tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44920493194161459462024-03-05T09:08:12.072-08:00When You See This Current TimeThe Christianity Contemporary Interpretation, Reflection and EssayRev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-21810073212436579032010-10-13T19:48:00.000-07:002010-10-13T19:48:33.411-07:00Is it wrong to _____? How can I decide whether a particular activity—such as smoking, gambling, or anything else—is right or wrong?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoUn-m4SlSoeJtDON1fPusLLoOyIzgmSrA5IP6MAvcBQbBHrm9T_MtKsn6ARfO3K2n7T2oIygrMTy8TnkW5xvoJhfP_S6KHZIUdGn4kpzU32GtjDrv8ndYKhSEqyboZ9jQU38AtsQP_M2A/s1600/smokes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="325" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoUn-m4SlSoeJtDON1fPusLLoOyIzgmSrA5IP6MAvcBQbBHrm9T_MtKsn6ARfO3K2n7T2oIygrMTy8TnkW5xvoJhfP_S6KHZIUdGn4kpzU32GtjDrv8ndYKhSEqyboZ9jQU38AtsQP_M2A/s400/smokes.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>In the first place, Christianity is not a list of taboos. “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8,9). Remember that the Lord Jesus Christ has already suffered and died for all our sins in order that we might be freely forgiven and saved, through an obedient trust in Him.<br />
<br />
In the second place, it is not our right to pass judgment on someone else and his activities. As the Bible says: “Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, than no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way” (Romans 14:13).<br />
<br />
Most of us are quick to criticize others, but it is far more important to be sure our own conduct is pleasing to the Lord. “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged” (I Corinthians 11:31).<br />
<br />
Of course, it is very important for a real Christian, one who has been saved through personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to live a life that is honoring to his Savior and that is helpful to his fellow Christians and to those he should try to lead to Christ. In order to evaluate particular activities and problems, God has established a number of general principles in His Word for our guidance. Some of these are as follows:<br />
If there is a specific warning or commandment in Scripture dealing with a particular matter, then there is no question.<br />
<br />
Thus, murder, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, theft, etc. are always wrong; such sins as these are clearly and definitely condemned in numerous Scriptures.<br />
When there is no specific Scriptural reference, it is good to ask, not whether a certain thing is wrong, but rather, if it is definitely good.<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
The Bible says, for example, to “redeem the time” (Colossians 4:5). Our few days here on earth are so short and precious, in relation to eternity, that we ought never to waste time on selfish trivia, but to use it only on that “which is good, to the use of edifying” (Ephesians 4:29).<br />
A good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use the particular activity for His own good purposes.<br />
<br />
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31). If there is room for doubt as to whether it pleases God, then it is best to give it up. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).<br />
We need to remember that our bodies, as well as our souls, have been redeemed and belong to God.<br />
<br />
“What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's” (I Corinthians 6:19, 20). This great truth should have a real bearing on what we do and where we go with our bodies.<br />
We must evaluate our actions not only in relation to God but also in relation to their effect on our family, our friends, and other people in general.<br />
<br />
Even if a particular thing may not hurt us personally, if it harmfully influences or affects someone else, it is wrong. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak… We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Romans 14:21; 15:1).<br />
Remember, finally, that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and nothing else can be allowed to take priority over our conformity to His will.<br />
<br />
No habit, or recreation, or ambition can be allowed to have control over our lives. Only Christ has that authority. “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (I Corinthians 6:12). “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17). <br />
<br />
<br />
Excerpt from The Bible Has the Answer, by Henry Morris and Martin Clark, published by Master Books, 1987<br />
<br />
<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-66260043147577760262010-10-13T19:44:00.000-07:002010-10-13T19:44:49.664-07:00Did Nostradamus predict the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuFXoC0hqBQefhK6ez-_kwbjfRCxrtt6cCrJvrGId2k2I1ihyphenhyphenVPt58rFyMp153SjEiMSp0yyVAXVQrsgHW5p6-8XZQIrEC1J1HBRStQ8I_ZJl4WTXAwKIFV-84mJyu08-zANVyNf_M5x39/s1600/nostradamus-picture.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuFXoC0hqBQefhK6ez-_kwbjfRCxrtt6cCrJvrGId2k2I1ihyphenhyphenVPt58rFyMp153SjEiMSp0yyVAXVQrsgHW5p6-8XZQIrEC1J1HBRStQ8I_ZJl4WTXAwKIFV-84mJyu08-zANVyNf_M5x39/s320/nostradamus-picture.gif" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="220" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nostradamus</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Shortly after the ghastly terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City September 11th, 2001 a supposed prophecy of Nostradamus (the 16th century French soothsayer) began circulating the Internet and news media.<br />
<br />
Look at Nostradamus' words that have been reported by the news media:<br />
<br />
In the year of the new century and nine months,<br />
From the sky will come a great King of Terror…<br />
The sky will burn at forty-five degrees.<br />
Fire approaches the great new city…<br />
<br />
In the city of York there will be a great collapse,<br />
two twin brothers torn apart by chaos<br />
while the fortress falls the great leader will succumb<br />
third big war will begin when the big city is burning<br />
<br />
An even more detailed prophecy flooded the Internet:<br />
<br />
It has been foreseen that exactly three hundred and fifty years into the future,<br />
Silver phoenixes shall strike down the twin brothers of oppression<br />
That carried the king's nation, which shall bring upon the apocalypse.<br />
In the City of God there will be a great thunder, two brothers torn apart by chaos<br />
<br />
Did Nostradamus predict the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York? Not quite. Look at his actual prophecies:<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
* They don't say "In the year of the new century and nine months," but "In the year 1999 and seven months, from the skies shall come an alarming powerful king" (Century 10:72).<br />
* Neither is there a mention of “twin brothers” being “torn apart.” The “prophecy” actually says, "Two royal brothers shall war so much one against the other" (Century 3:97).<br />
<br />
* As for collapsing in the city of York and the sky burning, this is as close as he gets:<br />
<br />
The heaven shall burn at five and forty degrees,<br />
The fire shall come near the great new city…<br />
when they shall make a trial of the Normans (Century 6;97). <br />
<br />
Nostradamus never even mentioned the words “fortress” or “big war.” Nostradamus is a billion dollar industry, and a little addition here and there to his rambling words helps business.<br />
<br />
According to the BBC News, "Books about Nostradamus, the apocalyptic prophet, have entered the bestseller list on the online retailer site Amazon since the terrorist attacks in the U.S." Following the attack, Nostradamus was on the Internet's fifty most popular search words so many times that he even displaced “sex” from the top-fifty list.<br />
References<br />
<br />
* Nostradamus quotes from, "The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus", by Robert Lawrence (Crown Publishers).<br />
<br />
Recommended resources<br />
<br />
Did Nostradamus predict the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001? Did he prophecy of the assassination of President Kennedy? Did he say that man would land on the moon, and that someone named Hitler would lead Germany? Did he mention America by name? Did he have anything to say about the outcome of the Third World War? This publication will not only give you insight into the acclaimed prophecies of the world's most famous prophet, but it will show you how he obtained his predictions. The following fascinating resources reveal that there was another means by which he acquired such incredible insights…<br />
<br />
Book—Nostradamus: Attack on New York and other Amazing Prophecies by Ray Comfort. Published by Bridge-Logos Publishers. Release date Nov. 2001.<br />
<br />
Author: Ray Comfort of Living Waters Publications. Edited by Eden Communications. Web page Copyright © 2001, Living Waters Publications, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page. <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-16942451202712392672010-10-13T19:01:00.000-07:002010-10-13T19:01:40.239-07:00Was Darwin a Christian? Did he believe in God? Did he recant evolutionism when he died?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjniHCobWiiBZScYSYHOty9XjqIR6ygyHbCZub8ENw-WZPGJ4xNAGFIqJ1sQv5qSlnsCthfRuJfAaLFginKA-KLbwjATLFCPC-Eh4HikQtegg3d44FINWN2bYiwtMvPH3kqONz3kfwFJhws/s1600/darwincharleswithhat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>Editors note: Many people are under the impression that Charles Darwin, the most well known promoter of evolutionism, died a Christian and renounced his theory. This is mainly due to rumors surrounding his death, and the fact that he studied at seminary as a young man and is buried in Westminster Abbey. This article reveals the truth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Charles Darwin's thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith.<br />
<br />
Darwin's Early Religious Influences and Thoughts<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjniHCobWiiBZScYSYHOty9XjqIR6ygyHbCZub8ENw-WZPGJ4xNAGFIqJ1sQv5qSlnsCthfRuJfAaLFginKA-KLbwjATLFCPC-Eh4HikQtegg3d44FINWN2bYiwtMvPH3kqONz3kfwFJhws/s320/darwincharleswithhat.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="210" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Charles Darwin</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Darwin did not lack religious influences in his youth. Baptized an Anglican and steeped in his mother's Unitarianism, young Charles was brought up to pray. He used to run the mile or so from home to school, concerning which he wrote,<br />
<br />
"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided." <br />
<br />
He had dropped out of medical studies after two years at Edinburgh, and his father suggested to him the calling of an Anglican clergyman. Charles wasn't sure whether he could accept everything in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. However, he later wrote,<br />
<br />
"I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted." <br />
<br />
During his three years of theological studies at Christ's College, Cambridge, he was greatly impressed by Paley's Evidences of Christianity and his Natural Theology (which argues for the existence of God from design). He recalled,<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
“I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley,” and, “I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's 'Natural Theology.' I could almost formerly have said it by heart.”<br />
<br />
In a letter of condolence to a bereaved friend at that time, he wrote of “so pure and holy a comfort as the Bible affords,” compared with “how useless the sympathy of all friends must appear.”<br />
<br />
His intention to enter the ministry, he wrote, was never “formally given up, but died a natural death” when, on leaving Cambridge, he joined HMS Beagle as an unpaid naturalist. However, the religious influences in his life did not abate. His official position was that of gentleman companion to the captain, and for the next five years Darwin heard the Bible read and expounded on a regular basis.<br />
<br />
Captain Robert FitzRoy was a deeply religious man who believed every word in the Bible and personally conducted divine service every Sunday, at which attendance by all on board was compulsory.<br />
<br />
Darwin later recalled his own doctrinal orthodoxy when, in discussion with some of the officers, much to their amusement he quoted the Bible as “an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.” And at Buenos Aires, he and another officer requested a chaplain to administer the Lord's Supper to them before they ventured into the wilds of Tierra del Fuego.<br />
<br />
The Progress of His Belief<br />
<br />
Despite all of the above religious influences in his life, the decline of Darwin's faith began when he first started to doubt the truth of the first chapters of Genesis. This unwillingness to accept the Bible as meaning what it said probably started with and certainly was greatly influenced by his shipboard reading matter—the newly published first volume of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (the second volume, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo). This was a revolutionary book for that time. It subtly ridiculed belief in recent creation in favor of an old earth, and denied that Noah's Flood was world-wide; this, of course, was also a denial of divine judgment.<br />
<br />
Based on James Hutton's dictum that all natural processes have continued as they were from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4), or 'uniformitarianism', Lyell's book presented Darwin with the time frame of vast geological ages needed to make his theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution 'work'. One of Darwin's biographers calls Charles's reading of this book his 'point of departure from orthodoxy'.<br />
<br />
And when Lyell died in 1875, Darwin said, “I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works.”<br />
<br />
Inevitably, the more Darwin convinced himself that species had originated by chance and developed by a long course of gradual modification, the less he could accept not only the Genesis account of creation, but also the rest of the Old Testament as the divinely inspired Word of God. In his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,<br />
<br />
“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”<br />
<br />
When Darwin came to write up the notes from his scientific investigations he faced a choice. He could interpret what he had seen either as evidence for the Genesis account of supernatural creation, or else as evidence for naturalism, consistent with Lyell's theory of long ages. In the event, he chose the latter—that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness rather than as the result of divinely guided, meaningful intention, and, after several years, in 1859 his Origin of Species was the result.<br />
<br />
On the way, in 1844, he wrote to his friend, Joseph Hooker, “I am almost convinced... that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.” Concerning this, Ian Taylor writes, "Many commentators have pointed out that the 'murder' he spoke of was in effect the murder of God."<br />
<br />
Having abandoned the Old Testament, Darwin then renounced the Gospels. This loss of belief was based on several factors, including his rejection of miracles: "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become"; his rejection of the credibility of the Gospel writers: "the men of that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us"; his rejection of the Gospel chronology: "the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events"; and his rejection of the Gospel events: "they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses."<br />
<br />
Summing up the above, he wrote, “by such reflections as these... I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”<br />
<br />
On another occasion he wrote, “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” He turned 40 in 1849. Commenting on this, Darwin's biographer, James Moore, says, "... just as his clerical career had died a slow 'natural death,' so his faith had withered gradually."<br />
<br />
One immediate effect of Darwin's rejection of the Bible was his loss of all comfort from it. The hopeless grief of his later letters to the bereaved, contrasts sharply with the earlier letter of condolence quoted above. In 1851, his dearly loved daughter Annie, aged 10, died from what the attending physician called a "Bilious Fever with typhoid character." Charles was devastated, and wrote, "Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life." Two years later, to a friend who had lost a child, Darwin's only appeal was to “time,” which "softens and deadens... one's feelings and regrets"<br />
<br />
The Role-Models of His Forebears<br />
<br />
One major factor that contributed to Charles's apostasy is worth noting--the role model of his father, Robert, and of his grandfather, Erasmus. Both were ' freethinkers', so disbelief was an acceptable trait within the Darwin family--perceived not as 'a moral crisis or rebellion,' but perhaps even as 'a filial duty'. Indeed, in 1838, when Charles had become engaged to Emma Wedgwood, a very devout Unitarian, Robert had felt the need to advise his son to conceal his religious doubts from his wife--other households did not discuss such things.<br />
<br />
Surrounded as he was by unbelievers, and having soaked his mind in literature that rejected the concept of divine judgment in earth's history, Charles mused,<br />
<br />
“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”<br />
<br />
Darwin's Descent into Darkness<br />
<br />
The descent into darkness did not stop there. In 1876, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote,<br />
<br />
“Formerly I was led... to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, 'it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.' I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”<br />
<br />
In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”<br />
<br />
In the last year of his life, when the Duke of Argyll suggested to him that certain purposes seen in nature "were the effect and the expression of mind," Charles looked at him very hard and said, "Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times," and he shook his head vaguely, adding, "it seems to go away." And about the same time he wrote to his old friend, Joseph Hooker, “I must look forward to Down graveyard as the sweetest place on earth.”<br />
<br />
Did Darwin Recant Evolutionism on His Deathbed?<br />
<br />
Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882, at the age of 73. To some it was deplorable that he should have departed an unbeliever, and in the years that followed several stories surfaced that Darwin had undergone a death-bed conversion and renounced evolution. These stories began to be included in sermons as early as May 1882.<br />
<br />
However, the best known is that attributed to a Lady Hope, who claimed she had visited a bedridden Charles at Down House in the autumn of 1881. She alleged that when she arrived he was reading the Book of Hebrews, that he became distressed when she mentioned the Genesis account of creation, and that he asked her to come again the next day to speak on the subject of Jesus Christ to a gathering of servants, tenants and neighbors in the garden summer house which, he said, held about 30 people. This story first appeared in print as a 521-word article in the American Baptist journal, the Watchman Examiner, and since then has been reprinted in many books, magazines and tracts.<br />
<br />
The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on February 8, 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was "false and without any kind of foundation," and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had "no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view." Charles's daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, dated February 23, 1922,<br />
<br />
"I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier… The whole story has no foundation whatever." [The Darwin Legend] <br />
<br />
Darwin's biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the 'Darwin legend'. [The Darwin Legend] He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.[The Darwin Legend]<br />
<br />
Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, September 28 and Sunday, October 2, 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present. He describes Lady Hope as "a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality." [The Darwin Legend]<br />
<br />
He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies—Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favor of a few people's attending a religious meeting.<br />
<br />
The alleged recantation/conversion is embellishment that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings “holy fabrication!”<br />
<br />
It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.<br />
<br />
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.<br />
<br />
<br />
Conclusion<br />
<br />
Charles Darwin was a tragically mistaken man who drifted from a childlike trust in One who helped him run to school on time into an abyss of hopelessness and agnosticism. While the spiritual journey of a Christian is a journey out of darkness into Christ's marvelous light, that of Charles Darwin was a slippery slide out of Gospel light (although not saving spiritual sight) into the sheer "blackness of darkness for ever."<br />
<br />
Darwin's unbelief, like that of so many people today, had its roots in a mind which first rejected the revelation of God in the Bible and then was unwilling to accept the revelation of God which God Himself has given in nature. This religion of revelation, of the Bible, of the Lord Jesus Christ, will keep us tuned to truth, hope, and life in God, and away from evolutionism, humanism, and atheism, only as we allow it to exercise its power in our hearts. The tragedy of Charles Darwin is that he never did.<br />
<br />
<br />
References and Footnotes<br />
<br />
1.prayed earnestly - Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, p. 29. return to text<br />
2.the Creed - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 39. return to text<br />
3.'Evidences' - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 41. Charles's best subjects at Cambridge were Paley and Euclid. return to text<br />
4.'Natural Theology' - ibid, Vol. 2. p. 15. (C. Darwin to John Lubbock, November 15, 1859). return to text<br />
5.comfort - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 153. (C. Darwin to D. Fox, April 23, 1829). return to text<br />
6.natural death - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 39. return to text<br />
7.unanswerable authority ibid, Vol. 1, p. 277. return to text<br />
8.Lord's Supper - ibid, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, p. 54. return to text<br />
9.point of departure - Glass, Bentley, Editor, Forerunners of Darwin. 1745-1859. Chapter by Francis Haber (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), p.259, quoted by Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., New Jersey, 1969, p. 60. return to text<br />
10.I never forget - Ref 1 ,Vol. 2, p. 374. (C. Darwin to Miss Buckley, Sir Charles Lyell's secretary February 23, 1875). return to text<br />
11.any barbarian - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 277. Note: the words 'or the beliefs of any barbarian, in Charles's original Autobiography (written in 1876 for his family) were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, "its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc." (ref. 8, p. 317). The uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles's granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles's irreligious nature, and which 'might embarrass the Darwin name'. (Source: Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, pp. 115 and 449, note 1.) return to text<br />
12.unguided purposelessness - See Carl Wieland, 'Darwin's real message: have you missed it?', Creation magazine, Vol. 14 No. 4, September-November 1992, pp. 1618; also Don Batten, 'Darwin's Contribution', Creation magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, September November 1995, p. 25 return to text<br />
13.Origin of Species - Charles Darwin wrote many other monographs and books, of which the most well known is probably The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which deals inter alia with human evolution, published in 1871. return to text<br />
14.murder of God - Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984, p. 126. return to text<br />
15.disbelieve - p. 278. Curiously, Darwin continued, "But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often [sic] inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most staking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress."return to text<br />
16.Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.forty years of age - Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658. return to text<br />
17.withered gradually - James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Michigan, 1994, p. 46. return to text<br />
18.Bilious Fever - Ref. 15, p. 384. return to text<br />
19.consolation - Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 348. (C. Darwin to W. D. Fox, April 29, 1851). return to text<br />
20.Darwin's only appeal - ibid, Vol. 1, p. 355. (C. Darwin to W. D. Fox, August 10, 1853). return to text<br />
21.Erasmus - Although Erasmus died seven years before Charles was born, Charles undoubtedly was familiar with both his liberal views and his writings about evolution. Charles read Erasmus's book Zoonomia twice, once in his youth and "a second time after an interval of ten or fifteen years" (Ref. 1. Vol. 1, p. 34).return to text<br />
22.freethinkers - Ref. 8, p. 10 return to text<br />
23.religious doubts - Ref. 15, p. 256. return to text<br />
24.damnable doctrine - Ref. 8, pp. 10, 318 return to text<br />
25.convictions - Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p.281. return to text<br />
26.Son of God - Ref. 15, pp. 634-35. return to text<br />
27.go away - Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 285 footnote. return to text<br />
28.Joseph Hooker - Ref. 16, p.46. return to text<br />
29.Down graveyard - For an account of Darwin's almost-life-long illness, see Russell Grigg, 'Darwin's Mystery illness', Creation magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, September-November 1995, pp. 28-30. return to text<br />
30.agnosticism - In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Bchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286. return to text<br />
31.blackness of darkness - Jude 13. return to text<br />
32.Darwin deathbed conversion stories - James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1994, pp. 94, 113-114, 117, 144-146, 167. return to text After the death of Admiral Hope in 1881, Lady Hope married T. A. Denny, a “pork philanthropist,” in 1893, but preferred to retain her former name and title (pp. 85; 89-90).<br />
33.Down House retained the spelling of the old name of Darwin's village, which was changed to Downe in the mid-nineteenth century to avoid confusion with County Down in Northern Ireland. Source: Ref. 1, p. 176.return to text.<br />
34.Watchman Examiner, Boston, August 19,1915, p. 1071. Source: Ref. 1, pp. 92-93 and 190. return to text.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: John M. Brentnall and Russell M. Grigg. Provided by Creation Ministries International. <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-5100801534967422132010-10-13T18:54:00.000-07:002010-10-13T18:54:31.575-07:00Is the religion of Secular Humanism being taught in public school classrooms?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG1GkSUlQ1cW6Zbsn0twF7Oxigp8fdb1AxnxoxiHqE0lsqf6wIwuwCRKXDOATOx89HJkb5HmXIppjTAh1lxk44J4PGBYofLCIyLTACXAilJTM4J4lvPWufkqqNVUINatmOU_jXicDRw7nv/s1600/graduates.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG1GkSUlQ1cW6Zbsn0twF7Oxigp8fdb1AxnxoxiHqE0lsqf6wIwuwCRKXDOATOx89HJkb5HmXIppjTAh1lxk44J4PGBYofLCIyLTACXAilJTM4J4lvPWufkqqNVUINatmOU_jXicDRw7nv/s200/graduates.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community. As James Davison Hunter explains:<br />
<br />
The substantive model generally delimits religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on. The functional model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, ideology, world view and cosmology.[1]<br />
<br />
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism.”<br />
<br />
In other words, a functional definition describes religion as "a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion."[2] Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism.<br />
<br />
U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion (where the religion must affirm a transcendent deity) to a functional definition of religion even including Secular Humanism. For example, in United States v. Kauten (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his “religious conscience.” The court concluded: "Conscientious objection may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse."[3] Thus, the court clearly adopted the functional definition of religion as opposed to a substantive or distinctly theistic one.<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Another example of the adoption of a functional understanding of religion occurred in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957). In this case, the Fellowship of Humanity sought recovery of property taxes because, it argued, its grounds were used for religious worship (though not the worship of a transcendent deity). They were awarded a refund of paid property taxes.[4] In praise of the decision, Paul Blanshard, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II, declared that the court's decision regarding the Fellowship of Humanity represented "another victory for those who would interpret the word religion very broadly [viz. to include Secular Humanism]… "[5]<br />
<br />
One final example is well-known. In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."[6]<br />
<br />
Clearly, American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall of separation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true[7], why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter says,<br />
<br />
To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functional definition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education.[8] <br />
<br />
Enormous implications indeed! Even Leo Pfeffer, the Humanist attorney who argued the Torcaso case, declared that Fundamentalists, individually or collectively, have manifested no indication of giving up in their crusade against secular humanism in the public schools. Pfeffer fears that if the Supreme Court upholds its current understanding of religion to include Secular Humanism and orders the teachings of Humanism to be removed from the public schools "the consequences may be no less than the disintegration of our public school system and the end of Horace Mann's dream."[9]<br />
<br />
But Humanism remains de facto the established religion of our land, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?[10]<br />
FOOTNOTES<br />
<br />
1. James Davison Hunter, "Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Modern Pluralism," in Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy, James Davison Hunter and Os Guiness, eds. (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 58.<br />
2. Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 4.<br />
3. United States v. Kauten, 133F. 2nd 703, 708 (2d Cir. 1943). See also, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).<br />
4. Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd. 673 (1957).<br />
5. "Paul Blanshard's Column," in The Humanist, No. 4, 1959, p. 238.<br />
6. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961).<br />
7. For proof, see, David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995). Available from Summit Ministries, P.O. Box 207, Manitou Springs, CO 80829; or call (719) 685-9103.<br />
8. Hunter, “Religious Freedom,” p. 65.<br />
9. The Humanist, September/October 1988, p. 50.<br />
10. Charles Francis Potter (a signatory of the 1930 Humanist Manifesto I), Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, adapted from their book Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-36038281543454787102010-10-13T18:51:00.000-07:002010-10-13T18:51:56.220-07:00Should Christians seek political power, or should we only focus on charity and evangelism?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>This question is misleading. It brings to mind a negative image of government and politics, and it also implies that the freedom to evangelize is secure and could never be taken away. If the first part of the question is actually, "should Christians corrupt themselves with the seedy side of politics?" or "should Christians revert to the unethical, unscriptural practices of modern day 'politicians'?" the answer is, of course, no.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqr_HnTQJxuCdaw02eIJOiGWO7Gbi4kd0wRCrZRT9R5oUFPxVNv6Mp6qTgzfzRrhyrq4MtB7b2skTevs55j-seoGaWQqaw-z-b_9SkEbO4AnA3yNrYcH_R5TclDD3CiPUExkiwWKoipn4S/s1600/manspeech1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqr_HnTQJxuCdaw02eIJOiGWO7Gbi4kd0wRCrZRT9R5oUFPxVNv6Mp6qTgzfzRrhyrq4MtB7b2skTevs55j-seoGaWQqaw-z-b_9SkEbO4AnA3yNrYcH_R5TclDD3CiPUExkiwWKoipn4S/s320/manspeech1.jpg" width="215" /></a>If, however, the question is about political involvement and participation in general, there is a different answer: Christians should seek political participation and representation as they go about their duties of evangelizing the world. Without this participation and representation, there is no assurance that the freedom to evangelize will remain secure. Can we maintain the fundamental freedoms and liberties we enjoy while standing apart from the political process? The political and social trends of the last generation should offer clear warnings that freedom and liberty require diligent care and attention—especially by the Christian community.<br />
<br />
There are numerous perspectives on why Christians should be involved in the political process: duty, responsibility, natural leadership, love of our brothers and sisters, a basic compassion for mankind, etc. One perspective that too often goes unnoticed is the concept of submission to government. Submission to our governing structures requires participation.<br />
<br />
As Paul wrote to the Romans: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" (Romans 13:1 NIV). The first seven verses of this chapter provided a fundamental blueprint for the relationship between the Christians in Rome and the existing governing authority—the power of Rome. The Roman Christians exercised no political power in the secular order of things; participation was extremely limited.<br />
<br />
As Christians today, we look back upon Paul's letter, and other portions of Scripture (Mark 12, I Timothy 2:1-3, Acts 5, etc.) to determine our own relationship to government.<br />
<br />
Americans enjoy certain rights and liberties that would seem foreign to early Christians. Therefore, trusting that God offers Biblical provision for our modern situation, we apply the principles He has given. As we read in Romans, one of those principles is submission to governing authority.<br />
<br />
In the American governing system, submission demands participation. Why, you may ask? Whether they like it or not, American citizens are participants in the American governing structure. No one is exempt from this participation. Citizens are assessed taxes; they are counted in the Census; they are in government computer systems at all levels; they send their children to government-run schools; they are, in one way or another, participants in the government.<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Working from the premise that we are all participants, political involvement is not a matter of seeking "power." It is a matter of being fairly represented as we participate in government. As we participate, we have the opportunity of voting for our elected officials and of ensuring adequate choices as we vote. If we truly believe our government was divinely ordained and instituted, this luxury and opportunity should be enjoyed and exercised.<br />
<br />
What does it mean to "participate?" At a minimum, it means voting. Voting implies a familiarity with those individuals on the ballot. And this familiarity is only appreciated by understanding the issues of our day. Thus, participation should drive one to an awareness of political issues. This would include social issues, economic issues, international issues, etc. Christians should rank among the most politically informed and astute people in America.<br />
<br />
