ASU vs U of A game was on Saturday, so it was crowded on Mill Ave. Traffic was a mess with road closures and accidents, but a lot of us met out there to evangelize. My wife and youngest daughter came out, and we met up with Nick, Chris, Eddie, Leigh who brought his sister Danica, Matt and David. We handed out a lot of tracts, had a few one to one conversations, and a little Open Air preaching.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Saturday 11/18/18
I had a monthly evangelism class tonight, unfortunately no new people made it. Dan and my two youngest daughters were there, so we went through True & False Conversions anyway, and I headed out to Mill Ave afterwards by myself.
I met Nick, Chris, and Rachel out there. We got into a few conversations with people and handed out a lot of tracts. A guy named Ryan stopped and talked to us for a little while he had recently gotten out of prison and his birthday was tomorrow so I gave him a tract with some cash in it and he gave me a hug.
We talked to him for a while and it looks like he's going to go to Thanksgiving dinner with Nick and some of his friends.
Another couple stopped to talk to Nick and while he was talking to the guy, we had a conversation with his girlfriend. Kayla didn't like the way we presented the gospel. She was much more humanist in her views and felt like people should just be nice to other people just for the sake of being nice.
Another couple was talking to Chris near the Einstein illusion and the guy was very against the gospel but his girlfriend seem to be a believer.
We handed out a lot of tracts and talked to a few people so it was a pretty productive night.
Pray for the lost and pray also for more workers in the harvest field.
Soli Deo Gloria
I met Nick, Chris, and Rachel out there. We got into a few conversations with people and handed out a lot of tracts. A guy named Ryan stopped and talked to us for a little while he had recently gotten out of prison and his birthday was tomorrow so I gave him a tract with some cash in it and he gave me a hug.
We talked to him for a while and it looks like he's going to go to Thanksgiving dinner with Nick and some of his friends.
Another couple stopped to talk to Nick and while he was talking to the guy, we had a conversation with his girlfriend. Kayla didn't like the way we presented the gospel. She was much more humanist in her views and felt like people should just be nice to other people just for the sake of being nice.
Another couple was talking to Chris near the Einstein illusion and the guy was very against the gospel but his girlfriend seem to be a believer.
We handed out a lot of tracts and talked to a few people so it was a pretty productive night.
Pray for the lost and pray also for more workers in the harvest field.
Soli Deo Gloria
Monday, September 11, 2017
Saturday, 09/09/17
Time to get back on track keeping up on this blog. It's been awhile since I've posted anything, but I have still been going out there.
I've just been making general posts about it on FB, but want to go deeper into it here at the blog.
There was a home game at ASU, so it was busy on Mill Ave. McKayla and I started handing out tracts. She distributed 100 tracts!
I handed out a few and did some Open Air street preaching. Not too many people stopped, but many heard the Word as they went by.
We saw Art, another street preacher out there, preaching and giving away free Bibles.
A young Jewish woman took one of the "untearable ticket to heaven" tracts that I was handing out. She stood in front of me and read some of it, then asked me if I rejoiced in the thought that Jewish people deserved to rot in hell forever. I said, no, of course not.
But she was insistent upon arguing with me, and crumbled the tract, trying to tear it up as she began walking away. However, these type are extremely difficult to tear. She could not tear it and then started crying.
I thought there might be another opportunity for rational discussion with her, explaining that Jesus is the Messiah that they've been waiting for.
But, not so much. She screamed and yelled at me that God is not a "He", but an "it", which I couldn't agree with. All throughout the Bible, OT and New, God is referred to as He.
Eventually, she wandered off, still clutching the crumpled tract. Maybe she will read it.
I pray that God would work in her heart and convict her of her sins so that she will repent and be saved.
Soli Deo Gloria
I've just been making general posts about it on FB, but want to go deeper into it here at the blog.
There was a home game at ASU, so it was busy on Mill Ave. McKayla and I started handing out tracts. She distributed 100 tracts!
