“into the remission of sins” (eisaphesin hamartion). Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.Similarly, in Acts 2:38, if repentance is not “because of” remission of sins, neither is baptism. Regardless of person and number considerations, Peter told his hearers to do both things. The act of baptism (connected to the act of repentance by the coordinate conjunction) cannot be extricated from the context of remission of sins by any stretch.

OBJECTION #10: “WHEN THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER ASKED WHAT TO DO TO BE SAVED, HE WAS SIMPLY TOLD TO BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

As further proof that God does not miraculously bestow faith on a person through the Holy Spirit, observe that Paul told the jailer that he (the jailer) had to believe; he did not answer the jailer’s question with: “You don’t have to do anything. God will give you faith.” On the contrary, Paul and Silas told him that he had to manifest faith in Jesus. But was this pagan jailer in a position at that moment to do so? No, he would have to be taught Who, how, and what to believe. No wonder, then, Luke records immediately: “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:32). If Romans 10:17 can be trusted, the words which Paul and Silas proclaimed generated faith in the jailer. And those same words surely included the necessity of repentance and baptism, because the jailer immediately manifested the fruit of repentance (by washing their stripes), and likewise was immediately baptized (not waiting until morning or the weekend). Observe carefully Luke’s meticulous documentation, that it was only afterthe jailer believed, repented, and was baptized, that the jailer was in a position to rejoice. Only then did Luke describe the jailer as “having believed in God” (vs. 34), i.e., now standing in a state of perfected belief.

5

OBJECTION #11: “SAUL WAS SAVED BEFORE AND WITHOUT BAPTISM WHILE HE WAS ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS WHEN JESUS APPEARED TO HIM.”

The actual sequence of events delineated in Acts shows that Saul was not saved while on the road to Damascus. Jesus identified Himself and then accused Saul of being a persecutor (Acts 9:5). Saul “trembled” and was “astonished” (hardly the description of a saved individual), and pleadingly asked what he should do—a clear indication that he had just been struck with his lost and undone condition.This question has the exact same force as the Pentecostians’ question (Acts 2:37) and the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30). All three passages are analogous in their characterization of individuals who had acted wrongly (i.e., the Pentecostians had crucified Jesus, Saul was persecuting Christians, and the jailer had kept innocent Christians jailed). Likewise, in each instance, the candidates for conversion are portrayed as unhappy (i.e., the Pentecostians were “cut to the heart,” Saul “trembled” and “was astonished,” and the jailer “came trembling”—i.e., he was frightened). They were scared, miserable individuals, suddenly brought face to face with their horribly unacceptable status before God. Such is hardly an apt description for saved individuals. Where is the joy, peace, and excitement that comes when one’s sins have been washed away?Saul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus—he still needed to be told what he “must do” (Acts 9:6). He still lacked “hearing the word of the Lord.” The only way for Saul to hear the Gospel was through the agency of a preacher (Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21).  Similarly, an angel told Cornelius (Acts 10:4) that his prayers and money had gone up for a memorial before God—yet he was unsaved. He needed to contact an inspired preacher, Peter, “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Likewise, before Saul could learn of God’s plan that he be the great “apostle of the Gentiles,” he first needed to hear the Gospel expounded and told how to respond to what God offered in Christ.Rather than tell him what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to go into the city, where a preacher (Ananias) would expound to him the necessity of salvation. Notice: Saul waited in Damascus for three days without food and drink, and was still blind. Here’s an individual who was still miserable, unhappy, and unsaved, awaiting instructions on how to change his unfortunate status. Acts 9:18 condenses Saul’s response to the preached Word, while Acts 22 elaborates a little further on the significance of Saul’s response. Ananias said, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).Notice Ananias’ inspired connection between baptism and sins being cleansed. If Saul was saved prior to baptism, it was wrong for Ananias to say that Saul still had sins that needed to be washed away. Ananias did not congratulate Saul because his sins already were washed away, and tell him that he needed to be baptized only as a “badge” or “outward symbol” or “picture” of what had already occurred. He plainly said Saul’s sins yet needed to be washed away. That can be accomplished only by Jesus’ blood in the act of baptism. The water does not cleanse the sin-stained soul—Jesus does. And Ananias clearly stated when(not how or by Whom) that occurs. If Saul’s penitent faith would not lead him to submit to water immersion, he could not have had his sins washed away by Jesus. Instead, he would have remained in opposition to Jesus. Remember, Scripture never portrays baptism as symbolic of previous sin removal. The only symbolism ever attached to the act of baptism is its (1) likeness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5); (2) its comparison to the removal of sin like circumcision removes skin (Colossians 2:12); and (3) its likeness to Noah’s emergence from a sinful world (1 Peter 3:20-21). God literally (not symbolically) removes sin and justifies the individual by grace, through faith, at the point of baptism.