Indeed, during the Founding Era, that was the case. The pulpits were one of the primary sources for information. Education was guided by a Christian perspective. Churches were at the center of the political community, not on the periphery. Christians, of all types, exercised political and social leadership. We would do well to look back upon these earlier days, reflecting upon the role Christians assumed in creating our American form of government. Is it not ironic that we question the political involvement of Christians in a system predominately established by Christians?<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Bill Suggs of WallBuilders. Provided by Eden Communications.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-59523928610520493662010-10-13T18:49:00.000-07:002010-10-13T18:49:27.684-07:00Do Christians have an obligation to vote?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlXzwvCH6MzfscFePpdKgF0IVCj8W2kC4_mqrZWyvtI7cN9f_Z3a5ysw96dWFoyvTLdp-wjAJOtbeabT1PAbPYgosqp6zvolw50O6SWizjrO4utFV2llmu23-4aBUTBPov6K9rEUTDv-3x/s1600/vote.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlXzwvCH6MzfscFePpdKgF0IVCj8W2kC4_mqrZWyvtI7cN9f_Z3a5ysw96dWFoyvTLdp-wjAJOtbeabT1PAbPYgosqp6zvolw50O6SWizjrO4utFV2llmu23-4aBUTBPov6K9rEUTDv-3x/s400/vote.jpg" width="233" /></a></div>I once heard of a church where members thought it was against God's will to vote. Concerned that a corrupt politician would win a local election, church members gathered for an all-night prayer vigil. In the morning, however, they refused to vote and the good candidate lost—by fewer than the number of votes represented by those at the prayer meeting.<br />
<br />
It seems tragic, but maybe those church members did the right thing. After all, isn't politics a dirty business? Christians are citizens of heaven, not of earth… right? Every Christian must grapple with this question and come up with a defensible answer.<br />
THE HIGH COST OF INDIFFERENCE<br />
<br />
I teach political communication at a Christian college. Once several years ago students in my class complained endlessly about seedy politicians. Yet the day after the election, I discovered that only two of them had voted, and most weren't even REGISTERED to vote! I told them, “For the rest of the semester, if you didn't vote, you have lost your right to complain in this class.” Years later they still remember the lesson.<br />
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN CITIZEN<br />
<br />
There are at least five good reasons why Christians should vote:<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
1. God has granted us authority. All authority belongs to God, but He has put human beings on the earth as caretakers. What is our task? According to Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20, we are to go out and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey God in every area of life. This includes politics. We must disciple people to make godly decisions about government, and promote the efforts of those who are already doing so.<br />
2.<br />
<br />
We need to stand against evil. St. Augustine said those who are citizens of God's kingdom are best equipped to be citizens of the kingdom of man. The alternative is unthinkable. In the 20th Century, atheistic and secular humanistic leaders gained control of nations all across Europe, Asia and Africa. What was the result? According to historian R. J. Rummel, almost 170 million men, women and children have been brutally murdered by these governments, all in the name of human progress. These facts led historian John Hallowell to note,<br />
<br />
“Only through a return to faith in God, as God revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ, can modern man and his society find redemption from the tyranny of evil.”<br />
<br />
3.<br />
<br />
Christian values contribute positively to society. The Bible’s solutions make sense. It is Christian involvement in government through the ages that gave us hospitals, civil liberties, abolition of slavery, modern science, the elevation of women, regard for human life, great works of art and literature, a workable system of justice, education for common people, the free-enterprise system, and much, much more.<br />
<br />
When we see the good that results from applying God's principles, and the horror that results from rejecting them, doesn't it seem cruel and irresponsible to keep Jesus teachings about truth, love and compassion to ourselves? At very least, we should vote to keep OUT of office those who attempt to oppose God's authority.<br />
4. Obedience to authority demands good citizenship. The Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 13 clearly states that we must obey governmental leaders because all authority comes from God. Here's the catch: in America, the people are the leaders! Here, at least, we express our obedience to God by exercising our rights and privileges as citizens. That means voting.<br />
5.<br />
<br />
Good citizenship sets an example for generations to come. Those who apply God's principles to government pave the way for generations of blessing. In 1768 a Christian minister named John Witherspoon became president of the College of New Jersey, now Princeton. While there he taught biblical principles of government to his students.<br />
<br />
Of the 478 young men who were graduated during his tenure, writes author John Eidsmoe,<br />
<br />
“114 became ministers; 13 were state governors; 3 were U. S. Supreme Court judges; 20 were U.S. Senators; 33 were U. S. Congressmen; Aaron Burr, Jr. became Vice-President; and James Madison became President.”<br />
<br />
As a Christian, Witherspoon exerted an enormous influence on the direction of American government.<br />
<br />
You and I may not have the gifts of John Witherspoon, but we can still make a big difference if we put our minds to it. Pass this on to friends and family, and encourage them to vote in the every election!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Jeffrey L. Myers, Ph.D. / from his book Vital Truth: Christian Citizenship (February 2003). Copyright 2002, LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-58159995591832341802010-10-13T18:47:00.000-07:002010-10-13T18:47:43.595-07:00How much should character matter in choosing political leaders?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>The scandals surrounding many political leaders raise the question of whether character matters in a leader. For a Christian, the only answer must be an emphatic, “Yes! Character does matter.”<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinSTA5Gz_w2JKqRXCbNiaElbPTYaxq8nxVDq5WLF56YLQ9AQXqjoIZ874hFh9upSSQNrbeGLvN-dtUSpBIhopgHklqV8K2YDfi3NPJjIQIrnLLhXy7c8BQKbXSH5vXATZopjXuJmcJZUuS/s1600/istana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinSTA5Gz_w2JKqRXCbNiaElbPTYaxq8nxVDq5WLF56YLQ9AQXqjoIZ874hFh9upSSQNrbeGLvN-dtUSpBIhopgHklqV8K2YDfi3NPJjIQIrnLLhXy7c8BQKbXSH5vXATZopjXuJmcJZUuS/s320/istana.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Scriptural passages setting forth the characteristic of leadership for civil and religious leaders makes it clear that sound character and a pure moral life are essential prerequisites.[1] The reason for such requirements was identified by Jesus in Matthew 7:16-20 and Luke 6:43-44: bad roots will always produce bad fruits.<br />
<br />
American founding father Samuel Adams expounded on this Biblical principle when he explained:<br />
<br />
He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections… [P]rivate and public vices are in reality… connected… Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of [exceptional] character. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
While many other Founders made similarly succinct declarations on the necessity of private morality in public officials (to read more of these quotes, see our book Original Intent), in recent weeks I discovered an especially interesting essay on this topic written in 1801 by Noah Webster. In that work, Webster explained why a high level of morality was necessary in the Presidency:<br />
<br />
[A]ll history is a witness of the truth of the principle that good morals are essential to the faithful and upright discharge of public functions. The moral character of a man is an entire and indivisible thing—it cannot be pure in one part and defiled in another. A man may indeed be addicted, for a time, to one vice and not to another; but it is a solemn truth that any considerable breach in the moral sense facilitates the admission of every species of vice. The love of virtue first yields to the strongest temptation; but when the rampart [resistance] is broken down, it is rendered more accessible to every successive assailant… Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty [an encouragement] from government. And… the Chief Magistrate of the United States [the President] should be the last man to accelerate its progress.<br />
<br />
America long understood what the Bible taught: the quality of government in any country depends more upon the quality and characteristic of leaders than laws. Signer of the Constitution and Supreme Court Justice William Paterson was one of the many Founders who reminded citizens of this truth by citing Proverbs 29:2—<br />
<br />
“…When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”<br />
<br />
For a Christian, there can be no other position: character does count, and morality—both private and public—is essential in our leaders.<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: David Barton of WallBuilders. Photos supplied by Eden Communications.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-83072107853314241172010-10-13T18:41:00.000-07:002010-10-13T18:41:26.077-07:00What should be the attitude of the church toward homosexuals and homosexuality?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEAaDeG9nSoL8kJK24zWMr-7u8eYMljIpXpVgGgR6c_ZVICn1wV9vudVOV58EF8E-2Nsiwmw1-JWcUUwmdTpLHqfZRR1QW7N0Ig5MDG9K8BQmJVQ_40QjWo9JQJ9WD9mMYbrkuNW1msFhc/s1600/celebrate-sodomy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a></div>For the Bible-believing Christian, there can be no doubt that homosexuality is a grievous sin in the sight of God. The awful catalogue in the first chapter of Romans of the sins practiced by the ancient pagan world began with this sin:<br />
<br />
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEAaDeG9nSoL8kJK24zWMr-7u8eYMljIpXpVgGgR6c_ZVICn1wV9vudVOV58EF8E-2Nsiwmw1-JWcUUwmdTpLHqfZRR1QW7N0Ig5MDG9K8BQmJVQ_40QjWo9JQJ9WD9mMYbrkuNW1msFhc/s320/celebrate-sodomy.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="230" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(© Jeremiah Films)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>—Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)<br />
<br />
The term “sodomy,” named after the inhabitants of Sodom whose homosexual perversions caused God to rain fire and brimstone on their city in the days of Abraham (Genesis 19:4,5,12,24), has for thousands of years been synonymous with this unique form of ungodliness. That it is basically a sin of rebellion against God is evident from the above passage in Romans.<br />
<br />
The “cause” for which God “gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves” was that they had decided to “worship and serve creation more than the Creator” (Romans 1:24-25 - KJV).<br />
<br />
Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually called “dogs” in the Bible. Note the strong prohibition in the Old Testament theocracy established under Moses.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.<br />
—Deuteronomy 23:17,18 (KJV)<br />
<br />
We can be sure that, if these practices were abominations to God then, He has not changed His opinion about them today.<br />
<br />
The same terminology appears in the description of the holy city in the last chapter of the Bible.<br />
<br />
Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.<br />
—Revelation 22:14-15 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Thus, sodomites—like sorcerers, whoremongers (same word as “fornicators”), murderers, idolaters and lovers of lies—should undoubtedly also be excluded from church fellowship. If such a person, professing to be a Christian, persists in his sin, he should be put out of the church, like the one who had committed fornication with his stepmother (I Corinthians 5:1).<br />
<br />
Now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat… Therefore, put away from yourselves that wicked person.<br />
—I Corinthians 5:11, 13 (KJV)<br />
<br />
Homosexuality, like all other types of fornication, has no place in the family of God. Regardless of what modern promoters of “gay liberation” might wish to believe, sexual perversions are not inherited genetically but rather are learned behaviors and willful sins. Like alcoholism and other such sins of the flesh, they may become very difficult to give up for those who have been enslaved by them, but God is able to give deliverance to any who sincerely desire true freedom and salvation.<br />
<br />
To “straight” Christians in the church, however, the familiar old admonition to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” surely applies in such cases. Homosexuals, long accustomed to being looked upon with disgust by most people, are understandably anxious for acceptance by society. Nevertheless, they must not be encouraged to continue in their wickedness, for it may well cost them their eternal souls. Instead, they need to be “loved into the kingdom,” being delivered first of all from their rebellion against God, then to Christ for salvation and cleansing.<br />
<br />
Notice Paul's testimony concerning the very real possibility of such deliverance:<br />
<br />
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, …shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.<br />
—I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)<br />
<br />
When there is true repentance and the sin is forsaken, then such a person should be lovingly received into the fellowship of believers (or back into that fellowship, if previously excommunicated), like any other repentant and believing sinner. This is the example given in the case of the incestuous Corinthian:<br />
<br />
Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him.<br />
—II Corinthians 2:6-8 (KJV)<br />
<br />
In spite of great pressure today from humanists and other liberals to get homosexuality recognized as an acceptable—if not even preferable—life style, the Bible makes it plain that it is really unnatural and animalistic wickedness that must be rejected by true Christians.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we cannot forget that Christ died for their sins, as well as ours. They are still objects of His sacrificial love, and we should seek earnestly to bring them to Him for cleansing and deliverance. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Excerpt from The Bible Has the Answer, by Henry Morris and Martin Clark, published by Master Books.<br />
<br />
Supplied by Eden Communications with permission from Master Books.<br />
<br />
This page is located at: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f019.html<br />
<br />
Copyright © 1995, 1998, Master Books, All Rights Reserved—except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-83085091871794890772010-10-13T18:37:00.000-07:002010-10-13T18:37:11.248-07:00What does the Bible say about same sex marriage?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdkqE2j1jkASTksYGtRXndxrmNw06fm54FCt1J0dtw1zsJ0DdjZ-U_DcTC6bGux87FCmzzD9hB1nVo2i9ZA-_nVwN2Nr_XrtN14Lq0wXFjpKz4wMMWNi2mQk7lNldwvbIuxFKwnW8zeO3/s1600/homowed3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a></div>God's plan for sexuality<br />
<br />
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."<br />
—Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdkqE2j1jkASTksYGtRXndxrmNw06fm54FCt1J0dtw1zsJ0DdjZ-U_DcTC6bGux87FCmzzD9hB1nVo2i9ZA-_nVwN2Nr_XrtN14Lq0wXFjpKz4wMMWNi2mQk7lNldwvbIuxFKwnW8zeO3/s200/homowed3.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="200" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">© Jeremiah Films</td></tr>
</tbody></table>"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."<br />
—Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.<br />
<br />
When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve - not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27).<br />
<br />
[Editor's Note: Various studies indicate that homosexual behavior makes both men and women more vulnerable to disease and decreases lifespan. See: R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, KJ Craib, MV O'Shaughnessy, JS Montaner and MT Schechter, "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26 (Oxford University, 1997), pp. 657-661. ("If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday") / Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," Medical Institute of Sexual Health (1999) ("Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections." "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.") / L.A. Valleroy, D.A. MacKellar, J.M. Daron, et al, "HIV prevalence and associated risks in young men who have sex with men," JAMA, 284 (2000), pp. 198-204. (Discusses the prevalence of HIV infection and high-risk behaviors in study group of 3,492 young men who have sex with men.) / D. Binson, W.J. Woods, L. Pollack, J. Paul, R. Stall, J.A. Catania, "Differential HIV risk in bathhouses and public cruising areas," American Journal of Public Health, 91 (2001), pp. 1482-1486. (demonstrates that high risk behaviors are still quite common among homosexual men).]<br />
<br />
What Jesus taught<br />
<br />
"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"<br />
—Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"<br />
—Mark 10:6 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.<br />
What else does the Bible say?<br />
<br />
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."<br />
—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."<br />
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"<br />
—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
These three references indicate that homosexual passions and acts are unnatural, shameful, contrary to sound doctrine and deny entrance to the Kingdom of God. This being so they cannot be the basis of a Christian marriage sanctioned by God's Church. The Church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation. No marriage can be sanctioned by the Church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put the couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear - that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.<br />
<br />
Are emotions a sufficient basis for marriage?<br />
<br />
Hollywood has propagated the myth that when it comes to marriage "all you need is love." This is simply not true. Marriage is not based on emotion any more than any other partnership in life is. Marriage, like many human activities, involves emotion but it is not constituted by the presence of any particular set of emotions. I do not deny that many homosexuals feel deeply for their partners; however I do assert that no matter how deep the feelings, what they have is not a marriage in God's sight. It is a beautiful deception.<br />
<br />
