Reflections on Faith

We are too easily pleased

2010-05-01T15:59:00.001-07:00

Of all places, I found the following quote by C.S. Lewis at a photography forum. It was a tag line of one of the participants.

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Isn't that so true!

We look for today's gratification of the flesh, something that satisfies us momentarily. And then we wonder if there is more to life then the drinking, the eating, the quest for a better paying job, the desire to be liked and approved ...

God promises that He will be found if someone seeks him with all his heart. And to the person who finds Him, He promises

guidance Psalm 32:8
deliverance in the day of trouble Psalm 50:15
help Isaiah 41:13
to show great and mighty things Jeremiah 33:3
showers of blessings Ezekiel 34:26
the person will find what he seeks, and receives what he asks for Matthew 7:7-8
rest and refreshment Matthew 11:28-29

There are many more promises to the person who surrenders himself to God, and these promises from Matthew 6:31-33 are a good reminder why eternity should be our focus while we live this short life on this earth.

So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

First translations of the Malay Bible

2010-01-06T13:06:00.000-08:00

Source:Here.

To the willfully ignorant, facts do not matter.

When the Bible was translated into the Malay language as far back as 1612, the term "Allah" was used to describe Almighty God.

And yet today, many Malaysian Muslims are accusing the Catholic Church in Malaysia as having a hidden agenda when they insist that they have the right to use the term "Allah". These Muslims do not understand that the Catholic Church is not the only one that uses the term. Christians from other protestant denominations in Sabah and Sarawak too use the term "Allah" in Bibles written in their native languages.

Just think about it. Is it an issue in the Arab speaking world when Christian Arabs use "Allah" in their publications and worship? Is it an issue in Indonesia, the country with the most Muslim population, when Christians use the term "Allah" in their worship?

Only in Malaysia is it an issue! An issue drummed up by the religious, political and race-baiting opportunists.

The fact is, the term "Allah" has never been the sole domain of Islam's and it will never be.

So deal with it!

"Allah" as used in the Bible

2010-01-05T16:56:00.000-08:00

“This is because ‘God’ in other religions is translated as “Tuhan” in Bahasa Melayu or Arabic, not ‘Allah’. Allah’ specifically referred to God in Islam. If they understand that, they would use the word ‘Tuhan’, not ‘Allah’.

“I accept the term ‘Allah’ had been used in Sabah and Sarawak before the two states joined Malaysia, but it is difficult to stop them from doing so now ... but in the peninsula, we have not heard of such practice.” .. Mahathir Mohammad as quoted in the Malaysian Insider.

Mahathir Mohammad is merely expressing what many ingnorant Malaysian Muslims believe about the usage of "Allah" by Christians in Malaysia, especially those in Sabah and Malaysia.

Those who understand the context and concept of "Allah" as used by Christians know that the word predate Islam and has been used by Christians in the Middle East long before the dawn of Islam. It is a term with definite meaning and not easily substituted with the word "Tuhan" which also means God (but used differently in the Bible) as suggested by Mahathir Mohammad.

I doubt many Malaysian Muslims, and that includes Mahathir Mohammad, know that the word "Allah" has been in continuous use in the Malay language "first, in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malay (Ruyl, 1629); then, in the first complete Malay Bible (Leijdecker, 1733), and in the second complete Malay Bible (Klinkert, 1879) and the translations since." (Bible Society of Malaysia)

Christians in Malaysia are not trying to inflame the sensitivities of Malaysian Muslims, as charged by certain Muslim quarters, when they insist on maintaining their right to use the term "Allah" in their Bibles and publications. It is the Muslims themselves, who are only now aware that the term "Allah" (a term that has been used for over 400 years in that part of the world!) is being used by people other than Muslims, and are getting all worked up and making accusations against Christians that have no basis in facts!

Accusations of the term being misused for proselytizing. Accusations of denigration of Islam. Claims that by allowing the term "Allah" to be used by non-Muslims as endangering the sanctity and status of Islam in the country! Oh my.

