Wednesday, The Jerusalem Post published this article on the resurging Anti-Semitism in some European countries, particularly in France and Belgium. It cites instances of some Jews masquerading as Muslims in order to escape violence and persecution from Muslims. As if that weren't troubling enough by itself, the author unfolds an eerie backdrop behind these invidual situations reminiscent of the institutionalized persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany (or, Nazi-Europe as the case became) leading up to the Holocaust.
After WWII, the Western world just about swore that a Jewish Holocaust would never happen again. Indeed, civic organizations were built on the motto "Never Again" to protect all future generations of Jewish people from suffering the kind of Anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. Unfortunately, in some significant ways it apears that their aims are not being met. In various countries in Europe today, a similar lead-up to the outright persecution of Jews is happening in places with growing Muslim (not Aryan) populations. The hate is the same; the rhetoric is the same; the excuses are the same; the supposed cause is still socio-political.
This is the 21st century. Ignorance of this kind was supposed to be educated out of the masses through mandatory government schooling and national legislation. This great failure of the State is only matched by the failure of morals, ethics, and a consistent belief in the humility found in our human createdness under God. Ye olde libertine maxim that government cannot legislate morality is only correct when you realize that what legislation cannot change is a person's immorality. Legislation changes only the occassions in which one exhibits it.
I know my Muslim friends may accuse me of fingerpointing that the chief persecutors today of Jews worldwide are Muslims, but I should hope that people would look at the problem itself, not at the finger. Europe burns occassionally from these ethno-religious conflicts that we have come to view at the least as uncivilized. The underlying reality is that Europe is burning invisibly everyday. Our American society must say much more than that such behavior is simply uncivilized. It must say that persecution and violent persecution are objective, irrefutable wrongs. Until we purge our collective minds of this insidious moral relativism that shackles our consciences, we will never be free to "Love your neighbor as yourself," much less "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:37)
(HT: David Wood on Answering Muslims for sharing this article.)
Friday, January 20, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Facts about Mormons, not Mormonism
It’s true what they say about journalists being unable to write accurately about matters of science or religion. This morning, Yahoo! News published an article titled “Will America Get It’s First Mormon President? Five Facts About Mormons.” I’ll just dive right in and tell you what it says, and more importantly, what it doesn’t say.
1. The founder, Joseph Smith, was murdered.
True, he was, but leaving out the details makes it sound like he was a martyr for his beliefs. Smith was so not a martyr, for he was killed in a gun fight while in jail for vandalizing and destroying a newspaper press that was publishing articles critical of him.
2. The Book of Mormon and the Bible are important.
This makes it seem as if both books are placed on equal footing. However, Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book on earth,” while the Bible has many “plain and precious things” removed from it (according to the Book of Mormon) and only believable “as far as it is translated correctly.” What is important for Mormonism has been to downgrade the moral and spiritual authority of the Bible and to replace it with the Book of Mormon. The Mormon can say with a straight face that the Bible is important, for without it, Mormonism has no basis for claiming that it is the religion that “restores” the true practices of Jesus and the Apostles. In everyday reality, however, the Bible is maligned far more than it is admired in the LDS church.
3. Marriage is forever.
In the article, it says “Marriage is between a man and a woman and should be forever.“ If only it told the truth that in “forever,” marriage is between a man and his women.” Aside from the real fact that Jesus taught that there is no marriage in the age to come, Joseph Smith’s sacred teaching that polygamy is the way of (and the way to) eternal life is still affirmed by their other scriptures in the hereafter (Doctrine & Covenants, Sec. 132).
4. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Really? The author could not come up with a full five facts about Mormons, so she throws in the choir as a “fact?”
5. Fasting.
Now it seems the author has run out of things to write, because neither “The Mormon Tabernacle Choir” nor “Fasting” are even statements. Many Mormons do fast as directed by the LDS church as a religious duty. Failing to participate in all the religious duties as outlined in the directives of the Word of Wisdom is unworthiness to receive further advancement (read: eternal life) within the Temple system of Mormonism.
The real story here is that this so-called list aptly points out facts about Mormons but does nothing to enlighten us about Mormonism (what the LDS church really teaches). I think Mormons would be relieved at this weak and trivial representation of what they believe, because it camouflages Mormonism as an innocuous religion that needs no critical evaluation. That is, of course, helpful in diverting attention away from the LDS church when a Mormon is running for President.