Just because an emotion is deep or powerful does not justify acting upon it. Like drugs, like adultery, like the abuse of alcohol or the love of money, or the power rush of human ego trips, there are emotions which are powerful and addictive and ultimately terribly destructive. Same sex marriages must satisfy criteria other than emotion. A marriage is more than a sexual pleasure center. A marriage is a social unit that is interwoven with dozens of other lives.<br />
<br />
Same sex marriages do not last. Less than 5% of gays have ever had a relationship that lasted 3 years or more. Sex is not enough. Passion cannot sustain an inherently unstable social unit.<br />
<br />
Society, the Church and same sex marriages<br />
<br />
Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community which stands under the blessing or curse of God. Societies that put emotional fulfillment before right actions and principles will soon give way to a multitude of addictions and deep corruptions and collapse. God will judge any society that institutes same sex marriages.<br />
<br />
I also believe that God will judge a society that permits adoption of children or the use of sperm banks by same sex couples. His Word stands over society and when it is deliberately flaunted in the name of progress and enlightenment, then it is not light but deep darkness that results. We cannot bend the principles of God's Word to suit vocal minority groups. While some nations may enact laws permitting these evils, the true church of God must stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same sex marriages by Christian clergy. No church that takes the Bible seriously can sanction a union between homosexuals or lesbians. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: John Edmiston. Provided by Eden Communications.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-10312727468934517562010-10-13T08:49:00.000-07:002010-10-13T08:49:03.110-07:00What About Gays Needs to Change? It may not be what you think!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwnMsul7ux84yKrhX0aDxSQQi8jJ6RDjiuH2ki6MjifbdEWz0qAXA9HUFFjCsa8u4GV05kJsUl1CpVNlvoEqJNB0-FiJ48z56SdLennVrEB3KNU0f9W4KpPBBLPAAdq3k49TyGlJKmgoIZ/s1600/refrigerator4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwnMsul7ux84yKrhX0aDxSQQi8jJ6RDjiuH2ki6MjifbdEWz0qAXA9HUFFjCsa8u4GV05kJsUl1CpVNlvoEqJNB0-FiJ48z56SdLennVrEB3KNU0f9W4KpPBBLPAAdq3k49TyGlJKmgoIZ/s200/refrigerator4.jpg" width="126" /></a><span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
The point is apparent-without a clear and focused understating of what direction the homosexual needs to go, he will progress no further than the refrigerator.<br />
What Needs to Change?<br />
<br />
An illustration will help. Imagine a very thin lady seated at a dinner table. She fidgets with her food, spoons it from one side of her plate to the other, eats little if anything, then excuses herself from the table.<br />
<br />
"How can a visibly gaunt woman eat so little or not at all?" we ask. Our observation could lead us to two premises-either she dislikes food or she is not hungry. If we accept the first premise-that she dislikes food—our sympathetic approach might include a variety of recommendations.<br />
<br />
We inquire about the type of food she does like—maybe fast food, Mexican or Chinese. If not perhaps the immaculate look of a seven-course meal appeals to her appetite. Perchance she prefers her food prepared a certain way-broiled versus fried, rare versus well done. If none of these recommendations help, she could have sitophobia-a fear of food.<br />
<br />
Let's now assume the second premise—that she is not hungry. If this suspicion is true she may be suffering from a malfunctioning metabolism. We make a doctor's appointment for her. The physician suspects a thyroid condition and orders blood work. And it's possible she has hypogeusia-a diminished sense of taste.<br />
<br />
But as persistent as we've been, all approaches make little difference in this lady's eating habits, or lack thereof. She eats very little and infrequently! Our methods have been genuine, compassionate, and justifiable. We have devoted considerable time in our quest to correct the dilemma, but to no avail.<br />
The Puzzle Comes Together<br />
<br />
However, if we learn this woman is anorexic, our approach changes dramatically and immediately. We realize our initial assumptions and strategies are ludicrous and laughable because they do not bear on the primary issue—a distorted self image. <br />
<br />
When this self-starved lady looks in the mirror she sees an obese lady looking back and no amount of persuasion will convince her otherwise.<br />
<br />
When this primary issue is addressed, her food intake as well as the frequency of her eating increases. But take note-her increased eating is a byproduct of confronting the main issue-a distorted self-image. And I use the term image not only from a clinical perspective but a biblical one. Genesis 1:26-27 reads,<br />
<br />
“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Emphasis added)<br />
<br />
Now the Analogy<br />
<br />
How does this illustration apply to the homosexual condition? Just as it is absurd for the anorexic's family and friends to focus on trying to make her eat, so it is absurd for churches to try and make the homosexual heterosexual.<br />
<br />
Society in general and churches in particular mistakenly believe freedom from homosexuality is marrying, having 2.3 children and a dog in the back yard. A 2001 secular study on the possibility of change shows the depth of this ingrained 'doctrine'. Dr Robert Spitzer, a Columbia University professor interviewed men and women who said they used to be homosexual; I was one of many he questioned. As beneficial as his study was and as much as I appreciate the visibility it gave to change, his study measured heterosexual function of the former homosexual—again missing the real issue.<br />
<br />
“But” you ask, "don't homosexuals need to become heterosexuals?" No! Scripture never states nor implies all people must be heterosexual; it does say explicitly, however, that we are to avoid all forms of sexual immorality, which includes homosexuality. With that in mind have we not at times given the impression that homosexuals must “convert” to heterosexuality? Jesus did not say "Go and make [heterosexuals]"; He said "go and make disciples."<br />
<br />
“But” you ask, "isn't heterosexuality the opposite of homosexuality?" No! The opposite of homosexuality is holiness!<br />
<br />
As I wrote earlier, the term former homosexual is inadequate if not inappropriate. We mistakenly think a person who has found freedom from same-sex attractions is now heterosexual. The former homosexual man or woman may now experience heterosexual feelings, but heterosexuality should never be his nor the churches' goal. Heterosexuality is in many cases, but not all, a byproduct of the homosexual's dealing with the primary issues-a distorted self-image and faulty thinking-both of which Satan uses to “gain control.”<br />
<br />
The church will do well to remember that singleness is not a sin, immorality is.<br />
<br />
What all this means is that most of churches' advice to the homosexual misses the mark entirely!<br />
Advice Well-Meant, but Wrong<br />
<br />
Telling an adult gay son "you just need to date more; you haven't met the right girl" is senseless. Suggesting your lesbian friend "marry, settle down and everything will work out" is imprudent. Many gay men and women have married, thinking marriage will “heal” them and in most cases the consequences have been disastrous.<br />
<br />
Some, hopefully not Christians, suggest a gay man "find a woman who can make you a man." While I 've never heard a Christian give such advice, I did have a twenty-seven year old gay man share the following with me. He said he was fifteen when his “Christian” father learned of his homosexual struggle. To 'help' his son the father bought him a subscription to Playboy magazine. That's equivalent to serving roast duck to the anorexic.<br />
<br />
God does not heal one form of immorality with another form of immorality! How effective is a machine gun against a tidal wave?<br />
<br />
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12).<br />
<br />
One married struggler told me his well-meaning pastor recommended he have more sex with his wife. Although the Bible does command conjugal rights (I Cor. 7:3-4), the pastor's advice bypassed the real issue.<br />
<br />
Another pastor prayed with an unusually handsome and struggling man, then told him "I've got a really nice girl in the church I want you to meet."<br />
<br />
A Christian friend who knows my testimony, met my wife Lisa and said "I can see why you left homosexuality; your wife is beautiful." While he is correct that Lisa is beautiful his statement, like so many, represents a global ignorance on the subject. If attractive women were the remedy for male homosexuality, there would be no gay men.<br />
<br />
Many gay men ask me how to cultivate a romantic/sexual attraction to women. I tell them that is not the issue; the issue is a distorted/broken image. (I have often thought how devious our adversary is. He not only confuses men and women regarding their sexual identity, he also confuses them and the church as to what healing really is, thus compounding the problem.)<br />
<br />
By dealing with the primary issue, gay men begin to see themselves as masculine and lesbians begin to see themselves as feminine; the same-sex attractions diminish and in many cases opposite-sex attractions occur.<br />
Not a Means to an End<br />
<br />
During my own journey out of homosexuality I made a significant discovery—Jesus Christ is not a means to an end. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. I did not go to Christ to get something else, namely heterosexuality. I went to Christ to get HIM!<br />
<br />
When we learn this truth, we will witness prison doors falling off their hinges and chains disintegrating.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Tim Wilkins, Cross Ministry. Wilkins is a former homosexual and now directs Cross, a speaking ministry headquartered in Wake Forest, NC. www.CrossMinistry.org<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-17770556030424303572010-10-13T08:45:00.000-07:002010-10-13T08:45:47.900-07:00What are the consequences of sexual immorality?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQT0v2DjqLqDFmKDwo9cc2hFab437im8aEM55IOCDayg0ufhzB3TpvH0zgWeCtDCR1f_waIShiwPMlCB8Kmbgyhe6Zxd3509R71FqZCryULPreg-9eXeaNPeTbnNvbGcs3-m_Esp68GdRn/s1600/socwrkm.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQT0v2DjqLqDFmKDwo9cc2hFab437im8aEM55IOCDayg0ufhzB3TpvH0zgWeCtDCR1f_waIShiwPMlCB8Kmbgyhe6Zxd3509R71FqZCryULPreg-9eXeaNPeTbnNvbGcs3-m_Esp68GdRn/s200/socwrkm.gif" width="157" /></a></div>Nobody is immune to sexual temptation. It is a serious problem and deserves serious attention. This article is meant to be a helpful reminder of how terrible the consequences of falling to sexual temptation can be. Print this page and read it often. Read them periodically and on a regular basis, especially while traveling or under special temptation and weakness. If You rehearse these consequences on a regular basis, you will be able to identify the fog of sin's deception which will motivate you to think and live purely today—which is the only way to prevent immorality tomorrow.<br />
consequences which concern my relationship with God<br />
<br />
* Grieving of the Lord who redeemed me.<br />
* Displeasure of the One whose opinion most matters to me.<br />
* Discrediting the name of Yahweh - dragging his name into the mud.<br />
* Loss of reward and commendation from God.<br />
* One day having to look at Jesus face to face and explain why I did it.<br />
* Forcing God to discipline me in various ways.<br />
<br />
my relationship with my spouse and my family<br />
<br />
* Untold hurt to ________ (fill in spouse's name).<br />
* Loss of ________'s respect.<br />
* Loss of ________'s trust.<br />
* If my blindness should continue or if ________ is unable to forgive me, I could lose him/her.<br />
* Loss of my children's respect.<br />
* Loss of my children's trust.<br />
* If my blindness should continue or my children are unable to forgive me, I could lose them.<br />
* Loss of example and credibility, nullifying my influence on my family who need to build on their relationships with Christ.<br />
* Because of my present failure, future generations of my family may have difficulty in this area.<br />
* Shame to my family would result.<br />
* The probability that my mother and father would know about my unfaithfulness, and how it would hurt them (possibly even blaming themselves).<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
disciplines brought upon self<br />
<br />
* Shame and life-long embarrassment to myself.<br />
* Discrediting my own name.<br />
* Loss of self-respect.<br />
* Terrible feelings of guilt are hard to shake; even though God would forgive me, would I forgive myself?<br />
* Plaguing memories and flashbacks that could taint future intimacy with my spouse.<br />
* Failure in the area of sexual temptation may affect my ability to know “right from wrong” in other important moral areas, having defiled my conscience.<br />
<br />
my friends and ministry<br />
<br />
* Shame and hurt to my friends and especially those I have taught about Christ and discipled toward spiritual maturity.<br />
* Shame to my church family.<br />
* Shame and hurt to those I work with at _____________ (fill name of business).<br />
* Weakened faith of those I have ministered to.<br />
* Loss of my children's respect.<br />
* Irretrievable loss of years of witnessing to my unsaved friends and family.<br />
* Possibly keeping some from accepting Christ, being lost for eternity.<br />
* Years of training and/or experience in my ministry wasted for at least a long period of time, maybe for good.<br />
* Surrender of the thing I am called to and love to do (consider aspects of my gifts as used in ministry).<br />
* Following in the footsteps of others I know of whose immorality caused me to grieve.<br />
* Pain to innocent people around me who would get hit by my shrapnel (ie. the sins of Achan, David, and others).<br />
<br />
other ramifications<br />
<br />
* Bringing great pleasure to Satan, the enemy of God and all that is good.<br />
* Laughter, rejoicing and blasphemous smugness by those who disrespect God and the church (2 Sam. 12:14) .<br />
* Heaping judgment and endless problems on the person I committed adultery with.<br />
* Possible physical consequences (pregnancy from adultery, STD's, AIDS, etc.).<br />
<br />
Keep your mind on the things of God<br />
<br />
…especially upon His Word. Here are a few scripture verses upon which to meditate:<br />
<br />
Hold onto instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.<br />
—Proverbs 4:13<br />
<br />
I have made a covenant with my eyes, how then could I gaze at a virgin?<br />
—Job 31:1<br />
<br />
Do not set foot on the path of the wicked, or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it, turn from it and go on your way.<br />
—Proverbs 4:14-15<br />
<br />
Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.<br />
—Proverbs 4:23<br />
<br />
And do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.<br />
—Romans 6:13<br />
<br />
Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body… Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be!… Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body… For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.<br />
—I Corinthians 6:13-20<br />
<br />
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. A man reaps what he sows.<br />
—Galatians 6:7<br />
<br />
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one woman (a one woman kind of man)<br />
—I Timothy 3:2<br />
<br />
Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.<br />
—I Timothy 5:1,2<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-49621610341121514712010-10-11T01:05:00.000-07:002010-10-11T01:05:56.667-07:00Should morality play a part in politics?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1g4Ql8685ayn7Zi5RzyBQICKTkspjU88dqqv6w_ZbbbsHYfeQ1VBtg1zJDskuxBI9MhuNH02NQr6P5dQLKhznS6wypPFVdUa9mUWJ4L_aD3uQSJ1MD1AcGZheGXnBRU-K1WT1nHr8nnm_/s1600/moneysoftheworld.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1g4Ql8685ayn7Zi5RzyBQICKTkspjU88dqqv6w_ZbbbsHYfeQ1VBtg1zJDskuxBI9MhuNH02NQr6P5dQLKhznS6wypPFVdUa9mUWJ4L_aD3uQSJ1MD1AcGZheGXnBRU-K1WT1nHr8nnm_/s1600/moneysoftheworld.jpg" /></a></div>A Biblical worldview: Economics or Morality?<br />
<br />
“Thou shalt meditate in this book of the law… that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shaft make thy way prosperous, and then thou shaft have good success” Joshua 1:8.<br />
<br />
This verse describes what is called a “Biblical worldview,” a philosophy which believes that behavior, ethics, and learning must be judged against the standards set forth in God's Word and that nothing can ultimately be successful apart from the application of those standards.<br />
<br />
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws, the legal benchmark used in America from 1766 to 1920, explained that system of standards:<br />
<br />
“These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil… This law… dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this… The doctrines thus delivered… are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures… No human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Under this legal standard, God's standards were the plumb line for law, government, education, etc. That philosophy of life, sometimes called “Scottish Common Sense Realism,” first introduced on this continent by early colonists and later codified by Blackstone, permeated American culture for over two-and-a-half centuries.<br />
<br />
In this half of the twentieth century, much of the church has drifted away from the Biblical World View philosophy and has embraced a belief structure described by law professor Dr. John Eidsmoe as that of “saved humanists.” That is, many embrace Christianity as a standard for religion, but not as a standard for life.<br />
<br />
Exit polls following the last Presidential election illustrated the dichotomy between belief and application which currently exists within the Christian community: 45 percent of those who labeled themselves as “evangelicals” voted for “economic” issues above “moral” issues. Few can ignore the government's serious economic problems and burgeoning federal deficit; however, to elevate economics above morality is not only Biblically untenable, it is even secularly illogical.<br />
<br />