OBJECTION #12: “IF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY TO SALVATION, JESUS WOULD HAVE SAID, ‘BUT HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE AND IS NOT BAPTIZED WILL BE CONDEMNED’ IN MARK 16:16. AND BESIDES, THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK 16 ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE OLDEST AND BEST GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.”

The omission of “and is not baptized” in Mark 16:16 is completely logical and necessary. The first phrase (“he who believes and is baptized”) describes man’s complete response necessitated by the preaching of the Gospel: Faith must precede baptism, since obviously one would not submit to baptism if he did not first believe. It is non-essential to ascribe condemnation in the second clause to the individual who is not baptized, since the individual being condemned is the one who does not initially believe. The person who refuses to believe “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and certainly would not be interested in the next item of compliance—baptism. He who does not believe would obviously not be baptized—and even if he would, his failure to first believe disqualifies him from being immersed. Only penitent believers are candidates for baptism. An exact grammatical parallel would be: “He who goes to the store and buys coffee for his father will receive $5.00. He who does not go to the store will be spanked.” Obviously, if the child refuses to go to the store, he would not be in a position to buy coffee, and it would be redundant—even grammatically and linguistically inappropriate—to include the failure to purchase the coffee in the pronouncement of an impending spanking.Are the last verses of Mark 16 uninspired? The textual evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is exceptional in light of the vast sources available for establishing the original text. While it is true that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the last 12 verses, it is positively misleading to assume that “the validity of these verses is weak.” In fact, the vast number of witnesses are in favor of the authenticity of verses 9-20. The rejection ofVaticanus is less weighty in light of its comparable exclusion of the Pastoral Epistles, the last part of Hebrews, and Revelation. The rejection of Sinaiticus is similarly unconvincing, since it includes some of the Apocryphal books.

6

OBJECTION #13: “ROMANS 10:9-10 INDICATES THAT ALL ONE NEEDS TO DO IS BELIEVE AND CONFESS JESUS.”

The use of eis in Romans 10:10 cannot mean “because of.” Verse nine explicitly says one will be saved “if” he confesses and believes in the heart. Confession and faith are therefore prerequisites to forgiveness. They are God-ordained “responses” to the preached Word (vs. 8) and must occur before salvation is imparted by God. In other words, one’s soul is purified when he obeys the truth (1 Peter 1:22). Jesus provides eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).But is baptism excluded from salvation since only faith and confession are mentioned in Romans 10:9-10? Notice, four chapters earlier, the order of Romans 6:17-18: (1) slaves to sin; (2) person obeys; (3) made free from sin (righteous). Item (3) cannot occur unless item (2) occurs first. The “whole” of man is to reverence God and keep His commands(Ecclesiastes 12:13). To whom does God give the Holy Spirit? To those whom He arbitrarily chooses, without any consideration of the individual’s necessitated response? No. Acts 5:32 says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. God has always conditioned the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon prior obedient response (Jeremiah 7:23; Genesis 26:4-5). Deuteronomy 5:10 says God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His commands.In Romans 10, Paul is not stressing the specific aspects of the conversion process. That is not the context. Rather, the context addresses whether one is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation due to physical heritage (i.e., race/ethnicity), versus whether one is saved when one complies with God’s instruction. Paul was stressing that their nationality could not bring the Jews into God’s favor. Rather, people are saved when they render obedience to the Gospel. He quoted Joel 2:32, where the emphasis is on the word “whosoever” in contrast to “Jews only.” Verse 12 argues that God does not distinguish on the basis of race. The individual’s response to the preached Word is the deciding factor. However, Romans 10 does not reveal all of the details of that obedient response. One must be willing to search out the whole truth on such a subject.If repentance is essential to salvation, one must concede that such teaching must come from some passage other than Romans 10. Does Romans 10:10 mean that repentance is unnecessary, just because it is unmentioned in the text? No, since repentance is required in chapter 2:4. If not, then why assume baptism to be nonessential simply because it is not mentioned in this particular text? It is enjoined in chapter 6:3-4. To ascertain the significance of baptism in God’s sight, one must go to passages that discuss that subject, rather than dismiss them in deference to verses on faith. If God says, “faith saves” (Romans 5:1), let us accept that truth. If God says, “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21), let us accept that truth, too! Jesus Himself said: belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), not belief = salvation + baptism.Notice also, Romans 10:10,13 does not say that salvation can be acquired by mere verbal confession (e.g., “I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior”). Why?(1) Nowhere is the statement, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” found in Scripture.(2) Jesus forever dashed the idea of salvation by mental acceptance/verbal profession alone in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46, where He showed that oral confession alone is unacceptable. In every age, there have been specified actions of obedience that God has required before He would count individuals as pleasing or acceptable. In fact, if faith is not coupled with the appropriate obedient action (like baptism), then such faith is unable to justify. Such faith is imperfect (James 2:17,20,26) and therefore cannot save!(3) The phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is an idiomatic way to say: “respond with appropriate obedient actions.” It is the figure of speech known as synecdoche (i.e., the part stands for the whole). To “call” on God’s name is equivalent to saying, “Do what He tells you to do.” Isaiah 55:6 told the Jews of Isaiah’s day to call on God. Verse 7 explains how: (1) forsake wicked ways, (2) forsake wicked thoughts, (3) return to the Lord. To obey these three stipulations constituted “calling on God.”Likewise, those in Jerusalem who “called on the Lord’s name” (Acts 9:14,21) had done so, not solely by verbal confession, but by repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Similarly, Paul himself became a Christian, that is, he “called on the name of the Lord”—not by verbally confessing Christ—but by being baptized (Acts 22:16). For Paul, “calling on the Lord’s name” was equivalent to (not precedent to) being baptized. God washed his sins away by the blood of Jesus at the point of his baptism.