When a Christian uses the term "Allah" to refer to Almighty God, there is clearly no confusion in his/her mind that he/she is worshiping the Christian God and not the Muslim God.

There are people who suggest that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God "Allah" and why quibble over the name of the God that both are worshiping? But for many Christians, especially in the Western world, the use of "Allah" to refer to the Christian God is an abhorrence because to them Allah the Muslim God is a false God.

But using the term "Allah" to refer to Almighty God, the Father of heaven and earth is not an issue in the Arabic speaking world and neither is it an issue in Indonesia.

Muslim writers have been using Allah in their quotations of the Christian Bible since the ninth century. Jewish scholars have also been translating elohim and elah as Allah since the earliest known Arabic translations of the Torah in the ninth century until today. (Joshua Massey in Allah in Bible Translations)

In Malaysia, through ignorance and politicking by political and religious opportunists, the usage of the term "Allah" has become a source of religious and racial tension.

Should Malaysian Christians be the ones to pay the price for easily inflamed ignoramuses and political opportunists?

I say, "NO!". In the words of Rev Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, "Malay has borrowed from Arabic, just as it has from Sanskrit and Portuguese. We have maintained the community has the right to use the word [Allah]."

The Sanctity of Life

2009-05-16T17:25:00.000-07:00

This weekend, President Obama will deliver the commencement speech at, and will receive an honorary law degree from Notre Dame University, a Catholic university, in South Bend, Indiana.

Obama's presence at the university has caused quite a controversy because of his stance on abortion. To practicing Catholics, abortion is not merely a sin but an injustice as well. An injustice to the unborn who has no say in the evil that is done to it.

Protecting the unborn and preserving the sanctity of life, should be one of the top social issues for anyone who calls himself/herself a Christian. The abortion debate is a difficult one for many Christians and one of the best resources I have found for compelling arguments for protecting the life of the unborn can be found at Stand to Reason.

Abortion involves killing and discarding something that's alive. Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.

Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

That quote from Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason sums up the crux of the abortion issue.

Where do YOU stand on this issue?

****

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Psalms 139:13-16:

National Day of Prayer 2009

2009-05-07T09:45:00.000-07:00

May your unfailing love rest upon us, O Lord,
even as we put our hope in you.
Psalm 33:22

Pengawa Ngerembai ka Pengarap

2009-04-24T08:48:00.000-07:00

Sebedau Jesus angkat ka serega iya bisi ninggal siti pesan ka berat ngagai bala murid iya. Ko iya, "Aku udah diberi samoa kuasa di serega enggau dunya. Nya alai bejalai kita ngagai samoa bansa orang di sebarang endor lalu ajar sida nyadi murid aku: baptisa sida dalam nama apai, enggau Anak, enggau Roh Kudus, lalu ajar sida ngasi ka utai ti udah dipesan aku ngagai kita. Kingat ka! Aku seruran deka enggau kita datai ka pemadu dunya." (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jako pesan tu besai endar reti ba kitai ka ngumbai diri Kristian. Dua iti jalai gereja tauka serakup Kristian ngerembai ka Berita Manah tu iya nya ngena radio enggau TV . Ba menoa kami ditu, mayoh amat stesen radio enggau TV ti mina nabur ka program pasal pengarap Kristian.

Leboh aku ngenang ka penyamai orang ninga/meda/macha pasal Berita Manah Allah Taaka ba radio, TV tauka ari bup ba menoa kami ditu, sinu ga aku ngenang pendiau kitai di Malaysia. Kitai enda ulih ngaga stesen radio tauka TV ti mina ngemansang ka pengarap kitai. Kitai enda ulih nyual bup pengarap kitai ba sebarang kedai bup. Kitai enda tau ngeluar surat kabar ti ngundan sekeda leka jako. Kitai enda tau bekunsi pasal pengarap kitai ngagai orang ka udah megai pengarap Islam.

