Month: May 2013

Apologetics Inoculation

Are we prepared for missions service? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Let’s suppose your church group was wanting to go on a mission trip to a country in Africa. You were told that you are going to an area where Malaria is common. There is a harmless vaccination you can get to inoculate you against the disease that is also inexpensive. Or, you could go and get it and afterwards have a much harder time recovering from the sickness and enjoying all the effects of it.

Which one do you do?

I would hope that most of you would say “I’m not going to be foolhardy! By all means give me some prevention against the disease!”

If this is your position, then I ask that you be consistent.

At a recent event where I spoke on Inerrancy, I was interacting with students when one of them started speaking about the objections to the truth of Scripture and saying “Why was I not told about these in advance? Why did I have to wait until I was a sophomore in college to have these thrown at me?” Rest assured these weren’t thrown by those who are Christians just having doubts, but by those with education actively trying to show that the text is wrong.

Meanwhile, some readers know I recently wrote on the case of Tanya Simmonds that can be found here. The response to what was in her mind a devastating essay by myself and readers was just the unbelievability of the idea that this counted as a serious refutation.

The former student is still seeking truth. Simmonds, on the other hand, is a casualty. In fact, the former student could have well turned into a Simmonds herself. In each case, the disease of apostasy could have been more likely to be prevented if inoculation had taken place earlier.

What would this have consisted of? Teaching apologetics to our youth. This does not mean that they need to be William Lane Craig, but they need a basic knowledge. We send our students to school saying they need to know from the ground up how to do reading, writing, and arithmetic. This is the only way they will succeed in the real world. We don’t do the same thing with their Christianity, what we should consider the most important aspect of their lives. We simply give the impression that God will take care of them.

God is not meant to be an excuse for our laziness any more than one would go into a country with Malaria without an inoculation saying “God will take care of me.” If such is your approach, be consistent and never go to the grocery store or grow food, God will take care of you. Never wear a seat belt. God will take care of you. Never even read your Bible. God will tell you what you need to know.

There are some diseases that can be cured if they are caught. Some cannot be. Some could go either way. Apostasy falls into the last category. Sometimes, you could win someone back, but it’s extremely difficult. Why not get it so you don’t have to do that in the first place and do this by just basic education at least?

Many pastors will hesitate to speak on the difficulties of a text. Suppose a pastor wants to speak on the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11. Many a pastor could be hesitant to mention textual variants. The reality is that this is like talking to children about sex. A parent might be hesitant to do this, but if they don’t talk to their children about sex, someone else will. If a pastor does not present a Christian account of textual variation, the person in the pew will get a non-Christian account. In our modern world of the internet, it is a guarantee.

If you are a pastor unwilling to present to your congregation the challenges of the text, then I urge you to turn in your resignation and give the pastorate to someone who will really protect the flock and warn them of possible dangers on the horizon.

Our youth are going out into a disease-ridden culture. If we do not present them with the tools to deal with it, let us not be surprised when they fall victim. It is a sad reality that the tools are right there, they are easy to apply, and yet they so often are not. For many, they’d prefer to deny the problem is even real, yet if we are people of truth, this cannot be an option. We must ensure the safety of our youth immediately.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Poythress, Science, and the Bible

What are we to think of the debate on Adam? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A friend of Deeper Waters recently sent me an article wanting a response. It’s written by Vern Poythress and can be found here. My problem mainly with how to approach this is that I am not a scientist. I do not speak in scientific terms and if I have no reason to think that someone has not done strong scientific study, I question their statements. Theologians, philosophers, and historians who wish to speak on science as science should study science as science.

Unfortunately, those in the other camp don’t often follow that advice as well. Atheists who are authorities on science seem to think they’re automatically authorities on history, philosophy, theology, morality, etc. They could be if they have also done sufficient background study, but all too often, they have not.

So let’s deal with some concerns.

First off, what about evolution? Here’s my response. I don’t care.

“What? Did I read that right?”

Yes. Yes you did. Christianity relies on the truth that God raised Jesus from the dead. Everything else is secondary. If we can establish God raised Jesus from the dead, then it would not matter if we are here due to a long evolutionary process. It might mean we have to change our understanding of Genesis, (and quite frankly, even if evolution is false, I think we need to change it) but we still have Christianity. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection and not the creation.

What about Adam? Recently in my reading of Genesis, I noticed something. I cannot recall God naming the man Adam. The word simply means, according to what I’ve studied, man. So many times in the text is says “The man.” It seems quite likely that a man showed up at one point, however that came about, that we are all descended from. Personally, I lean more towards God acting in a divine way to make man, but if I am wrong, it will not shipwreck Christianity at all.

Part of the problem with the emphasis on creation is that we have this idea that if God did not create the way we think He did, then He is inactive in the universe. If God is not active, then we could be deists, but if He did not even create, then we might as well be atheists or agnostics. I find this idea problematic right at the start since it has this implicit idea that God’s chief activity is creation.

Creating, as it is, is nothing essential to the nature of God. God could be God even if He never created anything. What must God do? God must exist and what He does with that existence is up to Him. He has chosen to create, but the property of existence is the main feature of God.

Picture stepping outside your door and seeing a huge pile of money one day and your thought could be “What brought that about?” In other words, “What is the cause of the existence of what I see before me?” Now picture stepping outside and instead hearing a strange sound that isn’t ending and asking “What is the cause of this sound?” In this case, you are not likely looking for what brought it into being, but also what is keeping that sound going.

The point to make is that the same can be said of the pile of money on the front porch as well. Does it contain within itself the principle of its own existence? The answer is no. Only God has that. God is the only one that must necessarily exist. Everything else exists by the power of God. That means that God’s work with the universe is not just creation, but sustenance.

“Well is that biblical?”

Yes. Profusely so.

1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Note that all things come from God and all things are through Jesus. The Godhead is sustaining our existence.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Note in verse 17 that all things hold together in Him. God in Christ is sustaining all that is.

Hebrews 1:2-3 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

The same pattern emerges again with Christ upholding the universe.

Job 34:14-15 If he should set his heart to it
and gather to himself his spirit and his breath,
all flesh would perish together,
and man would return to dust.

Again, if God removes His being, we cease to exist.

The study of existence is metaphysics and it cannot be touched by science. Science deals with a type of existence, namely material existence, but it cannot deal with existence as existence. Note also that each branch of science deals with a different type of material existence as well. None of this is to lower science, but it is to point out that it is not the supreme study.