CONCLUSION

Though the bulk of Christendom for centuries has veered off into Calvinism and other post-first century theological thought, the meaning and design of baptism is determined by the New Testament. The verses in the New Testament that speak about baptism are definitive. They indicate that water immersion precedes salvation—along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ’s deity. No objection has ever overturned this divinely intended function.

ENDNOTES

1

Although the thief may well have submitted to the precursor to NT baptism, i.e., John’s baptism, it also was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

2

See also Dave Miller (2003), “The Thief on the Cross,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1274&topic=86

.

3

Cf. Eric Lyons (2004), “Calling on the Name of the Lord,”

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/597

.

4

Rudolf Bultmann (1968), “πιστεύω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), 6:206; Fredrick William Danker (2000), “ὑπακοη,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 1028; James Denny (no date), “St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:587; J.B. Lightfoot (1895), Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan), p. 246; H.P.V. Nunn (1912), A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 42; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor (1944), “A Note on ‘είς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως’ in Romans 1.5 and xvi.26,” The Expository Times, 55:305-306; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 4:324; Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 3:5; W.E. Vine (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell), p. 123.

5

W.M. Ramsay (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Houghton and Stoughton), p. 165.

6

For a more thorough discussion of this matter, see Dave Miller (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

.

Copyright © 2016 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

[astrobhavapujaservices]

