Christian Essays

Games and the Christian

May 13th, 2010 - The Latest

How do Christians approach game design? The answer is more interesting and more soul-searching than one might think.

From birth to death most ‘Western’ people are brought up in a world which practises competition. By Western we mean European, American, and British Commonwealth. This ‘cultural norm’ is backed up in the Western world by the dogma of Evolution, which holds the basic tenet that in order for any organism to survive, the strongest and ”fittest” would be the logical winners. (We will not depart at this point to discuss the many plants and animals which contradict this teaching of Darwin’s.) In other parts of the world this tenet is supported by the fact that, in human affairs, the strongest, and best fighters have usually prevailed over the weaker. Economically, the strongest economy wins over the weaker too, and the aim of many people is to work their way to the ‘top of the ladder’, where managerial success is seen as the greatest position to be in life.

But the whole idea of competition, as an accepted, and therefore correct philosophy of life, ought to be questioned by Christians, because there is no support for competitiveness in the New Testament, and, arguably, in the Old. Instead, the teaching is always one of co-operation, helpfulness, condescension and sympathy.

In the Law of God, Israelites were urged to consider orphans and widows (“You shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child” Exodus 22:22) The reason being that “For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regards not persons, nor takes reward” Deuteronomy 10:17 – God has no special regard for people of higher or lower rank in life, nor does he take bribes.

All through the Old and New Testament God requires that people show regard for those less able or fortunate. Tithes were reserved for the poor, and farmers were instructed to leave food in their fields for others to gather. It was to the weak, the poor and the helpless that Jesus came.

So we search in vain for Biblical endorsement for competitive sports, competitive business, and competitive behaviour in any other realm of human behaviour.

Before we go further with this, let us look briefly at what can happen when a person is stronger, richer, faster, cleverer, or better than other people. The usual reaction is a sense of self-worth and also of pride. Pride can lead to arrogance and boasting. Pride can also lead to megalomania, tyranny and brutality – as we have seen through history whenever a military leader starts to think he is invincible.

Socially pride is a destroyer. The pride of life can turn materialism into a god, and the pampering of the flesh into a fetish. As C.S.Lewis pointed out “Pride comes from hell” and pride is one of the major sins against which God speaks many times in anger. “Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place”. Job 40:12

It is a common thing to see children behaving proudly. “I’m better than you at . . .” Or “You’re so dumb!” Jeremiah 9:23

“Thus says the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

But let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight”. Jeremiah 9:24

It is obvious from this open statement that God is not competitive – not that He would need to be(!) – but He reveals His heart to us here, like a man pulling his shirt apart to show us what he is like underneath. He is, by Nature the all-wise, the all-glorious and the all wealthy. He loves those things which are most like Himself – love in action, kindness, caring, justice, fairness, equality without bias, doing what is right, obedience . . . These are the things He delights in, so what place does Man have to contradict God and elevate the very things which God despises?

But one might object : in order to do well at something, mustn’t one be competitive? As I see it, no. The moment we compare ourselves, or possessions or our performance with someone else we are stepping away from God, competitiveness is always wrong – despite its sometimes grey colour.

For example, we all agree that the Nazi Party was wicked and cruel, and its behaviour based on the theory that Germans were a “Master Race” (The Japanese thought they were children of the Sun) led to the worst crimes against humanity. We could call this type of competitiveness ‘black pride’.

But what colour is the pride when old Mrs X down the road wins the needlepoint sewing contest? Or Mr Y gains the medal for growing the largest pumpkin? Or little Z runs faster than all the primary school kids in his class at the Sports? At which point does the grey become too dark to qualify as innocuous?

The alternative is not, as one might think, a dull and boring life without drama or excitement. The notion that the world could not operate without competition is quite wrong. It (the notion, or reaction) comes from the mindset that “we have always done things this way, so can’t we just leave things as they are?” But Jesus always worked that way. He constantly challenged people and presented the opposite as the best, while the familiar he tossed in the rubbish bin.

Jesus elevated the very qualities which ‘the world’ treads on. Blessed, He said, are the poor in spirit, the sorrowful, the meek, the unrighteous, merciful,pure, peaceful . . . all the things we are brought up to devalue. Instead, we in the West are encouraged, culturally, to be quite the opposite. Picture the self-made man (or woman), surrounded by material blessings, talking on the cell phone in a top of the line restaurant, wearing label clothing, demanding the best, swearing about some person he or she resents, snobbish, proud . . . we meet them all the time. We see it starting when they are children, already aiming at the best job, the money, the things of this world. Ambition. Desire to reach the top. Grasping ahead at the things they want, the things they can have. Blessed are the poor in spirit? The meek? No way!