What do we do with creation then? We could keep in mind what a writer like John Walton has said. For the ancients, something was not said to really exist until it was given function. The creation account is not creation as we understand it, but rather God giving purpose to things. Does this go against material ex nihilo creation? No. Walton tells us that Genesis is not asking the question about scientific creation because Genesis doesn’t care. Genesis cares about giving God glory through the temple of the cosmos He has created.

Does this mean I oppose scientific apologetics? Not entirely. It means that it should only be done by those skilled in science. If you don’t know scientific terminology, then don’t argue science. Now if only our atheist friends would follow the same pattern with Biblical studies, philosophy, history, etc.

If we are people of truth, then we must accept whatever is found to be true. We also must make sure that our modern thinking that is scientific is not the paradigm by which we read Scripture. We should seek to understand it the way the ancient reader would have understood it and not the way someone from our culture would.

If there is something we must not do, and we do it just as much as atheists do sadly, it is to make science and Christianity seem opposed negatively to each other. People of truth must accept all truth. If it turns out that evolution is true, we must accept it. If it turns out that it is not, we must accept it. If we wish to argue against evolution or any other scientific hypothesis, which the scientific community should welcome by the way, then we must do so scientifically. This is why you will not see me joining this argument. I am not a scientist. I will stick to my strengths and let others stick to theirs.

In conclusion, we must remember that creation is not the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It is resurrection. It is quite concerning some Christians are better at defending their views on creation than they are on resurrection. We must also not limit God to just creation. God is responsible not just for the beginning, but every point in the timeline, including where we are right now.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Tanya Simmonds and Fundamentalist Atheism

Is fundamentalist atheism a sign that our churches are failing? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Recently in the Tektonics section of TheologyWeb, there was a whole thread devoted to someone complaining about an article of theirs being given a screwball, as we call them. It was an article written by her and her husband and a large part of it was written extensively on the topic of masturbation. The idea was that this is a clearly wrong teaching across the board in Christian churches and it’s a way that Christianity oppresses people.

Overly dramatized to be sure, but just false really. Focus on the Family doesn’t even take a hard line on this. Numerous other ministries don’t. When I was preparing to marry, I read books by Christian counselors and writers encouraging that it be done before the wedding night so a man can prepare himself. Some of you might still disagree with that. That’s fine. It’s a side issue. The long and short of it is it led to the apostasy of one of the writers, namely Tanya Simmonds. She sent a message to one of our members daring him to publish it.

It’s been published and now I have my response.

Simmonds says “I was a Christian, on fire for Jesus, many, many years ago. I was young (18) at the time. The Jesus I knew and loved was a few selected passages from the pulpit and Robert Powell.”

Unfortunately, this kind of event happens too often. Am I opposed to people having a passion for Jesus? Absolutely not! What I fear has happened here is an emotional reaction purely without any real in-depth look at matters. Note that the Jesus she knew was based on a few select passages and on a pastor and a teacher alone. What study was Simmonds doing on her own?

Simmonds continues to say “The day came when I decided that it was time for me to read the Bible. As I got into it, I began to shake my head. “No! This can’t be right,” I thought. But the more I went through it, the more horrified I became. This wasn’t the God – the Jesus – that I thought I knew, and who I felt inside me. This was a monster from my very worst nightmares. It had to be a mistake. I prayed endlessly for clarification, but no answer came.”

Personally, I’d read the Bible when I was in Middle School and never had a problem. God judges the world? What’s the big deal. He’s a judge. That’s what judges do. Notice Simmonds’s reactions are all emotional. “The Jesus I felt inside me” and “I prayed endlessly for clarification.”

What’s sad about this is that this is usually what Christians recommend. “You know Jesus is who He said He is because you feel Him inside of you!” “If you want to know what a passage means, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to show you.” No. If you want to know that Jesus is real, study the resurrection. If you want to know what a passage means, study the text. Of course, prayer can be a part of study, but it is not meant to be a substitute for study.

She goes on to say “After I became a solicitor, I went back to university, part time, and studied for another degree, this time in theology. I had an emotional need to learn for myself just exactly what I had got myself into.”

Once again, the emotional aspect. Now there is nothing wrong with emotional wholeness at all, but it sure looks like the cart is pulling the horse in the case of Simmonds. We can at least hope there was real study going on, but only a further look at what is shown will be our information.

As Simmonds continues she says “I know that people get around the horrors of the Bible by either skipping over the passages, or expressly convincing themselves that they don’t mean what they say. I can almost understand that. I wept for weeks at what I discovered. I was heartbroken. My Jesus was gone!”

Actually, I never saw these passages as horrors at all. Yet let’s consider some options.

First off, Simmonds says they don’t mean what they say, assuming that what they say is what is meant to be read by a modern American. Perhaps modern American isn’t the way to read the text. Maybe it should be read in the style of an ancient Jew? If so, it is entirely proper to look at how ancient Jews and people around them spoke. Paul Copan has done an excellent job of that in “Is God A Moral Monster?” My review of that can be found here.

Second, it could be our understanding is accurate and we just have to deal with it. Perhaps it is not the moral tastes of the Bible that are a problem but rather it is ours. Perhaps we could be helped by studying what was going on in these ancient cultures that were destroyed.

Third, it could be that these parts are not accurate even and that Inerrancy is the problem. I do not hold to this position, but I bring it up for sake of argument. It could be that Jesus rose from the dead and the Bible is not Inerrant. If that is the case, you still do have Christianity. You just have a different view of Scripture.

There could be other options. Simmonds had married her Christianity to a modern view of Jesus. It has long been my contention that this view is wrong. It is part of American hubris.

Returning to Simmonds we hear “But I can tell you, in twenty five years of study and debate, I have never met a theology professor, a pastor, or an archbishop who denied that these terrible stories were not as they appeared. Certainly, I’ve heard many attempts at justifications for them, but none that I didn’t find incredibly transparent, unfounded, and completely invalid. That’s all I can say on that. ALL of the experts I have consulted on these issues concurred with my understanding of the passages. They mean exactly what they say.”

All of them? I have on my bookshelf a book called “Show Them No Mercy.” It contains four views of the Canaanite conquest and has each view critiquing each other. They are quite different including one with a thinking much like Simmonds’s that a God of love would not order such a thing. Has Simmonds read Copan? Is she aware In fact, he has just written another book on this topic with Heath Thomas and Jeremy Evans. Is Simmonds willing to interact with these works?