I handed out a few and did some Open Air street preaching. Not too many people stopped, but many heard the Word as they went by.
We saw Art, another street preacher out there, preaching and giving away free Bibles.
A young Jewish woman took one of the "untearable ticket to heaven" tracts that I was handing out. She stood in front of me and read some of it, then asked me if I rejoiced in the thought that Jewish people deserved to rot in hell forever. I said, no, of course not.
But she was insistent upon arguing with me, and crumbled the tract, trying to tear it up as she began walking away. However, these type are extremely difficult to tear. She could not tear it and then started crying.
I thought there might be another opportunity for rational discussion with her, explaining that Jesus is the Messiah that they've been waiting for.
But, not so much. She screamed and yelled at me that God is not a "He", but an "it", which I couldn't agree with. All throughout the Bible, OT and New, God is referred to as He.
Eventually, she wandered off, still clutching the crumpled tract. Maybe she will read it.
I pray that God would work in her heart and convict her of her sins so that she will repent and be saved.
Soli Deo Gloria
Monday, January 12, 2015
3 Stages of Jihad
I didn’t write this but found it quite informative. Links provided at the end.
THREE STAGES OF JIHAD
“Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.” -Qur’an 9:111
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.” -Qur’an 48:29
Deception in the Media
On November 5th, 2009, a Muslim Army Major named Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas. Many innocent people died, and Hasan has been charged with thirteen counts of premeditated murder and more than thirty counts of attempted murder.
Shortly after the Fort Hood shooting, CNN posted an article titled “Murder Has No Religion” (by Arsalan Iftikhar), which claimed that such attacks are forbidden in Islam. The article began:
Most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, "Anyone who kills a human being ... it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. ... If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind." (CNN.com)
Notice that the article portrays Islam as a religion that condemns killing of any kind. But is this what the Qur’an actually says? Unfortunately for CNN’s readers, the author didn’t give a reference, so readers were left to find the quotation themselves. Yet when we turn to 5:32-33 of the Qur’an (the source of CNN’s severely edited quotation), we get a surprisingly different picture of killing in Islam:
For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.
Two things are worthy of note in this passage. First, the teaching appealed to by CNN (“whoever slays a soul . . . it is as though he slew all men”) was given “to the children of Israel” (i.e. the Jews). It was not given to Muslims. Second, even if Westernized Muslims want to apply this verse to themselves, the verse obviously permits killing people who spread “mischief in the land.” Indeed, the very next verse commands Muslims to murder, crucify, and dismember those who wage war against Islam and “make mischief” in Muslim lands.
Since the United States has maintained a military presence in predominantly Islamic countries, knowledgeable Muslims understand that, according to Muhammad, U.S. soldiers meet the “mischief-making” criterion, and should therefore be killed. It’s no coincidence that Major Hasan targeted soldiers, many of whom were being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thus, CNN quoted two carefully edited portions of a passage that justifies the killing of enemy combatants and used them to show that Islam condemns attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting. While deceptions like this are easily spotted, there is much confusion in the world concerning the role of violence in Islam. This short pamphlet will clear up some of the confusion.
Peace, Violence, and Abrogation
Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”
Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.
Qur’an 2:106—Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?
Qur’an 16:101—When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations.
What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?
The Call to Jihad: Three Stages
When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.
STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.
STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40: Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. . . .
Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.
STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).
Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illallah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”
Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.
It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”
When Muslims Reach Stage Three
Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:
Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Qur’an 9:30—And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Qur’an 98:6—Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.
Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”
Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.
Muslims in the West
Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.
According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”
Assessment
Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.) Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations to be in: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.
For Further Study
For a video detailed video discussion of this information:
jihad
To learn more about these issues, be sure to visit these sites:
Answering-Islam.org
AnsweringMuslims.com
YouTube Acts17Apologetics
For some specific articles, please visit the following links:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_mushrik.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_tolerance.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_holy_war.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/na_debate.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm
(Permission is granted to make copies of this pamphlet and to distribute them, provided this is done free of charge and without altering the content.)