But strangely enough (or perhaps not, considering the fact that God made humans and put a little of Himself into them) we find the very themes which Jesus elevated, which God values, cropping up time after time in movies. How often have we seen the hero, beaten and on the run, suddenly able to win by destroying the villain, yet offering mercy to the villain, even at the point where mercy could spell his own doom? What makes this a ‘great’ moment is the Christ likeness of the hero’s actions. Instinctively we see something great in mercy, yet we are also culturally conditioned to ignore it when it comes to the real world.

The New Testament teaches:

“For Moses said, Honour your father and your mother; and, Whoso curses father or mother, let him die the death” Mark 7:10

“Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another” Romans 12:10

“And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness”. 1 Corinthians 12:23

“I have showed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive”. Acts 20:35

“For we are glad, when we are weak, and you are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection”. 2 Corinthians 13:9

But what can we make of the two references in the New testament which seem to imply that Christianity itself is competitive. The context shows that this is not the case at all. In the first reference – “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto you are also called, and have professed a good profession before many witnesses.” 1 Timothy 6:12 – Paul is urging Timothy to make his Christian life an entirely personal thing, between him and God. It would be peculiar if Christians were to compete in such things as kindness and love. “I’m kinder than you! So what? I have more love!” And how do you compete in charity, forgiveness, tenderheartedness and humility?

The second reference is ” . . . they which run in a race run all, but one receives the prize? So run, that ye may obtain”. 1 Corinthians 9:24. But the context is the same as that for Timothy. Paul has just finished explaining how he is weak to those who are weak. Are Christians then to compete in condescension? That would be a total absurdity. “I identify with the poor better than you! Oh yeah? I show more sympathy!”

So we have a dilemma when we come to the subject of designing a game. If we follow the worldly pattern, our game will be competitive, and probably quite exciting! Yet that does not fit with Christian philosophy. If, on the other hand, we follow the Christian way, we must design a game which incorporates the “Blesseds”, and that means we cannot have a competitive game.

Contradictions in the Bible

May 12th, 2010 - The Latest

No Comments

Usually, when someone writes a book, they do a ‘rough draft’ and then go back through it changing, polishing and perfecting the text, until they are happy with the way it is written. Some authors write their entire book several times, making changes and re-writing whole chapters, and even then they may have more work to do if the publisher has some further suggestions.

The same could be said about anything which humans do. It is almost impossible for any human to produce a major work perfect in every detail first time. Music, dance, painting, acrobatics, ice-skating, sport . . . in every pursuit there is an initial process of learning and practise, with many mistakes and finally there comes a performance which is reasonable, but not perfect.

Perhaps it is this built-in ‘imperfection’ problem shared by all humans, which leads some people to transfer what they have experienced in their own life (and seen in other lives) to the Bible? After all, to the believer and unbeliever alike, the Bible appears to be a book just like any other book, made of paper, ink and glue. On what basis may anyone decide that the Bible alone, in the midst of all the millions of other books in the world, is totally free of errors?

And when the Bible is heard (on tape or CD), it appears to be made of words, just like any other written document, so why should the story as heard in the Bible be any different from say a very accurate history book, or a medical dictionary? True, there are claims that the Bible ‘speaks’ like no other book, but there are many other religious or ‘spiritual’ books which also inspire and move their hearers with much the same effect. Is it all, in the end, just a matter of faith?

It would be very unsettling for millions of Christians if it turned out that their faith ‘caused’ the Bible to be inspired. We would then have a situation where the believers were the foundation on which the inspiration of Scripture rested, rather than the other way round. In other words “The Bible is God’s Word because I believe it is”. If this was true, then any book could be considered “inspired” if someone believed it to be. Logically, if people believed any book was inspired, it would be inspired, and conversely, if people believed a book was not inspired, it would not be.

In other words, the charge is made that inspiration is therefore a subjective thing, and that there is no way we can base the inspiration of the Bible on objective examination.

This, of course, is like a lolly scramble for the sceptic, who has already made the subjective decision that the Bible is not inspired by God. Armed with this preconceived view the sceptic goes looking for ‘mistakes’ in the Bible, and usually finds them – plenty of them.

One reply to the charge that the Bible is “full of mistakes” is that the original Greek and Hebrew was perfect. This is very difficult for most Christians to take much further because most Christians do not speak either Hebrew or Greek, and even if they did they would still need to do a great deal of study.

Faced with these problems it may seem that there is very little one can do to prove that the Bible is inspired, but there are several objective methods which most Christians can use to test the inspiration of the Bible.

One method is the Historical examination. Armed with a pile of history books any Christian can read the Bible and then compare what it says with the history books. There is always a perfect match, provided the history books are objectively written. Furthermore, any Christian can compare the words of the prophets with the actual history and see a perfect match. What the prophets said would happen to Babylon, Nineveh, Jerusalem and so on, has all come true exactly as foretold. A second ‘arm’ of confirmation is Archaeology, which also confirms the details as recorded. Other branches of science also confirm the details, and many of the details – such as Customs, Fashions, Languages, Idioms, Commerce and so forth are regularly being confirmed.

