The first inalienable, or God given right, mentioned in the document that founded our nation, the Declaration of Independence, is the right to life. My question is: If the right to life is a God given right, then is it proper for the government of a Republic founded on such a principle to use taxpayer money to fund the killing of the unborn?
That is exactly what our government is doing as it uses public money to fund Planned Parenthood to the tune of $360 million dollars a year. Republicans recently had a chance to strip this funding from the 20011 budget but, alas, caved in to the Democrats and allowed the funding to remain.
Planned Parenthood claims that abortions only make up about 3 percent of its total services, but as it turns out, that is a complete lie. In 2009, it provided 332,278 abortions, more that a quarter of all abortions performed in the US that year and a 14.7 increase over 2006. Planned Parenthood also provided prenatal services to 7,022 women and referred just 977 for adoption. It provided abortion services to over 97 percent of its pregnant clients in 2009.
Why the discrepancy between their claim of 3 percent and the actual facts? The claim is a gimmick. The group skews the numbers by counting individual appointments as multiple visits ranging anywhere from 5 to 20. This waters down the percentage of abortions as Planned Parenthood tries to appear to be merely a prenatal health care provider. It doesn' work for anyone who takes a closer look. For every adoption referral in 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 340 abortions. Providing abortion services is the group's reason for existence.
If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then no excuse is necessary. If it is the taking of a human life, then no excuse is sufficient. Any biology 101 student knows that life begins at conception, so what is our government doing in aiding the killing of the most innocent among us?
Friday, May 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Is Easter True?
Millions of Christians, all over the world, just celebrated the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If Jesus did, in fact, bodily rise from the dead, then it is the most significant event in human history, and one's response to it has eternal implications.
This week take the opportunity to use this as a conversation starter with non-believing friends. First note that the celebration took place, then ask, "I was wondering, do you think Easter is true?" If they respond in the negative, they are in good company, because in the beginning, the women at the tomb and the disciples did not believe it either. Ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" More importantly, listen to the answer, as it will reveal a lot about their thought process.
A good follow up question to any non-believer is, "What if you are wrong?" Some will get defensive and ask you, the believer, "Well, how do you know you're right?" Scripture says that we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us and to do it with gentleness and respect. The proper response is, "Well, what proof would you accept?" An answer of, "There is no proof", indicates that you are wasting your time, but a positive response, opens the door for you to explain your reasons for believing.
When we are talking to non-believers, we have to remember that while we can introduce scripture at some point, they will not be familiar with the Bible or necessarily look at it as an authority, so our arguments must sometimes appeal to them on another basis.
One of the best defenses is to look at Scripture as history, (there are extra-Biblical sources to back it up) and explain that the best evidence of the truth of the resurrection is the changed lives of the apostles. Immediately after Jesus was crucified, they went into hiding in Jerusalem in fear of their lives. On the third day after the resurrection, they emerged as the boldest witnesses the world has ever seen, proclaiming that they had seen, touched and talked with the risen Christ.
Were they lying? A reasonable man would say no. Every apostle except John, who was exiled to Patmos, went to his death never changing his story. Now a man may die for a lie, but a man will never die for what he knows is a lie.
Chuck Colson, one of the Watergate conspirators, likes to say that he knows a thing or two about conspiracies. Some of the most powerful men in the world were involved in the Watergate cover up, yet it only took two weeks for John Dean to break and confess to the crime, implicating the others and they weren't even threatened with death. If the resurrection of Jesus had been a conspiracy, one of the disciples would have broken and spilled the beans. None did. All went to their deaths proclaiming the risen Savior. Christ changed their lives and He has been changing lives ever since.
Remember, no matter how the conversation with your friend turns out, the goal is to get them to meet Jesus, not convert them to your opinion or even to win the argument.
This week take the opportunity to use this as a conversation starter with non-believing friends. First note that the celebration took place, then ask, "I was wondering, do you think Easter is true?" If they respond in the negative, they are in good company, because in the beginning, the women at the tomb and the disciples did not believe it either. Ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" More importantly, listen to the answer, as it will reveal a lot about their thought process.
A good follow up question to any non-believer is, "What if you are wrong?" Some will get defensive and ask you, the believer, "Well, how do you know you're right?" Scripture says that we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us and to do it with gentleness and respect. The proper response is, "Well, what proof would you accept?" An answer of, "There is no proof", indicates that you are wasting your time, but a positive response, opens the door for you to explain your reasons for believing.
