What Difference Does It Make?

purpose, action and acclaim

a generational thing

Every generation throughout human history has faced changes. The scope of these changes may or may not have been spectacular or good or evil necessarily. Suffice it to say that individuals were aware that some things had changed in the natural physical environment, human interaction and their own response to those changes especially as these changes affected them directly.

In this respect, life in America, our society and the world is no different. The Internet has made it possible for anyone with web access through a computer or other device to go, virtually, anywhere in the world to check things for themselves. They can get some idea about the natural physical environment as it flourishes or is ravaged in another part of the world. They can examine for themselves and gain some insight about what makes the human interaction hostile or peaceful between peoples with different beliefs. They can also determine how these things can or will affect them emotionally, psychologically, economically, politically; personally. Often this is the point where these changes become something overwhelming for some people to the point of anxiety, despair or depression. I maintain it is not necessarily that there is more evil, as is often the point of focus, in the world as much as the individual can now far exceed his/her intake of world news beyond what the evening newscast delivers to his/her living room or coffee house. Yet, what difference does it make or why should we care if we are aware of these changes?

change in our world

Why? What change has evolved in our present world which, although people who may not live in an environment in which changes such as these are manifested, can be so affected? Furthermore, every individual can look at himself/herself and see for themselves that they create and produce changes in their lives which affect other people around them, because it is as the English poet noted, no man is an island. Every individual fosters a thought in their mind. Subsequently, they  took what had come into their mind and they acted on it. This was true regardless whether it was good or evil. Then, to the degree of their soundness of mind and the worthiness of what they had done it became a matter of acclaim or shame for them or about them. Of course, let’s state the obvious: change is not good or bad, but it bears worth noting that is not always necessary.

It is bad enough when people stumble and perish by the actions of their own doing, but it is far worse when those who profess to know, are purported to know or are expected to know are themselves at a loss to understand and speak to the whirlwind of change.

Make no mistake about it. These who are expected to know and understand include those who lead, teach and preach either from the pulpit to the gathering of the saints in Christ or from the seat of government to the American electorate.

Here are just a few examples of responses from the pulpit and the seat of government to these changes when these same changes have broken the relative, short-term peace since the last break. Some are sound bites or rants, others are familiar quotations.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

We have given them space to destroy.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a boy or a girl, a man or a woman.

Repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act.

the difference it makes

I anticipate the aversion and knee-jerk reaction to want to take one of the above and run with its corresponding political banner and the rhetoric that drives and inflames but which does little or nothing towards helping the saints and the electorate understand what they are being told. What do these four messages share in common? They all began with a purpose; intentionality. All of these purposes were acted upon. All these actions were/are accurately or inaccurately acclaimed. Again, lest anyone fixate on a political or religious message the point here is that these are reflective of what is true in all things. If either the purpose, action or acclamation behind these things are at odds with any of the others it becomes, to understate it, suspect and deservedly subject to scrutiny.

The difference it makes in knowing and understanding what has changed is that with the loss of knowledge and understanding the saints in Christ and the American electorate do not know how, are unable and are unwilling to make decisions and judgments. The loss of is covered under the deception and guise of being loving, free and politically correct. Hence, for example, a call to repeal a health care measure is pushed and driven with never a comprehensive alternative to replace it. A boy lacks the foundation, universal confidence for understanding and accepting his natural masculine gender and responds with an embrace of what he believes is the safe alternative; be a girl. The same is true of a girl concerning her natural feminine gender. The truth is boys as well as girls and men as well as women, often can not bear the pressure of this change whose message is that it is wrong to acknowledge and accept who you are, but you will be accepted (and loved) if you 1) reject your natural gender, and 2) accept your new life as a bi-sexual, transgender or homosexual because anyway . . . what difference does it make?