What we are trying to say, when we appeal to the methods of examination listed above, is that the inspiration of Scripture is not just a matter of faith. If the Bible was a car, we would be saying ‘Hop in and drive’, or if it was a meal we would say ‘Pick up a fork and start eating’, because the Bible is open to examination. It can be tested. Unlike some mystical book which relies on the vague interpretations of those who read it, the Bible deals with real-time events, in geographical locations, and it is peopled with names, nations and customs which can be examined. If any glaring, obvious mistakes in any of these areas show up, then obviously the Bible cannot be trusted anywhere else.

Causes of scepticism.

When I was a child I had a friend who liked to tell me ‘tall tales’. He enjoyed testing my credulity, and on one occasion he ‘stretched the truth’ so far I was full of admiration at how much he knew. I went home and told my mother what my friend had told me. She then laughed and told me the truth, which I never forgot. I was thereafter more cautious about what my friend told me, and as I recall he never ‘caught me out’ again. I had developed a healthy scepticism, which worked to my advantage from then on, i.e. I didn’t believe everything I was told.

In some cases, healthy scepticism works against a person’s best interests. At other times it helps to keep us alive. It is a part of our normal reasoning process. It is not a bad thing to be sceptical, but it can be an advantage lost if the facts point one way and our scepticism points the other.

When it comes to the inspiration of the Bible, the sceptics and critics do not seem to give it a fair and equal opportunity to prove itself one way or the other. Sceptics, in my experience, are usually already decided before they examine the Bible, and even when they do examine it, they come with an assumption which they will not be set aside. It is as if they actually want to find mistakes in the Bible, and it is a evident that people tend to find whatever they look for.

1. Self-imposed ignorance. This is probably the most important reason for Bible scepticism. As Roman 1:18-23 says “(they) suppressed the truth . . . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him . . . and they became futile in their thoughts . . .” The word ‘suppressed’ has the same sort of meaning as ‘holding down’ something, such as an eager puppy, which keeps trying to jump up and lick your face. With great annoyance, sceptics hold down the truth as it tries to get their attention.

2. Pride. As Jesus said “You are not willing to come to me that you might have life . . . how can you believe, who receive honour from one another, and do not seek the honour that comes from the only God?” John 5:40-44. Many, but not all, sceptics are unwilling to accept the evidence which points to the inspiration of Scripture, because to do so would mean they would have to admit they were wrong. It is always hard to admit error. In the case of the text just quoted, the Jewish leaders were faced with the prospect of admitting that Jesus was in fact the Messiah – and there was every good reason why they should have done so, because Jesus had demonstrated his miracle power before them hundreds of times. So it was not a lack of evidence which held them back.

3. A moral problem. “And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light . . .” John 3:19-21. That expression ‘men loved darkness’ means that people prefer the pleasures of sin to the discipline of obedience. The Jewish leaders preferred the position of power, wealth and prestige they had to the humility and service required by Jesus. Sceptics may prefer their sin-spoiled lifestyle to the more difficult Christian life which acceptance of the Bible would entail.

I was reading a testimony not long ago, about a student who did not believe in the historicity of the Bible. She had convinced everyone that she had searched and found many intellectual problems. No intellectual argument by her Christian friends could dissuade her. But when someone mentioned her moral life she broke down and admitted that this was the real reason why she would not accept the Bible.

To this could be added a simple question which should be addressed to a sceptic: “If it can be shown that the Bible is the perfect Word of God, will you accept Christ as your Saviour?” If the answer is “No” then the problem is not a lack of evidence, but a moral resistance.

One notable sceptic was Aldous Huxley, an atheist who destroyed the Christian faith wherever he went, yet has been hailed as a great intellect. In his book ‘Ends and Means’ he writes: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do what he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . for myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political”

Another intelligent atheist was Bertrand Russell, who did not give careful examination to the evidence for Christianity. In his essay ‘Why I am not a Christian’ he did not even spend time considering the evidence for the resurrection. From what he says it is likely that he did not even read the New Testament, yet he was extremely sceptical of the basic Christian doctrines.

The challenge.

Jesus put out a clear challenge to sceptics. He said “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is God, or whether I speak from Myself!” John 7:17.

Put another way, suppose someone gives you a recipe for a delicious cake. As a recipe the list of ingredients is not particularly appetising, but if the recipe is converted into real food, and if the instructions are followed, a delicious cake will follow. In the same way, Jesus challenges sceptics to take his words and put them into practise – as a person obeys Jesus, the results will speak for themselves. If the Bible is accepted as the Word of God, it will confirm itself, but as long as it is held at a distance and viewed with scepticism, it will remain as a book.

One example of a ‘mistake’.