Moving to another topic Simmonds writes that “My studies then moved to the historical origins of the Bible, where the books were written, and when. I was stunned when I learned that they were not written by the people they are ascribed to. I couldn’t believe that Matthew didn’t write Matthew, nor was it written by anyone who could have known him. The same went for Luke and John, and half of the letters of Paul. Mark was the earliest Gospel known to exist, but imagine how jaw-dropping it was for me when I discovered that not only did nobody named Mark actually write it, but that nobody alive on this earth knows, to this day, who this ‘Mark’ was supposed to have been. Imagine my shock at discovering that the final verses (16:9-20) were not to be found in the earliest surviving copies of the original papyrus, but were, in fact, added by another author 200 years later.”

To be fair, there are some scholars who would say that these books aren’t written by their traditional authors, but there are several who would disagree. Simmonds could pick up any NT commentary and find a case made for authorship. Even if the authorship was wrong, the information in the accounts still needs to be dealt with. Has Simmonds done that? Has she considered a work like Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.”?

As for Mark, I just got out my grandmother’s NIV that I keep here with me. What do I see right before those verses in it? “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The information was right there. Why was Simmonds surprised by this?

It would have been better for her to have read something on textual criticism. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking happens all too often. I had a friend who graduated from a highly conservative institution that was KJV-only and was concerned when he found categorical proof that 1 John 5:7 was not part of the original manuscript. Fortunately, this guy has since been doing his own reading and studying and that is the proper response. Were I to recommend a book to Simmonds, it would be Paul Wegner’s “A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible.”

Simmonds continues with “Imagine my greatest shock in all of my studies on this subject when I was shown the historical evidence that the 200 CE earliest surviving copy of John didn’t contain one of the most precious of Christian stories – the tale of the Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11.) I learned that it first started circulating in the late 4th, early 5th centuries, and wasn’t include in the New Testament officially until the turn of the first Millennium.

These discoveries shook me to the core.”

Looking in the same NIV again, I find the same message before John 7:53-8:11 (Only a difference in referents of course). This is not shocking news, but it’s showing that we’re not teaching our young people well. When a pastor preaches on this passage, he should say something about the textual criticism of this passage. Actually, if a pastor is preaching on any passage with textual variants, he should mention those if they’re especially relevant.

Now Simmonds goes for all-or-nothing thinking with ” And then common sense began to creep in. The claims about Jesus in the Gospels are fantastic in nature. They would have been the most ground-breaking news in history. And yet extra-biblical history was silent on him – in deference to some pretty regular mundane stuff about 1st Century Judea.”

Well of course they were! Why? For a number of reasons, as pointed out by David Instone-Brewer in “The Jesus Scandals”, miracles would have been an embarrassment to the general populace. Most of them saw miracle workers the way we see televangelists today. For a look at Instone-Brewer’s book see here and for a link to my interview with him on the Deeper Waters podcast, see here.

The reality is, most people would have responded to Jesus the way we do today. Skeptically. Does Simmonds really think Roman authorities are going to go check a claim about a rabbi working miracles in the backwaters of Judea? Messiah claims were a dime-a-dozen. They’d come and gone. Furthermore, this one was crucified. It is not astounding that so few mention Him. It is astounding that any of them do.

As we look further at this she says “There’s a passage about him in Josephus known as the Testimonium Flavinium that even the Catholic Church recognizes as an embarrassing forgery inserted by the early church father Eusebius in the 4th Century.”

It would be nice of Simmonds to tell us where the Catholic church says that it is a forgery. They certainly admit interpolations, as most anyone does, but they do not say the whole passage is a fraud. For an excellent look at this, see the work of the Bede here.

Moving on she says “There was nothing about the most amazing man who was ever supposed to have lived outside of writings from Christian circles. Christians often cite the ‘Jamesien’ passage as, at least, verification of the man’s existence. But farther down the page, it is easy to find the ending that Christians are always so averse to revealing — Jesus, Son of Damneus.” ”

Unfortunately, the only thing the two have in common is a name. Isn’t that something? No. Jesus, according to Bauckham in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” was the 6th most popular male name. Consider that for women, one in four of them were named Mary. So let’s see why should I think this Jesus in Josephus is the one in the NT and not Simmonds’s?

First off, this case involves identification by the brother instead of by the father, which means James must have had a very well-known brother. Second, this Jesus is said to be the so-called Christ, not something that would be interpolated by a Christian. Third, there is no reference to the other Jesus being called Christ anywhere that I know of or having a brother named James that was executed by Herod.

Simmonds needs to tell scholars of Josephus why they’re wrong, but notice something important. Simmonds has gone from being on fire for Jesus to denying his existence, a path not taken seriously in scholarship. The emotional effort has gone the other way.

On Tacitus she says “The Jesus passage in the Annals of Tacitus is highly persuasive as extrabiblical evidence for Jesus, although it actually says precious little about him, and contains enough ‘red flags’ to remove it from the ‘solid evidence’ category.”

Yes. Precious little except crucified under Pontius Pilate, something that corroborates well with the NT. There is no evidence of interpolation and Simmonds does not mention any of the red flags. Again, scholars of Tacitus across the board would disagree with her here, and yet she persists.

She finishes that part saying “Horrified by atrocities the Bible says were instigated by God, and with no reason to believe the Bible any longer, I had become a non-believer by the time I acquired my B(th.)”

I cannot say I am surprised. Simmonds started as an emotional thinker and that never changed. Her methodology is still the same. It is only the allegiance that differs.

She goes on to say “You have mocked me in wolfpack attacks, gloated, and made extremely biased representations against me, compiled highly selective, and largely irrelevant statements by me, refused to answer my most significant points, and you have become increasingly bitter towards me the more I have stood my ground against you. Your mockery and gloating has been of the most unreasonable nature. As I have said repeatedly, the Bible is supposed to be for the whomsoever. I have not only read it, but I have studied it, soaring my knowledge of it far above that of the average citizen. You have balked at me because I was not born with the sum total of every single apologetics book ever written, most of which disagree with one another, on many key issues. How can you reasonably expect me to be privy to the obscure theories of the likes of JP Holding, and insult me for that? His theories are not obvious, and not shared by many within the theological community. So why do you think I am a ‘moron’ for not being inside his particular head? Moreover, do you think that the average Joe who picks up the Bible and becomes as horrified as I was, is an imbecile, too?”