What difference does it make in the political life of America? The saints in Christ and the American electorate are told to ignore and dismiss the law of the Constitution of the United States in favor of love and acceptance without judgment. This message itself ignores and dismisses completely the differences in some people’s attitude towards the Constitution. The church for her part following those who lead, teach and preach is more and more led to similarly ignore and dismiss the authority of the scriptures all in the name of love and acceptance. This response by the saints in Christ, that is, the church reflects a complete ignorance or disregard for the lessons by the apostle Paul concerning how the church is to respond to immorality in her midst. (see I Corinthians 5)

This same lame, anemic inability to make judgments is see in politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, whose idea of a tactical solution is to re-name actions, events or individuals in such way as to attempt to diminish the gravity of the matter.

all things come to light

The natural thing to do when one can not see something is to bring it into the light or shine some light on it. Things are often subjected to scrutiny for their legal or illegal standing or their moral or immoral standing by church and state alike. Someone may refuse to subject something to the light but that no more declares it right or wrong, moral or immoral any more than such refusal invalidates the universal physical and moral laws and nature of light to expose what darkness and ignorance conceal. Wrong can be made right, but until it is acknowledged, renounced and rejected it remains a piecemeal, patchwork solution to a real problem.

God: what cannot be concealed

No matter what a person’s political or apolitical, religious or irreligious worldview the processes by which he/she lives concerning purpose, action and acclaim can not be concealed. Yes, these processes can and are suppressed by some, but, again, that does not change the universal laws of physics or morality. Similarly, no matter what a person’s political or apolitical, religious or irreligious worldview either to deny or suppress these processes; purpose, action and acclaim, they are what the scriptures reveal concerning 1) the nature of God, 2) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and 3) the relationship of God towards man as written by the apostle Paul in his letter to the church in the Asian city of Ephesus. What he wrote is a testimony to what cannot be concealed, though it may be denied or suppressed, that is, that the universal axiom of purpose, action and acclaim which as it is true of human beings so too it should also be true of their Creator. The wording may be different, but he reader is able to judge for themselves if these things are not so as they read the passage of chapter one.

What the apostle Paul revealed is that it was not a nondescript intentionality or an impersonal entity but the Father who defined the purpose his will towards man before the foundation of the world. It was not a vague philosophical notion, but the living Son of God, Jesus, who redeemed (action) those who believed in Him according to the Father’s good pleasure. Lastly, it was the Holy Spirit who sealed (acclaimed, affirmed) those who put their faith and trust in Jesus.

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about these things. These things cannot be concealed. They are as natural as the universal laws of physics and morality and as much a part of every human being’s life whether or not they are aware and know about it; whether or not they accept it. The difference it makes as to whether we know this things is whether we purpose, act and acclaim with confidence who are are and what we do, whether as the saints in Christ or the American electorate. peace, amigos.

Read More

God is one: On a Unitarian and Trinitarian debate

The Indwelling of Deity in the Believer by Gilbert Torres

(Checkout the amiable and great dialog in the comment section with Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. The article was my response to his article Christianity Unmasked. Some of his congregants contributed their thoughts too. gt)
Debate: Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

This article is not about debates. It is not a refutation of a debate. It is an address of a single aspect of the discussion concerning deity. Debates are a great platform for grandstanding. I do not care to attend debates. I have never participated in one and I have no desire to do so. They can do little or nothing to enlighten the saints who are of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Worse still, too often the saints are treated to a carnal spectacle between the presenters. The tactics of single word isolation in the original Hebrew and Greek languages are flashed before the audience; each presenter positing alternately what the word means and what it could otherwise possibly mean also. Of course, there is an abundance of verses, which like their word components, are isolated and listed for what they do not say as much as for what they do not say about God.

Read More

The Image of Racism

the image of racism

Racists, despite their false bravado, live a lie which grovels in fear. Note that I refer to racists as individuals or groups and not in the formless, disembodied barroom, coffeehouse, sports field or classroom topic label of racism. It is the image touted by some who themselves are not given to talk much less think about those things they boast arrogantly. I am compelled to speak, as much as I am embarrassed and ashamed to admit it, on racism because of the act of racism which resulted in the murder of the saints in Christ in Charleston South Carolina. I do not speak because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ who were murdered. Rather, this is what I, to say nothing about anyone else, ought to do anytime I am truly moved in my heart by such acts. Even more than waiting for the next and latest act of racial violence I ought to be able to respond in the affirmative to the question which comes up at times such as in Charleston: Do we Americans engage in talk about racism? Even more, I as a Christian, need to initiate and engage in the discussion in the times in between those abominable acts of racial violence. Do not think you have acted or spoken against racism simply by keeping quiet and thereby think that everyone can and should assume that you are not racist.