THREE STAGES OF JIHAD
“Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.” -Qur’an 9:111
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.” -Qur’an 48:29
Deception in the Media
On November 5th, 2009, a Muslim Army Major named Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas. Many innocent people died, and Hasan has been charged with thirteen counts of premeditated murder and more than thirty counts of attempted murder.
Shortly after the Fort Hood shooting, CNN posted an article titled “Murder Has No Religion” (by Arsalan Iftikhar), which claimed that such attacks are forbidden in Islam. The article began:
Most of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims know that the Holy Quran states quite clearly that, "Anyone who kills a human being ... it shall be as though he has killed all of mankind. ... If anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he has saved the lives of all of mankind." (CNN.com)
Notice that the article portrays Islam as a religion that condemns killing of any kind. But is this what the Qur’an actually says? Unfortunately for CNN’s readers, the author didn’t give a reference, so readers were left to find the quotation themselves. Yet when we turn to 5:32-33 of the Qur’an (the source of CNN’s severely edited quotation), we get a surprisingly different picture of killing in Islam:
For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.
Two things are worthy of note in this passage. First, the teaching appealed to by CNN (“whoever slays a soul . . . it is as though he slew all men”) was given “to the children of Israel” (i.e. the Jews). It was not given to Muslims. Second, even if Westernized Muslims want to apply this verse to themselves, the verse obviously permits killing people who spread “mischief in the land.” Indeed, the very next verse commands Muslims to murder, crucify, and dismember those who wage war against Islam and “make mischief” in Muslim lands.
Since the United States has maintained a military presence in predominantly Islamic countries, knowledgeable Muslims understand that, according to Muhammad, U.S. soldiers meet the “mischief-making” criterion, and should therefore be killed. It’s no coincidence that Major Hasan targeted soldiers, many of whom were being deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thus, CNN quoted two carefully edited portions of a passage that justifies the killing of enemy combatants and used them to show that Islam condemns attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting. While deceptions like this are easily spotted, there is much confusion in the world concerning the role of violence in Islam. This short pamphlet will clear up some of the confusion.
Peace, Violence, and Abrogation
Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”
Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.
Qur’an 2:106—Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?
Qur’an 16:101—When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.
According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations.
What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?
The Call to Jihad: Three Stages
When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.
STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers.
STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40: Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. . . .
Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise.
STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).
Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illallah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”
Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.
It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.”
When Muslims Reach Stage Three
Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:
Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Qur’an 9:30—And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
Qur’an 98:6—Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.
Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”
Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.
Muslims in the West
Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads:
Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.
According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”
Assessment
Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. When Islam is dominant, Muslims are commanded to subjugate or kill everyone around them. (Just look at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries; compare this constant abuse and persecution with what is being proclaimed about “peaceful” Islam by Westernized Muslims.) Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations to be in: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.
For Further Study
For a video detailed video discussion of this information:
jihad
To learn more about these issues, be sure to visit these sites:
Answering-Islam.org
AnsweringMuslims.com
YouTube Acts17Apologetics
For some specific articles, please visit the following links:
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_mushrik.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_tolerance.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_holy_war.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/na_debate.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm
(Permission is granted to make copies of this pamphlet and to distribute them, provided this is done free of charge and without altering the content.)
Friday, October 17, 2014
Homosexuality and the Bible
Matthew Vines wrote an article to reconcile the two. Let's see if it holds up to scrutiny. Check out the original article here:
Matthew Vines article
So, Matthew Vines comes out as a homosexual and then sets out on a quest to justify his sin rather than repent of it. Nothing new there. But he claims some success in convincing family and church members that are close to him.
I guess the time is ripe for that, as the Gay Agenda marches on, intent on cramming this down our throat until it is considered normal, mocking and bullying anyone who would disagree and hold to the biblical worldview.