Some Bible notes unwittingly supply ‘ammunition’ for the sceptics. This is because not all Christian exegetical work is perfect – commentaries also frequently make erroneous statements or mislead the reader with dates or ‘facts’. This unfortunate state of affairs has nothing whatever to do with the Bible itself. Misunderstandings are common in any major work, such as the complete works of Shakespeare, and the Bible is no exception. A book, for example, by Einstein, or Newton, would probably cause many readers to stumble as they failed to understand some of the words or concepts. Compounding this problem it must be admitted that some modern Bibles have so many ‘marginal notes’ one would think that almost all the text is questionable!

From my own experience, after reading and studying the Bible for over 30 years, I can say with confidence that I have never found a single error. By this I mean that every supposed contradiction has been resolved, every textual mistake has been found to be in harmony with its context, and, after careful examination, I have discovered a perfection and unity in the whole Bible which has never been seriously challenged by any criticism.

At this point we could supply at least 200 pages of text by text proof, showing that the Bible is inspired, but this evidence is available to Christians if they look for it, so there is no need to labour the point. On the other hand, sceptics would not want to read that much proof, because their problem is moral and intellectual. No amount of evidence will convince a sceptic. As Jesus said pointed out some people will not believe even if someone rises from the dead.

So we will look at just one example of supposed error in the Bible. As a typical pattern of how supposed errors can occur this will serve to show that there is no solid basis for scepticism. All supposed errors can be resolved with equal ease and logical reasoning.

In some Bibles there is an insert called a ‘Harmony of the Gospels’ which lists the main events in the four gospels, grouping similar accounts together as if they are the same account despite many details which differ. The reader, presumably, is supposed to think “Well, these two accounts are similar in some ways, but different in others, so the Bible must be close enough to accurate to be reasonably reliable, even if it isn’t perfectly accurate”. This some Bibles actually support the sceptics.

Take, for example, the case of the demoniacs who were healed. According to the Harmonies, the two accounts are placed together despite many obvious differences, and it seems, because of these differences, that the Bible contains many mistakes. But the explanation is simple. Here’s how it works: Imagine that you had breakfast this Monday and last Monday, and on each Monday you ate something similar and something different, and then along comes someone and says that your two accounts of the two Mondays represent only one Monday. Obviously, because of the different details you mentioned, your memory must be slipping? How can you have coffee in one story, and tea in the other? One account is probably right, but the other is a mistake right?

Compare Mat.8:28-34, with the other two accounts in Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-40.

1. In Matthew there are TWO demoniacs who arrive on the scene.

In Mark and Luke only ONE man appears.

2. In Matthew the visitors landed opposite to the place where they set sail from – GERGASENES. In Mark and Luke it was the GADARENES.

3. In Matthew Jesus does NOT ask for any name. In Mark and Luke Jesus ASKS for the man’s name.

4. In Matthew there is no mention of BONDS being used. In Mark and Luke CHAINS are mentioned as having been tried on the man.

5. In Matthew Jesus says NOTHING in the way of commands or admonitions to the freed men. In Mark and Luke Jesus COMMANDED the man to go back home and tell his people about the event.

6. In Matthew the event took place BEFORE the 12 disciples were called. (Mat.10) In Mark and Luke Jesus delivered the man AFTER he called the 12 disciples (Mark 3:14 and Luke 6:13)

Sceptics come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them wear the gowns of academia and talk of philosophy or ‘Higher Criticism’, others openly attack the Bible using foul language and innuendo. Whatever the method, they are always the same in their aim – to discredit and degrade the Bible. To those who already do not want to obey God the sceptics provide a line of defence to hide behind, and to the Christian apologetics they provide a stimulating and interesting point of discussion. It is thanks to the sceptics that many Christians have been driven back to the Bible to study it with more effort, and the results have always been good. Sceptics have indirectly added to the huge amount of powerful Christian apologetics which the Church now possesses.

As Bernard Ramm wrote “No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized and vilified. What book of philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attach as the Bible? With such venom and scepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line, and tenet?” (‘Protestant Christian Evidences’)

The very fact that there are people who spend an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to discredit the Bible is, in fact, indirect evidence that the Bible must be a very important and significant book. If, as the sceptics say, the Bible is full of mistakes, why on earth are they so interested in it?

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t like being called a cult

May 11th, 2010 - The Latest

7 Comments

Recently I had an interesting dialog with a Jehovah’s Witness from Canada. They were responding to the article posted last week.

Here is the email exchange. Hope it is enlightening for you.