If the economy and a reduction in federal spending is to be the goal, then it first must be recognized that much of the government's skyrocketing spending is on programs resulting from the societal effects of immoral behavior, i.e., welfare support to teen mothers, research and treatment of over two dozen different sexually transmitted diseases, repaying the public losses resulting from both violent and white-collar crime, creation of substance abuse and drug enforcement programs, etc. Many expensive federal programs result from moral-based problems.<br />
<br />
In 1994 the U.S. government spent $21 billion on welfare to teen mothers—mothers still attending either junior-high or high-school. Is $21 billion an economic problem? Certainly, but it is spending caused by a moral problem. The government spent billions on AIDS (according to the Center for Disease Control, 87 percent of the 244,939 current AIDS cases were contracted either through sodomy or illegal drug use, both moral problems). Millions were spent on the treatment of two-dozen different STDs (sexually transmitted diseases), a moral problem; $200 billion was lost to white-collar crime and $310 billion on violent crime (the inability to distinguish between right or wrong and to control one's behavior by a societal norm is a moral problem).<br />
<br />
In addition to the direct costs, add the secondary and tertiary costs of our moral malaise: include the costs of the additional courts and staff needed to prosecute immoral behavior; include the costs of the additional prisons and staff required to house those violators; include the operating and maintenance costs of additional prisons and the costs of the increased bureaucracy it produces; include the resulting increases in the budgets of the Justice Department, the Health and Human Services Department, the Center for Disease Control, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and numerous other departments and agencies, etc.<br />
<br />
The list could continue, but the principle is established: if the moral issues remain unaddressed, the economic costs will remain unbridled. John Adams concluded that to change governments without addressing moral issues is an exercise in futility:<br />
<br />
“It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand … if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty” (June 21, 1776).<br />
<br />
When all things are considered, a Biblical World View philosophy is the most logical approach.<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Brian Stone of WallBuilders. Provided by Eden Communications. <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-26204257909014860592010-10-11T01:02:00.000-07:002010-10-11T01:02:21.462-07:00How important is it to be “Politically Correct”?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhavODRBYuMYQN9FvG2ZD-zxgbU9kJeSyHQc0hxXe03SIEeb94CzA4-uwKBeKgAnWeROZIWpXjGC-BaUBo_Vzb_Wbtf4mOGCkUWvAcvfthYPDjigl72TrRTZ9Gz8XoU2FWqSIfl7btTGyD5/s1600/microphone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhavODRBYuMYQN9FvG2ZD-zxgbU9kJeSyHQc0hxXe03SIEeb94CzA4-uwKBeKgAnWeROZIWpXjGC-BaUBo_Vzb_Wbtf4mOGCkUWvAcvfthYPDjigl72TrRTZ9Gz8XoU2FWqSIfl7btTGyD5/s1600/microphone.jpg" /></a></div>The “Politically Correct” movement has gained much momentum over recent years and now dominates the thinking on many college campuses and in many public-service arenas. “Political Correctness” censors any speech, and attempts to censor any attitude, which does not align itself with the prevalent philosophy held by those in power.<br />
<br />
However, as despicable as it is, the “Politically Correct” movement is nothing new. Ecclesiastes 1:9 states:<br />
<br />
“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.”<br />
<br />
“Political Correctness” was a stifling force on anti-slavery discussions in the mid 1800s. One of those who stood firmly against the compliant trend was William Jay, son of John Jay (a Founding Father and first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court), both of whom were anti-slavery leaders. In 1849, William Jay authored a book which addressed the slavery issue. In his introduction he explained why he would not acquiesce to the pro-slavery position, despite its popularity and prevalence at the time. His words provide excellent advice for us today:<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
“The writer [William Jay] is a believer in the Divine authority of the Scriptures, he acknowledges no standard of right and wrong but the Will of God, and denies the expediency of any act which is forbidden by laws dictated by Infinite Wisdom and Goodness. This avowal will prepare the reader to find in the following pages many opinions not having the stamp of public approbation. Patriotism, honor, glory, and national prosperity, are terms to which the Christian and the mere politician attach different ideas, and estimate by different standards. He who admits the authority of the Bible will not readily acknowledge that whatever is ‘highly esteemed among men’ must be right, nor that which is unpopular is, of course, wrong.”<br />
<br />
[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Brian Stone of WallBuilders. Provided by Eden Communications.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-5621388780160105032010-10-11T00:59:00.000-07:002010-10-11T00:59:26.338-07:00Life as We Know It<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiviUTh20KNwpz-ExYh3lO2zWOcQapvan5HYNlH3wpeavo0VvgodmYCRZznxCjm26QIhGlikbq0Sx0EDkuTgHq_84FBR1ZOinrqpa3b-HJd-QU-ZBWLeRYCfOy4Gf55cyRe3FUJ-QpTEm5B/s1600/lifeasweknowit2010-1b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiviUTh20KNwpz-ExYh3lO2zWOcQapvan5HYNlH3wpeavo0VvgodmYCRZznxCjm26QIhGlikbq0Sx0EDkuTgHq_84FBR1ZOinrqpa3b-HJd-QU-ZBWLeRYCfOy4Gf55cyRe3FUJ-QpTEm5B/s1600/lifeasweknowit2010-1b.jpg" /></a></div>“A comedy about taking it one step at a time”<br />
<br />
After a disastrous blind date which ended before the car even started, Holly Berenson (Katherine Heigl) and Eric Messer (Josh Duhamel) cannot stand each other. Their only shared link is that their best friends are married and have a little girl named Sophie. When their friends are tragically killed in a car wreck, Holly and Eric are named the guardians of the now orphaned toddler. Putting their differences aside, the two decide to move into their friends’ home and take on the role as Sophie’s new parents, but of course, everything doesn’t go so smoothly.<br />
<br />
As with any movie primarily about raising a baby, there are plenty of “aw” moments to be enjoyed. At times, the dialogue is refreshingly realistic in showing the challenges from becoming sudden parents to the humorous baby accidents. Though these strengthened the film, “Life as We Know It” is also marred by several clichés and crude content.<br />
<br />
Holly is the over planner and Messer the uncommitted womanizer; the film would weave in and out of good character displays and would then fall into the overused plot devices (a third wheel, a frantic run to the airport, etc.) From the onset and coupled with the theatrical-trailer spoilers, their falling for one other is entirely expected. While they do have their sweet moments, Holly and Messer’s characters do not have a believable progression of change since a bit too much time was focused on their flaws, bickering, and mutual joy of Sophie. Indeed, the film is about raising a child, but it also attempted to fit the romantic-comedy genre. Duhamel and Heigl share fantastic chemistry, but their alone time wasn’t always spent in true bonding.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
The film has its fair amount of objectionable content. In several scenes, Messer is shown with different women in his bed and kisses others. In a video montage, he pinches Holly’s behind. Holly accuses him of making a “booty call” and sarcastically asks if his privates hold “magic”. There is a heavy amount of sexual discussion between Messer and Holly; all the neighbors lust over Messer. Two of the neighbors are revealed to be a gay couple after one confides to Messer that he and his partner stopped having sex after the birth of their daughter. Holly and Messer do sleep together. They share a passionate kiss and the subsequent scenes show them taking off their clothes and waking up in bed together. Afterwards, Holly is shown in just a shirt.<br />
<br />
Right before the social worker’s first visit, Holly becomes very drunk. After finding their friend’s stash of marijuana, Holly bakes it into brownies, and both she and Messer get high and watch kid shows together. The profanity is around the twenty mark with 10 as* and 2 “f”. God and Jesus’ name are profaned over 10 times.<br />
<br />
Though the movie has sweet moments, its offensive content is too heavy to ignore. Because of this, I do not personally recommend the film. When first learning of their appointed guardianship, Holly and Messer have heated discussions as to whether or not they really want to make the commitment of raising a child. This hesitation is understandable, since they did not become parents in the traditional sense, but through the tragic, unexpected deaths of their friends. The movie gives accurate glimpses of how sudden changes in one’s life can be burdensome. While mountains of stress might crush our spirits, God is ever present. Psalm 46:1-2 is a good verse to end this review with since it shows just how reliable God can be in times of trouble:<br />
<br />
“God is our refuge and strength,<br />
an ever-present help in trouble.<br />
Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way<br />
and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea…”<br />
<br />
Violence: Mild / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Heavy<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-16069522374165035512010-10-11T00:44:00.000-07:002010-10-11T00:44:18.518-07:00Secretariat<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVhg4HmVHmWQYdAc9_qkkNMDBfO2deab-nxqp3KbyPL_dTGFEo4yWpyKEGdnbI8Jy-pGqVvqFZWhNbJwQElhGJQ5smoYUr7xTlY4xy-uK-0coDd_TodvOSFVDsv2QcYtUDF0IJUFhFSR5T/s1600/secretariat2010-1b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVhg4HmVHmWQYdAc9_qkkNMDBfO2deab-nxqp3KbyPL_dTGFEo4yWpyKEGdnbI8Jy-pGqVvqFZWhNbJwQElhGJQ5smoYUr7xTlY4xy-uK-0coDd_TodvOSFVDsv2QcYtUDF0IJUFhFSR5T/s1600/secretariat2010-1b.jpg" /></a></div>“The impossible true story”<br />
<br />
“Secretariat” is an inspiring film based on the true story of a housewife and a horse who rise victoriously to overcome incredible odds. When Penny Chenery (Diane Lane) is left to dissolve her family’s failing estate, she discovers a dream of hope in the birth of one of her father’s horses. With determination and the assistance of trainer Lucien Laurin (John Malkovich) and jockey Ron Turcotte (Otto Thorwarth), Secretariat becomes the first U.S. Triple Crown champion in 25 years, setting records that still stand today. Not just for the horse enthusiast, “Secretariat” speaks to us all. To find what we were made for and to live it without regret. “Because you never know how far you can go unless you run.”<br />
<br />
“Secretariat” can be summed up in one verse. 2 Timothy 4:7 says,<br />
<br />
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
It is a story of perseverance through hardship and struggle. While history tells us the outcome, the film also tells us failure isn’t in losing the race, it’s in not running. 1 Corinthians 9:24 says to “…run in such a way as to get the prize.” The Contemporary English Version says “…run to win.” The heart of the story, like the scripture, is not in the actual winning, it’s in the effort, in giving all you’ve got.<br />
<br />
Two verses particularly came to life for me during some of the race scenes when the horses were brought to the track and the crowd was cheering them on. I found an interesting parallel in the distraction, fear and excitement shown in some of the horses, with our own. As we prepare for and run our race, we must learn to stay focused on Jesus.<br />
<br />
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” —Hebrews 12:1-2. <br />
<br />
“Secretariat” opened and closed with quotes from the Bible (Job 39:19-24) and contained recurring song “Oh Happy Day” which includes lyrics “when Jesus washed… my sins away.” There is nothing that I love more than to hear the Name of Jesus praised, especially on the big screen for all the world to see and hear, particularly when you aren't expecting it. I, also, love films about following your dreams, so fitting the two together makes for a perfect movie, in this case, almost perfect. A few oddly negative and humorous clips at the movie’s end would have been best left out in my opinion, but I suppose that is a matter of taste. Nonetheless, I would rank “Secretariat” as one of my favorite films of all time.<br />
<br />
In speaking of another character, Lucien says he “couldn’t train a monkey to pick his own butt” and “couldn’t train his own bowel movements.”<br />
<br />
Violence: None / Profanity: None / Sex/Nudity: None <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-43191345949805406262010-10-09T03:52:00.000-07:002010-10-09T03:52:08.595-07:00It's Kind of a Funny Story<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlXE7fw-9DkT0Vn8D77qCG6_Z3Yq2KzfM1zN0E2JPbfakmKokzoqa-R7ewvgosWpHPaoUcx1UqDLiFtHF3__vlY5iPLpqT7PqHTTnXDqvbRS44HZkoLM8gQE71faP7GP9mzqQEMRITrEUA/s1600/itskindofafunnystory2010-1b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlXE7fw-9DkT0Vn8D77qCG6_Z3Yq2KzfM1zN0E2JPbfakmKokzoqa-R7ewvgosWpHPaoUcx1UqDLiFtHF3__vlY5iPLpqT7PqHTTnXDqvbRS44HZkoLM8gQE71faP7GP9mzqQEMRITrEUA/s1600/itskindofafunnystory2010-1b.jpg" /></a></div>“Sometimes what's in your head isn't as crazy as you think.”<br />
<br />
It seems as though movies set in mental institutions can go one of two ways. They can either be “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, or they can be any other inferior work in the genre since that 1975 Jack Nicholson classic. The reason they are inferior is because they rely too much on clichés of those institutions, as well as an unrealistic portrayal of individuals with mental illness. This is the case because actual mental illness is a far more normal malady than people would like to admit. People of all ages and all walks of life live with mental illnesses like depression. “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” educates us on these types of mental illnesses, and does so in a sometimes funny, sometimes heartfelt manner.<br />
<br />
Craig is a very smart high school student who attends a school in New York City for the best and brightest. His father is a very successful man who is always working, unless he is reminding Craig of upcoming applications for internships or universities. Craig feels an innate pressure to succeed in all that he does, and his fear of failure is not helped by his father or his high pressure educational environment. As his fears pile up, Craig feels the need to go to a hospital and tell them he is having suicidal thoughts. While he really just wants some medicine or a quick fix, he instead gets institutionalized for a minimum of one week. During this time, Craig meets a girl his age named Noelle, as well as a man named Bobby who seems to be going through some issues of his own. These relationships in the institution help Craig face his fear of failure, begin to care about others and realize what is important in life.<br />
<br />
“It’s Kind of a Funny Story” was made by the writing and directing team of Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden. Together they have made two previous films that were critical darlings on the independent film circuit. Those two films, “Half Nelson” and “Sugar”, were much more solemn affairs and presented very deep, dark questions to the audience. Thankfully, Boden and Fleck have kept their thinking caps on while also delivering a picture with some hope, wit, and heart.<br />
<br />
The film is expertly delivered on screen and on paper, combining a little bit of comedy and sadness to leave us with something in the middle, which somehow makes a movie set in a mental institution very relatable to the viewer. It marches to its own beat, and some who were not as enthralled as me might find it moves a bit slowly for their taste.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
The acting is outstanding. The lead, Craig, is played by Keir Gilchrist, who brings a natural sensibility to the role of a teenager thinking about suicide. The scene stealer in the film, however, is Zach Galifianakis. The comedian is best known for his roles in raunchy comedies like “The Hangover” and “Dinner for Schmucks”. Galifinakis plays Bobby, and his performance is perfectly layered and packs an emotional punch. Emma Roberts plays Craig’s love interest Noelle, a teenage girl with some of the same problems that Craig has.<br />
<br />
The content issues of the film fall squarely into its PG-13 rating, but I would still say this is a movie geared more towards adults. Given that the central character is a teenager who is trying to fit in, there is some sexual dialogue, as well as one brief sexual situation. There is no nudity, but there are a couple of close ups on clothed body parts that could have been avoided. There is one F-word, along with a handful of other profanities, but given that most films set in a mental institution have at least one patient who uses nonstop profanity, this one is way ahead of the curve. There is misuse of God's name—God (2), “Oh my G*d” (4), “Jesus Christ” (1) and “Swear to God.”<br />
<br />
The film, also, deals with the issue of suicide, and there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it may caution parents before sending any teens who may be interested in seeing the film. I imagine that some older teens will connect with the main character, if they are going through a similar situation, but most teens will probably find the film boring and not nearly as funny as they had hoped.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of positives in “It’s Kind of a Funny Story”. The film portrays natural teenage angst and the progression teens go through in dealing with unneeded stress in their lives. Craig realizes that he can handle his problems, and he should be thankful for his loved ones. Craig, also, comes to the conclusion that he has been selfish, and then proceeds to change this by committing several selfless acts that have a very big impact on some of the other patients.<br />
<br />
Craig’s therapist offers positive advice, including an emphasis on this phrase: “Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” There is also a very sincere love story at the center of the movie, and its portrayal is spot on. Most importantly, the film emphasizes the point that we are not perfect, and we are in need of love.<br />
<br />