The Contribution of the Agamas

The Credibility of Scriptural Expertise - Other Than the Carvakas, all systems of Indian Ideology admit the legitimacy of scriptural expertise. In the Vedic tradition, the Vedas which are considered as impersonal, make up the highest authority of religion. In the tradition of the Sramanic society of Buddhism and also Jainism, the authority of bibles rests with their prophets, that are expected to be Omniscient as well above all desires as well as aversions. In the Jaina custom, the legitimacy of the bible is accorded at par with straight perception since the scriptural knowledge is expertise gotten by the Omniscient being, that has straight perceived the truth Online Homa Booking. Hence scriptural expertise is also precise and also indubious like the omniscient knowledge. This is admitted by Samantabhadra in his Apta-Mimamsa. It should also be kept in mind that the expertise and method of Bibles (Agamas) additionally brings about the attainment of Kevala-jnana, so as to the knower of the Srutas are called Sruta-kevalin. Anyone as well as everybody can not be Srut a. In order to be a Sruta, he needs to accomplish the conditions of ending up being desireless (Vitaraga) and also he must destroy the Karmas which obscure the actual nature of Sruta. Only then, such a Scriptural expertise offers like the happiness. According to the Vedic practice, the Vedas materialize their very own credibility. Words utilized by us, according to them, denote points that can be cognised by other methods of understanding, and, if we can not know them through other means, then those who utter them need to be of indisputable authority. So non-Vedic articulations can not possess any kind of inherent credibility. According to Prabhakara, such non-Verbal expertise is of the nature of reasoning because just the spoken cognition of the Vedas is purely verbal. The Vedic thinkers take on the doctrine of impersonate authorship possibly to keep is infallibility, because an individual is reliant numerous flaws. However, in order to confirm the impersonal authorship of the Vedas, the Vedic thinkers; specifically the Mimamsakas introduce a mystical theory of the eternality of the Vedas. They hold that the partnership between the word and its definition is all-natural and not created by conversion. The objective of the Mimasmsakas in turning down the authorship of the Vedas to Gods is since God, that is incorporeal, has no organs of speech and hence he can not utter words, and if He thinks the human form, then He goes through all the restrictions of product existence and also therefore his utterances will certainly not be authoritative. After that there is no tradition of divine or human authorship of the Vedas. If it is said that the Vedas are human make-ups due to the fact that names of saints and seers take place, it may be said that the hymns manage the everlasting sensations of nature and the names of individuals have just symbolical value as well as not any historic importance. In tracing their Agamas to the utterances of Lord Mahavir, the Jainas have a much more guaranteed position. To start with, considering that Mahavir is Omniscient (Kevalin) what he claims should be true. Given that, he is over needs (Vitaraga), what he claims is devoid of any kind of subjective prejudices. Lastly, given that he is compassionate, what he states is for the advantages of individuals. Therefore the Jaina concept of bibles as the lectures of Lord Mahavir is a lot more apprehensible reasonable. the adherence of one's faith in the character of Lord Mahavir provides a religious color. Lastly, such a theory of scriptures having its source in the individuality of a recognized male increases the self-respect and also status of male to the condition of God. Omniscience is not magnificent yet human. It needs a Sadhana. Thus the Jaina doctrine of Agamas establishes whatever in actual as well as historic context, while the description of the impersonality of the Vedas is rather obscure and ambiguous. Nevertheless, it looses at one place-by treating the Vedic authorship as impersonal, it indicates that it is per haps very-very old and old due to the fact that a person desires all a historic event. Right here the Jaina reply is that because the truth contained in the Agamas are one, timeless as well as irreversible, it is as old as anything. The things of the knowledge are the identical for all. For this reason their cognition is neither brand-new neither old. Hence, there is a disagreement in the teaching of all Arhats. In this sense, the trainings are everlasting and global as well as for this reason impersonal. Hence, the line of separation in between individual as well as impersonal authorship of the bible pave the way to a settlement. A prophetic utterance, in the feeling, it is eternal and also global, is impersonal; however, given that it originates from the mouth of a historic person, it is personal. Agama and also its Interpretation - The declaration of a trust-worthy individual is said to be Agama. Otherwise, words themselves are inert, lifeless as well as even uncertain. For this reason, the credibility of Sabda rests with the person that uses them. For this reason the analysis of the Agamas depend both upon the Audio speaker and additionally upon the Target market. So far, the speakership of the Agamas is concerned, it is held to be the straight preachings of the Omniscient Lord, which have actually been assembled as well as codified by their chief adherents called Ganadhara. Until now the interpretation of the Agamas from the perspective of the target market is concerned, it must be plainly kept in mind that a certain amount of intellectual capacity as well as ethical prep work is required for the suitable understanding of the subject matter. In absence of such a preparation, the same Agama admits of different and even contrasting analyses about one and the same topic, like the different interpretations of the Brahma-Sutra and also the Bhagavad-Gita. The Jaina Agamas are the sermons of the Tirthankaras which have actually been appropriately reported by the Sruta-kevalin and also the Ganadhara, that are likewise supposed to be Sruta-kevalin and also the Ganadhara, that are also supposed to be omniscient and likewise above all needs of love as well as hate, for this reason the legitimacy of the Jaina Agamas is twice as increased because both the Resource in addition to the Training course of the Agamas are pure. The Place of Samayika - There are three unique contributions of Jainism to Indian Society - Equality (Sama), Self-constraint (Sama) and also Dignity of labor (Srama). Equal rights or Samayika is claimed to be the heart of Jainism. In the Jaina spiritual