Read More

Gender Change and The Image of Male and Female

Jeopardy answer clue: The image of male and female.

what I wanna be

This is a brief article on the subject of image. Specifically, it is an invitation to discuss or to ponder the current embrace and practice involving the change of gender image. The embrace and practice of gender change, as it is purported, is counseled and prescribed in school, church and home. It is counseled not as a solution necessarily for those souls afflicted and sometimes ravished either physically by others or psychologically and emotionally by their own self-image  because of the gender of their birth. Image change is driven by mainstream media especially when a well known celebrity like Bruce Jenner declares his own decision to undergo the physically outward and inward emotional, psychological behavior change of image. Jenner recently left the male gender with which he was born for the female gender he has embraced for himself.

While this discussion topic may upset or even stir or provoke some to anger there is no condemnation or castigation here. What I would like to bring out is the questionable integrity and honesty of the therapeutic and cultural responses given to those who face their own struggles concerning their image. This change of image is real and practically attainable for a few. However, the reality is one which eludes many others. This makes them neither poor nor victims. However, they are the ones for whom a real resolution is not only readily and practically attainable but it is the imperative option for their own peace and joy in life. The very limited economic resources at their disposal position them with the luxury of being able to take the time, if only they would, to understand image in general and their own personal image. The attainability of that peace and joy in gender is not found in the surgeon’s scalpel, anymore than weight loss is found in pills. It is found in an understanding of their own which is within their reach.

showcase examples

There is a track record of mistaken notions offered in our schools, churches and by parents as solutions or makeshift arrangements some of which were plainly wrong. Some have fostered or enabled behaviors detrimental to the individual. Still others were inconsistent and downright hypocritical with tenets of love and happiness by those who counseled, promoted and urged image change. Some of these mistaken notions include sex education programs; that social experiment in education which quickly deviated from its core to include sex techniques and sexual behavior. Although I was in grade school long before the drive to remove prayer from schools rolled through school campuses the track marks of these two, sex education and prayer, are showcase examples of an education curriculum and policies gone awry. My reason for citing these is not for any moral reasons, but rather to point out what these have produced in terms of school age pregnancies and the erosion in the emotional and mental well-being of students such that shootings have become a way of life _ and death, on school campuses whose focus on education and knowledge was lost long ago. The message from the church concerning image is often as poor and founded on mistaken notions which do nothing to enlighten and lift up those who struggle with a biblical understanding of image. Of course, the culture catch-phrase is for "everyone to just be happy." Often parents, wittingly or unwittingly, are parties to image change with either school or church, or worse yet and as a show of their detachment and lack of awareness, neither one.

You might think the above as showcase examples are laughable. Yet, we ought not think the approval of suicide as an improbable reality which would ever be encouraged and taught in school and church alike. Do not expect these things to be taught overtly at the beginning, but the message is in our society already. As Americans become more open to assisted suicide one cannot rule out the day when the likelihood of allowing and encouraging students who choose to do so to commit suicide, after all as goes the default, weak and amoral cultural response, it is their choice. Suicide was the option exercised by the 1999 Columbine students but only after they had murdered several of their peers. The suicide mold has been cast. It is neither new nor is it a stretch to mention it in the context of the discussion on image.

Anyone who can see and acknowledge this current upsurge should not rule out the real probability of change in the therapist’s counsel involving gender image. It would not be a leap to include the encouragement of those whom they counsel and encourage along with their embrace of gender change as well as to encourage suicide as just another choice option. It is not a stretch especially when one ponders the previously mentioned sex education and prayer.

no hope, no love

Here is the inconsistency, falsehood and hypocrisy behind the purported counselors' message of love for those who struggle with their gender image and those who struggle with suicide, namely, that there is no hope to cope. Suicide is as readily available and easy to embrace as to alter one’s image.