“It’s Kind of a Funny Story” is a sweet film that steers clear of most of the clichés found in movies that take place in mental hospitals. It showcases a more realistic portrayal of mental illness, and it also paints a great picture of how stress can mount quickly. For those who like to go to the movies for escapist fare, this film might not be for you. In fact, the best thing to be said about “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” is that it imitates what life is: a journey with a few hiccups along the way that is sometimes funny, sometimes heartbreaking, but ultimately redemptive. What more can you ask for?<br />
<br />
Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Heavy<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-45753988285477218092010-10-09T03:49:00.000-07:002010-10-09T03:49:54.643-07:00The Town<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeZ0b2oiCKKvhPfJLiksO44WadWzUpZ5s0YH12JNtdw05k13Kpv6G_PqzybYO4Cq80fUK8UxM9cOhmMYEZvbG8SGHg6J8Mut-xSwr1ak9BSxUcB-QGeT6Qc9M54ko-Hf2aQnudCJqSaGCx/s1600/town2010-1b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeZ0b2oiCKKvhPfJLiksO44WadWzUpZ5s0YH12JNtdw05k13Kpv6G_PqzybYO4Cq80fUK8UxM9cOhmMYEZvbG8SGHg6J8Mut-xSwr1ak9BSxUcB-QGeT6Qc9M54ko-Hf2aQnudCJqSaGCx/s1600/town2010-1b.jpg" /></a></div>“Welcome to the bank robbery capital of America.”<br />
<br />
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do… As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me” —Romans 7:15,17.<br />
<br />
In this passage from the book of Romans, the apostle Paul is struggling with something that every human being struggles with: the idea of knowing what is right and what is wrong, yet still choosing to do what is wrong. This leads to an interminable cycle of sin and guilt that has plagued mankind since the fall of Adam. It’s tough to break this cycle; no matter how hard we try, we continue to fail.<br />
<br />
This is the essential dilemma, in a much more extreme manner, of “The Town”, a heist film that takes place in a one square mile neighborhood in Boston, MA, called Charlestown. Charlestown is a neighborhood that has historically been responsible for the most bank robberies in the country, and Doug MacRay leads a crew that is considered to be the best in town. His father was a bank robber and is now serving a life sentence in prison. His lifelong friend James Coughlin just finished serving 9 years for killing someone who threatened Doug’s life. His ex–girlfriend Krista is a drug addict.<br />
<br />
Things change for Doug when he meets Claire, a girl who is not from Boston and does not know Doug’s past. This inspires him to change. He realizes that he’s had enough; he wants more than to just live a life of crime. He no longer drinks or does any drugs, but he keeps getting pulled back in to accepting heist jobs for his crew. Whether it’s out of loyalty to his friends or to honor his father, Doug keeps failing in his attempts to leave Charlestown and break the endless cycle.<br />
<br />
As the FBI begins to sniff around some jobs pulled by his crew, Doug begins to plan his escape. Many complications arise and ultimately lead Doug down a road where he must confront his inner demons, in order to make a change.<br />
<br />
“The Town” is an expertly crafted, gripping thriller that is, also, a great character study. Its combination of action, drama, and mystery is pulled off wonderfully, due to the director and lead actor of the film, Ben Affleck. As the main character, Affleck delivers arguably his best performance, as a layered criminal who is trying to do the right thing. Behind the camera, Affleck improves on his first effort, the outstanding “Gone, Baby Gone,” making a riveting and sophisticated picture. The directorial highlights include amazingly shot heist in Fenway Park. Once a laughing stock in Hollywood, known for taking high paying acting gigs in terrible movies like “Paycheck,” “Daredevil,” and “Reindeer Games,” Affleck has done a complete 180 degree turn and is now choosing his projects much more wisely.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Affleck does a wonderful job, but he is almost outdone by the supporting cast. Jeremy Renner, fresh off his Oscar® nomination for last year’s “The Hurt Locker” is excellent as Doug’s best friend and worst influence. Jon Hamm of the hit TV show “Mad Men” is pitch perfect as FBI man Adam Frawley. Rebecca Hall is more than effective as Claire, Doug’s new girlfriend.<br />
<br />
There’s a great moral dilemma in “The Town” that is relatable. Although most people aren’t hardened criminals, we all have a desire to change something about ourselves for the better. While it’s relatable, “The Town” is also a film that is very realistic, and clearly made only for adults. True to the neighborhood the film represents, “The Town” is littered with language including over 150 F-words and many other obscenities, plus 8 profane uses of God's names.<br />
<br />
There are, also, some quick shots from a strip club that include some<br />
<br />
nudity, as well as two scenes with heavy sexual content, but no nudity. The camera doesn’t turn away from strong acts of violence that include, but are not limited to, point blank shootings, beatings, and stabbings.<br />
<br />
“The Town” is a gritty heist film with a central character who wants a better life. As the film unfolds, we see that it’s tough to break a cycle once it’s started, and even when it’s broken you still have to pay for your sins. This film is, among many other things, an ultimately redemptive cautionary tale about the power of our sinful nature.<br />
<br />
Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Extreme / Sex/Nudity: Heavy<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-25814308158061213262010-10-09T03:46:00.000-07:002010-10-09T03:46:29.440-07:00Devil<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjLDrgaItnpuNmlisJcVZ_UDO_f4zg3xxeJyjjtRh7RBr1Z2ex284SlZzFqRzkjhZzJX9vA1u9gjuiXxTocnBUKh_keLAtm4XCi77y-GFBtv1e8YpYaBt2soK7CXiTt99AOtHwle670M0z/s1600/devil2010-1b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjLDrgaItnpuNmlisJcVZ_UDO_f4zg3xxeJyjjtRh7RBr1Z2ex284SlZzFqRzkjhZzJX9vA1u9gjuiXxTocnBUKh_keLAtm4XCi77y-GFBtv1e8YpYaBt2soK7CXiTt99AOtHwle670M0z/s1600/devil2010-1b.jpg" /></a></div>“Five strangers trapped. One of them is not what they seem.”<br />
<br />
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the Devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” —1 Peter 5:8, The Holy Bible.<br />
<br />
“Devil” opens with this statement which explains the goal of Satan for this world, then takes the viewer on a roller coaster ride of horror and death proving that quote's validity.<br />
<br />
Five people with unsavory pasts are mysteriously trapped in a high-rise elevator in Philadelphia: unbeknown to four of them, the fifth occupant is Satan. Unmasking him, and trying to survive all the bloody violence, both inside and outside of the elevator, keeps the characters and the audience on the edge.<br />
<br />
Detective Bowden played by Chris Messina gives a good performance, as the detective who silently but frantically tries to figure it all out and get in before it's too late. Ramirez, one of the security officers played by Jacob Vargas tells Detective Bowden that what is going on is really demonic, but for the moment the detective doesn't believe it.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
The name of Jesus was used only once as an expletive, “Oh… G*d” (3), and the s-word was used at least 8 times, plus *ss (4), d*mn (4), hell (3). Also, there was no nudity.<br />
<br />
Because this movie dealt with repentance, unforgiveness and its display of how the Devil can gain a foothold through disobedience to God's Word, I would recommend it, for these reasons only. However, because of the violence and fear, I would not recommend this movie, especially for children and families. The moral of the story is that when you go against God's Word, you open your mind to demonic attack and control through anger, greed, unforgiveness, lust, etc. In movies such as these I would love to see believers take authority over demons as Jesus told us to in His Word.<br />
<br />
Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Moderate<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-30336229591332370582010-10-09T03:44:00.000-07:002010-10-09T03:44:01.839-07:00Should Christians participate in Halloween?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlRmrIsG3EgNaEHmoK8FaUdFtICt9RtH6ndKI1_XpTeaW-RY9zjs61MXTW74AHuouZywidlRKdvrlEFjmtnajxh86l0Jd-6YJXFBjPPDzot77kmAXHlyLRImw5pUuaKsukka9H27191jqL/s1600/jackolantern250-is.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlRmrIsG3EgNaEHmoK8FaUdFtICt9RtH6ndKI1_XpTeaW-RY9zjs61MXTW74AHuouZywidlRKdvrlEFjmtnajxh86l0Jd-6YJXFBjPPDzot77kmAXHlyLRImw5pUuaKsukka9H27191jqL/s400/jackolantern250-is.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>The October 31st holiday that we today know as Halloween has strong roots in paganism and is closely connected with worship of the Enemy of this world, Satan. It is a holiday that generally glorifies the dark things of this world, rather than the light of Jesus Christ, The Truth.<br />
<br />
Have you noticed how costumes and masks are getting generally more bloody, gory, and depraved each year? Unfortunately, the gruesome and grotesque and the occult are increasingly glorified in American society, not only on Halloween, but throughout the year in horror movies and in television programs.<br />
<br />
My family does not celebrate it or participate in it. We do not believe that our children are “missing out,” and neither do they. Other days are used for costumes and parties. Happily, all of our children have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. We have found that Halloween provides an excellent time to remind our children that, as Christians, we are different, and not of this world (Heb. 11:13-16; 1 Pet. 2:11).<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
What about church “Harvest Festivals” held on October 31? Although we understand the rational and good intentions behind them, we don't think they are the best approach. Our family tends to agree with the author of an article called " Are 'Harvest Parties' for Christians?" (written by a self-avowed former witch and now active Christian). Harvest parties on October 31 tend to assume that "our children need something to take the place of Halloween, since they won't be participating in the secular and pagan celebrations. It suggests our kids are missing out on something. And indeed they are, if we allow them to spend Halloween in celebration." There are better things to do on Halloween than partying.<br />
<br />
Also, we need to teach our children that "the fight isn't against occultists, non-Christians, Christians who feel differently than we about Halloween, or institutions that promote Halloween, but" "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12, NKJV).<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-51677209053141143352010-10-09T03:24:00.000-07:002010-10-09T03:24:21.637-07:00The Last Exorcism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqI-FhANyvYFnS1D7C4fivcSX7UcOIT0-iyK0quJr2L3blh8jCF_N6-tLDw91RlRvXEbpKSNyad_g-KdJNUXiL0Yv9rjqdmcXjJ9-TWv1ud-qQeQyMrffBTVRlPHeaKtLCVnquy8-Jws7M/s1600/lastexorcism2010-1b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqI-FhANyvYFnS1D7C4fivcSX7UcOIT0-iyK0quJr2L3blh8jCF_N6-tLDw91RlRvXEbpKSNyad_g-KdJNUXiL0Yv9rjqdmcXjJ9-TWv1ud-qQeQyMrffBTVRlPHeaKtLCVnquy8-Jws7M/s640/lastexorcism2010-1b.jpg" width="430" /></a></div>“If you believe in God you must believe in the Devil.”<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if “The Last Exorcism” has a Christian worldview or not. And you know what? I don't really care. The bottom line is that it's not a good movie for Christians to see. Sure, it's a creepy horror flick about a teenaged girl who's possessed by a demon, but Jesus Christ is treated more like a plot device than anything else.<br />
<br />
To start at the beginning: Cotton Marcus is a young pastor who's been brought up in the church. He's something of a superstar preacher, relishing in the performance aspect of his job more than ministering. He's performed a number of exorcisms, but, then, due to a tragedy in his family, he winds up believing that there is no supernatural element to his exorcisms. In short: he believes that the “demons” he exorcised were nothing more than psychological oddities. He played the role of placebo, not a divine priest.<br />
<br />
So he gets the idea to invite a film crew to document one of his exorcisms. That way, he can prove to the world what a sham exorcism is.<br />
<br />
Right away we have a classical story arc—Man has belief, man loses belief, man regains belief by immersing himself in his new worldview.<br />
<br />
Watching this movie was a very strange experience. Its satanic aspect clearly made me uncomfortable, but I, also, found myself questioning the director and screenwriter's choices. The ending of the film is a mess. I probably shouldn't reveal any spoilers, but I will say that at the end, you have no idea who anyone was anymore. Was that pastor character a good guy or a bad guy? Was the brother in cahoots with demons, too? Yadda yadda yadda.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
I took a Christian friend of mine to see this as her birthday present. Later, I hear that a lady in our church was uncomfortable to hear that we went to see it. She doesn't like horror movies, in general, but Satan movies really disturb her. Rightly so.<br />
<br />
Look, everyone. When it comes to Satanism, all Hollywood cares about is making a movie that will make money. Jesus Christ is not glorified in this movie. In real life exorcisms, I would hazard the guess that He always is.<br />
<br />
Don't see this movie.<br />
<br />
Violence: Extreme / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Moderate<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-47760597107842838312010-10-06T10:19:00.000-07:002010-10-06T10:19:55.311-07:00What is the Christian perspective on war?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKLe8nTfHbWQUnrAF_Y25UMDmOfvb9FO-_lKgcHSzJ2x-5jd01Nbgr4rBoeZ89nE4wgtDh0H041YSopWOtuHV1tn-c7BAqTYZiq2HUhFPSoeZh0yMhfTR6GHZv9wOIepSt0I37i60OPT2E/s1600/armyhelmet200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKLe8nTfHbWQUnrAF_Y25UMDmOfvb9FO-_lKgcHSzJ2x-5jd01Nbgr4rBoeZ89nE4wgtDh0H041YSopWOtuHV1tn-c7BAqTYZiq2HUhFPSoeZh0yMhfTR6GHZv9wOIepSt0I37i60OPT2E/s320/armyhelmet200.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>There are two dominant positions on war that conscientious Christians have embraced throughout Christian history. There are variations on each, but, for the sake of brevity, this answer will focus on the two main views and explain them in general terms: Pacifism versus Just War Theory.<br />
<br />
The pacifist tradition<br />
<br />
Definition: A pacifist is someone who believes that under no circumstances is war justified.<br />
<br />
This position has a long history in America and as well as throughout the Church. It dominated Christianity during the Church’s first 300 years. Early Christians perceived two roadblocks that prohibited a devout believer from joining the military, voluntarily or involuntarily.<br />
<br />
1.In order to become a soldier in the Roman army, one had to offer a sacrifice, swearing an allegiance to Caesar—swearing ultimate allegiance to him as a god. Of course, all Christians agreed that this was not possible for a devout believer. So believers were prohibited from joining the military, based on this requirement.<br />
<br />
2.Soldiers may be called upon to pick up the sword and use it. Many Christians believed that this too was against the teachings of Christ.<br />
<br />
Here is a sample of what some early Church Fathers said about joining the military:<br />
<br />
Justin, who was martyred for his faith, wrote:<br />
<br />
“We refrain from making war on our enemies, and [we] cannot bear to see a man killed, even if killed justly.”<br />
<br />
Clement of Alexandria wrote in 217 A.D.:<br />
<br />
“He who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier, he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God.”<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Tertullian, in the early third century A.D. makes this statement:<br />
<br />
“For even if soldiers came to John and received advice on how to act, and even if a centurion became a believer, the Lord, in subsequently disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier” (Treatise on Idolatry 19; Ante-nicene Fathers 3:73).<br />
<br />
Tertullian is referring to the incident where Peter attempted to defend Christ in the garden of gethsemane. Jesus halted him, forbidding him to take up the sword against those attackers. He tells Peter that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Tertullian and many Church fathers saw this as a model for all Christians—that none are given the right to pick up the sword.<br />
<br />
In the Canon of Discipline, a third century document, it was said that Christian soldiers should not be taught to kill, and if they were, they must refuse to kill, even upon command by their officers. To do otherwise would bring Church discipline.<br />
<br />
Here are the major elements of the strict pacifist viewpoint, based upon their interpretation of Scripture:<br />
<br />
1.According to pacifism, war is inconsistent with the law of nonresistance preached and modeled by Jesus Christ. The pacifist tradition is based on its interpretation of part of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus said:<br />
<br />
“You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:38-39).<br />
<br />
1.This is the “law of nonresistance.” Following Christ’s command to turn the other cheek, many pacifists believe that it is better to suffer violence than it is to commit violence. They believe this was taught by Jesus, and modeled by Him in the words of Peter:<br />
<br />
“For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” (I Peter 2:21).<br />
<br />
Pacifists have said that our obligation as believers is to follow the example of Jesus who turned the other cheek—and did not return evil for evil. They say we are to “resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39). They interpret this to mean that we are never to resist evil under any circumstances or under any conditions. Just as Christ did not retaliate against violence, but rather he suffered on the cross taking suffering to Himself and snuffing it out. The pacifist sees the death of Christ (an innocent victim in the face of injustice) as a pattern for all Christians to follow.<br />
2.Pacifists believe that war is inconsistent with the ethic of love. Again, quoting from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:<br />
<br />
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).<br />
<br />