scripture, Dvadasang or in the 14th Purva, the area of Samayika is the firstly among the 6 daily responsibilities. Without the technique of Samayika or equality, there is no wish for any religious or spiritual realization. When a homeowner accepts the Jaina faith, he solemnly promises to follow the principle of equal rights. The entire of Visesavasyaka-bhasya of Jinabhadra Gani is an exposition of this concept of Samayika. The 3 jewels of Jainism, i.e. Right Belief, Right Understanding as well as Right Conduct rely on the concept of equal rights. The Gita calls it the inner grace or the evenness of mind (Samatvam), or equal mindedness (Sama Cittatvam or Samata) and such a male that obtains this is called seer with an equivalent eye (Samadarsinah or Sarvatra-sama-darsana). This concept of equal rights must be mirrored both in thought and also activity. In thought it is the concept of Anekanta, in action it is the principle of Ahimsa. (a) Anekanta - Anekanta is the application of the principle of equality in the sphere of thought. Hence it is not an ideology however a thoughtful viewpoint equally as there is the Advaitic standpoint of Sankara and also the point ofview of the Center path of the Buddhists. Anekanta essentially implies non-absolution. Though the Anekanta Period in Jaina philosophical literature follows the end of the Agamic period, the genesis of the Anekantic suggestion is already existing in the Agamic literary works. The renowned Bhagavati Sutra refers to the important and interesting dreams that Lord Mahavira had actually just before attained Keval-jnana. In among the dreams, there is recommendation to' multi-faced' or'multi-colored'(citra-vicitra) wings of Pansakholi which symbolizes the multi-faced fact. The Buddhist likewise have their doctrine of Vibhajyavada or 'conditional expressions', which means that they throw out discriminatory sight (ekansavada). Nevertheless, the Buddhists believed inhajyavada to a minimal level, where as the Jainas think it to the full extent, to ensure that it was finally turned into the Theory of Non-absolutism (Anekantavada). In Buddhism, Vibhajya means department and also Vibhajya Vyakarniya indicates answering an inquiry by diving. While the Buddhists associate the divergent features at the same time when it come to 2 different things, the wizard of the Jainas is shown in attributing the different characteristics in the one and the same topic, obviously, the contexts are different. This causes the organon of Sapta-bhangi and also the multi-valued reasoning of Syadvada. Even in the Vedas and also Upanisads, the summary of the fact is in terms of contradictory features, like actual as well as unbelievable, mobile and immobile. Nasadiya Sukta, for that reason, stays clear of to explain the truth either as real or unbelievable. ThusAnekanta appears to be a dynamic of thought-reconciliation, where we find an effort at synthesis between apparently inconsistent qualities of eternality as well as non-eternity of the world or finiteness or infiniteness of the Jiva or distinction or non-difference between the body as well as the heart. Anekanta nevertheless, must not be comprehended to mean that reality is inconsistent. It just implies that it has countless variety of facets as well as attributes which can be extensively comprehended only when we can place every one of them together. This is perfect of perfection, which can be achieved only when we come to be an omniscient. Nevertheless, we can have the knowledge of one or various other aspect if we are without bias and also bias. Hence, on the one hand it has its ideal of finality of understanding, in reality it aims at aspectal understanding or naya. As an effect, we have to be cautious in our speech. Lord Mahavira discussed every issue with the help of Siyavaya or Syadvada. Absolutism in speech and also language is as negative as absolutism in idea. The Agamic tension on Anekanta and also Syadvada is due to its excellent adherence to Ahimsa. Anekantavada or Syadvada is expansion of the principle of Ahimsa on intellectual degree. Jainas think that without non-violence in thought, non-violence in practice is impossible. (b) Ahimsa - Ahimsa complies with as a rational effect from the principle of Equal rights (Samya) of spirits. The inequalities of physical and also brainpowers are only accidental and they result from the Karmas. Just how, given that 'life is dear to all and given that every little thing has warm life', we need to accept the principle of Ahimsa as an important ways of spiritual awareness. To the Sramanic cult of Jainism, the methods are as important as the ends. Our end is no doubt self-realization or Moksa. Now, this self-realization is difficult without the love of self and also this love of self is absolutely nothing apart from Ahimsa, considering that self stays in every little thing. Jainism looks upon the entire world as loaded with life. Absolutely nothing is fallow or sterilized, absolutely nothing is dead and inert. What to mention living beings, also plants and also every section of issue have got life. Therefore, regard permanently is a spiritual act, it is a regulation of our being. If we neglect it, life becomes well nigh difficult. 'As we feel our pain, so we need to feel the pain of others', claims the Acaranga. The same truth is specified in Dasvaikalika where it is clearly said that 'all beings desire to live, none want to die'. All our religious beliefs approve Ahimsa as a merit but Jainas have worked out a full viewpoint of non-violence, therefore below Ahimsa is extra due to reasonable factor to consider than emotional as we find in Buddhism and Christianity. The Jaina Ahimsa, welcomed the entire cosmos and is not limited to mankind. There we can locate that Advaita Vedanta as well as others confess entirety of soul and also almost removes the ground of mistrust and physical violence, which are the result of duality. Nivarttaka Dharma - Ahimsa along with Aparigraha constitute the moral wholeness of self-control or moderation in social relationship, self-control is the foundation of a higher moral life as in private life, it is the basis of higher spiritual life. Except for the Mimamsakas, that rely on paradise etc. all the Vedic and non-Vedic systems adopt Moksa as the Summum Bonum of life, which is a state of cessation of the wheels of presence. It is joy (Sreya) as opposed to satisfaction (Preya) which is the goal of life. Hence self-purification (Atma-suddhi) and also not the acquisition of any earthly or heavenly satisfaction, which is the goal of life. The obstacles in the types of delusion, lack of knowledge as well as desire should be rooted out by practicing the various pledges or Vratas, throughout life.