1. The founder, Joseph Smith, was murdered.
True, he was, but leaving out the details makes it sound like he was a martyr for his beliefs. Smith was so not a martyr, for he was killed in a gun fight while in jail for vandalizing and destroying a newspaper press that was publishing articles critical of him.
2. The Book of Mormon and the Bible are important.
This makes it seem as if both books are placed on equal footing. However, Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book on earth,” while the Bible has many “plain and precious things” removed from it (according to the Book of Mormon) and only believable “as far as it is translated correctly.” What is important for Mormonism has been to downgrade the moral and spiritual authority of the Bible and to replace it with the Book of Mormon. The Mormon can say with a straight face that the Bible is important, for without it, Mormonism has no basis for claiming that it is the religion that “restores” the true practices of Jesus and the Apostles. In everyday reality, however, the Bible is maligned far more than it is admired in the LDS church.
3. Marriage is forever.
In the article, it says “Marriage is between a man and a woman and should be forever.“ If only it told the truth that in “forever,” marriage is between a man and his women.” Aside from the real fact that Jesus taught that there is no marriage in the age to come, Joseph Smith’s sacred teaching that polygamy is the way of (and the way to) eternal life is still affirmed by their other scriptures in the hereafter (Doctrine & Covenants, Sec. 132).
4. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Really? The author could not come up with a full five facts about Mormons, so she throws in the choir as a “fact?”
5. Fasting.
Now it seems the author has run out of things to write, because neither “The Mormon Tabernacle Choir” nor “Fasting” are even statements. Many Mormons do fast as directed by the LDS church as a religious duty. Failing to participate in all the religious duties as outlined in the directives of the Word of Wisdom is unworthiness to receive further advancement (read: eternal life) within the Temple system of Mormonism.
The real story here is that this so-called list aptly points out facts about Mormons but does nothing to enlighten us about Mormonism (what the LDS church really teaches). I think Mormons would be relieved at this weak and trivial representation of what they believe, because it camouflages Mormonism as an innocuous religion that needs no critical evaluation. That is, of course, helpful in diverting attention away from the LDS church when a Mormon is running for President.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Does the LDS church have any legitimacy from the Bible?
What is "this rock" that Jesus will build His Church on?
One of the main Mormon claims to divine authority is in interpreting Matthew 16:13-18 to refer to their concept of "continuing revelation." By basing the organization of the LDS church on "continuing revelation," as "the rock" on which Jesus builds His church, the LDS church claims legitimacy for its founder Joseph Smith and the entire line of its prophets "continuing" through today. It is widely known that Mormon leaders routinely misread, mangle, and misapply the Bible in order to fabricate legitimacy for Mormonism, so how has this been done to Matt. 16:13-18?
"13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
According to Mormon teaching, "the rock", or foundation, of Jesus' Church is the act of God revealing new information or new revelation to Peter. It infers, therefore, that it is the act of new revelation or continuing revelation that is to be the basis on which Jesus builds His Church. The Mormon Church, as Joseph Smith claimed, is that church that receives God's continuing revelation through the Mormon prophets.
Even if true, this is a curious position for the LDS church to adopt. The concept of "continuing revelation" is believed on the basis of necessary change. The idea that God can give "new" revelation has weak limitations in Mormonism, forcing most Mormons to contradict either themselves or the doctrine itself whenever called on to explain it. On the one hand, the LDS church's main proposition is that it is a 'restoration' of the lost faith in God, yet on the other hand, it accepts that beliefs can and do change based on the next revelation from God. If the former is true, then "continuing revelation" is a danger to the very nature of Mormonism, for it would suppose that the restoration is complete and there would be no need for "continuing revelations." If the latter is true, then Mormonism should not need any validation from the Bible; it does not need to 'restore' anything but only live out what is "new," which is a door flung open to any and all possibilities, even ones that contradict former revelations and all in the name of necessity (God does, because God must). This has forced Mormons to place weak limitations on just how far a theoretical new revelation can lead them, but of course, there is no such limitation within Mormon doctrines or the Four Standard Works themselves. The late Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson himself headed off this question of consistency by discouraging Mormons from comparing the words of previous prophets to any current one. “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets," he said. Indeed, Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee said, "Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today." [emphasis mine]
But I digress. Back to the topic, which is the Bible passage from which the LDS church draws its legitimacy and divine authority, unnecessary as that is by its own standards. Does it exegete the passage correctly?