Taja pia, barangsapa ti bebendar ngiga Allah Taala, tetap tetemu ka Iya. Barangsapa ti ka ngisi ati sida enggau pemendar Allah Taala tetap tulih ka iya. Pasang aja short wave radio, ulih tetemu ka radio pengarap Kristian. Enda ibuh sebut agi enti ngena internet. Enti bisi penanggul, ati kitai aja ka nyadi penanggul.

Aku ka bekunsi kesaksian sekeda orang ka udah nerima penyelamat Tuhan Jesus. Anang kitai ngumbai kategal pengawa ngerembai pengarap kitai ngagai orang ka udah megai pengarap Islam disekat perintah, sida enda ulih ditegu agi. Enti kitai mina ngena kuasa mensia sigi enda ulih tang kuasa Allah Taala besai agi ari kuasa ba dunya tu.

Jesus tau negu pengidup orang ka endang amat-amat ngiga iya, alu Iya tau ngayan ka diri Iya ari mimpi, ari malikat iya, ari radio enggau TV, ari kaban belayan orang nya empu, tauka ari kunsi orang ka enda dikelala iya.

Siko orang ka udah ditegu Allah Taala iya nya Mark Gabriel, bansa Arab ari menoa Egypt. Saksi iya amat meransang aku, laban munyi ko aku tadi kuasa Allah Taala enda ulih diperagam kitai mensia.

Siti program TV ti udah negu mayoh orang bansa Arab ka megai pengarap Islam iya nya Al Hayat. Program tu dipanchar ari America, ngajar pasal pengarap Kristian alu endang dituju ngagai bansa Arab ka megai pengarap Islam. Aku bekunsi siti video alai siko lelaki bansa Arab ari Algeria nerima penyelamat ka diberi Tuhan Jesus ngagai samoa orang ti arap ka iya. Pelaba aku enti program baka Al Hayat ulih diterima ba menoa Malaysia tentu mayoh orang ti megai pengarap Islam tetarit hati mega.

Sapa kitai ka diau ba Malaysia enda kala ninga nama Lina Joy? Lina Joy semina siko aja orang bansa Melayu ka udah ninggal pengarap lama iya alu nerima penyelemat ka diberi Tuhan Jesus. Siko agi indu Melayu ka bisi mega nerima penyelamat ari Tuhan Jesus benama Maria. Cherita iya tau dibacha ditu. Enti kita enda kala ninga pasal lelaki Melayu benama Benjamin Stephen, giga aja nama iya ba YouTube. Dia kita tetemu mayoh video mantah Benjamin Stephen kategal iya ka bekunsi kebuah iya ninggal pengarap iya alu nyadi orang ka nitih Tuhan Jesus.

Kitai mina kala ninga sida ka disebut ditu laban sida tampak agi rita tang lebih mayoh ka enda ditemu kitai, ti belalai ngembuan pengarap sida. Kitai mina ulih meri puji ngagai Tuhan laban mina iya aja ti ulih negu ati siko-siko alu mai sida ngagai jalai ka bendar.

Ko Jesus, "Enti dunya begedi ngagai kita, kita enda tau enda ingat ka iya ti udah dulu begedi ati ngagai aku. Enti kita endang enggi dunya, iya deka rindu ka kita. Tang aku udah milih kita ari dunya tu, lalu kita ukai enggi iya; nya kebuah dunya begedi ngagai kitai." (John 15:18-19)

The Power of Jesus' Name

2009-04-17T10:50:00.000-07:00

Did you read the story about how Christian signs and symbols at Georgetown University had to be covered,at the request of Obama's people, when Obama spoke about his economic policies at the university? Among the signs that were covered was the monogram IHS, a symbol for the name of Jesus.

Why is Jesus' name either honored or derided? Let's see what the Bible says about the name of Jesus.