Simmonds here fails to mention that she came out with both barrels blasting and plays the victim and plays it very well. It is a quite manipulative approach that fits in line with an emotional thinker. Do we expect her to know every book written? No. No one does. We expect her to have done background study. She says she’s done more than the average citizen. I do not dispute that. Yet that is not saying much. No one is born with this knowledge. I and others have worked for it. Note though the ego she has in a statement like “soaring my knowledge of it far above”

Note also her constant speaking to what is obvious. Obvious to who? A 21st century American? A 16th century Chineseman? A 12th century Frenchman? A 5th century German? A 1st century Jew? Who? Also, I have no reason to think the “average Joe” understanding of the Bible is accurate. Why should I? The Bible is a deep and complex work that requires much study.

Simmonds goes on to say “What you don’t realise is that all along, I have been fighting for the psychological freedom of us all. Christianity is the most sadistic and totalitarian philosophy I have ever encountered. I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t believe that.”

And I can just as easily say I have been fighting for the salvation of us all. Simmonds doesn’t realize that passion does not equal truth. Simmonds is arguing against a highly legalistic form of Christianity to which I say “Feel free! Go ahead!” I certainly don’t want any of that in Christianity, but is it what Jesus taught?

Her line continues with “At baseline, it is an assertion that there is an all-powerful cosmic being who created us all, and gave us each incredibly powerful survival instincts, independent of our own request. He then throws all of the rules in opposition to those instincts, and then demands sullen woe from each of us each time we fail to uphold these cruel directives. I’m not talking about murder, theft, or actions which infringe upon the rights of others. I am talking about the most basic of fundamental freedoms. It expressly states that we have no right to our own bodies, no right to our own individual personalities and interests, and no right to our own thoughts. It asserts that we are under surveillance around the clock, and that we can be convicted for even what goes through our minds, and will be cast into eternal torture, lest we spend our lives beating ourselves up about it (repenting.) This is the very definition of tyranny!”

No. This is fundamentalism. Let’s start at the end. I believe in Hell, but not in eternal torture. Most evangelicals don’t, which makes me wonder again how much study was going on.

Second, I do believe God is always watching. So what? Saying you don’t like He’s always watching doesn’t change that He is. I do not know where she gets this idea about rights being denied. I find I have a great right to be myself. I can enjoy my personal interests and like my personality. Of course, there are ways I can improve and if Simmonds thinks no one needs to change their personal temperament, she has problems. I am a married man who enjoys my sexual freedom within the bond of marriage. I do seek to control my thought life since it affects everything else that I do.

Perhaps the real problem is with Simmonds’s thinking. Could she want to do some things Christianity condemns? Possibly. We all do. That’s because we’re sinners. Yet in all of this she has left out any mention of grace. She has the judgment, but not the mercy, a sure indication of fundamentalist thinking.

Simmonds continues with “Its apparent get-out clause is the insidious concept of vicarious redemption, through a brutal and sadistic human sacrifice (that none of us asked for) where this God transformed himself into a man and offered himself up as a sacrifice, to himself, in order to appease himself. However, the ‘sacrifice’ element evades my understanding, given that ‘dying’ doesn’t usually involve coming back to life within 48 hours, with powers greater than ever, (facial morphing ability, bodily intangibility, teleportation ability, and finally — flight!), and then taking off to the stars to become a God for all eternity. With that in mind, the crucifixion/resurrection scenario comes across as much more of a self-imposed transaction rather than a sacrifice. A wise man once said, “At least when Elvis died for my sins, he stayed dead.” ”

Simmonds has a bachelor’s in Theology and butchers the Trinity like this? No one worth their weight in salt in knowledge of the Trinity would phrase it this way. In fact, the Philippian hymn states that before the incarnation Christ had the form of God and did not became a deity. Furthermore, once Jesus offered the sacrifice to God, God was free to do with it what He wanted. My own writing on this can be found here. It is odd that she complains that we didn’t ask for the sacrifice of Jesus. So what? She complains that God sends people to Hell and then when God does something to solve that, she complains about that too saying “We didn’t ask for this!”

She goes on to say “But even this so-called sacrifice wasn’t good enough given that there are too many predestination passages in the Bible to ignore. Simply laughing out loud saying, “Ha, ha, Tanya is a Calvinist” does nothing to address this issue. I’m not a Calvinist in the least. My opinion is that Calvinism is evil too, which brings me to my next point.”

Let’s suppose this is true. If it is true, then oh well. It is dealt with by accepting it. Reality doesn’t change based on what we like. I don’t think her stance is true, but if it is, then I must deal with it. Saying “unfair!” will not change it.

Simmonds goes on to say “I do not believe that the Bible is representative of the truth because I have no reason to believe that it is. But what if a person does believe it? There is a clear distinction between believing something to be true, and WISHING it to be true. I believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were real people. I believe that the UK is currently suffering its worse financial recession since the 1940s. But that doesn’t mean that I desire them. To wish Christianity to be true is to wish to live as an abject slave to an unconquerable tyrannical dictator, from whom there is absolutely no escape. The moral, sound-minded believer would not wish for this. Rather, he/she would be traumatized by it.”

Considering the poor study done thus far, I’m not surprised, and if Christianity was what Simmonds says it is, I would also not be surprised to hear she doesn’t like it. I wouldn’t like it either. Yet this is not what Christianity is. Christianity is about God’s solving the problem of evil through the work of Israel most exemplified in the ultimate Israel, Jesus Christ, and his reigning as king restoring the world to rights.

Simmonds again continues with “Christianity, through fear and credulity, enslaves the minds of so very many, forcing them into a position where they must become joyous about sacrificing their fundamental freedoms in deference to it. We live in a democracy that provides freedom of choice. “Find Jesus or he will send you to Hell” is the very antithesis of choice. One cannot morally reside in, and enjoy the privileges laid down by that democracy, whilst simultaneously endorsing tyranny, and using coercive persuasion to pressure others into doing likewise.”

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom to choose consequences. In fact, there are some freedoms I do not have. I am not free to murder. If I make that choice, the police will make a choice to respond. The purpose of freedom is to enable us to be good, and that is a freedom Christ brings. It is not “Choose me or Hell!” It is “You are on death row now. Choose me and I’ll get you out!” If Simmonds wants to know what someone goes to Hell for, I’ll tell her.

You go to Hell for your works.

You do not go to Hell for not believing in Jesus.

Now Jesus is the antidote of course. If you believe in Jesus, God judges your salvation based on the work of Christ. If not, God judges you based on your works, and those most be absolutely perfect. If they are not, then you are guilty of divine treason.

In fact, Simmonds has been railing against the God of Christianity for some time. Is she saying if He was real, she would actually want to spend eternity in His presence? If not, then she is freely choosing the alternative. If so, then why does she want to do that after death, but not before?