First of all they commented:

I guess by cult, you simply mean anyone who disagrees with you. But how
did you come to the conclusion that we have trouble reading the Bible
ourselves? My 3 year old sister could read the Bible and even medical
journals fluently. Both of my children, raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses
read well before they started kindergarten. In fact, you will find that
many young children are enrolled in our weekly Ministry School and all
are encouraged to read well, in order to teach. Some people disregard
Jehovah’s Witnesses because they resent their public preaching. Calling
them a cult is an easy way of discrediting them and then any other
statement is easier to accept, even if untrue. However, if you replace
the word cult with “person”, I still agree with many of your points.
You might even include 1 Peter 3:15.. “always ready to make a defense
before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in YOU, but
doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect”. That is what
Jesus (who was also spoken of a cult leader) taught his followers to do
by example. Dear ‘x’, it was never my intention to offend. By the word
‘cult’ I simply meant what the dictionary means. To be a Christian one
must believe that Jesus is God. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe
Jesus is God (equal in every way with God, the express image, the
glory, the power, etc, of God…) therefore by dictionary definition
they are classified as a cult. Cheers.

I emailed saying that I did not mean to offend through the use of the word “cult”.

They replied with:

Thank you for your comment. However, it is hard to imagine anyone
serving God not being offended by such a charge. Jesus was offended
when falsely accused as a criminal because it reflected on his heavenly
father and as “The Word” he wanted to maintain a good reputation.

Nevertheless, I do not find your definition of a cult in any dictionary
I own. I refer you to several definitions found in Random House
dictionary, although I am not partial to any particular one; it is just
the most complete.

Random House Dictionary definition -
cult? ?/k?lt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt]
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its
rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp.
as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing,
person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites
centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist,
with members often living outside of conventional society under the
direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person
usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease and
that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

NONE of these descriptions can be applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. We
only venerate God; not men, images, dates, places, etc. I think you
will find that, by a broad definition, the word could be used by anyone
who holds a set of beliefs different to our own. Many cults follow a
living human leader, and often their adherents live in groups apart
from the rest of society. The standard for what is orthodox, however,
should be God’s Word, and Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly adhere to the
Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion. They
neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society.
They live and work in the midst of other people and all are openly
welcome at any of their meetings and conventions.

I hope this evidence will encourage you to reconsider the derogatory
references and that you will recognize us in the future as good
citizens who demonstrate their love of God and neighbour by action,
rather than simply offer lip-service to God, as so many other
“Christians” do. You may not agree with all of our beliefs but at least
people should know the truth about us. We are often mis-represented by
others claiming to be Christian and increasingly that misinformation is
intentional. It is easy to take that prejudice and label us
accordingly, just as early Christians were.

In any case I stick to my statement that your blog points were well
taken. They reflect love and balance in the way we speak to others.
Thank you for allowing me to defend my faith, as you recommended.

So I replied:

Dear correespondent, thank you for you interesting and thoughtful
reply. As I said I do not mean to offend, but the definition you sent:

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist,
with members often living outside of conventional society under the
direction of a charismatic leader…

..is quite specific. By the term “cult” I do not mean to be derogatory to
any group or person. A cult, as I understand it, is any religious group
which differs significantly in one or more respects as to their belief or
practrice from those religious groups which are regarded as the
normative expressions of religion in our total culture.

Ironically, by this definition, if Jehovahs Witnesses were the
normative and perhaps the majority, Christians (as we would say conservative,
protestant, Church of England) Christians, would therefore be defined as a “cult”.

The above protestant population, at least in its statement of formal
beliefs, is quite clear in its understanding that Jesus is God, and
that the Godhead consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all equal.

Working logically out from this definition of Christian, therefore, the
correct definition of any other religion derived from this starting
point is a cult.

Their response:

Although I understand your point, I still feel it is a derogatory term
and other than prejudice, there is no justification for it. (see below)

