The following quotes are taken from Walter Martin's monumental work Kingdom of the Cults, and are what I quoted in the podcast Is IHOP-KC a Cult? They are all taken from the 1985 printing, which I own (the 2003 printing, which I borrowed, was used in the podcast - the only differences are the page numbers). As I said in the podcast, I use these because many times websites present identifications of a cult that are far too specific, or are tailored towards the specific cult the author is speaking about. Also, I do not believe Walter Martin to be the be all, end all source on cults, but because his work on cult groups is so well respected and thorough, I believed it to be a good source for grounding our understanding.
The first quote we will look at:
[Quoting Dr. Charles Braden:] “A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expressions of religion in our total culture.” [pg. 11]
From this, we discern regarding a cult:
1) It differs from the "normative expressions of religion" in our "total culture." As I noted in my podcast, this is not argumentum ad populum; that is, "If you have a nation that's 99% Sunni and 1% Shia, the Shia Muslims are a cult because they aren't as large as the Sunni." Rather, Braden is arguing that, if you have a set standard on the core issues for a religion's beliefs and how a religion is to be practiced, and another group detracts from all that, it can be considered a cult. For example: the Ahmadi Muslims believe that their founder fulfilled the end-times Islamic beliefs, and the promised Messiah and Mahdi awaited by Muslims, and that Jesus moved to India and was buried there, none of which the Sunni or Shia hold to be canon. For this reason, orthodox Muslims look upon the Ahmadi in the same manner that orthodox Christians look upon the Mormons. The latter breaks away from the "normative expression" of Christianity because, in upholding doctrines regarding man's deification, inheriting planets with spirit wives, etc.
After quoting Braden, Walter Martin immediately adds, in his own words:
I may add to this that a cult might be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretations of Charles T. Russell and J.F. Rutherford. The Christian Scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of Scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. [pg. 11]
So we learn:
2) Instead of solely being gathered around the expressions of the religion based on the teachings of their founder or holy scripture (or both), a cult is grounded upon the interpretations of those documents by their leaders or governing authority. A cult may use the Bible as their primary document, or may claim that they follow what scripture says, but their interpretation of that scripture is grounded upon not serious biblical study or the plain meaning of the text, but rather what their leaders or religious authority tell them. If you were to remove Joseph Smith from history, Mormonism would not exist. If you were to remove Charles T. Russel from history, the Jehovah's Witnesses would not exist. If an individual in a cult were honest, he would have to admit that his interpretation of passages of scripture his organization depends on would only be read in such a way if his leader or interpreting authority told him it was to be read in such a way.
Continuing on, going into the psychological structures of cultism:
First and foremost, the belief systems of the cults are characterized by close-mindedness. They are not interested in a rational, cognitive evaluation of the facts. The organizational structure interprets the facts to the cultist, generally invoking the Bible and/or its respective founder as the ultimate source of its pronouncements. Such belief systems are in isolation; they never shift to logical consistency. They exist in what we might describe as separate compartments in the cultist’s mind and are almost incapable of penetration or disruption if the individual cultist is completely committed to the authority pattern of his organization. [pg. 26]
Hence:
3) A cult's belief system, or its effect on its members, is to engage in logical inconsistencies, with the facts and method of thinking interpreted by the organization's authority. This means that the cult members' sense of reality in his mind, and the sense of reality given him by the organization, are two different things, sometimes at odds with one another; in order for this inconsistency to survive, the cult member has to engage in some form of intellectual or logical inconsistency. Muslims, for instance, will uphold two different standards for their own religion and Christianity, or non-Muslim religions in general. One example: some Muslims will deny the Bible based on variances between the manuscripts, even if they're "just grammatical"; however, they will shrug off the variances in manuscripts of the Quran because they're "just grammatical."
Continuing on:
Second, cultic belief systems are characterized by genuine antagonism on a personal level, since the cultist almost always identifies his dislike of the Christian message with the messenger who holds such opposing beliefs. The identification of opposing beliefs with the individual in the framework of antagonism leads the cultist almost always to reject the individual as well as the belief, a problem closely linked with closed-mindedness and one that is extremely difficult to deal with in general dialogue with cultists. [ibid]
Hence:
4) A cult member's identity with the cult becomes attached to who he/she is. Attacking the organization is seen as attacking the individual. In the case of many cults, it might be seen as attacking God Himself. Even if someone wishes to attack the error and not the erring, the erring will take the attacks against the error as an attack against themselves. This is why, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses respond to criticism or critical thinking with hostility, as if the individual is questioning their own sanity. Likewise, many in Hyper-Charismatic cults will become so engulfed in the teachings of their church and teacher that any attempt to question the legitimacy of the ministry will be seen as kind of an attack from the devil against God (even if the person may not openly say this is the case).
Continuing on:
Thirdly, almost without exception, all cultic belief systems manifest a type of institutional dogmatism and a pronounced intolerance for any position but their own. This no doubt stems from the fact that in the case of non-Christian cult systems that wish to be identified with Christianity, the ground for their claims is almost always supernatural. [pg. 27]
While some might argue here, "Surely all religions have a form of dogma?", Martin goes on to explain:
...cult systems tend to invest with the authority of the supernatural whatever pronouncements are deemed necessary to condition and control the minds of their followers. Thus it is that when Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, and his successor, Brigham Young, wished to implement doctrines or changes of practice in the Mormon Church, they prefaced their remarks with proclamations that God had revealed to them the necessity of such doctrines or practices among the saints. [ibid]
Hence we learn:
5) A cult's dogma and doctrine may not only be founded upon the supposed scripture of its base religion, but in the personal revelation and "divine commands" granted to its leaders or founders. As Mr. Martin pointed out, this includes any serious changes made to the orthodoxy of the religion, or with any claims that might be made regarding the interpretation of a passage of scripture, or direction which will be taken by the organization. There are, in essence two authorities: the authority of their base religion (whether it be their holy writings or the sayings of its founder); and the authority of their leadership structure, claiming to speak with divine authority or guidance. Mormons, for example, are not only dependent upon scripture for their guidance, but upon the pronouncements of Joseph Smith and his successors, which are all claimed to come from God.
Continuing on:
The fourth and final point in any analysis of the belief system of cults is the factor of isolation. [pg. 28]
By "isolation," Mr. Martin does not mean merely living on an island somewhere and ignoring the world around you, ie., social isolationism - rather, he refers to rational isolationism. He explains later on that this is the "isolation or compartmentalization of conflicting evidence or concepts."
Hence we learn:
6) A cult's belief system, or the tendency among its believers, may lean towards an understanding of the truth and contradictory evidence, while at the same time there are irrational excuses made for it. This means that while a cult member may be aware of contradictory evidence, they will not read it or rationalize from it as a non-cult member will. As an example, Mr. Martin brings up the fact that many knowledgeable Mormon historians and scholars are aware that there exist thousands of differences between the first edition of the Book of Mormon and the current edition, and that these changes were made not only by Joseph Smith but his successors as well; however, they believe both the revisions and the errors are divinely inspired! Some in the more extreme circles of KJV-Onlyism have made a similar argument, recognizing that there are differences between the earliest manuscripts of the Bible and the manuscripts used by the KJV translators, but at the same time stating, amazingly enough, that those changes were divinely inspired.
The following is from John Bunyan's famous Pilgrim's Progress.
Christian: Met you with nothing else in that valley?
Faithful: Yes, I met with Shame; but of all the men that I met with on my pilgrimage, he, I think, bears the wrong name. The other would be said nay, after a little argumentation, and somewhat else; but this bold-faced Shame would never have done.
Christian: Why, what did he say to you?
Faithful: What? why, he objected against religion itself. He said it was a pitiful, low, sneaking business for a man to mind religion. He said, that a tender conscience was an unmanly thing; and that for a man to watch over his words and ways, so as to tie up himself from that hectoring liberty that the brave spirits of the times accustomed themselves unto, would make him the ridicule of the times. He objected also, that but few of the mighty, rich, or wise, were ever of my opinion; nor any of them neither, before they were persuaded to be fools, and to be of a voluntary fondness to venture the loss of all for nobody knows what. 1 Cor. 1:26; 3:18; Phil. 3:7-9; John 7:48. He, moreover, objected the base and low estate and condition of those that were chiefly the pilgrims of the times in which they lived; also their ignorance and want of understanding in all natural science. Yea, he did hold me to it at that rate also, about a great many more things than here I relate; as, that it was a shame to sit whining and mourning under a sermon, and a shame to come sighing and groaning home; that it was a shame to ask my neighbor forgiveness for petty faults, or to make restitution where I have taken from any. He said also, that religion made a man grow strange to the great, because of a few vices, which he called by finer names, and made him own and respect the base, because of the same religious fraternity: And is not this, said he, a shame?