Thus far, thanks be to God and his grace, the option of suicide, particularly of our youth, has not yet come to be prescribed in the same manner as image change. What has love, as Tina Turner fired off, got to do with it? The bottom line is that the deceptive message of the counselors is devoid of love because there is no hope and in the absence of hope whatever option, whether suicide or gender change, are equally suitable and acceptable alternative responses to life’s struggles. Jesus said,

The thief comes only  to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Today, men, women, boys and girls and children as young as three and four years old are ushered and rushed along in their expressed desire for a new gender image by schools, churches, friends and family. This is what they can expect the moment they declare they have always felt or have recently come to realize they are at heart a gender other than that into which they were born. Too often in these instances even the therapeutic counseling is waived as unnecessary. It is akin to what is too often heard in crime investigations by the police. The instant the police receive a confession, never mind the tactics by which that confession is often obtained from the suspect, any further investigation is deemed unnecessary and is abandoned. How many times has the public learned afterwards about how the police ignored and refused an further investigation of the crime as unnecessary because they had a confession. It is the same as that moment when an individual, regardless of age, states he wants to be a she or she wants to be a he.

It used to be when a child was asked what did he or she wanted to be their answer might have been a profession or vocation perhaps similar to that of their parents. Even then, as those children grew up and earned their livelihood in those professions it was something which they did, not something which they had become. (More on this later*.) Their performance in their respective fields was only a partial picture of the overall meaning and fulfillment of their lives.

Genesis: in the beginning there was . . . image

Regardless whether or not one believes or accepts the scriptures in Genesis 1 and 2 there is a significant point of reference to examine on the subject of image. It is significant because it involves the beginning of life, or image at the time of birth. Whatever one might think or decide to do to change their image the fact stands that they were born with a particular image.

Notice that this image as it is mentioned in the scriptures has nothing to do with the masculine or feminine gender.

the image of male and female

The first reference in the account of creation in the scriptures about any attribute of man is significant. It ought at least be a matter of curiosity for the nonbeliever. There is a prior introduction of the male and female in chapter one with the flesh and bone reference spoken by Adam when his eyes first saw Eve. Yet, it is the testimony of God when the scripture declares that God,

created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;male and female He created them

which speaks even to our present times.

Specifically, and despite the modern presumption and primary obsession of image as involves the outward physical appearance, this is not what is implied by the passage. Any inference drawn from the passage which involves a physical aspect cannot be reconciled or harmonized with the passage because whatever that image of God which man shares with God, the differences in male and female anatomy such as some of the more overt breasts and genitalia make it evident that the image of which God spoke is not primarily a physical one.

homosexuality and gender image: different and alike

In this respect image as it involves gender is similar to homosexuality in that it too is a matter-of-fact contradiction of one’s own birth; a birth, regardless of one’s beliefs, which is as undeniable as one’s gender at the time of birth. One, whether male or female, was neither conceived nor born as the result of the sexual union of male and male anymore than one was conceived or born as the result of the female and female sexual union.

Despite the claims of joy of coming out into public openness, as homosexuals once were given to saying when they declared their sexual preference, likes, choice, etc., the honesty and love are quite arguably questionable. How you might ask? It is because of the unwillingness or inability to express the convictions of their decision which cannot be coherently or comprehensively conveyed through teaching. The only resort of any attempt to explain and teach one’s decision or life-choice is existentialism. The homosexual experience is only similar to that of the existentialist; it is not existential because like the existentialist's experience it is limited to the one time experience and cannot be expressed nor repeated. It is different in that the sexual acts which typify homosexuality are repeatable and though there is some semblance of explanation it is of no significance or consequence because it is rooted in the carnal, sexual pleasures of homosexuality and is limited to self experience and a significant other who is equally unable to express coherently an experience of carnal satisfaction. In other words, anyone who wants to understand it must experience it. Explanation and teaching outside of that relationship to anyone else is as inept as it is unnecessary. More bluntly and as is heard; it's nobody's business.