He claims there are six relevant passages, and then attempts to twist the meaning of each one so that he can make the claim that homosexuality is not condemned as sin in the Bible.
Here's a better article on the subject: CARM Bible and Homosexuality
But let's deal with Matthew Vines' article.
For the first one he cites the story of Sodom (where we get the word sodomy from today) and Gomorrah. He doesn't reference the actual passage, however. He simply tells it in his own words and then goes to Ezekiel 16:49 for a summary that he likes better.
Let's look at that one first.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
50 "They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."
I notice that Mr Vines left out verse 50, the very next verse. I wonder why. I wonder what abomination it is speaking of, and haughtiness...like a Pride Parade perhaps?
Let's go all the way back to Genesis to get the full story in context. I suspect there is a clear reason that Matthew Vines chose to take another passage completely, instead of the original detailed account.
Genesis 19 isn't just about a "threatened gang rape". All of the men of the city came, young and old, ALL of them. And when they were struck blind by the angels, they still did not give up, groping around, trying to find the door in order to get to those men!
I would like to think that if I were struck blind, my priorities might change at that point and I would go home. Not so with these men who were so intent upon raping these strangers.
Anyway, read Genesis 19 for yourself, in context, and determine what is being taught. I don't think it's difficult to discern.
Next up, he goes to Leviticus 18:22, which seems quite clear. I guess that's why he just glosses over it, dismissing it by claiming that other OT laws given to the Israelites are now obsolete because Jesus fulfilled this law.
What? Is he saying that Jesus died so I could continue in my sin? I don't think so. You'll be hard pressed to find a verse that says that.
Then he briefly mentions Hebrews 8:13 and Romans 10:4 in an attempt to disregard the verses he doesn't like, claiming the Old Testament law is invalid today.
Maybe this is a good place to look at the OT law, the division of the law and how it pertains today. John MacArthur explains it nicely in the notes of his study Bible:
Matthew Vines would do well to dig a bit deeper, with a good study Bible like MacArthur's.
However, Mr Vines instead mentions Romans 1:26-27, attempting to minimize the issue by making the claim that Paul was really talking about lust, not homosexuality in itself. Nice try.
Next, he again goes into a completely different subject in an attempt to discredit the topic of homosexuality by using a verse about the length of men's hair (1 Corinthians 11:14). Mr Vines seems to think that if we don't hold to this one, then we can ignore other parts of the Bible, as if it were the same thing.
In answer to this, simply read through the MacArthur quote again in order to discern how the Law is divided into three sections.
Finally, Vines makes the assertion of the "last two likely references" regarding homosexuality from the New Testament. However, he doesn't quote them or even give the references.
Rather, he gives a broad, sweeping assessment that these verses were never talking about homosexuality as "committed, monogamous relationships." He claims "the Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage"
Well, this is because "sexual orientation" isn't something real. It's simply a preference, a choice, and the Bible clearly condemns it as sinful without the need of each individual instance of it.
Homosexuality is called an abomination, period. It doesn't matter if it's prostitution, rape, or a "committed relationship", the act itself is sin, regardless of any attempts to justify it.
I wonder if Matthew Vines meant to reference 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in his general summary. It's worth looking at.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Do you see how this one breaks out the "sexually immoral" as well as "homosexuality"? This pretty much kills his idea that Paul was only talking about lust and excess in Romans 1:26-27.
Sexually immoral covers lust and excess, and yet, homosexuality is listed as it's own separate subject here. No wonder he didn't quote this one or even reference it.
This one verse in the New Testament completely destroys his entire argument. Case closed.
Soli Deo Gloria
Matthew Vines article
So, Matthew Vines comes out as a homosexual and then sets out on a quest to justify his sin rather than repent of it. Nothing new there. But he claims some success in convincing family and church members that are close to him.
I guess the time is ripe for that, as the Gay Agenda marches on, intent on cramming this down our throat until it is considered normal, mocking and bullying anyone who would disagree and hold to the biblical worldview.