Christian: And what did you say to him?
Faithful: Say? I could not tell what to say at first. Yea, he put me so to it, that my blood came up in my face; even this Shame fetched it up, and had almost beat me quite off. But at last I began to consider, that that which is highly esteemed among men, is had in abomination with God. Luke 16:15. And I thought again, this Shame tells me what men are; but he tells me nothing what God, or the word of God is. And I thought, moreover, that at the day of doom we shall not be doomed to death or life according to the hectoring spirits of the world, but according to the wisdom and law of the Highest. Therefore, thought I, what God says is best, is indeed best, though all the men in the world are against it. Seeing, then, that God prefers his religion; seeing God prefers a tender Conscience; seeing they that make themselves fools for the kingdom of heaven are wisest, and that the poor man that loveth Christ is richer than the greatest man in the world that hates him; Shame, depart, thou art an enemy to my salvation. Shall I entertain thee against my sovereign Lord? How then shall I look him in the face at his coming? Mark 8:38. Should I now be ashamed of his ways and servants, how can I expect the blessing? But indeed this Shame was a bold villain; I could scarcely shake him out of my company; yea, he would be haunting of me, and continually whispering me in the ear, with some one or other of the infirmities that attend religion. But at last I told him, that it was but in vain to attempt farther in this business; for those things that he disdained, in those did I see most glory: and so at last I got past this importunate one. And when I had shaken him off, then I began to sing,
“The trials that those men do meet withal, That are obedient to the heavenly call, Are manifold, and suited to the flesh, And come, and come, and come again afresh; That now, or some time else, we by them may Be taken, overcome, and cast away. O let the pilgrims, let the pilgrims then, Be vigilant, and quit themselves like men.”
Christian: I am glad, my brother, that thou didst withstand this villain so bravely; for of all, as thou sayest, I think he has the wrong name; for he is so bold as to follow us in the streets, and to attempt to put us to shame before all men; that is, to make us ashamed of that which is good. But if he was not himself audacious, he would never attempt to do as he does. But let us still resist him; for, notwithstanding all his bravadoes, he promoteth the fool, and none else. “The wise shall inherit glory,” said Solomon; “but shame shall be the promotion of fools.” Prov. 3:35.
Faithful: I think we must cry to Him for help against Shame, that would have us to be valiant for truth upon the earth. [source]
My wife and I recently watched this episode of Boy Meets World, and, aside from how well it seemed to handle the issue of cults or cult-like organizations without going too over the top, I was amazed at how it also didn't sacrifice the idea of God and truth. I couldn't help but think of a few organizations or leaders I've run into or studied while watching it.
Another thing that fascinated me: this was made in the mid-1990's, barely twenty years ago, and it's hard to imagine a show today featuring a character asking another "Did you believe in God?", or featuring a character praying to God at the climax. For certain, it doesn't necessarily take the side of a specific religion (ie., Sean doesn't pray to Christ or anything like that), but nonetheless it would be bold for today's standards.
By the by, I probably sympathize with Mr. Feeny the most in this episode...
Gather 'round, chil'ren, it's story time again...only now with a twist.
Once upon a time there was a man who hated Christians. I don't mean to say he merely disagreed with them, or wasn't a Christian himself...but he truly hated them and what they stood for. He thought they were stupid, had silly beliefs, and he truly thought that people were better leaving Christianity. He considered philosophy and mankind's understanding of the world to be the highest thing to obtain, not spirituality of any sort.
He hated Christianity so much, in fact, that he started to write books attacking the concept of God. He mocked the idea of God giving revelation, let alone infallible revelation. He claimed the only people who believed in God were the poor, uneducated and heavily deceived members of society. He claimed that Jesus' miracles had never happened, even suggesting he was perhaps at best a magician. He would mock the scriptures. He would use his literary skills to belittle and poke fun at the expense not only of Christians, but of Jesus and God Himself.
Who was this person? You're probably thinking of some of the "new atheists" today, but in actuality this man was a middle second century philosopher named Celsus, one of the first public critics of Christianity, certainly one of the first to attack them directly. He certainly wasn't one of the only ones of Ante-Nicene period: the philosopher Lucian (late second century) doubted all religions and believed we could only understand things through philosophical understandings, and considered the love of Christians to be silly enthusiasm; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (late third century) attempted to prove contradictions between the Old and New Testament, claimed the early church leadership was divided between Paul and Peter, and said Jesus was merely a great teacher whom men had turned into God; the Neo-Platonic philosopher Hierocles (late third century) claimed Christ's miracles and divine traits had been invented by the apostles, and tried to draw parallels between Christ and local Greek religions.
Hm...does any of this sound vaguely familiar?
There is truly nothing new under the sun. The thing is, however, Christians never responded to this criticism by proverbially closing their eyes and ears and saying "La la la I can't hear you!" Christian apologetics is almost as old as Christianity itself. In response to heathen or atheistic/agnostic criticism of Christianity, many men such as Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Tatian, Origen, and Tertullian arose to specifically address such criticism, even responding to critics by name and addressing their specific points. Some later men, such as John Chrysostom, would make reference to the ancient critics and briefly touch upon, and then respond to, their beliefs. The point is that since the days of the post-apostolic church, Christians have responded to the criticism of unbelievers.
What often amazes me is that, while most knowledgeable Christians are aware of the arguments made by those who attack the faith, many of the most verbal non-Christians (in particular atheists) seem to be completely unaware of the Christian response - nay, they seem completely disinterested in any possible response. Many ask questions or bring up contentions which a simple Google search or the reading of a single Christian apologetics book would resolve. Some have made arguments (such as conspiracy theories) that, if presented for other topics, would be considered utterly and reprehensibly foolish. Truly, if some internet atheists treated mathematics, engineering, nuclear physics or any other subject with the same silliness and disrespect which they applied to the topic of religion, no one in those fields would take them seriously. If some non-Christians started treating their own faith with the same silliness and disrespect they showed Christianity, they'd become at best agnostics.
It's not that I believe non-Christians are inherently stupid insofar as they have low intelligence. Many are very bright or capable in many areas. With a few extremes, most are also fully functioning members of society. However, there is a fine line between simple ignorance and willful ignorance, and many display a case of the latter. They display no desire for serious dialogue, nor an interest in understanding the other side. They would rather laugh at an internet meme that agrees with their worldview than read an opponent's book which explains his worldview. Ad hominems and straw men are of more interest to them than sound counter responses. They'll talk of knowing the truth, but just start asking them to demonstrate that truth and it won't take long before they throw up the blinders and begin the personal attacks. There is no interest in an opposing viewpoint that is worth responding to.
Perhaps the highlight of all this came in an incident many years ago, with an online chat I had with an atheist gentleman. He was telling me, "You know, I consider you a pretty smart guy, so I don't get why you believe in God." He added, "I've done my research, and put the dots together." I then asked him if he had read the Bible. Nope. I asked him if he had read any Church Fathers or Christian theologians. Nope. His extensive research had amounted to reading popular atheist authors and feeling satisfied, having had his emotions fulfilled. What's more, it seemed to flabbergast him that doing any research on the counterarguments was be worthwhile. Apparently, "doing a lot of research" didn't include reading the opposing viewpoints and responding to them, let alone simply reading both sides of the issue. In fact, this seems to be what "doing a lot of research" is for a lot of people.
It's sad, it's unfortunate, and it's at times heartbreaking. It's difficult to take someone seriously when they throw things at you like "Jesus' Greek name really means Hail Zeus" or some other silliness that is easily disprovable and they most likely got from a goofy website rather than a scholarly source. It's difficult to try to respect someone's opinion when they clearly have no respect (even if unintentionally) for you. It's hard to take someone as fair when they claim to have great arguments, when a little research into past discussions on the topic would reveal that their contentions had been responded to more than fifteen hundred years ago.