The "rock" which Jesus calls Peter is masculine (petros), but the "rock" that Jesus says He will build His church on is feminine (petra). Looking at the syntax, "revealed" is a verb and cannot be 'petra', so neither can be the concept of "continuing revelation" which is further removed from the context of the passage. The one question that is almost never asked of this passage is "What is the subject matter?" 'Petra' can only point to the next closest idea, the subject, which in this case is Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' Church, therefore, is built on the divine identity of Jesus Christ, which leads necessarily to the believer's confession of His divinity. What Jesus is + our confession of Him = the foundation of the Church, which will continue to build and defeat evil to the point that not even the gates of Hell will be able to hold the Church back.
If the identity and confession of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God is the foundation of His Church, then no religious body, sect, or denomination can claim to be the "One True Church" anywhere on earth. Jesus did not build and is not building His Church on the outer trappings of religious practices or principles, of names or lineages. The Church is built on Himself and is made of the people (the 'petros'-es) who believe on Him. As it is, all institutions with bylaws, constitutions, hierarchies, and religious rituals are NOT the Church, even as those who are in them ARE the Church. Those who believe and follow Jesus are not simply 'in the Church,' they are the Church as temples of the Holy Spirit.
The confession of Peter can only be made in earnest at God the Father's revelation into the heart of the individual, as Jesus said. For Mormons, this confession is not the foundation to faith and church, as the Mormon prophets have so clearly declared. I should hope that every Mormon who places that high value in sincerety looks at Peter's confession and the confession of all Christians throughout the history of the Church wonders why the Mormon prophets substitute themselves over "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" for the foundation of Jesus' Church.
One of the main Mormon claims to divine authority is in interpreting Matthew 16:13-18 to refer to their concept of "continuing revelation." By basing the organization of the LDS church on "continuing revelation," as "the rock" on which Jesus builds His church, the LDS church claims legitimacy for its founder Joseph Smith and the entire line of its prophets "continuing" through today. It is widely known that Mormon leaders routinely misread, mangle, and misapply the Bible in order to fabricate legitimacy for Mormonism, so how has this been done to Matt. 16:13-18?
"13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
According to Mormon teaching, "the rock", or foundation, of Jesus' Church is the act of God revealing new information or new revelation to Peter. It infers, therefore, that it is the act of new revelation or continuing revelation that is to be the basis on which Jesus builds His Church. The Mormon Church, as Joseph Smith claimed, is that church that receives God's continuing revelation through the Mormon prophets.
Even if true, this is a curious position for the LDS church to adopt. The concept of "continuing revelation" is believed on the basis of necessary change. The idea that God can give "new" revelation has weak limitations in Mormonism, forcing most Mormons to contradict either themselves or the doctrine itself whenever called on to explain it. On the one hand, the LDS church's main proposition is that it is a 'restoration' of the lost faith in God, yet on the other hand, it accepts that beliefs can and do change based on the next revelation from God. If the former is true, then "continuing revelation" is a danger to the very nature of Mormonism, for it would suppose that the restoration is complete and there would be no need for "continuing revelations." If the latter is true, then Mormonism should not need any validation from the Bible; it does not need to 'restore' anything but only live out what is "new," which is a door flung open to any and all possibilities, even ones that contradict former revelations and all in the name of necessity (God does, because God must). This has forced Mormons to place weak limitations on just how far a theoretical new revelation can lead them, but of course, there is no such limitation within Mormon doctrines or the Four Standard Works themselves. The late Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson himself headed off this question of consistency by discouraging Mormons from comparing the words of previous prophets to any current one. “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets," he said. Indeed, Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee said, "Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today." [emphasis mine]
But I digress. Back to the topic, which is the Bible passage from which the LDS church draws its legitimacy and divine authority, unnecessary as that is by its own standards. Does it exegete the passage correctly?
The "rock" which Jesus calls Peter is masculine (petros), but the "rock" that Jesus says He will build His church on is feminine (petra). Looking at the syntax, "revealed" is a verb and cannot be 'petra', so neither can be the concept of "continuing revelation" which is further removed from the context of the passage. The one question that is almost never asked of this passage is "What is the subject matter?" 'Petra' can only point to the next closest idea, the subject, which in this case is Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' Church, therefore, is built on the divine identity of Jesus Christ, which leads necessarily to the believer's confession of His divinity. What Jesus is + our confession of Him = the foundation of the Church, which will continue to build and defeat evil to the point that not even the gates of Hell will be able to hold the Church back.