Regarding your point 6, it is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses are
“unorthodox” from the viewpoint of mainstream “christianity”. IE:
We do not go to war or participate in politics (Jesus did not), while
most “christians” churches did/do, (didn’t Jesus say to love your
enemies?).
We do not celebrate pagan holidays under the guise of Christianity,
while most “christians” do. However, we do celebrate the only
celebration he DID command us to keep, which was to honour his death
(on the night of the Passover).
We do not allow condemned practices that the Bible forbids (1 Corinth.
5:13, 6:9-11); most “christians” seem to think that God is
all-forgiving and will still forgive willful sin.
We do not use images or practice rituals in our worship, while most
“christians” do.
We do not follow a leader, other than the head of the Christian church,
Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23), although I do agree he was charismatic.
We have over 7,000,000 active volunteer ministers serving unitedly in
virtually every country and language of the world preaching publicly
and from house-to-house, as Paul and the other apostles were taught to
do (Acts 20:20) by Jesus.
While most “christians have no idea what they would do in heaven, if
they are resurrected, Jesus clearly showed John that they would be
“kings and priests” (Rev. 5:10) in his kingdom. Who would they rule
over? If God’s kingdom will be done on earth, who will the subjects be?
These are basic questions most adult “christians” can not answer, in my
experience, yet even our children know these things. So they don’t even
know what they are praying for. (Matt. 6:9,10).
Most of Christendoms churches have to pay their “ministers” and they
don’t teach their members to preach publicly. Yet, that was the last
command of Christ to all of his followers, before his ascension to the
heavens (Matthew 28:19,20). So how could they possibly fulfill the
prophecy of Matthew 24:14?
In my area (Canada) Christendoms churches are liquidating. They have
failed to listen to both the Father in the heavens and his Son, who set
such a clear example for us. Christendoms works have failed (Acts
5:38). The evidence should be obvious that they are not in harmony with
Gods will (John 3:16-21) and lip service does not fool the Almighty
God, who can read hearts.
It seems that the major conflict for most of those taught by
Christendom is the teaching of the trinity. We believe that Jesus, the
Son, was created by his Father, as the “firstborn of all other
creation” and then all other things were created through him
(Colossians 1:18). Jesus was fine with that and did nothing of his own
will, but only what his father in the heavens told him. (John 6:37-40)
Jesus himself said in prayer that he had come to make known his fathers
name and would make it known (John 17:26). Jesus knew God’s name as
YHWH (Yahweh), which we pronounce as Jehovah in English, although it
varies in spelling and pronunciation in each language, just as Jesus
name does.
Jesus knew that despite everything he taught, people would continue to
argue “about words” and many, many, books have been published on the
subject of Jesus diety. That is why he made it so much easier to
identify those who taught the truth, by looking at their “works”.
(Matthew 7:20). To me, the answer is clear.
I hope I have spoken with conviction as Jesus did, without being
offensive. We are definitely NOT a cult by Jesus definition and this is
what matters to us. Perhaps I have clarified my point of view better
and I wish you peace. ….Shalohm.

The response to that:

Dear…. thank you for explaining all these things, most of which I totally
agree with. Christendom has indeed strayed a long way from the original
pattern set for it in the beginning.

The only ‘bone of contention’ I have, and always will have is the point
about whether Jesus was God, or whether He was created by God . There is an
enormous difference between the two points of view, and only one of these
views determines whether one is saved or not.

I think Hebrews chapter one makes it perfectly clear that Jesus and God are
equal, and therefore both included in the Godhead.

I think the whole gospel of John makes it clear that Jesus is God. I can
also point to many other chapters and verses but I am sure you already have
your ‘interpretations’ ready to dismantle them, so I won’t bother to quote.
.
As long as the Jehovah’s Witness official line is that Jesus was created,
and is thus not the Creator, the definition ‘cult’ must be used.

In a similar way, when Jesus labelled the scribes and Pharisees as
‘whited sepulchres’ etc, they were furious and offended, but what Jesus said
was true nonetheless.

As I said I do not want to offend, but if I am to follow my Saviour God
Jesus, I must speak what I know to be the truth regardless of what others
may say about my views.

I know JWs do a great deal of good works, and they are in many ways
morally upstanding people, with high ideals and clean lifestyles, but
salvation depends on what we believe about Jesus, not on good works.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are so close, and yet still not through the door. I
feel sad that they can come to the door and then deny the deity of Christ.
All they need to do is acknowledge Jesus as God and worship Him, along with
all creation and all the angels in heaven, and the word ‘cult’ will
disappear.

Names of Jesus

May 10th, 2010 - The Latest

No Comments

There are at least 79 names of Jesus in the book of Isaiah

This short list may not be complete. Readers are invited to search through the book of Isaiah for further names.

The reason for this article: a friend of mine, during a conversation, told me quite dogmatically that there were no prophetic names of Jesus in the book of Isaiah. The Bible warns us to “prove all things”, and to “test” the prophets. The Bereans were commended because they “searched the Scriptures daily” and the gospels show us many times that certain Scriptures are fulfilled by him.

the Lord (Jehovah)

God (Elohim) of Jacob

Lawgiver (out of Zion shall go forth the Law)

Judge (He shall judge among the nations)

Immanuel (and 8:10)

Sign (to the house of David)

Son (born of a virgin)

the Lord (Jehovah) of hosts

your Fear

your Dread

a Sanctuary

a Stone of stumbling

a Rock of offense

a Gin

a Snare

Governor (Government upon his shoulder)

King (upon his kingdom)