This is why we must remember that, without the regeneration of God, a person's mind will remain shut. The power of God is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor 1:18), and will continue appearing to be foolish so long as the veil remains (2 Cor 4:3). Let us not, however, use this as a sign of superiority against non-believers. Rather, let us strive to pray for those people, for they were once as we. Let us pray that they might turn to Christ, and upon turning to Christ, have the veil removed (2 Cor 3:14-16). God bless.
Recently I've rediscovered my love for the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, and have - thanks to Kindle versions available online for free - been reading and rereading his entire works of fiction. Lovecraft is famous for his creation of the mollusk-headed god Cthulhu, and there are many who, while not knowing the name of Lovecraft, do know the name of Cthulhu. Lovecraft is considered today one of the greatest writers of the horror genre, and one of the first to really evolve the "cosmic horror" niche. Modern writers like Stephen King and others cite him as inspiration.
He was also, among these things, an atheist. On this subject, I came across this article quoting chunks from a written correspondence between H.P. Lovecraft and three acquaintances. In particular among Lovecraft's acquaintances was a friend named Maurice W. Moe, with whom Lovecraft often sparred in regards to religion. An interesting section to me was near the beginning, in which Lovecraft writes:
The latter conception, of a God who is confined in action to our visible universe, leaves us to speculate as to what God or forces may preside over the rest of creation—or if we adhere to the commandment of Scripture, and believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects. But then, if this be so, why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence? I fear that all theism consists mostly of reasoning in circles, and guessing or inventing what we do not know.
If God is omnipotent, then why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind? Or if he is local, then why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from? And why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive? These are monstrous uncomfortable questions for a pious man to answer, and yet the orthodox clergy continue to assert a complete understanding of all these things, brushing inquiry aside either by sophistry and mysticism, or by evasion and sanctified horror.
It seems that Lovecraft's contention is this: does the limitation of God's personal work present a limitation on God Himself? In other words, why would God create such a spectacular universe if He only intended to interact with a small part of it? What was the thinking process in such an endeavor? Why, in the great expansive universe, is religion in general so geocentric?
Those most familiar with Lovecraft's work would know that this thought process is present in his stories. Characters often interact with creatures, spirits, or gods that cross time and space. For example, in a 1919 short story entitled Beyond the Wall of Sleep, the narrator, working at an insane asylum, discovers that a patient there has become a "prison" for a star-like entity that belongs, as it itself explains, to a race of "roamers of vast spaces and travellers in many ages," adding: "Next year I may be dwelling in the dark Egypt which you call ancient, or in the cruel empire of Tsan-Chan which is to come three thousand years hence" (source). The entity likewise states: "We shall meet again—perhaps in the shining mists of Orion’s Sword, perhaps on a bleak plateau in prehistoric Asia. Perhaps in unremembered dreams tonight; perhaps in some other form an aeon hence, when the solar system shall have been swept away" (ibid). In Lovecraft's universe, the idea of a "godless" galaxy was not an issue, as every corner of time and space had some form of deity or spiritual force. It was interesting, therefore, to read this line of thinking from Mr. Lovecraft outside of his fictional works, and I thought it was worth giving a response, just for the sake of discussion.
Firstly, we read the objection "we...believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects." This objection tells us that if there is one God, who focuses on earth, then "the rest of space is godless," as there is "no personal loving father-deity...there to bless his sons and subjects," as God has, for whatever reason, limited Himself to earth. However, this presupposes that by God's giving direct revelation to one part of His creation, God limits Himself to that part of His creation. We are to believe that if God gives particular attention to one planet, then all the rest are forsaken.
However, there is a fallacy behind the very idea that giving special attention to one part of our focus while giving general attention to the rest means those under the general attention are completely forsaken. Let me present a scenario: a mother has two children, one with Down Syndrome, the other mentally healthy. She is going to be giving special attention to the child with Down Syndrome, but the general motherly attention owed to the child without Down Syndrome. In this case, it would be erroneous and cruel to suppose that, because she gives special attention to the child with Down Syndrome and general attention to the other, she must either hate or completely ignore the other child. In like manner, that God gives special attention towards the Earth and its inhabitants does not mean God has completely forsaken the rest of the universe.
Such thinking as proposed in this first argument also ignores a few important elements from the Christian perspective:
1) All the universe exists by the supreme will of God. The universe cannot be "godless" if we know that it is sourced to God itself (Gen 1:14-19; Psa 8:3, 33:6, 136:5-9; Isa 42:5; John 1:3; Heb 1:10, 11:3; Rev 4:11) and performs its daily actions by the will of God (Job 9:7; Psa 147:4). Obviously we are not proposing that God has marionette strings and is guiding the planets along - there are rational and scientific explanations for the method by which the planets revolve and stars do what they do. Science does not contradict the sovereignty of God over creation; it merely reveals the natural means by which He performs it. Neither is this a case of "the god of the gaps" as so many wrongfully call it, for we are not saying that God is a God of Planets, nor (as we outlined before) that the planets revolve because God is actively doing so in the same manner I would push a stalled car down the road. Rather, we are arguing that the source of a planet's existence - as well as the source of all physics and science behind its planetary motion - is sourced to God. I know that lightning does not strike the earth because God is up in the clouds chucking lightning bolts at people - all the same, I know that lightning does not strike, be it through natural means, except by God's will.
2) All the universe is a sign of God's existence. Of this scripture speaks plainly: the heavens are said to "declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1); the prophet Isaiah asks, "Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these?" (Isa 40:26); the apostle Paul writes that God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" are perceived "in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20), and I have no doubt the blessed apostle would include the stars and planets within this passage. Contrary to the idea that the universe sans Earth is considered godless, scripture sees the universe as a sign that the universe is anything but godless, and in fact is a sign of a Divine Creator.
When one thinks about it, the very notion that the rest of space is "godless" seems to imply God can create a universe too big for even Him, which is similar to the conundrum as to whether or not God can create a rock so big even He can't lift it up. God is not limited to planets, nor to moments in space itself. The fallacy here may be in equating, as I outlined earlier, God giving one kind of attention to a part of His creation does not mean He has forsaken the rest of His creation. This just simply isn't true - God is not limited by the scope of His own creation.
In fact, the prophet Jonah had an even more close-minded view of God's scope than earth versus the universe, as he believed God's control only extended so far as the holy land of Israel. Hence the reluctant prophet, not desiring to preach to Nineveh (Jon 1:1-2), left Israel to escape the call (Jon 1:3). His hypothesis proved utterly false, as God came to his boat and caused the storm that would unfold the rest of the story. In Jonah's mind, the fact that God, at that time, was giving special attention to Israel, that must mean that the rest of the world is godless. This wasn't true - wherever one of God's people went, He was there. In like manner, if mankind were to ever reach a state of scientific development that he would be able to reach out and colonize on other planets - perhaps even the most distant galaxies - I have no doubt that God would be able to have the gospel spread among the stars, and to save men even on the utmost limits of creation itself.
Secondly, we have the question: "why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence?"; as well as "why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind?"; and finally "why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from?" Again, all fair questions to ask, but when we ask the question of why we must seek to resolve the question of motive. To ask why with no interest in resolving motive is about as sensible as asking why a man bought a 2012 Kia Rio5 with all the possible car models on the world, and then concluding from this question that the man must not exist at all.
It might be interesting to point out, first and foremost, that our planet - at the time of this writing - is practically the only planet in the known universe which can sustain life, and this is because Earth meets all the necessary requirements for this. The rate of rotation, the distance from the sun, the atmosphere, and many other factors key into this. For certain there are planets out there which are close to being able to support life, or have the possibility of supporting life, but Earth is the only planet on which all requirements are met and which we know for a fact these requirements have given us life. In any case, God could not provide the same form of attention He gives to Earth to other planets such as Jupiter, Neptune, or Mercury for obvious reasons: there's no reason to do so. None of the stars on Orion's Belt could provide sustenance for humans, nor could any "dwarf planet" like Pluto. That God would choose Earth to create mankind and show it benevolence is hence, in many ways, a logical step, given He could not do it on any other planet.
Yet many might make the logical contention that God did not happen across the planets, but rather was the creator of them, and so we might ask: "why did God design only one planet upon which to have the climax of His creation, which is mankind?" Again, a fair question, one that might be flatly answered by stating that it was God's will. While this might sound like a cop out response when taken in isolation from the rest of this post, it is not when one considers the focus on the creation of Earth. This was where the climax of God's creation occurred, and where God focused his special revelation. This was the methodology by which God ordained that His glory would be seen, both in the past, present and the future.