Pacifists say, “Jesus called us to love our enemy, not take up arms against him. We are to pray for those who persecute us. We are to turn the other cheek. We are not to resist evil, but to allow love to overcome evil.” Mennonite Pacifist Myron Augsburger asked, “How can we kill another human being for whom Jesus died? How can we adopt the attitude that ‘Jesus loves you, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to kill you?’”<br />
<br />
<br />
Objections to the pacifist interpretation of Scripture<br />
<br />
1.WAS JESUS REALLY A PACIFIST? A comprehensive study proves that He was not.<br />
<br />
*In John 2:14, Jesus comes to the Temple and finds people selling “oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.” Jesus sees that the religious leaders have turned this, His father’s house of prayer, into a marketplace. Instead of prayers and supplications, there is the noise of commerce. Jesus is burning with anger and indignation. The zeal for His father’s house consumes Him.<br />
<br />
“And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables” (John 2:14-15).<br />
<br />
This was a physically violent response on the part of Jesus. This makes it abundantly clear that Jesus was not a strict pacifist. The Bible is also clear that Jesus was sinless. Even in this situation, he did nothing wrong.<br />
<br />
*In Luke 22:36-38, Jesus is preparing His disciples for His departure. He knows that the Jewish leaders are decidedly against Him. In the past, when He sent His disciples out, He took care of all their needs. But now things are going to change.<br />
<br />
“And He said to them, ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors;’ for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’”<br />
<br />
What is the context here? When traveling from city to city, people of that day often had to carry a sword in order to fend off robbers. Jesus told His followers that He was going to send them out there, and warned them to be prepared to defend themselves when appropriate. Clearly, Jesus was not a pacifist.<br />
<br />
*In the book of Revelation, there is a stronger example. Here is a portrait of Jesus, the warrior king. Here the elements of love and justice come together. Love and war can go together, if it is done on behalf of good.<br />
<br />
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. …From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty (Revelation 19:11, 15).<br />
<br />
This is no meek and mild Jesus. This is not a pacifist. This is the mighty warrior, the God of love, who comes to wage war against his evil enemies. The imagery is graphic. It describes Him as treading the wine press, destroying His enemies as their blood spills over on His robes. Love and the pursuit of justice are not contradictory. They can go hand in hand.<br />
<br />
Standing by and refusing to act while harm befalls a neighbor is not a virtue; it is a vice.<br />
<br />
John Calvin emphasized that a Christian soldier should never use force to gain self-advantage, but “use force out of love for thy neighbor.” Standing by and refusing to act while harm befalls a neighbor is not a virtue; it is a vice.<br />
<br />
As someone else has said, “War can be a means to a just peace, and to break an unjust peace.”<br />
<br />
Jesus was not a pacifist, nor was He a hawk. It is interesting that Jesus makes everyone uncomfortable, because He can never be put in anybody’s box. He said blessed are the peacemakers. Jesus wasn’t a hawk. He wasn’t a pacifist. He wasn’t a Republican. He wasn’t a Democrat. He wasn’t an American. He wasn’t an Iraqi. He transcends all categories.<br />
<br />
PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC ROLES - Pacifists fail to make a clear distinction between a Christian’s private and public views. In Romans 12-13 we find Paul’s explanation of the role of the Christian and the State. Here he lays out some fine distinctions between how were are to conduct ourselves privately and publicly—how we are to manage our person, and how we are to manage our office.<br />
<br />
In Romans 12:17-21, Paul lays out the responsibility of the Christian INDIVIDUAL. “Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. If possible…” Notice the qualifier, “if possible.”<br />
<br />
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”<br />
<br />
What is Paul saying? There will be times when you cannot be at peace with all men. But when it is possible, when it depends on you, as an individual, strive for peace.<br />
<br />
“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”<br />
<br />
These are words very similar to those of Jesus. Verse 17 and 21 are saying the same thing: Never pay back evil for evil, and overcome evil. These two verses act like bookends in the text—one at the beginning and the other at the end. Everything between these two bookends supplies the definition and context for what Paul means when he says “evil.”<br />
<br />
What is evil? Don’t take your own revenge; that is evil.<br />
<br />
Why is it evil? Because you are usurping the prerogative of God who alone has the wisdom to know when retribution ought to be enacted. God is to be the judge, and God’s ministering authority, the State. Individuals should not take matters into their own hands. That is God’s job. To do otherwise is to usurp God’s right and to usurp the right of the State.<br />
<br />
So, the evil that Paul, and I believe Jesus, had in mind to resist here is the evil of personal vengeance. The Scriptures are forbidding us from taking personal revenge. That is a lot different than forbidding us to pursue justice.<br />
<br />
Revenge no; justice yes.<br />
<br />
It is no coincidence that Paul follows this passage dealing with the Christian’s private response to evil with a Christian’s public response to evil. In chapter 13:1-4, we see the role of the State.<br />
<br />
“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.<br />
<br />
Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it [government; the State] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”<br />
<br />
2.<br />
<br />
What is Paul saying? He is building an argument. First of all, government is established by God. As a minister of God, it acts as an avenger to promote good and to punish evil (some translations say “evildoers”). Essentially, the role of government is to promote justice.<br />
<br />
As individuals, we are not to seek personal vengeance. We need to be willing to suffer injustice as Christians, and make an appeal to our God and to our State. We are to entrust ourselves to God.<br />
<br />
But, as members of the State, we are to work for justice against evil, for the sake of others and of society.<br />
<br />
That creates a tension for many Christians, trying to understand when is the right time to turn the other cheek. John Stott put it this way,<br />
<br />
“If my house is burglarized one night and I catch the thief, it may well be my duty to sit him down and give him something to eat and drink, while at the same time telephoning the police.”<br />
<br />
We have a private responsibility and duty, and we have a public one.<br />
<br />
Conclusion about pacifism<br />
<br />
Ever since Adam, the world has been in a war between good and evil. For this reason, the pacifist position is unrealistic. When taken to its logical conclusion, it would virtually do away with courts and police departments. It would ultimately lead to anarchy due to the nature of human hearts.<br />
<br />
Pacifism is also unbiblical, because it does not take the whole counsel of Scripture. It does not separate a Christian’s private duties from his public duties, and the role of the State versus the role of the individual.<br />
<br />
The Just War Theory<br />
<br />
Just War Theory is the other dominant position held by many Christians. This position was first formulated by Augustine of Hippo and later refined by Thomas Aquinas. It is based on the following assumptions:<br />
<br />
1.<br />
<br />
War is never good. But it is sometimes necessary. Why? Because sin is an ever present reality that has to be dealt with.<br />
<br />
“What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder” (James 4:1-2).<br />
<br />
At the forefront of much war and conflict is an idolatry that says, “I want more. I want what you have.” And so there are wars and rumors of wars. Much of it is rooted in human sin. Political parties and institutions are not evil in themselves. Evil is ultimately rooted in every human heart.<br />
2.<br />
<br />
Necessary wars are to be conducted within the limits of justice.<br />
<br />
The purpose of Just War Theory is to give us a common terminology, so that nations that wage war will operate within certain parameters that are just.<br />
<br />
As Christians, we need to be realistic, not naive. We need to get past the common white hat versus black hat assumptions about war. When it comes to war, there is rarely pure good versus pure bad. There are usually gray hats versus gray hats, with different shades of gray. We are all guilty sinners. The hope of Just War Theory is that by applying just principles we can be as righteous as one can be when it comes to waging war.<br />
3.<br />
<br />
Only governments, and not individuals, have the right under God to carry out retribution.<br />
<br />
This rules out terrorists. They have no authority to do what they do.<br />
<br />
<br />
Within Just War Theory there is a seven-fold criteria.<br />
<br />
1.<br />
<br />
There must be a just cause. All aggression is condemned in Just War Theory. Participation in war must be prompted by a just cause or a defensive cause. No war of unprovoked aggression can ever be justified.<br />
<br />
Preemptive war can be legitimate in some circumstances, according to Just War Theory, if it is known that a grave act of aggression is imminent. If a government knows that their nation or another is about to become a victim, it can act to prevent the injustice before it takes place.<br />
2.<br />
<br />
Just intention. The war must have a right intention to secure a fair peace for all parties involved. One must have just motives for going into war.<br />
3.<br />
<br />
It is a last resort. Other means of resolution such as diplomacy and economic pressure must have been reasonably exhausted before war.<br />
4.<br />
<br />
Formal declaration. The war must be initiated with formal declaration by a properly constituted authority. Only governments can declare war, not individuals or militias or terrorist organizations—only governments.<br />
5.<br />
<br />
Limited objectives. Securing peace is the purpose and objective in going to war. War must be engaged in such a way that when peace is attained, hostilities cease.<br />
6.<br />
<br />
Proportionate means. Combatant forces of the opposition may not be subjected to greater harm than is necessary to secure victory and peace.<br />
7.<br />
<br />
Noncombatant immunity. Military forces must respect individuals and groups not participating in the conflict and must abstain from attacking them.<br />
<br />
Conclusion<br />
<br />
Based on my studies, a strict pacifist position is not only unreasonable, it is unbiblical. The presence of sin in the world means that is is sometimes regrettably necessary to use force in order to secure justice for the innocent and the helpless. However, when war is considered, its legitimacy must be carefully evaluated.<br />
<br />
In doing so, Christians should remember that their ultimate allegiance is not to the State; it is to the commands of God. Unfortunately, history shows that individual Christians and churches have rarely stood up effectively against the State when the war is unjust. It is too easy for people to get caught up in patriotism. It is all too easy to buy into nationalistic interests. People are often so close to the situation that they cannot objectively judge the legitimacy of taking action against another nation. That failure was evident in Nazi Germany, where the Church became a lapdog to the State. Yes, there were those who stood against it in defiance, but most did not. The Church also failed in Constantine’s Rome.<br />
<br />
Yes, there are times when war is just. We must be careful to step outside of nationalistic thinking and critique our nations so that we can be faithful to God, before our State, and then act according to our conscience.<br />
<br />
Remember, God is sovereign. The nations rage, but God has established His King on Mount Zion. He has given Him an inheritance which is the whole world. And there will come a day when we will take our swords and craft them into plowshares. We will learn war no more. Come quickly Lord Jesus!<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: John Salvatore, Faith Church of the Valley. The Just War Theory section of this article was adapted from an article by Commander Timothy J. Demy, Th.D. and Th.M. (Dallas Theological Seminary), Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-2974463728525554292010-10-06T10:11:00.000-07:002010-10-06T10:11:49.445-07:00The Social Network<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqdgCA0g5iCbEBDAq2uhaLNo_MyszhIRp4b9mul8zBy6m7VMILrDlAO6QNjwEeihe1y08o8ehcx4EiIfBklYzEHCuy__avaeGVeEqEYQpiw4OkhH88e7Vh2EXPjTbPhd4GGZUNWCOU3X_A/s1600/socialnetwork2010-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqdgCA0g5iCbEBDAq2uhaLNo_MyszhIRp4b9mul8zBy6m7VMILrDlAO6QNjwEeihe1y08o8ehcx4EiIfBklYzEHCuy__avaeGVeEqEYQpiw4OkhH88e7Vh2EXPjTbPhd4GGZUNWCOU3X_A/s320/socialnetwork2010-1.jpg" width="203" /></a></div>“You don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies”<br />
<br />
A million dollars used to be a lot of money. Enough that one might plan to retire comfortably when that plateau was achieved. But in today’s world, a million dollars isn’t nearly enough. Not for free thinkers. Not for dreamers. Not for our generation. David Fincher’s newest film, “The Social Network,” captures this feeling, this schism one can sense when comparing baby boomers to generations X and Y, and those of us who have almost always known the Internet, and, inherently, limitless possibilities.<br />
<br />
The story behind “The Social Network” is a simple, yet intriguing one. Nearly everyone, about 500 million people actually, should know the story surrounding Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. A Harvard undergrad, a computer programmer, and a genius who discovered how to turn the college experience (the parties, the relationships, the gossip, and the connections) into the greatest Internet sensation since, well, Myspace, but one that far surpassed all other “social networking” sites. Since its birth in a quaint dorm room on February 4th, 2004, Facebook has enthralled 1 in 14 people on the planet in hundreds of countries and is worth over 25 billion dollars.<br />
<br />
Fincher’s precision in conveying the “college life experience” is brilliant. He draws you in with Zuckerberg’s first conversation (played by Jesse Eisenberg). The dialogue is taut, witty and often quite funny. The story is one of controversy, unfortunately, as it truly shows how a 20 year old is simply in over his head in a world in which everyone is trying to get his share of the pie; a pie that is essentially the product of one man.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Eisenberg not only portrays Zuckerberg, the smug, pessimistic genius who’s simply too smart for most of the people around him, but he even looks like him. The one liners that spew from his mouth are sarcastic and sensational, and, for some reason, you truly fall in love with him, perhaps because of his naiveté, but watching the decisions he makes, and those decisions he’s influenced to make over the course of the story, help you believe that this Hollywood version really does depict how quickly things can spin out of control to the point that a man, in effect, betrays his one and only friend and business partner amidst the pressure of a once in a lifetime opportunity.<br />
<br />
The soundtrack is relentlessly appropriate and captivating. Composed greatly by Trent Reznor, known best for his part in the musical project Nine Inch Nails and his composition of the “There Will Be Blood” soundtrack, can take a bow for his work. The supporting cast is spectacular, particularly Andrew Garfield as Zuckerberg’s friend and Chief Financial Officer, Eduardo Saverin, and Justin Timberlake as Napster big-shot Sean Parker.<br />
Objectionable content<br />
<br />
Language and sexual themes are the main concern with “The Social Network.” A-hole, Bit*h, Basta*!d, Sh*t, the Lord’s name, and one key F-word clutter the script. Although, at times, the language could be construed as “realistic” for the college and business settings, but in this reviewer’s opinion it was more than necessary and more than expected. There are no actual “sex scenes” or “nudity.” That being said, there are some really provocative sections of the film: two parties in which girls are shown kissing, barely clothed, another where two girls are preparing to perform oral sex on Zuckerberg and Saverin in a bathroom, and another where a girl is just getting out of bed with Sean Parker. There is, also, repeated use of alcohol, one scene where cocaine is being used, and another where marijuana is being used.<br />
<br />
To recommend this film on merit of it’s worth would be wrong. Truly I took little away from this film from a moral or positive perspective. The story is fascinating and intriguing, and its outstanding portrayal and representation of a world so foreign to most of us allows one to get captivated as a part of Harvard’s undergrad class, watching from a nearby dorm room. With the language and sexual content, however, it’s difficult to recommend without advising families and adults to tread carefully. David Fincher is certainly a talented director and has hit yet another social niche with this biographical-esque film, but it comes with a price. I suppose what you have to ask yourself is how much it’s worth watching a story you could find and read about by using another Internet phenomenon… like say, Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
<br />
Violence: Mild / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Heavy<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-69133238303904106332010-10-06T10:05:00.000-07:002010-10-06T10:05:27.092-07:00How do we know that Jesus was the Messiah?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP9YlssI5X9IouMBSfLvCOkdOluaYk58aONy0g8FJ64HIv4onIxgW4T01NahucezLG9LrYhk71oRF6k1MZpMwOEHrg7ODoJl5zIu0syqhKKV0tXd8_qIFM3kRDVXkJmkHlw0pIbSTm_OkB/s1600/jesushealingblind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP9YlssI5X9IouMBSfLvCOkdOluaYk58aONy0g8FJ64HIv4onIxgW4T01NahucezLG9LrYhk71oRF6k1MZpMwOEHrg7ODoJl5zIu0syqhKKV0tXd8_qIFM3kRDVXkJmkHlw0pIbSTm_OkB/s400/jesushealingblind.jpg" width="321" /></a></div>The word "Messiah" means "Anointed One," the name given to the promised Deliverer who would some day come to the people of Israel as their great Savior and Redeemer, "anointed" as Prophet, Priest, and King by God Himself.<br />