1. We are commanded to believe in the name of God's Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 3:23

2. Those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, have life in his name. John 20:31

3. Believers are washed, sanctified and justified in name of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:11

4. Even demons listen to commands in Jesus' name. Acts 16:18, Mark 5:10

5. Jesus' name has the power to heal. Acts 3:16, Acts 4:30, Acts 16:18,

And most importantly,

6. Jesus' name is above all names, and every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth at the name of Jesus and every tongue will confess that He is Lord. Philippians 2:10

Is it any wonder that the name of Jesus is honored by those who put their faith in Him, and derided and used as a curse word by others who refused to acknowledge his Lordship?

Those who use Jesus' name as a curse word know that, whether they acknowledge it or not, there is power in that name. Have you heard anyone use the name of Buddha, or Krishna, or even Mohammad as a curse word? Why not? Because none of those names has the kind of power that Jesus' name has.

Personal Application:

Am I a worthy ambassador for Christ? (2 Corinthians 5:20). Does my conduct bring honor or dishonor to God?

Help me, Lord, to never knowingly take your name in vain!

"Allah" Ban Part Trois

2009-04-15T12:34:00.000-07:00

The following article is a reproduction from Herald Malaysia Online. Prof Dzulkifli's original article can be found here. My comments to this article appear at the bottom of this post.

***********

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun

Published on April 03 , 2009

Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’?

By: Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Wed, 11 Mar 2009)
Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak in his article in The Sun on Mar 11, wrote about the Christian Bible and its translation in Bahasa Indonesia (Alkitab). Unfortunately he manifested not only his lack of understanding in the specified field of bible translation but also an inadequate knowledge of basic Christian concepts. Hence we have asked Fr Martin Harun, OFM, a biblical scholar, to respond to his article. Fr Martin is a member of the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Please note that we have not altered the original article of Prof Dzulkifli. The response of Fr Martin is in bold beneath those statements that are inaccurate or which do not measure up to good scholarship.

Prof Dzulfikli Abdul Razak: The use of the term ‘Allah’ has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.

[We disagree with the above sentence. In our response to what follows we challenge the subjective views of the author. Our statements are based on historical facts and intellectual objectivity. (Editor’s Note)]

To all Muslims the term ‘Allah’ is laden with the concept of Tauhid — that ‘Allah’ is “the One and Only” as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. ‘Allah’ cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.

Fr Martin Harun: All Christians in the Arabic world and Indonesia and Malaysia who use the word ‘Allah’ for God, confess ‘Allah’ yang Esa. Christian Trinitarian belief is monotheistic, although not in the same sense as Muslim monotheistic belief. Each religion has of course its own specific definitions, as has been acknowledged by Muslims and Christians from the very beginning.

Prof Dzulkifli: Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.

Fr Harun: Alkitab Terjemahan Baru and Alkitab Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari both are translated not from any other modern language like English but from the original Hebrew and Greek text. When translating Elohim and Theos with ‘Allah,’ the translations follow an already long established translation tradition. Since the seventeenth century bible translations in Malay have used the word ‘Allah’ as the best word available in the Malay language to express the monotheistic concept of Elohim and Theos.

Prof Dzulkifli: In Luke, ‘God’ is generally substituted by ‘Allah’, whereas ‘Tuhan’ is commonly used to substitute ‘the Lord". Note the article ‘the’ applies to ‘Tuhan,’ but not to ‘Allah’. Hence, where there is ‘the Lord God’ in the English version, it becomes ‘Tuhan Allah’. ‘The Lord their God’ becomes ‘Tuhan, Allah mereka’. Note the use of a comma!

Fr Harun: Alkitab is not translated from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. ‘Allah’ is not chosen as an Arabic word, but as an already Malay/Indonesian word that best expresses the meaning of Elohim and Theos in the biblical texts, and Tuhan best expresses the meaning of Adonai / Kurios in the biblical language. So every comparison with English and also Arabic is irrelevant and highly confusing.

Prof Dzulkifli: On some occasions though, ‘God’ is also translated as ‘Tuhan’, though ‘God’ in this example does not carry the article ‘the’ as in ‘the Lord’. So does it mean there is a time when ‘God’ is not ‘Allah’? Or that ‘Tuhan’ is ‘Allah’ after all?