Thirdly, we are asked: "why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive?" I would argue because by necessity a god who created the universe would have to be all-pervasive. If God created all matter as we know it, and began what we know by our limited measurement as time, then God would have be outside the natural, material world. God would, by necessity, have to exist outside of time, space and matter - and yet He is likewise the creator and initiator of it all. What I mean by this is that God is the Great Initiator of all we know: it was He who began the roll of history; it was He who made the first matter; it was He who brought about all things into existence. In order for all this existence to come into being, something outside of that existence would have to...well...exist.
Let me put it this way: an automotive designer does not initially exist as part of the car he designs. Before even the idea of that car comes into being, something outside of that car has to exist. It is from the creativity and the will of that automotive designer that the car's design, purpose and existence comes into being. However, the automotive designer does not morph himself into that car, or suddenly cease to exist because that car of his now exists, nor is the designer compelled to stay inside that car and never leave it. The car may be limited by the designer, but the designer is not limited by the car. In like manner, time, matter and all existence exists because of God, according to His design and purpose, and hence He is, by necessity, outside of such limitations. If this is the case, then God is indeed "all-pervasive."
Sometime ago I was watching an atheist's video on YouTube describing how one can come to morality sans religious beliefs. One statement made was that we could improve a person's view on the world through education. As I was pondering on this over the past few weeks, I suddenly came to a realization: there is a double standard for many when it comes to acts of evil and what they call "education."
Whenever some evil is committed in the name of a religion, it is almost always attributed to religion as a vague idea in the most prime example of a broad brush sense (which I've shown before as completely fallacious). However, if people are doing wrong in secular circles, we are told that they just need a better education. I do not consider either viewpoint to be entirely wrong, but I believe that the application of both is inconsistent. Permit me to explain.
Let us take a horrible situation, such as a group of people physically attacking a homosexual. Obviously, this is wrong - even Christians believe so. If you know a homosexual, you witness to them - you don't kill or harm them. Let us say these people even do it because they "think homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God." Most people would write this off as simply being another example of how religion is evil and move on. However, here is where the "apply more education" argument can likewise be made, for those individuals are acting contrary to what their religion teaches, not in accordance to it (again, refer to my previously linked post). They could be taught the biblical way to approach homosexuality in general and homosexuals in general. Placed in a proper church, they could receive discipleship in this regard. If they refuse this discipleship and education - or continue to act contrary to it - then the fault is on them as individuals, and it is they alone who are in the wrong, not the group to which they claim to belong.
Some might move that this distortion of religious belief is still sourced to religious belief in general, and hence religious beliefs in toto should be banned. However, such a position is not consistent when held up with more secular or scientific understandings. For example, the distortions of evolution have led to evils such as social Darwinism, while concepts such as genetics or the "human gene pool" has led to programs such as eugenics, and greater evils such as the Holocaust. It is certain that those who staunchly support evolution as a theory or genetics as a science would ever agree that, since some have distorted evolution or genetics for evil, we should throw both out the window, let alone that we should throw science in toto out the window; yet many of these same people will, people some have done evil in the name of a religious faith, we should throw religion in toto out the window.
Education is, of course, a wonderful and important part of our society. There is a great danger, however, in either setting it to too low a standard or raising it to too high a pedestal. We should not belittle the idea that being more educated in anything is counterproductive, just as we cannot think that "throwing education at the problem" will automatically solve a social dilemma. Some of the cruelest men in history were also the most educated, and often used their education either to perform great evil or to come to evil ideologies. Evil can be used from either a religious or secular foundation because evil is, first and foremost, an equal opportunity employer.
"I don't like religion because people have done evil in the name of religion."
The previous statement is often said by those who are responding to something in the news (an honor killing, a terrorist attack, etc.). Is there any real grounds for a person to make this statement?
First and foremost to this discussion, let us ask this question: do we dismiss or show distaste for every single form of ideology or a basic idea simply because some men have chosen to use it for evil? I would move those who do it for religion do not remain consistent in this position. There are men who have done evil in the name of democracy, or for the sake of the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom," and yet we don't find many who bash religion likewise bashing these principles. We don't hear people say "I don't like democracy because people have done evil in the name of democracy." We even more rarely hear someone say "I don't follow any kind of politics because people have done evil in the name of politics."
Let us take a situation wherein someone has committed evil in the name of an ideology or idea. In such a situation, a person examining the situation would normally look to two things: 1) the intent of the founders or originators of the ideology or idea; 2) the basic doctrines or tenets of the ideology or idea. For example, a person who wished to argue that Nationalist Socialism was evil, but recognized that simply saying "Nationalist Socialists have done bad things" is at best a surface level argument, would move on to point out that the originators of Nationalist Socialism were wicked men, and that their intents and purposes were wicked. They would likewise point out that the doctrines and tenets of Nationalist Socialism were likewise wicked.
Most importantly, we must ask: does the evil committed by the perpetrators in question act in alignment with the doctrines or beliefs of the original founders, or the ideology or idea as a whole? To return to our example of Nationalist Socialism, we see that all which the Nationalist Socialist party did in 1930's and 40's Germany was in line with their doctrines and core beliefs. If there were a conflict between the two, one could rightfully argue that those who did evil in World War II were acting in isolation; however, if there was no conflict between the two, and in fact they complimented one another, then we could rightfully argue that those who did evil were - as many did indeed say at the Nuremberg trials - "merely following orders." If the murder of German Jews and other "undesirables" had merely been the zealous pursuit of a select few, then we would be right in arguing that the Nationalist Socialists are misunderstood, being represented wrongfully with the actions of a minority, all of whom were acting contrary to the party's basic teachings. However, history shows instead that the Nationalist Socialist party itself was behind the genocidal destruction that raged Europe in the 1940's, and that it was perfectly in line with what they had been building during the 1930's.
Obviously, at this point, we see that the person who made the opening statement has given us far too broad a statement. We do not shrug off an entire ideology or idea simply because of a few bad apples, but rather we examine those ideologies and ideas to see if they are truly the source or not. We also recognize that, instead of presenting a broad examination of an entire concept such as politics, religion, or otherwise, we examine our problems on a case-by-case basis. In the case of religion, it would have to be by examining each individual religion. It would be inaccurate and unfair to try to lump Buddhists together with Jehovah's Witnesses under the broad use of "religion," just as it would be unfair to lump Democrats with Nationalist Socialists under the broad use of "politics." A broad spectrum exists under what calls itself "religion" just as a broad spectrum exists under what calls itself "politics." A person disgruntled with Islam cannot direct their same hatred of Islam on Hinduism any more than someone disgruntled with the system of Communism can direct their same hatred of Communism towards democracy.
Let us turn to a specific example in regards to this, and for the sake of discussion the religion will be Christianity. I'm choosing Christianity for a few good reasons: 1) I am a Christian; 2) this is a Christian blog, so it makes sense; 3) in talking about my own religion and not someone else's, I can avoid the charge that I am avoiding faults from my own side by pointing my fingers to others.
It is popular for many non-Christians, especially atheists and some agnostics, to label Christianity as evil because of events such as the Crusades, or the murder of non-Christians by radical Christian groups, or by attacks from supposed Christians, such as those that have happened at abortion clinics. As the people who perpetuated these attacks called themselves Christians, and claimed they were acting in the name of Christianity, clearly Christianity must be at fault. Is this the case?
Let's again recognize some terms. When we say that Christianity is at fault, we recognize we do not mean every single Christian. Not every Christian went on a crusade during the middle ages and killed non-Christians - for every crusader there were perhaps hundreds of thousands who stayed home. Not every single Christian has sought to blow up abortion clinics - in fact the percentage of so-called Christians who did so is staggeringly small. Not every single Christian does any form of violence in the name of Christianity - therefore we cannot mean every single Christian when we speak of Christianity. If by Christianity we mean only the bad Christians, then we would be acting unfairly by speaking in broad terms for what should be specific, and our entire position would be nonsensical. Therefore, when we speak of Christianity, we have to mean Christianity as an idea or system of beliefs. If this is the case, then our previous train of thought would beg us to look to the true doctrine and intents of Christianity's originators.