the new birth

The new birth of faith in Jesus is unlike that experience. It can be coherently explained. The decision which resulted in the transformation of one's life is one which is displayed day after day. It is not a obscure mystery which cannot be understood. It is not, unlike the claim of LGBT advocates, something which the believer could not help and just allow to happen because they were just born that way. It is a transformation which began with the realization and acceptance of that believer's own sin and the decision to put their faith and trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

the purpose of image

It is a popular practice for people to post online images to represent themselves which are not necessarily true; a photo of a female or an adult does not necessarily follow that the person is female or an adult. Whether for security reasons or humorous reasons some people disguise their gender or location. (Trolls are not in discussion here.) Of course, this online altering of one’s online virtual image did not begin with the world wide web. It is not limited to the internet. People have been encouraged to alter or change their actual image so as to obscure their identity through behavior, particularly if they feel threatened or they do not feel happy with themselves. It is only until recently that the practice of altering one’s physical image has been embraced by some people as a solution to struggles with which they are not able to cope.

Does image serve a purpose other than a mere visible appearance? While an image is a representation and not the actual thing or the person it represents it’s use is intended to be true. It is not intended to deceive or mislead. One of the purposes of image, such as a photograph, is to widen the awareness of the actual person beyond the limited capabilities of the person because they can only be at one place at a time.

Generally, images are imprinted on money currencies. These images serve to remind the citizens of that nation and inform others who reside or travel in that country of those things which the people of that country cherish and value as part of their origins and history. Some of those images are pronouncements of faith and unity. Some images may have vague or obscure origins and meanings such as a fish with Greek letter characters, (ichthus, from the Greek ikhthýs (ἰχθύς, "fish" [fyi: Each one of five Greek letters form a Christian theological acrostic message: Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) Χριστός, (Christ) Θεοῦ (of God) Υἱός, (son) Σωτήρ (savior)]) but often there are prominent images which are as undeniable as they are readily identifiable, for example, the images of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin.

People sometimes carry with them or keep photographs and other images in their home. Those images may be of themselves, such as in a driver licence, or photographs and paintings of family and friends. The purpose of images is that they be discernible even by strangers who have no knowledge of the people in those images even when the original which is represented by the image has become lost and forgotten.

the consequences of a lost image

The Genesis Bible account concerning Cain, who murdered his brother Abel, reveals the antiquity behind the current trend to embrace the alteration of one’s image. Here is a very brief account concerning the fading and fast eroding image of Cain in what is the first private one-on-one therapeutic counseling session between God and Cain. The erosion of Cain’s image probably began even before Cain became upset because God had accepted Abel’s sacrifice but God had rejected Cain’s sacrifice. The displeasure was evident in his face. God counseled Cain on the matter which was troubling Cain. The record does not reflect anything spoken by Cain. This was God’s counsel for Cain:

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

Clearly, God’s counseling was not accepted by Cain. Yes, the counseling session, from a human standpoint, was a failure. Subsequently, Cain rose up and murdered his brother Abel when they were out in the field. What followed immediately afterwards was that the reticent Cain was confronted by God. Cain’s reticence gave way momentarily to a flash of denial, anger and sarcasm in response to God’s question, Where is your brother?

I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?

Here, then, is Cain’s reaction to God’s punishment of Cain:

Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is too great to bear! 14"Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

Here is God’s response to Cain’s outcry:

But the LORD said to him, "Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.

How does the account of Cain pertain or relate to the importance of image and the alteration of image? How did Cain get to the point where he lost his own image?

First, notice the distortion, despair and fear. God did not drive Cain away anywhere. Second, there is a two-fold anxiety which gripped Cain. a) He was sure that God’s face would be hidden from Cain (a mistaken notion of Cain’s own imagination) and not that Cain would hide, but that b) Cain would not be able to see God. 3) He feared being killed. Nothing of what Cain imagined and expected in the aftermath of the murder of his brother Abel is anything unknown or different than what people imagine or experience for themselves today. Cain's image of himself was a reflection of what he 1) never understood, 2) understood but forgot, or 3) understood, remembered, but rejected. What was it that Cain rejected?

conclusion: love

The Jeopardy game clue; The image of male and female. Answer: Who is God? What then is the image of God in which he created the male and female? What was the image which Adam, Eve, Abel and Cain shared? It is most certainly not a physical characteristic. It is what Adam and Eve, the male and female shared with each other and which was what made them in the image of God. It is love. Clearly, this love was so faded and eroded in Cain's heart that he was able to bring himself and allow himself to murder his brother Abel.