[carlerinle]

Unclench Your Fists

Sunday 14th February 2021

Eph. 4:16 – “From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

Effectiveness and efficiency are two very important measures of performance in every scenario where growth and success are measured, especially when the performer is made up of many different parts. When the different parts of a car function effectively and efficiently, then the car as a whole performs better, and the same is true of any entity that is made up of different heterogenous parts. One of such entities is the Body of Christ, which has many different parts (Rom. 12:5). The Body of Christ is literally Christ’s Body, and the effective and efficient working of that Body is seen in how the different parts work. Like a well-oiled machine, each part of the Body is supposed to make its contribution to the Body. You are designed to both give to and receive from the Body. The big problem with the Body, however, is that the individual members tend to have clenched fists.

A person with clenched fists can neither give or receive with those hands. Just like engine oil that flows through all the parts of an engine, we are meant to distribute to and receive from other parts of the Body. But many of us clench our fists, particularly with regard to doctrine. Many of us are close-minded to other perspectives on the things we believe to be true, and this makes it difficult for us to be a blessing to others, or for others to be a blessing to us. You cannot contribute or benefit when your fists are clenched, that is, when your mind is closed off. You hear something that you don’t like, you block off your mind without checking to see whether what you have always understood could possibly be wrong. There are many barriers to sound doctrine, and you must recognise that some of them are inherent in you. No one of us has perfect knowledge, and our approach to doctrine must be humility.

The Berean Christians are constantly used as an example for this because they received the Word with the willingness to learn. That willingness means that they were willing to be wrong. But many of us choose to harden our hearts when we hear some teachings that don’t agree with what we’re comfortable with. Understand that God’s truth is the oil that flows all over the Body, and that truth is exclusively His. It is God’s truth, not man’s truth, so it should not matter what direction the pursuit of that truth takes us. We are all continual learners of God, and if you hear a doctrine that’s new to you, examine it with readiness of mind, so that if it is more scripturally rounded and balanced than what you have always known, then you can freely accept and adopt it as the truth for your life. Because it is God’s truth and not yours, leave room for learning so you can truly walk in God’s truth.

The more objective you are towards the truth, the more mature you are. It shows that you are not afraid to be wrong, and indeed, there’s nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you switch positions once you receive new understanding. There are preachers and believers who find it difficult to own up to erroneous teachings they’ve done in the past. They stick to their guns, letting ego determine what they preach or not. But remember, you cannot bless others with a closed fist. Open up your heart, be honest about the truth, and let your study of the Bible take you wherever it goes. Then let your heart be resolute in that which you now believe. This will help you to remain effective and functional within the Body of Christ.

Have a blessed day.

[worshipmoment]

5 marks of a false Gosple

The gospel, or “good news,” is essentially the revelation of Jesus Christ to the world for the purpose of reconciling God’s people to Himself. Sadly, there is much perversity masquerading as the gospel, yet it’s designed to lead man away from the truth, and into a false sense of relationship with the Creator. Many cults and false religions have arisen contrary to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), but there are far more subtle attacks on the biblical gospel that, in many cases, go unnoticed, and are poisoning the church today. These are 5 telling marks that a gospel being preached is false.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. –Galatians 1:6-7

1.) The gospel exalts man. This may sound like an obvious one, but sadly, so many preachers today preach a gospel that exalts man. Arminianism is perhaps the most notorious of these. Man is said, contrary to Scripture, to have within himself some level of “goodness” to be able to “choose” God. Scripture teaches that man cannot choose God (Romans 3:11) because we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1).

Others may teach that God has chosen to save man, not solely according to the purposes of His own will (Eph 1:11), but because of some inherent value in us. Sure, we have some value to God–we are created in His image. We were also created to glorify Him. But Scripture clearly teaches that it is not because of any value or goodness in us that God has chosen to save us, he chose to save us to display His own glory (Romans 9:23).

This mark of a false gospel places our hope in something false–a hope in something other than Christ alone. It places our hope in something within ourselves, and God will not share His glory with any other.