Christianity, however, is far more than just a system of beliefs, and is much more than morals and ethos - rather, it is rooted entirely in the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word and God the Son. Do we find the aforementioned evils in line with the person of Christ? On the contrary, we find them opposed to him. Christ commanded his followers, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44). He told the apostles not to subjugate, but to "make disciples" of all nations, and not to do with with fire and sword but with "baptizing" and "teaching" (Matt 28:19-20). Some might jump to where Christ says "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34), but an examination of the fullest context (Matt 10:34-39) shows that Christ is talking about steadfastness against familial pressures to apostatize, not about literal war and violence. Some might still turn to passages where Christ speaks of kings who seek vengeance against ungrateful subjects (cf. Luke 19:27), however these are in reference either to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was brought about by the will of God, or in reference to the final judgment.
The earliest Christian leaders, who were working with the authority given them by Christ and speaking through their inspired texts, likewise show the same non-violent nature as was seen in Christ. The apostles did not win 3,000 converts at Pentecost by force of the sword, but by the grace of God and the power of the Gospel. The apostle Paul himself confirmed that the power of God was not by his ability to compel someone by force or to strike with terrorist tactics, but rather with the Gospel of God (Rom 1:16). He likewise wrote regarding revenge: "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all" (Rom 12:17), and "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone" (1 The 5:15). With this the apostle Peter agreed, writing: "Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing" (1 Pet 3:9).
Let me now dare to go even a step further, and to cite the earliest Christians beyond the apostles, who while not writing inspired text, were nonetheless historical examples of how Christianity closest to Christ interpreted violence and wickedness, especially in the name of their faith. Two choice quotes:
...it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion... [Tertullian, To Scapula, Ch. 2]
Religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows... [Lactatius, Inst. Div. V, 20]
I could go on from here well into the fourth century, with quotes from Church Fathers such as Athanasius and his peers. The earliest persecutions against non-Christians from so-called Christians were not by the church or by true believers, but by Roman emperors seeking to enforce their power, and even then their actions were met with opposition by men such as Athanasius and others.
From this evidence, we can say that those who commit evil in the name of Christ are, in fact, acting contrary to Christ and all which he taught, and against the example set by the earliest Christians. Some here, of course, may predictably turn to the Old Testament and attempt to find examples, such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the destruction of the Amorites. The vast majority of the time, however, these situations are misrepresented or misunderstood. For example, those who accuse God of cruelty in His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah forget that, in the dialogue between the Lord and Abraham regarding the cities, God makes it clear that if there are ten righteous people in the city he will spare everyone (Gen 18:22-32). Also, those who turn to the destruction of the Amorites forget that this destruction was God's judgment upon them for their sins, and that God had earlier spared the Amorites because their "iniquity" was not yet "complete" (Gen 15:16). These calls for judgment were also temporal and specific to certain situations - they were not perpetual. The situation within the Old Testament regarding Israel and her actions is also irrelevant to the New Testament period, for we are now under the new covenant, and God has no longer a national Israel to call His people, but the church, the new Israel, made up of Jews and Gentiles, which He calls His people (cf. Rom 9:24-26). All in the Old Testament, in the formation of Israel and the construction of the Holy of Holies and the animal sacrifices, was "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1).
From this we can gather that those who have done evil in the name of Christianity have not been acting in the name of Christianity at all. A study of the motives of those who launched the Crusades shows that their motivations were far more political than religious, and a study of those who commit terrorist-like attacks against abortion clinics are acting unilaterally with their own motives rather than those of scripture. The root cause of their evil, therefore, cannot be attributed to Christianity, and their title of "Christian" or their labeling their efforts as a "Christian cause" is in name only.
In conclusion, we've seen that the statement made at the opening of this post is simply broad brushing in an irrational fashion, and we have seen but one example of how one can examine the earliest motives and doctrines of an individual ideology or idea to see if those who perform evil in the name of an ideology or idea render that ideology or idea guilty.
After the "I hate religion but love Jesus" became viral, it was just a matter of time before people attempted to do their own take on. There was a Roman Catholic version I came across, and then there was this...a Muslim version. The video itself can be watched below:
While I wasn't an overly huge fan of the original video (see here), this video literally made me fall out of my chair (yes, literally). The best way I could sum it up is that it is every bad Muslim argument made against Christianity that has been refuted over a hundred times already. I write that last sentence not to be disrespectful, but to speak plainly - anyone who has studied apologetics against Islam in the past twenty years (indeed, since the time of John Damascene) knows that everything mentioned in this video has already been responded to a thousand times over.
I decided to write a response precisely to give that: a response. This video is not just a "Hey I'm Muslim and this is what I believe," but it's clearly an evangelizing tool to bring people to Islam, and it is specifically aimed against Christians. Therefore, I present this for anyone wondering if what the gentleman says in the video is truthful, or perhaps they just want to see a response from the other side.
Let me give just a few notes on my method for this. I've transcribed the entire video and written down the lyrics, which I'll respond to in piecemeal. As I'll be quoting scripture, I put the lyrics in bold so that people can visually see when I'm quoting the video and when I'm quoting something else. Whenever a passage from the Quran or the Bible is sourced in the video, I'll put it in brackets.
You say Jesus was God, and God had descended We say Jesus was man, for Jesus was dependent
Here's the first sign of a problem: we're dealing with Muslim presupposition versus Christian presupposition.
Some people might read that last sentence and think, "Well duh, genius." There is, however, a point in my making that statement: Muslim comparative religion is an exercise in circular reasoning. In Judeo-Christian history, God always revealed forward: what came before confirmed what came later (for example, Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Christ). In Islam, however, God reveals backwards: all previous revelations (the Bible) must be read in the context of a future revelation (the Quran). The man says "you say...but we say...", and the Muslim point of view is accepted as the accurate one. This, despite the fact that Islam's view of Christ and God's teachings takes place 600-years after the final revelations of God, in a land separated from Christ's people, and dealing with men who had no connection with God's people at all. We are supposed to forgo the writings of men who were eyewitnesses to the events for the opinion of a man who claims to have spoken to an angel and who had no other way of confirming himself except by his own revelations.
Despite what many Muslims might say in regards to Christians and blind faith, all Muslim presupposition boils down to "I believe the Quran is the final revelation because the Quran says so." Whereas Christians can freely look backwards and read the Old Testament in context to confirm gladly the New Testament (just as the apostles did to the Jewish people), Muslims are forced to essentially rewrite and reword the Bible in order to have it fit the Quran. Keep this in mind as we progress through this video, as it will become more and more apparent.
Our God is all great, and cannot be comprehended You say God was murdered - or do you believe that he pretended? You see God gave us brains, and God gave us logic, But I guess God wanted us to use them in everything else except for this topic
I find it interesting that the gentleman in the video leads us to question whether or not God died or "pretended," given that all four gospels (which he will quote from as the video progresses) confirm that Jesus died on the cross (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), something the Quran explicitly denies (S. 4:157). Even secular or non-Christian history is against the Quran on this. For example, the Talmudic traditions concerning Jesus - while denying his messianic status - confirm that he was, indeed, executed.
Yet to get to the heart of the matter, the man asks us "Can God be murdered?" and guesses that God wants us to use our logic on everything except this topic. The very nature of the question, however, comes at the crucifixion from a Gnostic mindset: either Jesus was fully man and could die, or was fully God and couldn't die. He seems to not understand the basics of the hypostatic union, which has been talked about for centuries and which many have used their "logic" to examine and discuss.
The basics of it is this: Christ was fully man and fully God. At the Incarnation, the Son in the Trinity did not cease being God, nor did he become half-man, half-God like the demigods of Greek mythology. The eternal Word took on flesh and dwelt among us, as scripture says:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:14]
The word used for "dwelt" (ἐσκήνωσεν) is the same language used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) in regards to the Tabernacle, the place where God dwelt within the Holy of Holies. Here, now, God dwells among men not in a building, but in Christ, the Incarnate Word.
So yes, it would be impossible for God, as an entire entity, to be murdered - it would not, however, be impossible for the God-man - the eternal God taking on flesh and dwelling among us - to be murdered.