When we are talking to non-believers, we have to remember that while we can introduce scripture at some point, they will not be familiar with the Bible or necessarily look at it as an authority, so our arguments must sometimes appeal to them on another basis.
One of the best defenses is to look at Scripture as history, (there are extra-Biblical sources to back it up) and explain that the best evidence of the truth of the resurrection is the changed lives of the apostles. Immediately after Jesus was crucified, they went into hiding in Jerusalem in fear of their lives. On the third day after the resurrection, they emerged as the boldest witnesses the world has ever seen, proclaiming that they had seen, touched and talked with the risen Christ.
Were they lying? A reasonable man would say no. Every apostle except John, who was exiled to Patmos, went to his death never changing his story. Now a man may die for a lie, but a man will never die for what he knows is a lie.
Chuck Colson, one of the Watergate conspirators, likes to say that he knows a thing or two about conspiracies. Some of the most powerful men in the world were involved in the Watergate cover up, yet it only took two weeks for John Dean to break and confess to the crime, implicating the others and they weren't even threatened with death. If the resurrection of Jesus had been a conspiracy, one of the disciples would have broken and spilled the beans. None did. All went to their deaths proclaiming the risen Savior. Christ changed their lives and He has been changing lives ever since.
Remember, no matter how the conversation with your friend turns out, the goal is to get them to meet Jesus, not convert them to your opinion or even to win the argument.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The Value of Life
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.--Psalm 139:13
The news out of Europe is that scientists have developed a test whereby they can diagnose Down Syndrome by giving a simple blood test to a pregnant woman. The test results were published in the online journal, Nature Medicine, suggesting that scientists can spot Down Syndrome through fetal DNA that has been shed into the mother's bloodstream.
This is being hailed as good news because it may result in avoiding the necessity of taking a sample of amniotic fluid, which carries the risk of causing a miscarriage, to make a firm diagnosis.
Now I am all for safety in medicine, but I find this news highly disturbing. I can only think of one reason for testing in the first place and that is that doctors will encourage the parents of a potentially Down child to abort the pregnancy.
We are already in an age where we end human life in the womb simply because the child will not be born with our idea of perfection? Where will such thinking end? I think one only has to look to Nazi Germany, whose citizens started out going down this same path, to see our future. A future where life is valuable only because it fits someone's idea of what is acceptable.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Stewardship, what stewardship?
Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.--1 Corinthians 4:2
The definition of a steward is one who manages the money or property belonging to another. Now in our republican form of government, we elect representatives to manage the dollars that we tax payers send them--to put them to good use in "providing for the common welfare". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are not doing so hot.
If Congress continues business as usual, we are headed for bankruptcy and an economy that will make the current recession seem like good times. The CBO says that the government will incur a record deficit of $1.5 trillion in 20011, causing the debt to rise to $10.4 trillion. Within 10 years, the debt is expected to rise to $18.3 trillion.
Now to most, these are just abstract numbers with no real meaning. To get a visual idea of what a trillion dollars looks like and to put it in perspective, go to Page Tutor. com.
No one could have come up with a better plan to destroy the national economy and relegate the nation to third world status.
The definition of a steward is one who manages the money or property belonging to another. Now in our republican form of government, we elect representatives to manage the dollars that we tax payers send them--to put them to good use in "providing for the common welfare". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they are not doing so hot.
If Congress continues business as usual, we are headed for bankruptcy and an economy that will make the current recession seem like good times. The CBO says that the government will incur a record deficit of $1.5 trillion in 20011, causing the debt to rise to $10.4 trillion. Within 10 years, the debt is expected to rise to $18.3 trillion.
Now to most, these are just abstract numbers with no real meaning. To get a visual idea of what a trillion dollars looks like and to put it in perspective, go to Page Tutor. com.
No one could have come up with a better plan to destroy the national economy and relegate the nation to third world status.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
It's Never Just the Economy, Stupid
In a speech delivered on January 7, 2011 for the "First Principles on First Fridays" lecture series sponsored by Hillsdale College's Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, outlined three serious threats to national security. While pointing out that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail, Mr. Kennedy presents a case for Islam being one of those serious threats. Below are excerpts from Mr. Kennedy's speech:
"Let me begin with Islam. We were assured that is was a religion of peace immediately following September 11........Unfortunately Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.
Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teaching of its founder Muhammad........Islam teaches that to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran's 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by death.
Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Median in 622 A.D. Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam's peacefulness.
Sura 9, verse 5 reads: "Fight and slay the unbelievers where ever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them........"
Sura 9, verse 29, reads: "Fight those who believe not in Allah not the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the book until they pay the jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued".
Sura 5, verse 51, reads: "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust".
And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctrine of taqiyya, which holds that Muslims should not b e friends with the infidel except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying him.
It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran. In response, I assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail. So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here and abroad , who actively seek the destruction of America.
Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations. These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. But let me quote from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorists funding. It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in 1987. It speaks of "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is."
Elsewhere this document says: "The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes........
........Consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center. Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Among all participants in the survey, five percent........150,000--said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.
Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security. It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim--indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse..........."
It seems that we are signing our death warrant with the pen of political correctness.
"Let me begin with Islam. We were assured that is was a religion of peace immediately following September 11........Unfortunately Mr. Bush was trying to understand Islam as we would like it to be rather than how countless devout Muslims understand it.
Organizationally, Islam is built around a belief in God or Allah, but it is equally a political ideology organized around the Koran and the teaching of its founder Muhammad........Islam teaches that to disagree with or even reinterpret the Koran's 6000 odd verses, organized into 114 chapters or Suras and dealing as fully with law and politics as with matters of faith, is punishable by death.
Islamic authorities of all the major branches of Islam hold that the Koran must be read so that the parts written last override the others. This so-called theory of abrogation means that the ruling parts of the Koran are those written after Muhammad went to Median in 622 A.D. Specifically, they are Suras 9 and 5, which are not the Suras containing the verses often cited as proof of Islam's peacefulness.
Sura 9, verse 5 reads: "Fight and slay the unbelievers where ever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them........"
Sura 9, verse 29, reads: "Fight those who believe not in Allah not the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the 40 people of the book until they pay the jizya with will submission, and feel themselves subdued".
Sura 5, verse 51, reads: "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust".
And Sura 3, verse 28, introduces the doctrine of taqiyya, which holds that Muslims should not b e friends with the infidel except as deception, always with the end goal of converting, subduing, or destroying him.
It is often said that to point out these verses is to cherry pick unfairly the most violent parts of the Koran. In response, I assert that we must try to understand Muslims as they understand themselves. And I hasten to add that the average American Muslim does not understand the Koran with any level of detail. So I am not painting a picture here of the average Muslim. I am trying to understand those Muslims, both here and abroad , who actively seek the destruction of America.
Here at home, the threat is posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizational arms, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the various Muslim student associations. These groups seek to persuade Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. But let me quote from a document obtained during the 2007 Holy Land Trial investigating terrorists funding. It is a Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Memorandum on North American Affairs that was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference in 1987. It speaks of "Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is."
Elsewhere this document says: "The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikhwan [the Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes........
........Consider a 2007 survey of American Muslim opinion conducted by the Pew Research Center. Eight percent of American Muslims who took part in this survey said they believed that suicide bombing can sometimes be justified in defense of Islam. Even accepting a low estimate of three million Muslims in the U.S., this would mean that 240,000 among us hold that suicide bombing in the name of Islam can be justified. Among American Muslims 18-29 years old, 15 percent agreed with that and 60 percent said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and Americans second. Among all participants in the survey, five percent........150,000--said they had a favorable view of al Qaeda.
Given these numbers, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the political aims and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood represent a domestic threat to national security. It is one thing to have hundreds of terrorist sympathizers within our borders, but quite another if that number is in the hundreds of thousands. Consider the massacre at Fort Hood: Major Nidal Malik Hasan believed that he was acting as a devout Muslim--indeed, he believed he was obeying a religious mandate to wage war against his fellow soldiers. Yet even to raise the question of whether Islam presents a domestic threat today is to invite charges of bigotry or worse..........."
It seems that we are signing our death warrant with the pen of political correctness.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Threat of Islam
Mindy Beltz tells the interconnected story of Asia Bibi and Salman Taseer in the January 29 issue of World magazine that reveals the face of Islam and it is not pretty.