Wonderful

Consellor

the Mighty God(El)

the Everlasting Father

the Prince of Peace

a Rod (out of the stem of Jesse)

a Branch (out of the roots of Jesse)

an Ensign (of the people)

my Strength

my Salvation

my Song

Holy One of Israel

the Lord God of Hosts

Eliakim

my Servant (and 42:1)

a Father

Keeper of the Key

a Nail

a glorious Throne

the Lord God of Israel

the Hand of the Lord

the Lord (Jah) Jehovah

the Vineyard Owner

a Stone

a Tried Stone

a precious Cornerstone

a Righteous King

a Hiding Place from the wind

a Covert from the tempest

Rivers of Water in a dry place

the Shadow of a great rock in a weary land

Shepherd

Creator

the First

the Last

the Redeemer

King of Jacob

My Elect

a Mighty Man

Saviour (and 45:21)

the Creator of Israel

a Sharp Sword

a Hidden Weapon

a polished Shaft

an Arrow

a Light (to the Gentiles) (and 60:1)

Husband (of Israel)

Holy Arm (of God)

Man of Sorrows

a Lamb (to the slaughter)

an Offering for sin (or Sacrifice)

an Intercessor (or judge)

a Standard

the Glory of the Lord

a Sunrise

Preacher (of good news)

the Bridegroom

a Warrior-king

Potter

Midwife

Mother

Metaphors and God

May 9th, 2010 - The Latest

No Comments

A metaphor is a figure of speech. As soon as you know what it is you can spot it easily, yet the use of metaphors in ordinary English is so deep-rooted that it is difficult to avoid them. Deep-rooted is a metaphor. The metaphor I used was based on the picture of a plant with long, tough, deep roots, gripping a quantity of soil tightly. An idea can be deep-rooted. So can prejudice.

Another metaphor is “The evening of life”. As people grow older and approach the final years, for some of them at least the idea of a quiet, ambient sunset somehow helps to describe those final years.

There was a time when the world was not aware of such a thing as “clockwork devices”. The mechanism, which is now common to most people in the Western world anyway, comprises a number of spindles, or wheels, cogged disks, axles and so on, all working together precisely. Each wheel regulates the turning of other wheels, and the whole machine (sometimes as small as a lady’s wristwatch) may be constructed to fit inside a toy, a wall, or a building.

But what would people, who had never heard of a clockwork mechanism, think of you if you told them the solar system worked “like clockwork”? The metaphor would be wasted on them. They would have nothing to hang the metaphor on, and the whole analogy would fall to the ground. Just for a moment, pause to consider what sort of analogy you might use to describe the solar system. You see how difficult it is to convey something like this accurately by comparing the orbiting of planets around the sun non-technical language?

A metaphor therefore needs a common understanding before it can convey anything useful. If you have never seen a deep-rooted plant you would not understand how certain parts of speech could be anything like plants with long roots. If you have never seen an evening, you would have to guess at how old age compares to it.

The dictionary says a metaphor is “A figure of speech in which a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates to an object it may designate only by implicit comparison, or analogy.” The Greek word means “transference”. We transfer something we already know into something else, and if the metaphor is applicable, the ‘something else’ suddenly sprouts wings and soars into our imagination, showering gifts of understanding onto the fertile earth of our mind.

The Bible is full of many different parts of speech. Just like any good author, God has availed himself of a wide range of devices which all languages contain, in order to express Himself as clearly as possible. The Bible is not a dry, technical historical narration, like a machine catalogue. It is bursting with expression and deep with layers of meaning. This makes it enjoyable to read, as well as the many other things which Bible students will gladly talk about. It is a very ‘full’ book.

But God designed His Book with a multitude of plans. Some of these plans include history, geography, sociology, psychology and so on. Thread after thread can be followed through the Bible, each interweaving with the other threads, to produce a multi-layered, multi-threaded rope of wisdom, and while all the parts of speech used are very important, the metaphor takes center stage.

But just as we need to have an understanding of a clockwork mechanism before we can grasp the motions of the planets, we need to know about many other real things before God can use them as metaphors for other real things. This article does not pretend to be anything more than a simple introduction to the Bible metaphors. I encourage readers to do their own studies to further explore this wonderful line of enquiry.

Genesis.

In the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings, we find many solid and real things. Genesis is an historical account, a narrative of history. There is nothing imaginary or mythical about it, although there are a few expressions used which are there to underline the literal nature of the account. We learn about light, and an Earth which emerges from the darkness. We learn about waters being divided, and evenings and mornings. We hear of the first herbs with seeds, and seeds producing new herbs. Great lights and small lights, stars and a moon, sea creatures and birds. We also find Adam and Eve, formed from the ground, and a Satan, who acts like a serpent in that he is crafty and devious, beguiling and furtive, and from whose mouth comes the poisonous venom of rebellion.

The most important aspect of this Genesis account is the fact that God is laying the groundwork for later applications. He tells us about literal darkness and literal light, so that later on, when he talks about spiritual darkness and light, we have something to use to help us understand the second meaning. By describing material things first, God prepares is for the metaphors.

For example, look at Genesis 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light”.