It's like wearing a cross and proclaiming that you love Jesus, Well if God was murdered on the cross, the cross really shouldn't please us I mean would you be wearing an axe if it was used to chop your mother up into pieces? You see this is what happens when you believe in faith but fail to believe in reason
Let's ponder for a moment: what does the cross represent? If all it represented was an empty murder with no meaning, then I suppose the gentleman would have a point. However, that isn't the case: the cross represents the great humility of the Son in the Trinity, and the victory of God over sin, conquering death through death and sanctifying His true chosen people.
Cross symbolism, in fact, did not start with the later Christians, but with Christ himself. He said that those not willing to take up their cross and follow him were not worthy to be believers (Matt 10:38; Luke 14:27). He said those desiring to follow him had to take up their cross (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). The earliest Christians spoke of the power of the cross (1 Cor 1:17; Gal 6:14), and said that by it we are reconciled to God (Eph 2:16; Col 1:20). So the cross as symbol was not an invention 200 years after Christ nor 2000 years after Christ - it was right there in the midst of Christ's ministry and the early church itself.
I will concede there are those who wear the cross and blaspheme doing so. Many celebrities and false Christians wear the cross yet knowingly act against for what it stands, and thus they quite literally "walk as enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phi 3:18). Many more treat the cross as a kind of idol, forgetting he who died upon it and what that death stood for. That does not, however, mean the use of cross as symbolism is in and of itself disrespectful to God, as if we are enjoying the murder rather than what came about from that murder.
Permit me to put it another way. When I go to the Vietnam Wall and run my fingers along the names imprinted there, I am not doing so to glorify death and destruction in war, nor am I doing so because I believe running my finger along a few names is going to do something magical or spiritual to the person whose name that represents. Rather, I do it out of respect for what that wall represents. I run a finger along a name and act in a respectful manner because I recognize behind that name was an individual like myself (if not younger than my current age) who made the ultimate sacrifice which I could never imagine giving myself. I recognize that the wall represents a memorial to those who died during the war, and I honor it as much as I can in that regard.
In like manner do I glorify in the cross. I do not do so because putting two sticks together will heal me of diseases, or because I think it's cool that Romans used to drive nails through people's bodies. Rather, I glorify in the cross because it was on that cross another person took the full brunt of God's wrath on my behalf and paid in full the debt that was owed to God for my sins.
You see we used to worship the creator until Satan turned us to the creation We began to worship the people, and neglect the one who made them
On the contrary, we don't worship creature over creation, because the Son of the Trinity is not creation. That was the position of some historical heresies, such as Arianism (which believed the Father created the Son), but not historical Christianity. Scripture confirms that the Son coexisted with the Father before all existence - indeed, it was through the Son that creation came into being. Scripture tells us:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:1-3]
Christ himself confirmed this - first to the Jews, by confirming that he held an eternal nature similar to God:
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [John 8:58]
And then in his prayers to the Father:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." [John 17:5]
No mere creature would ever speak this way. If they did, then they were either serious about what they said, or they were great blasphemers (as the Jews thought Jesus was in John 8:58). If, however, Christ was serious in saying what he said, then Christians are in their perfect rights to worship him, and not as creature but as eternal creator.
We begin to believe that God had died, but how can a god even be created?
This was the first sign to me that the gentleman in the video either has absolutely no idea what Christians have already said in response to these kinds of arguments, or he is completely ignoring them. No one believes that God was "created," either at the incarnation or elsewhere. Various heresies throughout history have often taught that (for example, Arianism), but that is not what historical Christianity has believed. Neither God nor the Trinitarian Son came into existence at the incarnation (see previous responses). To argue this way is to misunderstand what Christians believe.
A miraculous birth, and therefore the Son of God was begotten See, the creation of Jesus was easy, but you seem to have forgotten That God says "Be," and it is, just like with Adam, [S. 3:59] A concept too complex for the church to merely fathom
I believe what the gentleman is trying to argue here is that you don't have to be God to be virgin born, but God can just make a man born if He so wills this. This is certainly true, but in arguing this way he ignores everything in scripture that attests to the deity of he who was incarnated, as well as Christ's own statements regarding his eternal nature (again, see my responses above). Whether or not God could make a man be virgin born is not an issue to anyone, and therefore to argue this way is just a non sequitor.
By the way, I find it interesting the gentleman says the incarnation was "a concept too complex for the church to merely fathom," when I highly doubt this man has read any of the historical Christian works. How many Church Fathers has he read? How many of the Reformers has he read? How many of the most famous Christian theologians in the past 300 years has he read? I invite him to read works on the incarnation by Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Charles Spurgeon, and then tell me that the church is unable to "fathom" the incarnation.
But he was the creator of the universe, for all we know even more And so what if we can't see him, I mean what you acting like, our universe is small? I mean there's still so much we've still yet to explore I mean there's still so many things as human beings we still haven't seen, touched, heard or saw I mean our eyes can't even handle the sight of the sun So how can we possible handle the sight of our Lord?
I would wholeheartedly agree that we cannot fully comprehend God. However, the explicit purpose of Christ is to truly make God known to us. As scripture says:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. [John 1:18]
The language in this passage emphasizes that no one has literally seen God in a deep, knowing sense, but the "only God" (the true meaning of μονογενὴς) who "is at the Father's side" - that is, Christ has a close relationship with the Father, one that emphasizes his coeternal and coexistent nature. This is why Christ, and only Christ, can say "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). No mere prophet could ever make such a claim.
Just to add something else Christians have often brought up: it is somewhat ironic that Muslims claim we can't fully know God on any major level...when Allah has ninety-nine names that describe who he is. Clearly from the Muslim perspective, there is some level by which we can understand God.
You see Jesus used to pray [Matt 26:39], but in your opinion who'd he pray to? I mean if Jesus was God, surely prayer would be of no use
This is a common argument for Muslims to make on the internet, but - like so many others we've already covered - has already been responded to countless times by Christians. What we have here is the presupposition of unitarianism rather than Trinitarianism. That is, we cannot assume it is the Son praying to the Father (as it in fact was); rather, we have to assume Jesus is either completely God, or isn't God at all. This presupposition says that God is one Being and one Person, not God in Trinity. Therefore, it is no surprise for the gentleman to argue that if Christ was God he could not pray, because he is not coming from a Trinitarian mindset wherein the Person of the Son can pray to the Person of the Father.
I am also curious how this gentleman would respond to one of the previously cited verses of scripture, where Jesus prays these words:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." [John 17:5]
Some Muslims are quick to say, "Yeah, but that's still Jesus praying!" They seem to completely ignore what he prayed, which is: 1) a request to be glorified alongside God the Father; 2) a declaration that Christ had this glory before the world existed - in other words, before creation. What mere creature would dare to ask God to glorify them along his side, and then declare that they had this same glory before all creation even existed? Again, if Jesus was a mere prophet, then he was a great blasphemer. If, however, he was the divine Son within the Trinity, and was praying to the Father within the Trinity, then all of this makes perfect sense.
In fact, John 17:5, along with John 8:58, are two passages of scripture to which I have yet to see Muslims give an adequate response. What these verses say is crystal clear, and only with blind eyes can one ignore the truth therein.
Or did he only require it when he needed to know the truth? Like when God wasn't sure if it was the season of the fruit? [Mark 11:12-14]
This is another popular argument for some Muslims, and is known by Christian apologists as the "fig tree argument." The idea is that if Jesus is God, he must be omniscient, and if he's omniscient, then surely he must have known that it wasn't the season for fig trees.
This argument, however, blinds us to the larger picture. That the fig tree had leaves (v. 13) suggests that it should have had fruit. The fig tree was also a popular representation of Israel (Isa 5:1-7), which was, by then, supposed to have born fruit of repentance and accepted the Messiah. The condemnation of not bearing fruit was representational of what would eventually happen to the nation of Israel, which was they would be punished for their unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, and the fruits of God's favor would be given to someone else (Matt 21:43). This is the significance of the gospel writers mentioning it was not the season of figs; the fig tree itself represented something far greater, and Christ's omniscience was completely irrelevant.
We can see a similar lesson in the parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6-9). There, a man has a fig tree that has not born fruit (representing the search for repentance among Israel). He mentions that he has sought fruit for three years from the tree and found none (representing the three years of Christ's ministry). The vinedresser asks to dig around it and put in manure (representing the preaching of the gospel), and if it does not bear fruit, then it can be cut down (representing the coming judgment of the Jewish nation with the destruction of Jerusalem). As with the previous fig tree, this too represents Israel and God's search for those who would turn away from their sins, and if the people as a whole reject God, then they shall bear no more fruit.