Not only that, Hell was not really mentioned in the early Christian teaching that often. In a Jewish milleu where the doctrine was known, it was mentioned often, but in the Pauline epistles, there is hardly anything. It’s a strong topic in modern fundamentalist evangelism, but not in the NT.

Simmonds then says “Deep down, I think you know this, and rather than face it, you find yourselves hell-bent on trying to discredit me at every opportunity. Well, you won’t discredit me, as long as reason prevails in our world.”

If Simmonds wishes to point to what her opponents know, she should ascertain that they do. I know of no such thing. I find her case quite flimsy.

Simmonds “Yes, I have a foul temper! It is the passion within that drives me. Spartacus and Boudicca had a similar temperament, as did William Wallace. All were branded as criminals by those whom they fought against.”

So what? I think of the biblical passage about zeal in accordance with knowledge. Simmonds has zeal. No doubt. She does not have knowledge.

Simmonds ends with “But history recalls them as heroes and legends.

I dare you to publish this essay.

Tanya”

I do not see anything in this essay that I consider a serious challenge and wonder why it was a dare to publish it. I instead see a case study in fundamentalist atheism. Let this be a warning to the church. When we do not teach proper education and study, then young people that fall away become like Simmonds.

Do we really want more of that?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Response to El Nimir

Why do I find Muslim apologetics so problematic? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’d also like to remind readers of this blog that tomorrow, I will be hosting Nabeel Qureshi, a Muslim turned Christian, on the Deeper Waters Podcast.

A response to Tark El Nimir

Recently, Muslim Apologist Tark El Nimir has challenged Christian apologist Mike Licona on his Facebook page. Licona is a busy fellow and seeing as I’m his son-in-law and seek to help him out, I figured I’d take up the keyboard and draft a response to El Nimir. His article can be found here.

El Nimir: “Making his case, Michael Licona quoted many historical records, he favoured, the early christians[sic.] knowing well that such records held many discrepancies. Now seeing as the Quran is not a historical document or book, it presents a more factual approach to who Jesus or the prophets was. Michael licona’s[sic.] argument is purely on historic and miraculous evidence that ONLY Christians support. Makes one wonder where Divinity and History agree?”

Reply: Blech! Something’s wrong! The water here tastes nasty! Yes. El Nimir has brought in a well-poisoning at the start saying that the accounts contain discrepancies. Here’s what we are not told about that.

Are the accounts hopelessly contradictory? No answer to that. El Nimir could ask any police detective who has to deal with eyewitness testimony and he’d find out that every case with eyewitness testimony has discrepancies. That does not automatically equal contradictions. Sometimes they can be harmonized. Sometimes, some accounts will contain some errors, but it doesn’t mean the whole is in error.

Are there any attempts to deal with any supposed contradictions? We are not told this as well. We are just given a blanket statement. If El Nimir were really interested in such ideas, he could pick up numerous scholarly commentaries and see the responses that have been given. Some responses are good. Some are not. That is just part of research.

Are the accounts totally unreliable? We are not told that and if we were told an account must be perfect or it has no reliability whatsoever, then we would be in a world of hurt with ancient history. For instance, if the accounts are totally unreliable, should we hold to a Christ-myth position?

For those wondering what we would do, then we just say we do historical study, like we would with any other ancient work. Licona’s position depends on treating the Bible not as the Inerrant Word of God, but as a historical document making claims about Jesus.

Furthermore, Licona’s argument is not based on claims ONLY Christians support. If this were the case, then I could just as well ask El Nimir what other historians besides Islamic ones accept the claim that the angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad? Licona’s minimal facts are those that can be attested to by non-Christian scholars. El Nimir can attest to this simply by reading such scholars. The difference between Licona and a non-Christian like Crossan, Martin, or Ehrman, is not largely the facts but rather the interpretation.

El Nimir: “He quotes Mark 14: 61-64, which he believed to be the divine word spoken by Jesus himself. In this passage, Jesus said “…you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power (In Greek-δυνάμεως)…” Why did Jesus choose to say “the right hand of “Power”, and not “God” Himself?”

Reply: This is simply wrong. It’s a circumlocution done out of respect to God, much like Kingdom of Heaven. He’s pointing to judgment motif found in Daniel 7 and the Son will be sitting at the right hand of God when God judges the people who have rejected Jesus. Mike has more information on this passage here.

El Nimir: “Semantically there is a great difference between the two statements. Most importantly, Jesus did not identify God as the divine being, but referred instead to the attribute of God’s Power. It is important to make this distinction because of God’s existence separate to His creation, while His power manifests within all of His creation. In other words, Jesus’ words may be understood as referring to him being supported [within the creation] through God’s power.”

Reply: You would be hard-pressed to find a commentary even by a non-Christian making such a claim. I would argue not only is God’s power manifest in creation, but every attribute He has is. Still, Jesus did identify God as the divine being and every Jew present knew it.

El Nimir: “Jesus clearly indicates in the following passage that his return would be to the Father, who is the shared God of both himself and his disciples: “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. John 20:17” It is interesting Jesus thrones “God” but he himself in this passage does not make a distinction between his position or his disciples in relation to the divine “God” yet there is the element he is equal to them nature.”[sic]

Reply: What this has to do with the prior passage, I do not know. El Nimir says Jesus does not make a distinction. If that is the case, then he should have said “Our God.” He never does. Jesus was instead showing that the relationship had been extended. What Jesus had naturally, which came first, they now had by identifying with Him.

El Nimir: “Jesus is Not the Savior of Mankind?
One may be confused to learn that Jesus said “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Matthew 15:24RSV. Jesus’ Gospel is now ‘undestood’ [sic] to be for all of mankind since Jesus also said: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” Matthew 28:19. But that is NOT what Jesus really meant!!”

Reply: No. It’s not shocking unless one is completely unfamiliar with the biblical story. God’s first place to go to was always Israel and through Israel He would reach everyone else. When He came offering the news of the restoration of the covenant, the first to receive the offer was Israel.

El Nimir: “SHOCKINGLY the same verse in the original Greek gospel included the Greek word “τὰ -THE” before the word “nations” as seen HERE. The use of the word “THE” makes these nations specifically targeted as opposed to a general usage, meaning specifically the Twelve tribes of Israel. Yet the word “THE” remains absent in all Bibles, so that the Bible reader will understand making disciples is generally for all nations.”