If the identity and confession of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God is the foundation of His Church, then no religious body, sect, or denomination can claim to be the "One True Church" anywhere on earth. Jesus did not build and is not building His Church on the outer trappings of religious practices or principles, of names or lineages. The Church is built on Himself and is made of the people (the 'petros'-es) who believe on Him. As it is, all institutions with bylaws, constitutions, hierarchies, and religious rituals are NOT the Church, even as those who are in them ARE the Church. Those who believe and follow Jesus are not simply 'in the Church,' they are the Church as temples of the Holy Spirit.
The confession of Peter can only be made in earnest at God the Father's revelation into the heart of the individual, as Jesus said. For Mormons, this confession is not the foundation to faith and church, as the Mormon prophets have so clearly declared. I should hope that every Mormon who places that high value in sincerety looks at Peter's confession and the confession of all Christians throughout the history of the Church wonders why the Mormon prophets substitute themselves over "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" for the foundation of Jesus' Church.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9-11 Blogroll
Christian bloggers unite!
We have, and on this 10th anniversary of the worst Islamic terrorist attack on the United States, we have collaborated on writing a collection of blogs in remembrance and response to 9-11. Please welcome the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance blogroll with a drumroll:
"Divine Commands Post 9/11" (MandM)
"The Problem of Evil: Whose problem is it? Is it a problem?" (Tilled Soil)
"The Need for Moral Choices and Consequences" (Possible Worlds)
"Ground Zero: Why truth matters in preventing another 9/11-style attack" (Wintery Knight)
"My 9/11 Memorial: Christianity Offers Authentic Hope In The Face Of Suffering" (Bringing Back the Tao)
Remembering 9-11: Which revelation is true? The need for evaluating religious claims" (Eric Chabot, Ratio Christi - Ohio State University)
"If God, Why Evil?" (In Defense of the Christian Faith)
"Unsung Lessons from 9/11: 'Moral Monsters' & Fear of Death" (Clay Jones)
"9/11 and Religious Pluralism" (Another Ascending Lark)
"The Tiptoes of Tolerance" (Valley Girl Apologist)
"9-11" (Deeper Waters)
"Do all roads (and flights) lead to God?" (Sarcastic Xtian)
"On September 11, 2001, harmless things became fearful" (J.W. Wartick - "Always Have a Reason")
"Remembering 9/11: A Young Californian's Perspective" (Take Two Blog)
"The Two Ground Zeros" (Reasons for God)
"Suffering and the Cross of Christ" (Hieropraxis)
"America after 9 11: Is Religion Evil?" (Apologetics Guy)
"Resources on the Problem of Evil" (Apologetics 315)
"Atheism, Evil, and Ultimate Justice" (Faithful Thinkers)
"9/11: 'Full Cognitive Meltdown" and its Fallout" (Thinking Christian)
"Where was God on 9/11?" (Cold and Lonely Truth)
"The Three Faces of Evil and A Christian Response" (The Real Issue)
"Christianity and 9/11: Guilt by Association?" (Tom Gilson, The POINT)
"Did God Allow the Attacks on 9/11 for a 'Greater Good?'" (The Gospel According to Erik)
"Where was God on 9-11?" (Neil Mammen's Blog)
"From Ground Zero to Ten Years Later--September 11, 2001" (Sententia)
"9-11 Remembered" (Answering Muslims)
and of course, there's mine too: "9-11, Jihad, and the Christian" (Talitha, Koum!)