Love is the image of God in which God created the male and the female.

Certainly, there are various other attributes which define or which enable one to understand and know God, but love is foremost. Although love is not mentioned and does not appear in the Genesis creation passage it was the love of God by which God was able to punish Adam and Eve as well as Cain later not with ruthlessness nor mercilessness. The entirety of the revelation of the will of God as is presented in the scriptures is the love of God towards man, namely, to redeem or to free man from the bondage of sin and all manner of deception by which mankind and his image which mankind shares in common with God has been marred and damaged.

The first appearance of the word love in the scriptures in Genesis 22 is as likely to be warped, distorted and misunderstood as the love which it portends in John 3:16. What Jesus fulfilled when he came into the world goes back to what I mentioned earlier* in the section entitled, no hope, no love. Here is how the apostle Paul stated it in II Corinthians 5:21.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

When a disciple of Jesus looks into the mirror he/she may look no more like righteousness than Jesus looked like sin, but that is what he/she has become because of what Jesus was made. Clearly, this is the radical transformation, re-invigoration of image lost, not a physical image, but the image of love which is God (I John 4:16) and which male and female share with him. It is an image easily overlooked and even dismissed when our focus is upon ourselves in our outward physical bodies and not on Jesus and the love of God. This is why Jesus made it clear that if your love and concern is more about one's love of parents, brothers and sisters and even one's own life than you can not be his disciple.

Be of good cheer. Let not your heart be troubled. Believe in Jesus.

Read More

In Between Epiphany & Emmanuel sermon: A response to invitation to LGBT

The recent announcement by the GracePointe Church in Franklin Tennessee to extend an invitation and to embrace LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender) represents a need to proclaim 1) what is sin, and 2) how those who renounce their life of sin will inherit the kingdom of heaven. This need to proclaim is true as concerns the enlightenment and edification of those saints who are bound to Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is just as true, though they are certainly not bound by it, of the nonbeliever whom if he/she loves his/her life cannot be a disciple of Jesus nor inherit the kingdom of heaven deserve to hear the proclamation of the gospel. (Luke  14:26; I Corinthians 6:9, 10) I believe there is sincerity behind and in the aftermath of a great struggle and wrestling before pastor Stan Mitchell came to a place, to understate it, of great discomfort for himself and as concerns his love towards the saints, their love towards him, the love of the saints at GracePointe towards Jesus as Lord and Savior and his and the saints love for the LBGT to whom GracePointe has extended the invitation. Decisions which affect the congregation of the saints in Christ are sometimes reached on the basis of what is popular or difficult. Yet, I believe those decision makers know these are not the proof as to whether those decisions are right or wrong. Decisions in the past in different fellowships ranged from the petty inside bickering of the saints over whether to have a kitchen in the building to speaking in tongues. Mostly, these were limited to those fellowships respectively. Today, the decisions concerning LGBT, equality involving same-sex marriage (with more to come likely) or other decisions such as sisters in Christ preaching and teaching, (The YouTube video introducing Lauren King at Fourth Avenue Church of Christ has been removed.) reveal that these are not limited to a particular fellowship of the saints. They cut across from one gathering of the saints to another without respect to doctrine or creed.

So, this is a blast of neither the GracePointe Church, her leaders or those who gather there to seek and to know the will of Father through Jesus, his Son and the presence of the Holy Spirit. It is an admonition. It is a word of encouragement that through understanding the saints who gather there as well as those elsewhere may be edified in their faith. I strongly encourage readers of this article to take the time to watch the video in its entirety. Listen to Stan Mitchell in his own words which include some profound insights on Living Between Epiphany and Emmanuel. As true and powerful as are Mitchell’s praiseworthy insights the application of those insights or the justification for the decision of the church leadership seems obscured at best and at worse misplaced. Watch and listen to the video as it is the only way some of the content of this article will can make sense because I have not necessarily expanded in great detail on the entire content of the video