Reply: This argument is beyond ridiculous. The word the is not always translated in a text as the can be put in for emphasis. Translators do this not to show a conspiracy of some sort, but to make the reading more fluid. Even if there was a “the” in that passage, that is meant to show that it means only Israel? One does not get that impression in Acts 1:8 which is a parallel.

El Nimir assumes that if the article is there, it must be expressed. If that is the case, what happens in a passage like Acts 5:38? If translated that way, it would start “And the now.” No one would think that’s legitimate. Instead, the article there is for emphasis. That is not always the case of course, but it is enough to demonstrate El Nimir does not know what he is talking about.

Consider also if I went to speak at a school and in order to gather the students together, the principal goes on the intercom and says “All students report to the gymnasium.” I go home and talk to my wife Allie later and say “And then, all the students came to the gymnasium. Would anyone say my inclusion of “the” changed the meaning?

El Nimir: “AMAZINGLY, the Bible translators repeated the same error in all verses that ‘says’ [sic] ‘“all THE nation”’ [sic] as in Matthew 24:14RSV “and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations”. see the proof HERE .”

Reply: Apparently, it doesn’t take much to amaze El Nimir. He ignores the fact that the message will be preached to the whole world. Apparently, Jesus must have had a small concept of the world. The word used refers to the Roman Empire. Last I checked, the Roman Empire consisted of other places besides Israel.

El Nimir: “When Jesus uses the phrase “the world” he means the world he was ‘send'[sic] to, which was that of the Children of Israel. ‘why,’ [sic] because he said “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”John 6:33.NIV. We all know the bread here is the revelation of Jesus, for he made it very clear that his revelation was indeed for the children of Israel only when he said: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” Matthew 15:26.”

Reply: El Nimir begs the question here. Jesus’s first message was to the Jews, but if we go to Matthew 15, the passage El Nimir reports to, and even the account he mentions, Jesus provides deliverance for a Gentile woman!

Going to a source like BlueLetterBible, we find the following definitions for the Greek word used for “world”

1) the inhabited earth
a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
c) the whole inhabited earth, the world
d) the inhabitants of the earth, men
2) the universe, the world
Not one matches what El Nimir says.

El Nimir: The Mystery of Jesus’ Two Natures?
“Michael argued the ‘christian’ [sic] perspective of Jesus having “two natures” – the first being his divine nature, and the second his human nature. However, Jesus’ words clearly contradict this perspective. Jesus said: “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 Since Jesus identified God as a spirit, one must also note the definition of a spirit, which Jesus described thusly “a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” Luke 24:39.”

Reply: El Nimir is missing the point that Jesus is talking about God in His essential nature saying God cannot be bound totally to a single place. Not even the doctrine of the incarnation disagrees with this as no one says God the Son was limited to the body of Jesus. In His deity, He still had omnipresence. That deity chose to be manifest in the body of Jesus, just like the cloud filling the temple in 1 Kings 8 does not mean that God was not omnipresent everywhere else. Even when the glory leaves the temple in Ezekiel, it does not mean God is in no sense present or His omnipresence has ceased to be.

Jesus’s point is that He is not just a spirit, but that He is fully human as well. There would be no contradiction between Jesus having an immaterial aspect to Him, such as a second nature, and still being fully human.

El Nimir: “By speaking in ‘semetic’ [sic] parables Jesus became one of the most misunderstood men who spoke in the bible, In order to understand the ‘semetic’ [sic] Jesus one needs to understand what ‘jesus’ [sic] meant when he used the phrases “I” or “I AM”. For Jesus said “I AM the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.John 14:6”

Reply: That’s “Semitic.” I really want to question El Nimir’s judgment when he doesn’t even spell the terms rightly. However, his statement does not speak well of the apostles but rather of Christ. Was Christ such a terrible teacher that He couldn’t get his closest companions to get the message right?

El Nimir: “How can one come to the Father ‘thourgh’ [sic] Jesus? Yet Jesus also said “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63.Since Jesus’ flesh is not the way, then it’s the spirit. But how?”

Reply: One wonders what is going on with this kind of hopscotch interpretation where you assume one word means the same thing in every context. The message Jesus is giving is that trust in Him and total reliance on Him is the way to salvation. One must stake everything on Jesus.

El Nimir: “Jesus said “I AM the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. John 6:51” Obviously no one actually ate Jesus, so it is clear that he was speaking metaphorically meaning the “living bread” as his divine message. Yet Jesus said “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” Matthew 15:26. Obviously “the children” here are the children of Israel, and the “bread” is Jesus’ divine message. In other words “I AM the living bread” means I AM the heavenly words that come down from God.”

Reply: The bread in Matthew 15 is the divine message, but not in John 6. In John 6, Jesus is contrasting Himself with the bread that came down from Heaven in the time of Moses and saying that He must be the sustenance of the people. Let’s suppose that bread means divine message. Well let’s go through the gospels and see some other places then.

Matthew 4:3-4And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of divine message.”
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by divine message alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Matthew 12:4 how he entered the house of God and ate the divine message of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
Matthew 15:33 And the disciples said to him, “Where are we to get enough divine message in such a desolate place to feed so great a crowd?”
Matthew 26:17 Now on the first day of Unleavened divine message the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
Mark 6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no divine message, no bag, no money in their belts—
Mark 8:14 Now they had forgotten to bring divine message, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.
Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no divine message and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’
Luke 15:17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough divine message, but I perish here with hunger!
John 13:30 So, after receiving the morsel of divine message, he immediately went out. And it was night.
John 21:9 When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and divine message.

If we apply El Nimir’s standard across the board, it leads to absurdity.

El Nimir: Michael’s views of the Quranic Jesus?

“The biblical verses concerned with preserving Mary’s honor after becoming pregnant out of wedlock can be found in the gospel of Matthew 1:18 “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

I get it; the scribes are saying God revealed through His angel that Joseph should take Mary in marriage so they can tell people that Jesus is Joseph’s biological son. Isn’t this misleading?”

Reply: No. No one is saying Jesus is Joseph’s biological son in the text. They are saying he is Joseph’s legal son. The only way it would be misleading is if the text said Joseph was the biological father. For all intents and purposes, Joseph served as Jesus’s father on Earth, but it was not by biology.

El Nimir: ” ‘I’m asking?.'[sic] Is God so weak that he needs another man to defend Mary’s honor by dishonorable means?”

Reply: This is not a statement about God’s weakness. This is just a statement that God thinks His Son should be raised on Earth by a mother and a father. You’d think that with the Islamic stance against homosexuality, which I do hold to the Christian view on marriage of course, they’d be right there saying a child is best raised by a mother and a father. Strange El Nimir seems to not think of that.