2.) The gospel teaches that you are saved from temporal afflictions. This is mostly found in the Prosperity, Health and Wealth, and Word of Faith movements. Essentially, it teaches that when you are saved, you no longer have to suffer from worldly calamities such as poverty, sickness, and disease. Further, it teaches that if you do suffer from these things, that your faith simply isn’t strong enough. Often, your level of faith is purportedly reflected in how much money you give to the organization propagating this false teaching.

This teaching can certainly lead people astray, giving some who are not truly born again a false sense of security in practices such as tithing and seed-faith offering. Once again, Christ as the sole object of our faith is diminished and our faith is placed in our good works and is evidenced by our prosperity.

The apostle Paul teaches worldly struggles are not only likely but that God uses them for His glory, in which our purpose is to glorify God.

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong…” –2 Corinthians 2:10-11

3.) Emphasis is placed on the Holy Spirit more than Jesus Christ. Many charismatic churches teach a gospel that emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit more than the work of Christ. Certainly, the Holy Spirit, equal with the Father and Christ, is worthy of our acknowledgment. But the Work of the Holy Spirit is always to point to Christ and not to Himself (John 16:14-15). Yet these charismatic churches, in many ways, teach that the Holy Spirit is the primary end of our salvation and that it is manifested through signs and wonders performed by those who have “received Him.” This often results in aberrant teachings such as that speaking in tongues is a necessary evidence of salvation.

Jesus Christ, however, is the primary ends of our salvation. As stated in 2 Corinthians 2:10-11 above, His grace is sufficient. Seeking for signs and wonders, Christ said, is evidence of a wicked and adulterous people (Matthew 16:4).

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. –Philippians 2:9-11

4.) It is attractive to the world. Another sign that a gospel being preached is false is that it is attractive to the world. Many false gospels contain half-truths and, even in some ways, may sound very much like the gospel. But the world is impatient with the inward work of regeneration and sanctification through Christ. They seek fulfillment through entertainment and other carnal means which give them a false impression of their own piety. The message of Christ’s bloody death on the cross and his endurance of God’s wrath is watered down to the point that it is meaningless, while rock bands, laser light shows, and music devoid of any theological substance are echoed throughout the churches that teach this way. In other words, if the world is not offended by the gospel message being preached, it is false.

Scripture teaches that Christ is offensive, even calling Him the “rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8),” and that the gospel is foolish to the world.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. –1 Corinthians 1:18

5.) The gospel is not derived from Scripture. Many false churches teach that Scripture is insufficient to receive the knowledge of the grace of God. This is most prevalent in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Most cults have some form of this aberrant teaching as well, however, there are plenty of other churches, “evangelical churches,” that have strayed from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) as well. We have seen in recent years pastors like Andy Stanley stray away from the authority of Scripture as well. This opens the door to all sorts of error, most of it significant and eternally damning.

The Scriptures themselves are the testimony of Christ and His plan of redemption. They are the complete revelation of Jesus Christ sovereignly preserved by the Holy Spirit to teach, reprove, and equip the saints for everything necessary in this life. There is nothing else that we need to be made complete in Him.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. –2 Timothy 3:16-17

Yet, false gospels that are not derived from Scripture always end up being a teaching that is contrary to the biblical gospel. It always ends up being a gospel of meritorious works as opposed to grace, or a gospel of some other (co)savior and (co)redeemer as opposed to Christ alone. It always minimizes the exclusivity of Christ as the only Lord and gives many a false hope in other beliefs and religions.

It is Christ alone who saves and it is Christ alone who is King. If your church is teaching another gospel or if you notice any of these signs of a false gospel in your church, it may be time to move. Don’t just sit there and put up with it.

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. –2 Corinthians 11:4

[strawberry-milktea]

I need advice. I don't really listen to Osteen, but I know someone occasionally does. They don't live by what he says, but they think there's some merit to what he says. They say the Bible preaches both suffering and prosperity, and that we shouldn't focus solely on either aspect. They understand that expecting the Christian life will be a bed of roses is detrimental, but she thinks the same of focusing on nothing but suffering. What should I do?