Or maybe he prayed when there was something he couldn't do Like when he said "I, of myself can do nothing," but you took it as "There's nothing he couldn't do" [John 5:30]
John 5:30 is a popular passage for Muslims on the internet to throw around to attempt to show that Jesus was merely a man. The problem is that it ignores the much larger context of what Christ is talking about. It's a pretty big chunk of scripture, so please bear with me here. In the end, it will show us the full context of what Jesus is saying. Shortly after the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda, the following occurs:
The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this is was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who send me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
"I can do nothing on my own..." [John 5:15-30]
Now let's review the true context of Christ's statement "I can do nothing on my own."
Jesus has just healed a man, and has done so on the Sabbath. This was a violation of resting on the Sabbath, as God had ordered his people to rest in honor of the climax of creation, and hence the Jewish leaders believed this was the perfect chance to end Christ's ministry (v. 16). Jesus tells them something you would never tell devout Jews regarding your working on the Sabbath: "My Father is working until now, and I am working" (v. 17). What does this verse mean? Obviously, the only being in the universe permitted to continue working on the Sabbath was God, and Christ just said, "Just as my Father (God) is working, so too am I working." Christ just put himself on equal with God.
Those who want to soften the impact of this, or deny the verse is saying that, forget that in the very next verse John signifies this is exactly what Christ is saying. He says that "the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (v. 18). Christ was not calling God "Father" in any kind of metaphorical sense, as clarified by the wording "his own." John doesn't clarify they were mistaken, as he does with other sayings of Christ (see John 2:20-21) - rather, he states this matter of factly, demonstrating that, yes, this was in fact what Christ was doing, and it was upsetting the Jews greatly.
Christ then goes into one of the seven great monologues of John's gospel, with Christ saying "the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing," adding: "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise" (v. 19). Now wait a minute...what creature can say that? If Jesus is talking about God here, then he just stated that whatever God does, he can do too. Again, the Jews were right - Jesus was making himself equal with God.
We see this again two verses later with Christ's statement: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will" (v. 21). Now the Son, Jesus, is saying that, like the Father, he can raise the dead and give life. Again, what mere creature or mere prophet can talk this way? Could Mohammad say, "Just as Allah raises the dead and gives them life, so too can I give life to whom I will"?
We see this yet again: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (v. 22-23). Some Muslims might quickly say, "Yes, you're supposed to honor God's prophets," but that is not what Christ is talking about here. Christ is stressing that honoring him and honoring God are the same thing. They're two sides of the same coin. Obviously there are many people in my life that I honor - my parents, the police, military servicemen, the president, etc. - but none of them do I honor in the same way I honor God.
We see this yet again with: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself" (v. 26). Christ is stating that, just as God the Father has life in himself, so too does he, the the Son, have life in himself. Again, no mere creature can say that, and no mere prophet would say that.
At long last, we've come to verse 30, where Christ says, "I can do nothing on my own." Yet what is the full context? Is Christ saying he's weaker than the Father? On the contrary! Christ is telling the Jews that his healings, his teachings, and everything he does is not something he's done on his own unilateral accord - rather, he and the Father are working together with equal authority and power. Christ's statement "I can do nothing on my own" is treated as a sign of weakness, and yet it is perhaps one of the greatest statements of his power and divinity in scripture!
You see no one used to worship Jesus, so ask yourself why do you A concept so straightforward, but has left so many confused
"No one used to worship Jesus?" Really? Why do the disciples worship him after the he calms the storm? (Matt 14:33) Why do the women worship him after the resurrection? (Matt 28:9) Why do the disciples worship him after the resurrection? (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:52) Why does the man born blind worship him? (John 9:38) Why does the apostle Thomas identify Christ as his Lord and his God? (John 20:28)
Here is the funny thing about all these incidents...in not one does Christ tell the person, "Stop! Worship God alone, not me!" We find precedence for this elsewhere in scripture: Peter accosts Cornelius for worshiping him (Acts 10:25-26); Paul and Barnabas get upset with the Greeks of Lystra because they mistake them for Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14:11-15); an angel accosts the apostle John for worshiping him (Rev 19:10) - in fact, this happens twice (Rev 22:8-9).
Here we have several occurrence where biblical characters openly rebuked others for worshiping someone other than God. Yet when we look at the instances where Christ was worshiped by others, Christ did not stop them, rebuke them, or even gently reprimand them. In other words, three apostles and an angel are all able to tell someone not to worship them, and yet one of the greatest prophets (according to Islam) never did so. We can only come to two conclusions: either Christ was a false prophet who accepted worship meant for God, or Christ did not stop these individuals from worshiping him because he was deserving of worship.
So you see, this concept is straightforward, but the only time people become confused is when we introduce extra-biblical concepts, such as those in the Quran.
You see Jesus preached one God [Isa 45:5], but the church has failed to practice And I mean you don't have to be that dumb to know that one plus one plus one equaling one isn't necessarily going to give you a pass in mathematics
Quite frankly, here is the part where I wanted to bang my head, hard, against my computer desk. The gentleman in the video just pulled the "one plus one plus one doesn't equal one" fallacy. However, no knowledgeable Christian throughout history has ever argued that one plus one plus one equals one. God is one Being (monotheism) revealed through three distinct but unified Persons (Trinitarianism). The historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity from the time of Christ has always been that there is one Being of God revealed through three individual Persons connected by a unified Essence. These are not three gods, and to continue arguing that way is simply to ignore what Christians have been saying for over 2000 years.
To my Muslim friends, let me be frank: this might win you points if you're trying to look good in front of other Muslims, and it might get you views for your video, but if you're trying to open dialogue with a Christian - and I mean meaningful, serious dialogue - don't resort to this sort of thing.
You see the church said three, and Jesus said one Jesus said God, and the church said Son
On the contrary, Christians have been saying "one" for thousands of years. The Nicene Creed, formed in the early fourth century, opens up with the words: "I believe in one God." The only person who claimed otherwise was the writer of the Quran, who clearly did not understand the Trinity in any way, shape or form. For a greater discussion on this, please see this post.
Jesus never said worship me, rather he said pray [Matt 6:6] But you've chosen to worship Jesus despite everything He used to say
Here we have the repetition of the old Ahmed Deedat argument, "Jesus never said, 'Worship me.'" Is this the case? We've already seen (in the previous responses) that Jesus fully accepted worship aimed at him while others rejected worship aimed towards them. Even if Christ never said "Worship me," he never once condemned the act of doing so.
In regards to Matthew 6:6, this is simply a command from Christ to pray with humility, rather than the hypocrites among the Jewish leadership who prayed openly to be seen and adored by men (see Matthew 6:5-8 for a full context). It is true that Christ told his followers to pray, but that was not all that he said (we'll get to that later on).
You began to think with your emotion, and forgot to think with your mind I guess you didn't pay attention when Jesus said "Our father," yet never says mine [Matt 6:9]
This was an argument made popular through Khalid Yasin (and I'm sure others), but it's incredibly fallacious. The "our father" is referring to the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus was giving to followers, not Him. Hence the Christ's words "and when you pray" (Matt 6:7).
Also, that Jesus never said "mine" in regards to the Father is simply erroneous. One need only find a scripture search engine and type in "my father" for the New Testament to see this is completely incorrect. Heck, just read the fifth chapter of John's gospel and count how many times Christ says "my father." This kind of great error is an ironic one to make when we are told in the same breath to "think with our mind."
You claim to be a follower of Christ, yet you still choose to eat swine [Deu 14:8]
That's because Jesus said himself that it wasn't what entered a man that defiled him, but what came out, for it revealed their heart (Mark 7:18-19). It is then added in verse 19: "Thus he declared all foods clean." We see this likewise in Acts, when God tells the apostle Peter regarding animals: "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15). The reason for this change was that with the coming of Christ came the new covenant, wherein the Law was written upon your heart and not upon tablets, and the ritual laws of old Israel (including the dietary laws) were no longer relevant.
So yes, sir, I am a follower of Christ and I choose to eat swine, because both the Father and Son have said my salvation is not in jeopardy for doing so.