Also, if Mary was doing this for honor, a virgin birth is the last thing she would have said. That would be seen as blasphemy as well. I recommend El Nimir read David Instone-Brewer’s “The Jesus Scandals.”

El Nimir: “Or is God so powerful that he can make a day old child speak in her defense?.”

Reply: He could, but did He? Saying what someone can do is not the same as saying what they did do. By this stance, I could charge El Nimir with any crime committed in his area by saying “Well he could have done it.” Who cares about evidence?

El Nimir: “Furthermore it is surprising how Michael failed to see the miraculous speech of Jesus in the Quran, Or is it that he is blinded by the misleading version of the Bible scribes in Matthew chapter one.”

Reply: Why should one accept the Quranic testimony seeing as it is 600+ years late? Of course, the claim is possible. It’s certainly possible baby Jesus could have spoken, but is it probable? Is there enough evidence from the time to show it? There isn’t.

El Nimir: The Quran is Not Divine Because?
“Micheal said ” What we have of the Quran… is a book that is written 600 Yrs after Jesus …in a different country…culture …language. However the crisis of Biblical misunderstanding started when the New Testament was written in Greek while Jesus delivered his message in Aramaic and Hebrew.”

Reply: How this is a crisis, we are not told. Does El Nimir think professional scribes were so dumb that they could not translate Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek?

El Nimir: “Astonishingly the Bible scribes claimed that Jesus told them, he was to come in their lifetime by stating “according to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. for the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with …call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. (Matthew 10:23 Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 16:28).”

Reply: I can’t help but laugh at these kinds of references since my position is that of an orthodox Preterist that says “Yes. Jesus did come in the lifetime of his disciples like He said He would.” Note that none of those passages aside from 1 Thess. Describes a resurrection. As for 1 Thess., no. That hasn’t happened yet, but the we used is an editorial we. Paul did not know when the time would be so he just used we.

El Nimir: “Shockingly this is the one point where all of the New Testament writers agreed (they will not die physically).”

Reply: Does this include Paul in 2 Timothy who says his life is about to be poured out like a drink offering, a reference to his coming death? How about the prophecy of Peter’s death in John 21?

El Nimir: “For that was the reason they never wrote about the experiences of death,”

Reply: Let me take a shot at this. Could it be because the gospel is about the work of Jesus and not the work of the apostles? Could it also be because maybe when the NT books were written, the apostles hadn’t died yet? Note that James however, one of the twelve, had died in Acts 12.

El Nimir: “why should they, when they all agreed they will meet the Lord Jesus in the air and be with him forever. In truth they all died and -2000- years later we’re asking ‘where is the Lord?’ [sic] Amazingly the Divine answer always stated “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the lord does not take place or come true,that is a message the lord has not spoken” Deut.18:22.”

Reply: Only if we accept El Nimir’s bizarre chronology. For those of us who know how to read apocalyptic texts and recognize when such imagery is not literal, this is not a problem. Perhaps El Nimir should spend time reading real Bible scholars like N.T. Wright.

El Nimir: ” ‘Micheal’ [sic] is not following Jesus but instead he is preaching the false doctrine of Paul who admitted himself to have the blood of the early Christians in his hands by stating “I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison.” Acts 22:4. Yet God told prophet David “You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.” 1 Chronicles 28:3.”

Reply: Which would apply just fine to Paul if He had been claiming to build a temple. He wasn’t. In fact, he also wasn’t a king, another way it doesn’t apply to him. We might as well say Peter could not have been an apostle as well since he cut Malthus’s ear, which would be shedding blood.

El Nimir: “Paul saw a light falling from heaven when he saw what he thought to be Jesus.”

Reply: Nowhere do I know where Jesus is described as a falling light in the Pauline conversion stories.

El Nimir: “Yet only one time in the Bible Jesus mentioned a “light falling from heaven” saying “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” Luke 10:18. It’s very simple Dr. Micheal, Just take out Paul’s letters, the book of Acts and the Scribes error or editions, then we are left with the Bible most clear prophecy and Jesus own words, that the seal of prophets is to come from the descendents of Ishmael as I gave the irrefutable proof in my Bibical study here”

Reply: It would be nice if El Nimir gave any real sources on textual criticism of the Bible to show that the accounts have been altered to the degree he thinks they have been. In fact, if he is suspicious, I have some quotes from him by a Bible scholar on this topic.

“If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we’re not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are.… At this stage, our work on the original amounts to little more than tinkering. There’s something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that a major task has been accomplished, but there it is (Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998, a revision of a paper presented at the Textual Criticism section of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco. Link here”

“In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy. (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.”
Who is this Bible scholar? If you clicked the first link, you’d know it was none other than Dr. Bart Ehrman himself, a practical patron saint amongst Muslim apologists.
The essay here is yet another example of why I find it so hard to take Muslim apologists seriously at all. We hope next time there will be real arguments and not Biblical hopscotch.

Spousal Intoxication

Should a wife ever let her husband get drunk? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The Bible regularly warns about the dangers of alcohol. Now I do not take this to mean that one cannot drink. The Bible warns about the dangers of money, but it doesn’t say you cannot have money and does not condemn having money in itself. The Bible warns about the dangers of sex, but it does not condemn having sex. In fact, it blesses it.

Despite this, there is a time when a kind of intoxication is encouraged.

Recently, I was reading through Proverbs and get to Proverbs 5:15-19, which is a passage I think most every man likes to read. This is a passage that celebrates the sexual delight of the union of husband and wife with the advice to the man of not following the path of adultery. Instead, stick with your own spouse. Delight in her always!

Interestingly, the ESV reading says “Be intoxicated always in her love.”

What a powerful picture!

And note, it does not say be intoxicated in the sexual delight of her, though that is a part of it, but be intoxicated in her love, which is expressed greatly in that delight.

So I decided to look up the word for intoxication and see what it said. I was pleased to see that a translation of it that is valid is intoxication, but yet I was surprised to see what else it meant.

The word is shagah and normally refers to sin and ignorance. In fact, the only place you could say it is used in a positive sense that I found was in Proverbs 5:19. In this passage, it is in contrast to the adulterous woman. It is saying instead of seeking after the other side of the fence where the grass seems greener, give that devotion to your own wife.

Again, a powerful picture.

It is our tendency I think as people to focus on the negative, instead of stopping to realize what blessings we have. Readers of this blog know that I did not marry until I was nearly thirty. Ironically, I had seen all my friends getting married around me, but when it came to my circle of friends in Charlotte, I was the first one to get married. I regularly celebrate that I get to enjoy the gift of marriage.