Read More

Debunking Ignorance Concerning Babies and Isaac

The author of the article Debunking Christian Circular Arguments and Assumptions does not identify himself/herself. The author is associated or associates himself/herself with SCEPCOP and Darryl Sloan who touts himself/herself or is touted as a great thinker and champion debunker of Christians. This is my response to his/her mistaken, ignorant notions; a challenge to Christians as he/she calls it, concerning two scripture passages involving killing babies and the sacrifice of Isaac I will refer to the author as either SCEPCOP or Darryl.

a word about tactics

First, a few points to note before getting to his/her principal charge against Christians of dashing babies. I am not surprised by what SCEPCOP has put forward and recommends to his/her readers as an unbeatable challenge to Christians. I am not surprised, but I do marvel as I have often noted the similar mentality between SCEPCOP/Darryl and the same fundamentalists whom he/she purports to trounce and ridicule. SCEPCOP/Darryl and some fundamentalists each presume to have made and delivered a convincing, irrefutable argument through their own, respective tactics such as demanding an AGREE/DISAGREE, (as is the platform of SCEPCOP/Darryl’s particular article) YES/NO answer to their questions. Any answer which does not reflect or involve any of those four options is touted as a victory and a defeat of their opponent. Quite often, the speech of one is peppered with wording about logic, reason and as a last resort, there is always the venerable STRAWMAN argument. The other peppers their speech with wording about faith as their first and last word and thereby they absolve themselves of any extended engagement in the whole matter under discussion. So as not to extend a meaningless apology to SCEPCOP/Darryl this is why he/she will not be receiving a boxed YES/NO reply from me.

dashing little ones and the sacrifice of Isaac

Second, SCEPCOP/Darryl cites the specific Old Testament text of Psalm 137:

How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Any argument about the context of that verse with SCEPCOP/Darryl would be pointless. SCEPCOP/Darryl presumes to understand the passage which, according to SCEPCOP/Darryl, it is the commandment of God for Israel to dash and slaughter babies. I understand. This is the relish of unbelievers and it plays well with their readers. The thrust of the charge is that, clearly, SCEPCOP is so much more moral than a God who would command such a thing.

Additionally, SCEPCOP cites what he/she calls the ultimate challenge for Christians. It is Abraham’s sacrifice of his son Isaac as Abraham was instructed by God.  Darryl presses for nothing less than a YES or NO answer.

why bother

Third, is my response to SCEPCOP/Darryl and his/her’s serious misunderstanding. I anticipate the mockery. I know it plays well, too. My reason for bothering with this response is not so much for his/her benefit but for the understanding, enlightenment and encourage of those saints who mistakenly think SCEPCOP/Darryl really has something substantive here..

The Psalms 137 passage cited by Darryl alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 13:16)

Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.

specifics in the prophecy of Isaiah

It was no more the commandment of God to Israel than it was the commandment of God to

Babylon to dash babies. Rather, it was a prophecy concerning Babylon under whom Israel would be held captive some years later. The words of the psalmist, written during Israel's captivity in Babylon, played on the known natural, barbaric characteristic of the Babylonians; dashing little ones against rocks was just one such atrocity.

The prophet not only names Babylon as the instrument of God in the punishment of Israel specifically, but he also names the enemy whom God would raise up to carry out the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah against Babylon as being the Medes.

Furthermore, when one re-reads Psalm 137 and ponders its content one see it was an imprecation, a longing, a cry for God's vengeance on Babylon under whom Israel was presently captive. The psalmist blesses, or considers as blessed, the enemy who would eventually arise to defeat, destroy and raze Babylon and dash their little ones.

human sacrifice

Finally, there is the commandment of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac a matter of some blissful glee for Darryl.

Although it is not something I would expect SCEPCOP/Darryl to understand the test of Abraham did not involve the literal, actual sacrifice of Isaac. This is a matter which proved to generate much theological and philosophical discussion among Israel’s scholars and religious leaders for centuries. Just as that debate continued during their enslavement in Egypt God did something for which God was neither apologetic or ashamed.