He claims there are six relevant passages, and then attempts to twist the meaning of each one so that he can make the claim that homosexuality is not condemned as sin in the Bible.
Here's a better article on the subject: CARM Bible and Homosexuality
But let's deal with Matthew Vines' article.
For the first one he cites the story of Sodom (where we get the word sodomy from today) and Gomorrah. He doesn't reference the actual passage, however. He simply tells it in his own words and then goes to Ezekiel 16:49 for a summary that he likes better.
Let's look at that one first.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
50 "They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."
I notice that Mr Vines left out verse 50, the very next verse. I wonder why. I wonder what abomination it is speaking of, and haughtiness...like a Pride Parade perhaps?
Let's go all the way back to Genesis to get the full story in context. I suspect there is a clear reason that Matthew Vines chose to take another passage completely, instead of the original detailed account.
Genesis 19 isn't just about a "threatened gang rape". All of the men of the city came, young and old, ALL of them. And when they were struck blind by the angels, they still did not give up, groping around, trying to find the door in order to get to those men!
I would like to think that if I were struck blind, my priorities might change at that point and I would go home. Not so with these men who were so intent upon raping these strangers.
Anyway, read Genesis 19 for yourself, in context, and determine what is being taught. I don't think it's difficult to discern.
Next up, he goes to Leviticus 18:22, which seems quite clear. I guess that's why he just glosses over it, dismissing it by claiming that other OT laws given to the Israelites are now obsolete because Jesus fulfilled this law.
What? Is he saying that Jesus died so I could continue in my sin? I don't think so. You'll be hard pressed to find a verse that says that.
Then he briefly mentions Hebrews 8:13 and Romans 10:4 in an attempt to disregard the verses he doesn't like, claiming the Old Testament law is invalid today.
Maybe this is a good place to look at the OT law, the division of the law and how it pertains today. John MacArthur explains it nicely in the notes of his study Bible:
The Law can be divided into three categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial.
The Ceremonial Laws (animal sacrifices, the Sabbath, etc) were pointing us to a coming Messiah, and so this aspect of the Mosaic Law has been set aside, fulfilled in Christ.
Colossians 2:14-17 l
"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; He took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a new moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
The Civil Laws were written to a specific people at a specific time and specific place. The basic responsibility for the civil aspect, showing the application of the moral Law in a community, has been transferred to human government.
Romans 13:1
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
The Moral Law finds its basis in the character of God and is presented in outline form in the Ten Commandments. It still stands and applies to our lives now, having never been revoked or abolished, but finds its authority in the New Covenant.
Every unbeliever is still under its requirement of perfection and its condemnation, until he comes to Christ, and every believer still finds in it the standard for behavior.
Romans 8:3-4
"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Normally, unbelievers like to quote the most obscure Ceremonial or old Civil Laws, but the real problem they have concerns the Moral Law and submission to the Lord.
Matthew Vines would do well to dig a bit deeper, with a good study Bible like MacArthur's.
However, Mr Vines instead mentions Romans 1:26-27, attempting to minimize the issue by making the claim that Paul was really talking about lust, not homosexuality in itself. Nice try.
Next, he again goes into a completely different subject in an attempt to discredit the topic of homosexuality by using a verse about the length of men's hair (1 Corinthians 11:14). Mr Vines seems to think that if we don't hold to this one, then we can ignore other parts of the Bible, as if it were the same thing.
In answer to this, simply read through the MacArthur quote again in order to discern how the Law is divided into three sections.
Finally, Vines makes the assertion of the "last two likely references" regarding homosexuality from the New Testament. However, he doesn't quote them or even give the references.
Rather, he gives a broad, sweeping assessment that these verses were never talking about homosexuality as "committed, monogamous relationships." He claims "the Bible never addresses the issues of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage"
Well, this is because "sexual orientation" isn't something real. It's simply a preference, a choice, and the Bible clearly condemns it as sinful without the need of each individual instance of it.