They don’t claim everything Osteen says is correct or perfect. But they say that in certain preachings he’s made his message has been Biblical.   —Hello!Joel Osteen is definitely a false teacher who does not teach what the Bible actually says. I went into some detail about my issues with him in this ask if you are interested in reading it. Joel preaches his own “gospel” under the guise of Christianity but there’s actually very little, if any, Christ in his preaching. He’s got a very friendly, charismatic type of personality and says a lot of fluffy feel-good stuff that spiritually young Christians can be easily deceived by. When I was first born again, I watched his show a lot and didn’t even pick up on what was so wrong with his teaching because I didn’t know any better! But as I grew in my faith, I became more and more aware as I watched the show that I felt like he basically said the same things over and over in different words in every show and something just felt off. Every episode of his show felt identical to me after awhile. And once my foundation in the Word grew more, I became aware that Joel doesn’t actually teach from the Bible.Joel does not speak on the necessity of faith in Christ alone for salvation. He actively avoids controversial topics that cause friction in the world and directly admits to doing so, which I quoted/discussed further in the ask. He gives the false idea that becoming a Christian means life will be easy and God will give you blessings and everything your heart desires. This is incredibly dangerous because it contradicts that Christ told us that the world will treat us poorly for following Him. The Word directly tells us we will all suffer and face trials in this world, regardless of whether we are believers or not. And this makes sense because this world is a fallen and broken place where freewill is given to all, yet so commonly abused. Abuse of freewill causes harm to the one guilty of abusing it and also to innocent people who haven’t done anything wrong. This dangerous false teaching that faith in Christ is a get out of jail free card for suffering in life is actually responsible for pushing people away from Him because people convinced that professing faith in Christ means life will be happy at all times will experience devastation when hardships do come. They will find themselves thinking, “Where is God now? I thought I wouldn’t hurt anymore once I accepted Him. Maybe He isn’t even real” - because all they know is the false teaching that comes from preachers such as Joel.It’s possible this person you know does not fully understand what a false teacher is and how incredibly dangerous they are spiritually. There’s a reason the Word speaks so harshly of false teachers. Their deceptive doctrine has a way of seeping in, especially if they are mixing in some truths with their lies. Think about it - isn’t it easier for people to identify false teaching if it’s blatantly a bunch of lies versus lies mixed in with some truths to create garbage doctrine filled with half-truths? A young Christian can easily identify that something is really wrong if a person claims satan should be worshiped, but it’s not so easy for a young Christian who doesn’t have a strong foundation in the Word to detect that there are major issues with the half-truth teaching of preachers such as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer because they present themselves with the guise of Christianity. The truth is, if someone is teaching anything false, you reject their teachings - period. You cannot say, “Well I’m going to keep listening to them because some of their teachings are true, but I recognize that not everything they’re teaching is Biblically accurate.” I see teachings like this like rotting meat that gives you food poisoning. You can try to sprinkle all the seasonings on it and fancy it up to look presentable, but it’s still rotting meat. It’s still going to make people sick if they eat it. You can try to sprinkle some truths over false teaching and give it the guise of Christianity, but it’s still going to make people spiritually sick if they expose themselves to it.So you may want to talk to your friend about the danger of false teachers and how even if they speak some things that align with the Word, the fact that they teach anything that isn’t Biblically accurate is reason enough to reject them and call them out for their lies. You may also want to bring up examples of how Joel’s teachings actively contradict the Bible in major ways and how he makes a practice of avoiding topics that can ruffle the feathers - indicating that he cares more about what the world thinks than preaching the truth of Christ. And it’s so important to talk to your friend in a caring way, making it clear that you’re pointing this out because you love her and don’t want her to face spiritual harm, and welcome an open dialogue/discussion. Also, have patience with her. My mom always listened to Joel Osteen, bought his books, etc and when I first tried to tell her that Joel is a false teacher, she didn’t seem to get what I was saying and didn’t see what was so wrong with what he taught. Now when we talk about this, I can see my mom is understanding better what the issues are with his teaching and to my knowledge, she doesn’t watch his show or read his books anymore. Your friend will ultimately understand even better what’s wrong with Joel’s teaching as she continues to strengthen her foundation in the Word - and you can most certainly encourage and help her in this!Your friend is right, we aren’t supposed to be focusing only on suffering. Fire and brimstone preachers who make everyone feel there’s no hope/everyone is going to hell and life will always be suffering are just as dangerous and false as feel-good prosperity gospel teachers who actively avoid hard truths the Word presents. That’s why it’s so important for the Word to be every Christian’s foundation and allow the Holy Spirit to be their teacher instead of flawed human beings. I’m certainly not saying it’s inherently wrong to listen to preachers. Personally speaking, I don’t listen to preachers much except for my own pastor. But that’s just my decision and that’s not to say that there aren’t many wonderful preachers out there to listen to who do preach in accordance with the Word. But listening to people should be secondary - a strong foundation in His Word and relying on the Holy Spirit as one’s teacher should be first and foremost. Then, with that knowledge, one can easily detect if who they are listening to is a true or false teacher. I hope you found this helpful! Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.