I do not expect SCEPCOP/Darryl to be honest, to believe or even to accept any of this for his own enlightenment. I do expect him/her to exercise what is his/her pride, namely, his/her intelligence and read, not merely copy/paste a passage from some other source on dashing babies in order that he/she might KNOW what is in discussion in those passages.

Dispense with the shallow, pointless challenges for boxed replies in a discussion.

death of the firstborn

One of the trite assessments which Israel had made concerning the sacrifice of Isaac was that it was a lesson from God to Israel that God was not like the pagan gods which the Canaanites worshiped. The lesson Israel took from that sacrifice was that God does not accept or practice human sacrifice. I expect SCEPCOP/Darryl’s cringe about human sacrifice is no less than it was and continues to be for Israel. Both, he/she and Israel dismiss as a mistaken, ignorant notion about human sacrifice.

Yet, this, human sacrifice, was precisely what God demonstrated in a very loud and graphic manner not to be ever forgotten by Israel, or Egypt. It was not a mindless slaughter which Egypt suffered and which resulted in Egypt letting Israel go finally. Furthermore, it was not a surprise. The death of Egypt’s firstborn included men, women, children and livestock. Righteousness or wickedness of those firstborn had nothing to do with their death.

Unlike the secret intentions to kill Israel’s male infants at birth which Pharoah had ordered the midwives to carry out, the pronouncement by Moses to Pharoah concerning the death of Egypt’s firstborn was clear and in the open presence of his court. Furthermore, this was to be the tenth and final plague on Egypt. They had already heard Moses pronounce nine successive plagues before each one struck Egypt. They had seen those plagues come to fruition. It was so evident that the Egyptians had began to wonder and murmur their dissent of Pharoah’s stubbornness towards letting Israel go. They were seeing the land and the people being slowly destroyed more and more with each plague.

Pharoah and all of Egypt had no reason to doubt that the death of the firstborn would not occur as Moses informed them of the imminent tenth plague. Pharoah chose not to listen and his stubbornness brought on the death of the firstborn throughout all Egypt.

Whatever lessons Israel thought they had learned from the sacrifice of Isaac were lost and forgotten as they rejoiced in their freedom. Those same lessons were as missing as they were forgotten when many centuries later God took on the form of a human being to willingly lay down his life in order to demonstrate, once again, his power over death. This was the dashing of the Son of God, the firstborn, not on a rock, but on a cross; yet another lesson lost in the choking unbelief of mockery. The death and purpose of the death of Jesus was not a surprise. Jesus clearly and openly declared those things in the presence of foes and friends, believer and nonbeliever alike.

Conclusion

I am aware that mockery and what is purportedly a work of some serious thought or research such as SCEPCOP/Darryl is often mostly a sport. Mockery or walking away from a discussion from a philosophical, scientific or religious, as each may prefer to call it, is not proof that a point has been established and made clear. Human psychology being what it is does not mean nor is it a guarantee that after all the work has been done in accordance with a mutually acceptable standard that the mockery will dissipate or that knowledge has been affirmed. I have responded to SCEPCOP/Darryl’s mockery of scripture passages which he/she does not accept or believe, but most importantly and within his/her domain, he/she does not KNOW what those passages state or mean. It is my hope that the saints in Christ might understand, be enlightened and encouraged.

God never commanded Israel or anyone in the past or today to kill their own babies or anyone else’s babies. The sacrifice of Isaac was first and foremost a test of Abraham. It was not an actual human sacrifice. The death of Egypt’s firstborn including men, women, children and  livestock was not a mindless slaughter. It was declared by God through Moses to the Egyptians well before it occurred with time and opportunity for Pharoah to avert imminent catastrophe for Egypt. Pharoah refused to allow Israel to leave Egypt. The catastrophe hit Egypt. This human sacrifice was deliberate and precise, commanded by God and carried out without the aid of human hands. Today, the lesson which Israel failed to learn from that sacrifice remains just as lost to Israel as to SCEPCOP/Darryl concerning the sacrifice of Jesus, the firstborn, the Son of God who was raised from the dead by the giver and sustainer of life who is able just as well to restore life to the dead.

Read More