Fr Harun: This happens only in the Old Testament, more often in the book of Ezekiel when the Hebrew text says Adonai YHWH (pronounced Adonai Adonai, harfiah Tuhan Tuhan). In many bible translations in many languages, starting from the Latin Vulgate this repetition has been avoided by translating ‘Tuhan Allah’, ‘Dominus Deus’, ‘Lord God’, ‘Herr Gott’, ‘Seigneur Dieu’. The Indonesian Alkitab Terjemahan Baru follows this old use, but could also opt for a different way, e.g. ‘TUHAN Yang Mahatinggi’ (BIS), ‘like Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

Prof Dzulkifli: Yet, on other occasions, ‘Allah’ is used as substitute for ‘the LESUS.’ But then, ‘the LESUS your God’ is rendered as ‘Tuhan, Allahmu’ — note again the comma!.

Fr Harun: There is no word as ‘the LESUS.’ Prof Dzulkifli may have meant ‘the Christ’ meaning ‘the Lord.’ The word ‘Allah/Theos’ is never used for Jesus in his earthly existence, but some times in liturgical contexts for either the preexistent Logos, Word (John 1:1) or the Christ (John 20:28) as Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord, My God”, ‘Tuhanku, Allahku’, so always in celebrating his unity with the One God.

Prof Dzulkifli: Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of ‘Allah’ in the translated version. To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name ‘Mary’ is rendered as ‘Maria’ — when the Quranic equivalent would have been ‘Maryam’; And ‘John’ as ‘Yohanes’ instead of ‘Yahaya.’ Or for that matter ‘Gabriel’ is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic ‘Jibrail’ as an equivalent is not even considered! How about ‘Jesus’ himself? Why is this rendered as ‘Yesus’, rather than ‘Isa’? In the Quran both are the sons of Mary or Maryam.

Fr Harun: Names are a different question. They are not translated, but can be transliterated from the original language in different ways according to the use of the receiving language group. The confusion is 100 per cent created by Prof Dzulkifli himself who keeps on forgetting the Bible is not translated via English or Arabic, but from Hebrew and Greek direct into Malay/Indonesian language. Not knowing Hebrew and Greek Prof Dzulkifli should not judge any translation from those languages, as I myself not knowing Arabic would not dare to judge any Indonesian translation from Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: If the worry is that the use of the word ‘Isa’ in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of ‘Allah’; unlike what is understood for the biblical ‘Jesus’ — then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when ‘Allah’ is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical ‘the Son of God’ and the use of ‘Anak Allah’ as an equivalent in the translation — something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of ‘Allah’ as explained in the Quran, Surah Al- Ikhlas 112: 3 that “He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him”.

Fr Martin: In any language the same common word for God is filled with different concepts, since the users of this same language have different religious convictions. These differences are to be respected, without anyone claiming monopoly to the common language. The more so in this case, since the use of the word ‘Allah’ in early Christian circles precedes its use in the Quran.

Prof Dzulkifli: The consequence of this translation will be that Muslims will be confronted with blasphemous ideas that ‘Allah’ has a son; that ‘Allah’s son was born in the manger; that ‘Allah’s son was crucified; that ‘Allah’s son died for all of us. This may have public order implications under section 298 of the Malaysian Penal Code which forbids the wounding of religious feelings.

Fr Martin: Such a statement could amount to forbidding the presence of Christianity altogether. Prof Zulkifli forgets that Bible and Biblical Literature are intended for Christian readers.

Prof Dzulkifli: As it stands, the use of ‘Allah’ the way it is can only arouse suspicions as to why an Arabic word is used for an Indonesia- Malay translation of the Gospel. Why not use the Hebrew or Armenia (Should it not be Aramaic? Editor’s Note) equivalents, instead?