**Many, many thanks to the idea guys behind this collaboration, especially Greg West of The Poached Egg. Without him, getting all these individual links would have been hard!) :-) **
We have, and on this 10th anniversary of the worst Islamic terrorist attack on the United States, we have collaborated on writing a collection of blogs in remembrance and response to 9-11. Please welcome the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance blogroll with a drumroll:
"The Problem of Evil: Whose problem is it? Is it a problem?" (Tilled Soil)
"The Need for Moral Choices and Consequences" (Possible Worlds)
"Ground Zero: Why truth matters in preventing another 9/11-style attack" (Wintery Knight)
"My 9/11 Memorial: Christianity Offers Authentic Hope In The Face Of Suffering" (Bringing Back the Tao)
Remembering 9-11: Which revelation is true? The need for evaluating religious claims" (Eric Chabot, Ratio Christi - Ohio State University)
"If God, Why Evil?" (In Defense of the Christian Faith)
"Unsung Lessons from 9/11: 'Moral Monsters' & Fear of Death" (Clay Jones)
"9/11 and Religious Pluralism" (Another Ascending Lark)
"The Tiptoes of Tolerance" (Valley Girl Apologist)
"9-11" (Deeper Waters)
"Do all roads (and flights) lead to God?" (Sarcastic Xtian)
"On September 11, 2001, harmless things became fearful" (J.W. Wartick - "Always Have a Reason")
"Remembering 9/11: A Young Californian's Perspective" (Take Two Blog)
"The Two Ground Zeros" (Reasons for God)
"Suffering and the Cross of Christ" (Hieropraxis)
"America after 9 11: Is Religion Evil?" (Apologetics Guy)
"Resources on the Problem of Evil" (Apologetics 315)
"Atheism, Evil, and Ultimate Justice" (Faithful Thinkers)
"9/11: 'Full Cognitive Meltdown" and its Fallout" (Thinking Christian)
"Where was God on 9/11?" (Cold and Lonely Truth)
"The Three Faces of Evil and A Christian Response" (The Real Issue)
"Christianity and 9/11: Guilt by Association?" (Tom Gilson, The POINT)
"Did God Allow the Attacks on 9/11 for a 'Greater Good?'" (The Gospel According to Erik)
"Where was God on 9-11?" (Neil Mammen's Blog)
"From Ground Zero to Ten Years Later--September 11, 2001" (Sententia)
"9-11 Remembered" (Answering Muslims)
and of course, there's mine too: "9-11, Jihad, and the Christian" (Talitha, Koum!)
**Many, many thanks to the idea guys behind this collaboration, especially Greg West of The Poached Egg. Without him, getting all these individual links would have been hard!) :-) **
9-11, Jihad, and The Christian
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have declared that America is not at war with Islam. I agree to the extent that America did not seek a war with a religion; the wars that the U.S. is engaged in are considered wars to dismantle terrorist control over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. However, those Muslims the American military is fighting have declared war against the U.S. and also against the religion that broadly characterizes this country, Christianity. Islam is openly hostile toward the fundamental doctrine of the Christian God, namely that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. The Qu’ran states that Christians (and Jews and Pagans) are targets of war and subjugation until only Islam is observed*. Islam makes violent jihad an option for Muslims, either to destroy or convert their enemies to Islam under duress.
9-11 reminds us that as believers, apologetics matters. The tyranny of a religion that teaches a false god and a false worldview, which is enforced by directives to violence begs for Christians to combat its inhumanity in both word and deed. Christians must take a special interest in the teachings of Islam and how they readily promote bloodshed and hostility instead of God’s grace and freedom. Of course, most of the world’s Muslims do not live out those Qu’ranic directives to wage violent jihad, but it is not Muslims with whom we should dispute. It is the existence of the teachings that violent jihad is permissible and virtuous in Islam that I find so contrary to the Bible’s witness to objective moral values.
The solution to Islamic jihad against Christianity is for Christians to wage a holy war of our own, one that is also proscribed by the words of Jesus Christ. In opposition to the jihad we see today, Christ told His worshippers to spread the Gospel, the “Good News,” as messengers of the cross and the Resurrection. “Go, therefore” in Matthew 28 is more properly viewed “As you go, therefore,” signifying that the Gospel is spread not only through words but a life lived reflecting the goodness of God. Christ said to “…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:43-45). As Christians, our greatest apologetic for the truth of the Gospel is showing the intrinsic value in which Christ has placed on every human being, and that part of being human is respecting the role God has to play in another’s decisions, either to believe or to deny Jesus Christ. Holy war for us is fought on our knees in prayer and by proclaiming without shame the objective truth of God’s victory over sin and death in Jesus.
It is possible that God has ordained for every generation a stark reminder of the presence of evil in this world swimming in sin. The “day that will live in infamy,” for the WWII generation was December 7, 1941. For us today, that day is September 11, 2001. May the remembrance of the infamy of 9-11 drive us to “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Ephesians 6:11-13).
*Source: Qu’ran, Suras 8:39, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, 9:123, 48:29, 66:9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