Homosexuality is called an abomination, period. It doesn't matter if it's prostitution, rape, or a "committed relationship", the act itself is sin, regardless of any attempts to justify it.
I wonder if Matthew Vines meant to reference 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in his general summary. It's worth looking at.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Do you see how this one breaks out the "sexually immoral" as well as "homosexuality"? This pretty much kills his idea that Paul was only talking about lust and excess in Romans 1:26-27.
Sexually immoral covers lust and excess, and yet, homosexuality is listed as it's own separate subject here. No wonder he didn't quote this one or even reference it.
This one verse in the New Testament completely destroys his entire argument. Case closed.
Soli Deo Gloria
Friday, August 8, 2014
KJOnlyism
KJV Onlyism is the belief that the King James, or 1611 Authorized edition, is the only version that should be used today.
This does not mean it is simply the version one prefers, but that all other versions are corrupt.
It's nothing but a ridiculous conspiracy theory and needless division of the Body. Because of that, I see it as a dangerous cult that needs to be rebuked.
Now, they say that the "modern corruptions" take out the deity of Christ, and this or that verse is removed (yet still in the footnotes), and all sorts of other accusations.
My answer to that is, how then, do I know about the diety of Christ, and have a basic Biblical knowledge if all that is true? I mean, if it's really that dangerous, there must be some resultant heresy of doctrine due to this, right?
Well, none have been able to show me evidence of this. Heresy is not resultant upon which version of the Bible one uses. Oh, there are bad versions, such as the NWT, which has been tampered with in order to reflect the JW heretical doctrine.
But for the most part, the normal versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NLT, NKJV, and KJV are great for comparison.
No language translates exactly to another, so it is interesting to see which ones are translated differently, such as "gird your loins" or "get dressed". Same meaning, different words, and no change in the context or doctrine.
The KJV does this as well. Different committees translated the same word differently, such as the 6th Commandment, in Matthew says, "You shall not murder", but in Romans it states, "You shall not kill." Not a big difference, but the same word, translated two different ways!
The KJV is not without minor copyist error, just like any other version. Which is why it's a good idea to compare them.
This is actually a good thing, and what ensures us that no one person could have corrupted the Word. There were too many manuscripts, too early, that were dispersed in order to get the Good News out. No one could have gathered them all up to make some doctrinal change in every single one. Minor copyist error? Sure. But in comparing what we have, those can be overcome and do not affect doctrine.
We have also learned more in recent years. Have you heard of the Grandville Sharp Construction? In the 19th century, Grandville Sharp recognized some rules in Greek language, rules which are now named after him. These Greek grammar rules were discovered AFTER the KJV was printed, so it obviously would not be translated as clearly as we can do today.
Since the 1930's we've discovered manuscripts much closer to the originals with papyrus manuscripts from the 2nd century, that were not avialable in King James' time.
The KJOnlyists often appeal to the 400 years that it was considered the standard. However, the Latin Vulgate was the language of the people and used for 1100 years.
When Erasmus came out with a new version, he faced the same type of opposition as we see with the KJOnlyists against other versions today, only with an 1100 year standard instead of only 400.
The KJV was opposed when it first came out, and it certainly wasn't even the first English version. The pilgrims detested the KJV, calling it a liberal bible. They much preferred the Geneva Bible,dated to 1560, which was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages. I'm really not sure why the KJV is picked by the cult following, rather than an older English version.
The King James Version was derived principally from early editions of the Greek text compiled by Erasmus (1469-1536), who was a Roman Catholic priest, and he had to make choices in choosing the texts he would use. And the committees used printed editions, not manuscripts when putting together the KJV.
While the King James Version is a decent translation, and quite adequate for learning the truth of the Gospel, if you like the old English language, we should realize that numerous additional ancient resources have gone into constructing the more modern Greek texts.
Thus, we see that the KJOnly position is quite misguided, thinking that the KJV is the only, or even the best, English translation.