By this simple statement we learn that *light comes from God, *light must be created, *God is the source of light, *God speaks light into existence. Now moving from the literal to the spiritual, we find that the messiah is described this way: 2 Samuel 23:4 And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun rises, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain”

Notice the use of the words “as the light” and “as the tender grass”. As means like, or similar to, but we wouldn’t understand the metaphor if we did not already know about cloudless mornings, tender grass and a morning after rain.

Psalms 27:1 Expresses the dual meaning by simply stating “The LORD is my light”

Isaiah 5:20 Explains the dual meaning but setting one thing against another: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

And when the Messiah comes, we are told that: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men”. John 1:4. We understand some of the properties of light: it always streams from a source, it illuminates, it exposes, it penetrates by reflection, it can be amplified into laser power . . . so now we can transfer some of this knowledge to the Lord Jesus and interpret the metaphor in other terms.

Other metaphors.

The Bible is packed with variations of the metaphor. Allusions, similes, analogies and so on, abound everywhere, the reason being that God wants to express Himself as well as possible within the confines of the language He uses to communicate with. Apart from visions (rare) and direct speaking (also very rare), God has limited Himself to the language of humans. This alone ought to make us wonder at the enormous condescension and love of God toward us. He has not spoken to us in a technical or ‘scientific’ way, or in a way suitable for glorious heavenly beings, but in the words and expressions which we are familiar with – just as an adult might use ‘baby language’ to communicate with a two-year old.

But while we may understand this metaphorical usage, we usually work with it without even noticing how saturated our language is. Take for example, this passage from “The Horse and His Boy” by C.S.Lewis, page 103 “Then suddenly the sun arose and everything changed in a moment. The grey sand turned yellow and twinkled as if it was strewn with diamonds. On their left the shadows of Shasta and Hwin and Bree and Aravis, enormously long, raced beside them. The double peak of Mount Pire, far ahead, flashed in the sunlight . . .”

If we were not already familiar with certain concepts, we would not understand this passage. To get the most out of it, we need to know something of such things as “the sun arose”, “a moment”, “grey sand”, “yellow”, “twinkled”, “strewn with diamonds”, “enormous”, “raced”, “far ahead”, “flashed”. If we cannot attach meanings to these words and expressions, we cannot understand what the writer is trying to convey.

When we come to the Bible, just as a simple example, let us look at these passages from the Old and New Testaments on the subject of the thorn and thorns:

Job 41:2 “Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?” – this shows us an ancient use for some thorns, and suggests the hardness or size of the jaw bone of the creature. We need to understand something of the sharpness and hardness of the thorn, and perhaps a little of the drilling process. If we did not know what a thorn was we would not know what God meant.

Proverbs 26:9 “As a thorn goes up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.” A drunkard stumbles about and plunges his or her hand into a thorn bush. The drunkard injures himself and cannot speak clearly – an analogy of the person who does not understand God’s wisdom. If we knew nothing about drunkenness, or stumbling, or slurred speech, we would wonder why God used these things to illustrate a person with a parable. A drunken person doesn’t feel pain (alcohol is still used sometimes as a painkiller) so the wisdom of the parable is wasted on him. He really misses the ‘point’.

Isaiah 55:13 “Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” Thorns and thistles are a sign of the fallen creation. By describing a change in Nature, God is indicating a spiritual renewal. If we did not know about the beautiful fir tree, or myrtle tree with its lovely smell, we would not fully appreciate the meaning of this verse.

Ezekiel 28:24 “And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.” By describing the wicked nations bordering on Israel, God is indicating that they will no longer be a threat, or a temptation to sin. We can understand this better if we have experienced the annoyance and pain which comes from having a pricking brier thorn stuck in our skin – a constant source of discomfit.

Hosea 10:8 “The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.” God here alludes back to the original curse on creation when the beautiful Earth became infested with unpleasant plants, and depicts the dramatic change the land will undergo, from lush and plentiful to barren and desolate but the application is spiritual, based on the preceding literal foundations in Genesis. The allusion to mountains falling brings to mind huge earthquakes, volcanoes and so on – perhaps an allusion to the great Flood and other cataclysms.

Micah 7:4 “The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation comes; now shall be their perplexity.” Here God describes the character and attitudes of certain people. They are so difficult to live with they are like thorn hedges.

2 Corinthians 12:7 “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.” Apparently a demonic attack was permitted by God, to help keep Paul humble. This would be a very unusual thing to happen to anyone, but Paul was a unique messenger for God, so he probably needed something special like this to keep him in line. But we understand the “thorn in the flesh” better when we have real thorns and their effects on people, to base our understanding on.

Conclusion.

The reader may like to pursue this subject from here if they wish. Many hundreds of metaphors could be found and described, and the search would be lengthy but edifying. I hope this little article has been a useful sample, turning some soil and opening the ground for the diligent spadework of other gardeners.

Games and the Christian

Contradictions in the Bible

Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t like being called a cult

Names of Jesus

Metaphors and God

Categories