On Nov. 8, 2010, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy. This mother of five had been asked by Muslim co-workers to fetch water and then was told that it was unclean because she was a Christian. Her crime? Remarking that, "Aren't we all humans?" For this she was tried and found guilty for insulting the prophet Muhammad. Taseer who was governor of the' Province, defended Bibi, calling the blasphemy law "a black law". Muslim religious leaders rose up in venomous opposition, declaring that Taseer had forfeited his status as a Muslim and calling for his removal as governor.
Taseer did not back down, defying the Mullahs, and was shot dead by one of his bodyguards. 50,000 protesters demonstrated on behalf of the killer and close to 300 lawyers want to defend him. Taseer, who was educated in the West, suffered the consequences of expressing his opinion in a Muslim world that brooks no dissent.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws have only been on the books since 1980's. The laws, rooted in the Quran, are backed by clergy and scholars who spread violence toward anyone who dares question the tenants of Islam.
The West has to wake up to the fact that the threat to its existence is not radical Islam, it is not Islamic jihadists, it is not Mulims per se, the threat is Islam itself. This is a political-religious system in which government cannot be separated from the religion. A system that requires absolute adherence, does not tolerate individual thought or expression and will resort to violence to make authoritarian government the rule.
We cannot afford to continue condemning acts of terror while not honestly confronting the ideology behind them. We do so at our peril. So far, in the United States, we are fortunate that Muslims compose a minute part of the population, but we only have to look to Europe to see what our future looks like if we don't acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.
On Nov. 8, 2010, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy. This mother of five had been asked by Muslim co-workers to fetch water and then was told that it was unclean because she was a Christian. Her crime? Remarking that, "Aren't we all humans?" For this she was tried and found guilty for insulting the prophet Muhammad. Taseer who was governor of the' Province, defended Bibi, calling the blasphemy law "a black law". Muslim religious leaders rose up in venomous opposition, declaring that Taseer had forfeited his status as a Muslim and calling for his removal as governor.
Taseer did not back down, defying the Mullahs, and was shot dead by one of his bodyguards. 50,000 protesters demonstrated on behalf of the killer and close to 300 lawyers want to defend him. Taseer, who was educated in the West, suffered the consequences of expressing his opinion in a Muslim world that brooks no dissent.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws have only been on the books since 1980's. The laws, rooted in the Quran, are backed by clergy and scholars who spread violence toward anyone who dares question the tenants of Islam.
The West has to wake up to the fact that the threat to its existence is not radical Islam, it is not Islamic jihadists, it is not Mulims per se, the threat is Islam itself. This is a political-religious system in which government cannot be separated from the religion. A system that requires absolute adherence, does not tolerate individual thought or expression and will resort to violence to make authoritarian government the rule.
We cannot afford to continue condemning acts of terror while not honestly confronting the ideology behind them. We do so at our peril. So far, in the United States, we are fortunate that Muslims compose a minute part of the population, but we only have to look to Europe to see what our future looks like if we don't acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Are All Religions Equally True?
Professor Larry Timbs of Winthrop University has written that in one of his courses there is a discussion taking place of an article entitled "Religious Diversity". He refers to a passage in the article that makes the claim that "being a Christian does not commit one to to the view that all other religions are completely wrong". I would agree with that statement, provided that the word "completely" is emphasized.
Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process. The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.
Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place". The conclusion that he draws from the story is a polar opposite of the conclusion that I would draw. To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths. Never mind that, in the story, each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church. Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.
When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth.
Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity. For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.
The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected. Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others. Those claims cannot both be true.
Islam rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts. If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.
The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin. For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation. These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.
Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion. Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder. Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine". Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life." If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ. That is why it is non-negotiable".
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.
The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
Peter Kreeft is right. The question of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ. C.S. Lewis is right. Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate, or he is not worth bothering with. So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right? The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.
Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process. The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.
Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place". The conclusion that he draws from the story is a polar opposite of the conclusion that I would draw. To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths. Never mind that, in the story, each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church. Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.
When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth.
Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity. For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.
The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected. Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others. Those claims cannot both be true.
Islam rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts. If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.
The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin. For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation. These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.
Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion. Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder. Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine". Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life." If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ. That is why it is non-negotiable".
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.
The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
Peter Kreeft is right. The question of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ. C.S. Lewis is right. Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate, or he is not worth bothering with. So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right? The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)