This does not mean it is simply the version one prefers, but that all other versions are corrupt.
It's nothing but a ridiculous conspiracy theory and needless division of the Body. Because of that, I see it as a dangerous cult that needs to be rebuked.
Now, they say that the "modern corruptions" take out the deity of Christ, and this or that verse is removed (yet still in the footnotes), and all sorts of other accusations.
My answer to that is, how then, do I know about the diety of Christ, and have a basic Biblical knowledge if all that is true? I mean, if it's really that dangerous, there must be some resultant heresy of doctrine due to this, right?
Well, none have been able to show me evidence of this. Heresy is not resultant upon which version of the Bible one uses. Oh, there are bad versions, such as the NWT, which has been tampered with in order to reflect the JW heretical doctrine.
But for the most part, the normal versions, NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NLT, NKJV, and KJV are great for comparison.
No language translates exactly to another, so it is interesting to see which ones are translated differently, such as "gird your loins" or "get dressed". Same meaning, different words, and no change in the context or doctrine.
The KJV does this as well. Different committees translated the same word differently, such as the 6th Commandment, in Matthew says, "You shall not murder", but in Romans it states, "You shall not kill." Not a big difference, but the same word, translated two different ways!
The KJV is not without minor copyist error, just like any other version. Which is why it's a good idea to compare them.
This is actually a good thing, and what ensures us that no one person could have corrupted the Word. There were too many manuscripts, too early, that were dispersed in order to get the Good News out. No one could have gathered them all up to make some doctrinal change in every single one. Minor copyist error? Sure. But in comparing what we have, those can be overcome and do not affect doctrine.
We have also learned more in recent years. Have you heard of the Grandville Sharp Construction? In the 19th century, Grandville Sharp recognized some rules in Greek language, rules which are now named after him. These Greek grammar rules were discovered AFTER the KJV was printed, so it obviously would not be translated as clearly as we can do today.
Since the 1930's we've discovered manuscripts much closer to the originals with papyrus manuscripts from the 2nd century, that were not avialable in King James' time.
The KJOnlyists often appeal to the 400 years that it was considered the standard. However, the Latin Vulgate was the language of the people and used for 1100 years.
When Erasmus came out with a new version, he faced the same type of opposition as we see with the KJOnlyists against other versions today, only with an 1100 year standard instead of only 400.
The KJV was opposed when it first came out, and it certainly wasn't even the first English version. The pilgrims detested the KJV, calling it a liberal bible. They much preferred the Geneva Bible,dated to 1560, which was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages. I'm really not sure why the KJV is picked by the cult following, rather than an older English version.
The King James Version was derived principally from early editions of the Greek text compiled by Erasmus (1469-1536), who was a Roman Catholic priest, and he had to make choices in choosing the texts he would use. And the committees used printed editions, not manuscripts when putting together the KJV.
While the King James Version is a decent translation, and quite adequate for learning the truth of the Gospel, if you like the old English language, we should realize that numerous additional ancient resources have gone into constructing the more modern Greek texts.
Thus, we see that the KJOnly position is quite misguided, thinking that the KJV is the only, or even the best, English translation.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Justice and Mercy
So, let's say that you go home tonight, and you find that all your friends and family have gotten together to throw a giant surprise party for you! As you arrive in the neighborhood, you find cars lined up on both sides of the street, many from out of state, friends and family that you haven't seen in years.
But as you get closer to your house, you realize that something is not quite right.
The front door is ajar, with a huge footprint in the middle of it. The door jam is broken and splintered, and you realize something is wrong, terribly wrong. As bullet casings crunch under your feet, you push the door open to find all your friends, all of your family, everything and everyone that you hold dear in your life have been slaughtered.
And that's not all, as you look through the broken window into the backyard, you see that the killer is still there, wringing the life out of the last victim.
You scream, run out there and knock him to the ground, the police show up and haul him away.