<br />
Some, of course, are still looking for the fulfillment of these Old Testament promises in the future, when the "Messiah" will come to establish a world kingdom of peace and justice centered around the chosen nation, Israel.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the group of Jewish believers who became the first founders of Christianity were convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was their promised Messiah. The name "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of “Messiah,” so that the name Jesus Christ really means "Jesus the Messiah," or "Jesus the anointed." They preached this truth with such conviction and power that not only many Jews but, later, a still greater host of Gentiles, believed on Jesus, both as the Christ and also as the Lord and Savior of all men.<br />
<br />
And indeed they had good reason for such faith. The Old Testament Messianic prophecies were found to be uniquely fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are hundreds of these prophecies, so that the possibility of their accidental convergence on any ordinary man is completely ruled out by the laws of probability.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Some of the prophecies are so framed, in fact, as to preclude their fulfillment by anyone living after the first century A.D. For example, the patriarch Jacob said, in Genesis 49:10, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come." The name “Shiloh” is a title of the Messiah, and the prophecy states that Judah's tribe would remain the chief tribe in Israel, in particular providing their kings, until Messiah would come. The prophecy must have been fulfilled prior to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem in A.D. 70, by which time certainly all semblance of a scepter had departed from Judah.<br />
<br />
Similarly the promise was given to King David that the Messiah should be one of his descendants, as the King eternal, the one of whom God said, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (II Samuel 7:13). Isaiah said, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem (literally 'stump') of Jesse (that is David's father), and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). This is another name of the Messiah, and indicates that, even after it would appear that the family tree of Jesse has been cut down, yet one Branch will grow out of the stump. Evidently the very last one who could be known to have come of this lineage would finally prove to be the promised Messiah!<br />
<br />
This was fulfilled uniquely in Jesus. His foster father, Joseph, was in the royal line from David and thus held the legal right to the throne (Matthew 1:1-16). His mother, Mary, was also a descendant of David, as shown by her genealogy in Luke 3:23-31. But ever since the time of Jesus, it would be quite impossible to establish the legal or biological lineage of any pretender to David's throne, as all the ancient genealogical records were destroyed soon after that.<br />
<br />
An even more striking prophecy is given in Daniel 9:24-27. There Daniel was told explicitly that Messiah would come 69 "sabbaths" (that is, 69 sabbatical years - a total of 483 years) after the decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem, which at that time lay in ruins after Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had destroyed it.<br />
<br />
Such a decree was given later by the Persian emperor. Although the exact date of the decree is somewhat uncertain, the termination date of the prophecy must have been some time in the first century A.D. In fact, it must have been before the destruction of the city and the temple by the Romans in A.D. 70, because the prophecy said quite explicitly: “After (the 483 years) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26). Not only must Messiah come before this destruction, but He was also to be“cut off,” rejected and killed, before it came.<br />
<br />
It is obvious that no one but Jesus could have fulfilled these prophecies. The prophecies absolutely preclude any still future Messiah, except that even that hope also will find its fulfillment in the second coming of Christ.<br />
<br />
And then, of course, there are still hundreds of other prophecies, all of which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ: His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14); His birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); His sacrificial death (Isaiah 53:5); His crucifixion (Psalm 22:14-18); His bodily resurrection (Psalm 16:10); and many others. All of these unite in their witness that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).<br />
<br />
The probability that hundreds of such specific predictions, each quite independent of the others, could all be fulfilled concurrently in one individual, is unlikely in the highest degree, especially in view of the miraculous nature of many of them (e.g., the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.). No rational conclusion seems possible except that Jesus is all He claims - Messiah, Savior, Lord and God.<br />
<br />
<br />
Excerpt from The Bible Has the Answer, by Henry Morris and Martin Clark,<br />
published by Master Books.<br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-34348819939148381872010-10-06T10:02:00.000-07:002010-10-06T10:02:36.796-07:00What is the “Nation of Islam”?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1aCvuLf5TrZxlJRJyBvXXcTuviCkuphRYF6elJfI9Fno22X-vT3hgEWsbyEgO73uhlZoKI2uRce0IFg3tBEhFUpd5IkJSsVjXf23SzP6E1_nT-fHt4y6-0LdHfflWx4FJuNaKdDbpPe3S/s1600/nationofislam.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1aCvuLf5TrZxlJRJyBvXXcTuviCkuphRYF6elJfI9Fno22X-vT3hgEWsbyEgO73uhlZoKI2uRce0IFg3tBEhFUpd5IkJSsVjXf23SzP6E1_nT-fHt4y6-0LdHfflWx4FJuNaKdDbpPe3S/s200/nationofislam.gif" width="200" /></a></div>The Nation of Islam (NOI) is most commonly defined as a quasi-religious, U.S.-based, black nationalist organization with an estimated membership of 100,000 in 1995 and perhaps somewhat less today. Its headquarters are in Chicago IL.<br />
<br />
The Black Muslim movement gained wide attention in the middle part of the last century, due in part to the influential advocacy of Malcolm X (1925-1965), a strong proponent of black nationalism.<br />
<br />
Louis Farrakhan is today's NOI leader and without a doubt this group continues to be one of the fastest-growing religious movements in the modern black American community. Farrakhan and NOI, although highly controversial, have done much to raise the sense of dignity of many black Americans. Many young black men feel that they have "found a place to serve God in the dignity of my race."<br />
History<br />
<br />
The historical basis for the NOI is dubious. Wallace D. Fard arrived in Detroit, Michigan, on July 4, 1930. Apparently, Fard had been released from San Quentin Prison the year before, after serving three years on a drug trafficking charge. He was a door to door salesman who, when asked by the Detroit police to identify himself, responded, "I am the Supreme Ruler of the Universe." He represented himself to other black Americans as a mystic and a prophet from the Middle East. Soon the NOI was 8,000 strong.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Later an unemployed Georgia migrant worker, Elijah Poole, was renamed “Elijah Muhammad” by Fard. Then, in 1934, Fard himself mysteriously disappeared, never to be seen again, and Elijah Muhammad became his successor for the next 41 years. He taught that even though Fard was believed to be Allah in human form, when Fard died, Allah did not die. God then manifested Himself in Elijah Muhammad who was revealed to be the 'Messiah' of the Jews, the 'Jesus' of Christians, and the 'Mahdi' of Muslims.<br />
<br />
In 1975 Elijah Muhammad died and his son, Wallace Muhammad, took over, only to disband the NOI. Shortly thereafter, Louis Farrakhan broke away from Wallace Muhammad and reorganized the NOI, assuming absolute control of its leadership. At last check, Farrakhan owned “ornate palaces” in Chicago IL and Phoenix AZ, a Mexican villa, and a 77-acre estate in Michigan. His vehicles included a Lexus, a Mercedes, a Rolls Royce, and a Lincoln Town Car.<br />
<br />
Farrakhan has said, "I am a Messiah, Elijah Muhammad was raised by Master Farad Muhammad to become the Messiah and he raised me to become the little Messiah."<br />
Relation to Islam<br />
<br />
The NOI is not part of mainstream Islam. True Muslims viewed it as a fringe cult. It is a strange mixture of Islam, Masonry, Christianity and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Contrary to the theology of Islam, NOI teaches that:<br />
<br />
* Allah appeared in the person of Master W. Fard Muhammad in July 1930<br />
* God who created all things does not exist today.<br />
* All black men are gods.<br />
* All white men are devils.<br />
* There is no life beyond the grave.<br />
* The 'wheel' of the prophet Ezekiel was actually the 'Mother of Planes,' sent to destroy the present world of the enemies of Allah.<br />
* Etc.<br />
<br />
These are only a few of the major deviations from Islam.<br />
Other Notes<br />
<br />
While it is commendable that the dignity of black Americans is raised in the NOI, it ought not be done at the expense of other races. NOI teaches that all black men are gods and that all white men were created by an evil black god (Yakub) who was a scientist. As Farrakhan has said, "You (white people) are the devil... you are nothing but the devil in the plainest language."<br />
<br />
Jews are viewed as “blood suckers,” and those who have historically taken advantage of the downtrodden state of the black man. Farrakhan has described Hitler as “wickedly great,” and Judaism as a “dirty religion.”<br />
<br />
By way of contrast, I would urge careful consideration be made of the claims of Jesus Christ. Jesus also claimed to be God in human form, but only He truly fulfills a 1000-year plus prophetic history. While here on earth Jesus pointed toward His own death and resurrection as evidence of who He really was/is—credentials that can still be tested historically.<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Robert T. Pardon, M.Div., Th.M. of New England Institute of Religious Research (NEIRR). Provided by AIIA Institute. <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4492049319416145946.post-6583361614668231912010-10-06T10:00:00.000-07:002010-10-06T10:00:31.595-07:00Muslims - What does the Qur'an say about Isa (Jesus)?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6yP4uK4Ct6RXIwVrT6gU3-L7lIjnkeY7abchy9o4ui3HC6q-223PYNAni4hyM2DWVc6b6-Bw_TEWm8E3x2PFWrYPqQ6Ox2whYnymPMKbd4ofIw-hja9I8dGhLsFyMEf5IG-3pWlYPNOoa/s1600/camel-shadow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6yP4uK4Ct6RXIwVrT6gU3-L7lIjnkeY7abchy9o4ui3HC6q-223PYNAni4hyM2DWVc6b6-Bw_TEWm8E3x2PFWrYPqQ6Ox2whYnymPMKbd4ofIw-hja9I8dGhLsFyMEf5IG-3pWlYPNOoa/s1600/camel-shadow.jpg" /></a></div>Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad (Mohammed) was born in Arabia. His father Abdullah was of the tribe of Qureyshi, and died before Muhammad was born.<br />
<br />
As a lad, Muhammad traveled to Syria with his uncle on merchant caravans. Years later, he made the same journey while working for a wealthy widow named Khadijah. He later married her and, even though he was 15 years younger than she was, they had a good marriage.<br />
<br />
Muhammad soon gained rank among the notables of Mecca. The Meccans claimed to be descendants of Abraham (Ibrahim).<br />
<br />
As one who abhorred evil, Muhammad detested those who disobeyed the Scriptures. He was familiar with the teachings of the Jewish and Christian holy book the Bible (perhaps in reading it himself, if he was literate, or in learning of it through oral means via storytelling). He was very upset with the hypocrisy among the people: the idol worship, and anything dishonoring to God was very revolting to Him. He believed that Allah had revealed the Torah and the gospels (the Injil).<br />
<br />
"ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4<br />
<br />
One who was greatly respected by Muhammad was Abraham (Ibrahim), whom he called an upright and righteous man.<br />
<br />
"Abraham was indeed a paragon of virtue, obedient to ALLAH, ever inclined to HIM, and he was not of those who set up equals with ALLAH; Ever grateful for HIS favours: HE chose him and guided him to a straight path. And WE bestowed on him good in this world, and in the Hereafter he will surely be among the righteous. And now WE have sent revelation to thee, enjoining, 'Follow the way of Abraham who was ever inclined to ALLAH and was not of those who set up equals to HIM.'"—Qur'an, Surah 16:121-124<br />
<br />
Abraham was also looked upon as one who fulfilled God's commands:<br />
<br />
"And remember when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commandments which he fulfilled, HE said, 'I will make thee a leader of men.' Abraham asked, 'And from among my offspring?' God said, 'MY covenant does not embrace the transgressors.'"—Qur'an, Surah 2:125<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
<br />
Muhammad also had great understanding of the scriptures and faith in the angels who told Zechariah he would have a son (as in Luke 1:18, 57-60).<br />
<br />
"So her Lord accepted her with gracious acceptance and caused her to grow an excellent growth and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah visited her in the chamber, he found with her provisions. He said, 'O Mary whence hast thou this ?' She replied, 'It is from ALLAH.' Surely ALLAH gives to whomsoever HE pleases without measure.<br />
<br />
Then and there did Zachariah pray to his Lord, saying, 'My Lord grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.'<br />
<br />
And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the chamber, 'ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.<br />
<br />
He said 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?' He answered, 'Such is the way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,'<br />
<br />
He said 'My Lord, give me a commandment.' He replied, 'The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs.<br />
<br />
And remember thy Lord much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.' And remember when the angels said, 'ALLAH has chosen thee and purified thee and chosen thee above all women of the time.<br />
<br />
'O Mary, be obedient to thy Lord and prostrate thyself and worship the one God with those who worship HIM.'<br />
<br />
This is of the tidings of things unseen which WE reveal to thee. And thou was not with them when they cast their arrows, as to which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor was thou with them when they disputed with one another.<br />
<br />
When the angels said, 'O Mary, ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;<br />
<br />
'And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.<br />
<br />
She said, 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touched me? He said, 'Such is the way of ALLAH. HE creates what HE pleases. When HE decrees a thing HE says to it 'Be,' and it is;"—Qur'an, Surah 3:38-48<br />
<br />
Muhammad also speaks of the resurrection of Jesus:<br />
<br />
"Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35<br />
<br />
In calling Jesus a messenger, Muhammad was also correct. He did not mean that Jesus was not the Messiah. Muhammad knew that one could be a messenger and not be a Messiah… but as The Messiah, one is also a messenger.<br />
<br />
Jesus was both a messenger and The Messiah that Allah had promised! What is a Messiah? A Messiah is always known as "a Saviour… a liberator and a deliverer." God had promised to send one (Messiah) to pay the debt of sin for all mankind.<br />
<br />
The Messiah!… God's gift to sinful man… The Saviour… The Liberator… Our Redeemer. The prophets of the Torah foretold of His coming. Muhammad and his Disciples revered Him… the Qur'an and the Bible reveal Him! The Messiah… The Saviour of the world! Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible speak of any other as being the Messiah!!!<br />
<br />
Dear friend, that is the most profound truth! And it is truth that cannot be denied. Jesus is the one and only Messiah. He is the Saviour. He is the Messiah of the Muslims, the Jews, and the Gentiles. Millions throughout the world of every nation and creed accept Him as Saviour.<br />
<br />
Many have followed false Messiahs and had their lives ended in death. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Had they only accepted the indisputable claim that Jesus is the Messiah, they would have found the peace that they were looking for, and the eternal life that God has promised to all who will accept Jesus as Messiah… the Saviour of the world. Yes, Isah Al Masih loves you! The Messiah that Muhammad wrote about… to forgive you and to be your Saviour… your Liberator… your Deliverer from sin. History tells us that He was crucified and died on a cross. History tells us that three days later there was an empty tomb. History, and hundreds of eye witnesses, tell us that He rose from the dead. But sadly many also reject the love and forgiveness God has offered in Jesus.<br />
<br />
Allah has given you a free will. YOU must make a choice. You cannot be neutral.<br />
<br />
Don't take this writer's word for it. Investigate for yourself the claims of Muhammad, the prophecies in the Torah, and the life of Jesus written in the Bible. The prophecies that were fulfilled by His birth, life, death and resurrection.<br />
<br />
Check out the reasons why Paul, the greatest persecutor of Jesus' followers, became such a strong believer in Jesus as the Messiah… and why he became the world's greatest missionary.<br />
<br />
If you are not already a follower of Isah (Jesus), you must make a choice 1) to believe that Jesus is the Messiah OR 2) to reject Him as Saviour. You can choose to believe the Messiah, Jesus, who said He would, and did, rise from the dead. Allah gave Jesus, born miraculously through Mary (Maryam, Sura 3:45) as Muhammed agreed, to the world… for you.<br />
<br />
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—John 3:16<br />
<br />
("Son of God" does not mean that God had physical relations with Mary, but rather that God willed it supernaturally that Mary would become the earthly mother of Jesus even as a virgin. See Surah 3:47-48)<br />
<br />
Allah loves you. How could anyone want to reject such a wonderful love… reject Allah's forgiveness… His promises of eternal life? The Bible teaches how we can know where we will spend eternity.<br />
<br />
<br />
Author: Mike Tabish. Provided by Eden Communications. <br />
</span>Rev. Stefy Rompashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04749309556272159310noreply@blogger.com0