And you call yourselves Christians, but in your churches you're busy drinking wine [Lev 10:9-11]
First, what kind of statement is that? "Busy drinking wine"? That makes it sound like Christians get drunk during Sunday services, which is a complete straw man, and quite frankly a disrespectful one. Also, the only churches with wine are those denominations that use wine for communion. Many Protestant churches today use grape juice, so for a large portion of this man's target audience, that statement is completely irrelevant.
Second, Leviticus 10 is regarding the Nazirites, a special branch of religious Jews who let their hair grow and abstained from wine and other practices. It is not talking about all believers. Nowhere does scripture give a complete prohibition on alcohol or wine as Islam does - in fact, some passages of scripture clearly have God saying it is all right to drink wine. In one of the passages speaking of the tithe, it reads:
"Then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household." [Deu 14:25-26]
Either there is a contradiction in God's word, or the gentleman in the video has used the Leviticus passage out of context. Given the proper context of both, we have to go with the latter option.
And just to clarify, I do love Jesus, matter of fact I love him more than you Because when Jesus said do something, I actually do
Oh really? Is that so? You know, this statement reminds me of someone else - another young gentleman who actually met and spoke to Jesus. One account of the story:
And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. [Matt 19:16-22]
The man comes before Jesus and asks about eternal life. Christ reminds him about the commandments, which the man boldly proclaims he has done. Like the young man in the video, this young man would likewise say, "When Jesus said do something, I actually do it!" Yet Christ then adds something: give up everything and follow him. Not God, but Jesus. The man refuses to do so because of his wealthy possessions - a sign that all he had claimed to have done before was an out and out lie. Indeed, it is impossible for anyone to perfectly follow God. This is why, in the verses following, you have the disciples lamenting, "Who then can be saved?" to which Christ replies, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt 19:25-26).
Let me now ask the gentleman in the video: you say that you love Jesus more than Christians because when Jesus says "do something," you actually "do." All right, have you ever been angry with your fellow believers? Christ says that makes you guilty of murder (Matt 5:21-22). Have you ever looked at a woman with lust? Christ says that makes you guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28). So according to Christ's own words, you have not done all the things you've claimed to have done. Before the eyes of God, my friend, you are not a doer, but a sinner.
I am not writing this out of a spirit of self-righteousness. I myself am guilty of both of those a thousand times over and so much more. If I was reliant upon my doing alone, I would be on a one-way trip to hell, and God would have every right to do so. The fact is anyone who says they are a true doer of what God commands are themselves a liar, and deceive themselves (1 John 1:8).
You see, I would love to be able to never, ever get angry with my brother again, or never look at a woman with lust again, but I know, because I was born in sin and iniquity (Psa 51:5), that this is just an impossibility. I want to do good, but the evil inside me compels me to continue sinning (Rom 7:19). That is why I can proudly declare, along with the apostle Paul: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom 7:24-25)
However, I'm not connected with the church, or with the Bible, See I love Jesus as my prophet, but refuse to worship him as an idol Just like he wants it, and proclaims it as sin [Exo 20:4] So it doesn't really matter if they don't let him in Because Jesus wouldn't even want to be in the presence of people worshiping an idol of him
I find it interesting the gentleman says he's not connected "with the Bible." Does the Quran not confirm that God sent down the Torat (Torah) and Injil (Gospel) to the people to be used by them as a clear message? (S. 3:3) Does the Quran not say Mohammad is confirmed in the Torat and Injil? (S. 7:157) Hasn't this gentleman been quoting the Bible this entire time to confirm what he believes? Doesn't he cite the Bible just two verses later?
The video here cuts to a news footage of lightning striking a statue of Jesus, apparently as a suggestion that it was an act of God. However, giant statues of Jesus cannot be used to attack Christian worship of Jesus. There is a world of difference between Christian worship of Christ as the Eternal Son and the abuses that might stem from that. It is comparable, say, to the Muslim's respect of the Quran and abuses that might stem from that.
Before I move on, there's something I need to mention The worshiping of Jesus is a man-made invention He never asked for your worship so he can grant you protection Rather he asked you to alternate your prayers towards another direction
Here we have the (unfortunately common) case of Muslim apologetics: ignore practically all of Christ's message and focus only on his monotheistic message. Did Christ teach there was only one God? Of course he did - but we do a dishonor to anyone if we focus solely on one aspect of their overall message. To do so is like saying Abraham Lincoln only wrote the Gettysburg Address to remind people how old America was.
So what else did Christ teach? He taught that he was to die and be resurrected for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47). He taught that those who believe in he himself would not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16) and would not be condemned (John 3:18). He taught that he himself was the resurrection and the life, and that those who believe in him would never perish but have eternal life (John 11:25-26). He taught that he himself was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one came to the Father but through him alone (John 14:6).
Many of these teachings are things the Jews had previously only attributed to God, and which Muslims would most certainly only attribute to God. Which mere prophet ever said belief in him, and not God, was mandatory for eternal life? Which mere prophet taught that he himself, not God, was the resurrection and the life, and that belief in him, not God, was dependent for eternal life? Which mere prophet taught that he himself, not God, was the way, the truth, and the life?
You see, when you isolate part of a man's message and ignore everything else he said, it's easy to warp it into whatever you desire it to be. Yes, Christ did come to tell us to alternate our prayers towards another direction, but he said: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40). Christ himself is asking people to look towards him, and only then will they find eternal life. Again, what mere prophet ever spoke this way?
To God and God only and pray that he accepts them
This part stuck out to me. Whether or not the gentleman intended it to be this way, it was worded interestingly. He says that we should pray to God and "pray that he accepts them." So I am first to pray to God, then I am supposed to pray God accepts my prayers? Might I ask where the hope in this is? That's like saying you have to pay $100 to the court for a speeding ticket, then pay them another $100 in the hopes that they'll accept your previous payment.
This reminds me of an encounter John MacArthur had with a Muslim man on an airplane. When MacArthur asked the man if he sinned, the man said yes, and that he was actually on his way to meet a woman and possibly sin some more. When MacArthur asked the man if God would forgive him for his sins, the man replied, "I hope so."
And know that just because you love Jesus doesn't mean he feels the same way about your affection See what you believe in is exactly what he resented, matter of fact it's everything he despised See the worshiping of creation went against the very message he supplied
On the contrary, what I and many other Christians do is exactly what he asked us to do. We've clearly seen that in the previous responses.
So you began to follow a religion and call it love in disguise Because love can be good, but love can be blind
I agree love can be blind, but love of Christ is not the kind of blindness we have seen in this video. No, my friend, there is a different kind of blindness here. Blindness is ignoring what the other side has said for thousands of years. Blindness is accepting the teachings of a prophet unconditionally, even when his teachings clearly contradict all the revelations that came before him. Blindness is picking and choosing verses, ignoring their true context, and ignoring all the verses that contradict your entire theology. Blindness is focusing only on the part of a person's message that you choose to accept.
To any Muslim reading this post, let me say that this video does not teach you anything edifying nor truthful. I encourage you to truly read God's word (not just peruse a search engine or look for verses that prove your point) and study what He says therein. You will find that Christ is God, that he is Judge, and that one day every tongue will confess and every knee will bow and acknowledge God as Lord - not as prophet, nor as simply messiah, but as Lord. This will be done either out of love, or out of shock and awe. For those who embrace him as Lord and God in this life - as the apostle Thomas did - they will have life everlasting, and will be forgiven for their sins thanks to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. If, however, you are outside of Christ, you will be judged for all your sins, and God will judge righteously.
I hope and pray that God uses this post to edify the people of God, and I hope and pray that Muslims who read this come to a knowledge of the truth. If you are Muslim and reading this, I pray that - even if we never get to meet face to face in this life - we get to meet face to face after the resurrection, in the company of Christ. God bless.
There was a video being shown around the Twitter and Facebook circle, saying that Jesus hates religion, and that Jesus was different than religion (you can see it here). I never contributed to its viral popularity because, while I understand where the gentleman was coming from, there was something about it that didn't sit right to me. To say "Jesus hates religion" or to oppose the word "religion" seemed a bit too extreme a reaction to the extreme position many people take.
But Kevin DeYoung has managed to put all the problems I was having with the video in coherent, educated terms, which he wrote in the following article. So...I'll just let him do the talking. See the link below:
EDIT - JANUARY 17, 2012: Small update to report. Mr. DeYoung and the gentleman who made the video have come to an agreement of sorts. This is how discussions in the body of Christ should go - oh how easy it is for some to just pull the Pharisee card...