His day in court arrives, and you are there. He has admitted guilt, but expresses remorse, saying that he's really sorry and he will never do anything like that again. The judge looks down from his bench and says, "I am a very loving judge, and I can see that you are truly remorseful. You can go free."
"What?! Are you kidding me? Where is the justice, this man broke the law, he must pay!" The judge gives you a condescending look, and says, "I've made my decision, this man is forgiven out of love and free to go home."
What do you think? Was justice done?
I'll tell you this. You've created a god for yourself, made up in the human mind, that will overlook your sins and let everyone do whatever they wish, with no consequences.
As appealing as that might be to the human mind, you can see from the story I've given you, that there might be some flaws in that idol.
God is not ONLY love, to the exclusion of everything else. He is also holy, righteous and just. There is a fine to be paid, and unlike the judge in our little scenario, justice will be done in God's court. The question now is simply, how will that fine be paid?
Let's change it up a bit. Now, you're the criminal, the one who is guilty of unspeakable crimes and unable to pay your fine. Just before the judge bangs the gavel to finalize your prison time, the courtroom door burst open and a man appears who says that he will pay your fine.
THAT is what Jesus Christ did for you. You didn't deserve it, you couldn't earn it, yet He paid your fine for you, that you could be forgiven. That is how mercy and justice work together.
Every person in the world will glorify God after this life, in one way or another.
Either you will glorify Him as a demonstration of His love and mercy in sending His Son Jesus Christ to take on the punishment that you deserve, as you repent and trust in Him alone.
Or, you will glorify Him as a demonstration of His justice and righteousness, as you are cast into Hell for your crimes against your Creator.
Either way, the human soul lasts forever, and either way, God is glorified.
Soli Deo Gloria
But as you get closer to your house, you realize that something is not quite right.
The front door is ajar, with a huge footprint in the middle of it. The door jam is broken and splintered, and you realize something is wrong, terribly wrong. As bullet casings crunch under your feet, you push the door open to find all your friends, all of your family, everything and everyone that you hold dear in your life have been slaughtered.
And that's not all, as you look through the broken window into the backyard, you see that the killer is still there, wringing the life out of the last victim.
You scream, run out there and knock him to the ground, the police show up and haul him away.
His day in court arrives, and you are there. He has admitted guilt, but expresses remorse, saying that he's really sorry and he will never do anything like that again. The judge looks down from his bench and says, "I am a very loving judge, and I can see that you are truly remorseful. You can go free."
"What?! Are you kidding me? Where is the justice, this man broke the law, he must pay!" The judge gives you a condescending look, and says, "I've made my decision, this man is forgiven out of love and free to go home."
What do you think? Was justice done?
I'll tell you this. You've created a god for yourself, made up in the human mind, that will overlook your sins and let everyone do whatever they wish, with no consequences.
As appealing as that might be to the human mind, you can see from the story I've given you, that there might be some flaws in that idol.
God is not ONLY love, to the exclusion of everything else. He is also holy, righteous and just. There is a fine to be paid, and unlike the judge in our little scenario, justice will be done in God's court. The question now is simply, how will that fine be paid?
Let's change it up a bit. Now, you're the criminal, the one who is guilty of unspeakable crimes and unable to pay your fine. Just before the judge bangs the gavel to finalize your prison time, the courtroom door burst open and a man appears who says that he will pay your fine.
THAT is what Jesus Christ did for you. You didn't deserve it, you couldn't earn it, yet He paid your fine for you, that you could be forgiven. That is how mercy and justice work together.
Every person in the world will glorify God after this life, in one way or another.
Either you will glorify Him as a demonstration of His love and mercy in sending His Son Jesus Christ to take on the punishment that you deserve, as you repent and trust in Him alone.
Or, you will glorify Him as a demonstration of His justice and righteousness, as you are cast into Hell for your crimes against your Creator.
Either way, the human soul lasts forever, and either way, God is glorified.
Soli Deo Gloria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)