And I wonder how many of us, and this is especially written to the men today, seem to take our spouses for granted. Considering the way a lot of us are, we should celebrate that we found someone who not only puts up with us, but loves us. C.S. Lewis reminded us that we are all very difficult to live with. I know it’s difficult for my wife to have a husband who is a tremendous nerd and always has his nose in a book.

She also has to put up with my constantly sarcastic wit, and at the same time, the fact that I can be very sensitive and prone to misunderstanding when she’s joking about something. She has to learn to manage when I react negatively to seeing dirty dishes or items of that sort, and I don’t mean by dirty dishes, dishes that might have been sitting in the sink. I mean dishes that are dirty because a meal was just finished. It’s part of being an Aspie.

Gentlemen. Just consider what all your wife does for you. This is the person who trusts you more than anyone else. She sleeps next to you every night. When it comes to sex, she is giving you the highest trust that she can possibly give you. All that she does for you, you are to be ravished by that. You are to have it be such a spell on you that you are drunk from it.

Yes. Believe it or not, the Bible gives you the green light to be infatuated with your spouse. In fact, it encourages it. It encourages it for you so that you will seek the good of the spouse and learn to love her more. In fact, I think this is the way God designed the marriage to work out.

In the past, marriages were arranged. The husband and wife might not know each other until the wedding night. How was that love to be built? Well why should the man sacrifice for this complete stranger? My thinking is the obvious reason is he enjoys the sexual benefit of the marriage. That in turns bonds him to her in a hormonal sense that was not understood back then. With that bond, he is to grow increasingly to seek her good.

In turn, the same action is to bond the woman to her husband. Women release a bonding hormone at least two times in their lives. It is released in sex and it is released when it comes to a baby. A woman will just naturally bond with a child that she gives birth to. The more she cuddles with the child, the more she will bond.

So while this is mainly to the men encouraging them to practice marital faithfulness, a word to the woman would be to allow this to happen. Your man is just functioning the way he was meant to be. Of course, this does not mean you are to be just a sex slave or something of that sort for him, but one of the greatest give you can give your husband is to allow him to love you.

We today are troubled by what is happening to marriage in our world. Part of the reason that it is is because we have not shown the rest of the world what marriage is supposed to be. This requires work on our part, but we will benefit as married couples from it, and the rest of the world will benefit when we are truly honoring and celebrating marriage.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Treating Jason Collins Equally

Is Jason Collins really a hero? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The homosexual community has been stating for a long time that they want to be treated equally. Okay. Let’s consider that. Right now, the news is about an NBA player named Jason Collins who plays for the Washington Wizards and has come out and said that he is a homosexual.

Upfront, I will tell you that I am not a basketball fan so I am not up on Collins’s playing ability, though I understand he was about to head out and that his playing ability was not exceptional. If it hadn’t been for this statement of his, no one would have really remembered him in the sport overall.

Now we’ve been told that this is an act of courage. How it is that an act of courage is to come out and say you agree with a position that the popular media agrees with and is celebrated regularly in the populace, I have no idea. What is not being considered as much is what happened before this point.

Enter Carolyn Moos. Who is this person? She was someone who spent eight years of her life on Collins. They were to be married in fact and in 2009, the wedding was cancelled by Collins. Until this event happened, Moos had no idea why it was that she was abandoned.

If we were not so busy celebrating the fact that Collins admitted to being homosexual, we would be looking at the story of a guy who led a woman on for eight years and then abandoned her just as she was anticipating getting married. Those are eight years that Moos cannot get back. Those are years she could have been dating another man and seeking her spouse. Those are years that she was lied to.

It was a similar incident with Bishop Robinson, the first practicing homosexual bishop. While everyone was talking about him, it was ignored that in the background was a wife and kids that he abandoned for a man. Are we to overlook the fact that he broke his marital vows and divorced? Are we to overlook that he abandoned his children?

For those wanting equal treatment, let’s be consistent. What are we to say about a guy who abandons a woman saying he will marry her after several years? What are we to say about someone who abandons his wife and his children?

Are there any examples of courage? In the past, Carrie Prejean would have been a great example, and in all honesty, she still is. Do you remember her? She was the contestant in the Miss America pageant from California who said she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. We are certainly thankful that Perez Hilton and the rest accepted her different and diverse view with love and tolerance.

Of course they didn’t! Prejean was mocked and insulted throughout the media simply for saying what she thinks is the case. For all the times that we’ve had feminists talk about the objectification of women, they were awfully silent when it came to Prejean. They didn’t mind men making derogatory remarks about her body.

As has been said, tolerance and diversity is a one-way street.

Yet there is another example of real courage. That’s ESPN commentator Chris Broussard. Broussard said that he believes homosexual actions and pre-marital sex are sinful. He is a Christian and this is his belief system. Now a world wanting to celebrate diversity is celebrating the diversity of Broussard’s opinion and a world wanting to celebrate tolerance is being understanding for Broussard’s view.

And if you believe that, I have some oceanfront property I want to sell you in Montana.

Going with the flow of popular culture does not take courage. What Broussard did does take courage, especially knowing he could well be putting his job and family on the line for being willing to state what he believes in. The tolerati will not be so accepting of this opinion.

What has not been learned is that if you only accept viewpoints you agree with, you are not practicing tolerance and you are not doing so in any sense. True tolerance does not mean you accept someone’s belief system. You don’t tolerate what you agree with. True tolerance means you allow someone the right to believe something differently.

I don’t approve of Collins’s lifestyle. What does that mean? We have a discussion on it. Does it mean I want him thrown out of the NBA? No. His being a homosexual has no effect on his playing basketball that I know of. By all means let him play, let him sign autographs, let him do whatever he can on the field. I’m just not required to accept his personal lifestyle and more than I would be required to accept the lifestyle of an athlete who is sleeping with multiple women.

When disagreement comes, debate it. Too often, debate is being about the people who disagree instead of about the topic itself. As soon as I see labels like “bigot” and “homophobe”, I know that we are no longer really doing debate. I am no longer defending my position. I’m being forced to defend having my position.

Perhaps if we are really doing equal treatment, we will consider what it means to do what was done to Moos. Perhaps we will want to make sure that Broussard gets the right to express his views without repercussion the way that people want Collins to.

My prediction? Equality will not be a big deal in this case. Like tolerance and diversity, the rule of equality only applies when it favors the other side.

In Christ,
Nick Peters