Fr Martin: In a bible translation Hebrew and Greek words have to be translated, and — as said — the best and most enduring translation for the concept of Elohim and Theos has been the Malay/Indonesian word ‘Allah’. In our language ‘Allah’ is no longer an Arabic word with Arabic grammatical and syntactic rules, but has already for centuries become a Malay/Indonesian word that listens to our own language rules. E.g. we can say “Tuhan, Allah kita” which is impossible in Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: To add on to this suspicion is why there is no insistence that examples in the fore-mentioned names be substituted with the Arabic equivalent, including places like ‘Jerusalem’ which is substituted by ‘Yerusalem’ which is not the name in Arabic either.

Fr Martin: Once again, our bible translation is not a translation from Arabic or into Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: On the contrary, there are biblical names that are readily rendered to the equivalent Arabic in the translation. The examples are numerous, for instance: David as Daud; Zacharias as Zakharia; Aaron as Harun; Joseph as Yusuf; Moses as Musa; law of Moses as Taurat Musa (though, more appropriately it should have been ‘hukum Musa’, since there is the specific term ‘Torah’ for ‘Taurat’).

Fr Martin: Malay and Indonesian languages are enriched by the influence of many languages, Sanskrit, Portuguese, Arabic, Dutch, English, bahasa daerah, etc. Any of these originally ‘loanwords’ or name transliterations can be used by the translating community if it sounds familiar to them and is an adequate rendering. There is no rule that all should be taken from one background, or none from another. Language is a living and always developing mixed reality. The community itself has to decide about choices that fit best. Translation cannot be decided by outsiders with rigid consistency rules.

Prof Dzulkifli: The final straw is when the patriarch ‘Abraham’ who is the fountain head for Judaism, Christianity and Islam is also not rendered to Arabic ‘Ibrahim’ — but left as ‘Abraham’. Here, the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and insensitivities in the use and misuse of the word ‘Allah’ become even clearer. And this must be the concern of all.

Fr Martin: Abraham is a close transliteration of the Hebrew and the Ancient Greek (Abraam). No need for intervention from transliteration in a third language, and no dictionary forbids one language to have several transliterations that function in different communities or subcultures.

*******

When a politician speaks foolishly or in an inflammatory fashion, I am often not surprised because people who enter politics are often not the brightest except at peddling influence and their ability to line their pockets.

However, when an academician speaks, we normally try to pay attention, especially when he speaks on a subject that he is an expert at.

In this instance, Prof Dzulkifli takes his title of professor too seriously, and deigns to write on a subject he knows very little about, i.e. biblical concepts and the science of biblical translation. His arguments against the use of the term "Allah" and other borrowed Arabic words used in the Malay language bible, not only reflect his ignorance but his knee jerk response to things that he perceives as an attack on the sovereignty and sanctity of Islam.

Is it any wonder that non-Muslims in Malaysia think that, when it comes to religious tolerance, it seems to only flow one way?

Recommended Reading:

Allah in Translations of the Bible

A Bird's Eye View of the History of the Malay Translation Bible

"Allah" Ban Part Deux

2009-04-14T16:05:00.000-07:00

Pas lawmakers divided over who is allowed to use the word “Allah”

By Adib Zalkapli

KUALA LUMPUR, March 5 — The heated debate in Parliament today over the the usage of the word “Allah” showed a division within Pas as some of the Islamist party MPs explicitly supported the use of the word by non-Muslims.

During his winding-up speech for the motion of thanks to the King, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi reiterated the government’s stand that the word Allah cannot be used by non-Muslims, citing state enactments and gazetted decrees by Islamic authorities.

The matter was brought up by Sri Gading MP Datuk Mohamad Aziz who said that the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims was an attempt to insult Islam.

Kuala Selangor MP Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad of Pas later cited the Quran to show how the word “Allah” was used by the non-Muslims.

He was supported by another Pas lawmaker Shah Alam’s Khalid Samad, who argued that the word “Allah” is Arabic for God.

Zahid then asked the duo whether it was the official stand of the Islamist party, to which Khalid said it was the decision made by the party’s Islamic scholars’ wing.

Baling MP Taib Azamudin, however, disagreed with his party colleagues saying that he was more interested to defend the sanctity of Islam.

“It is illogical to argue based on the language point of view, others cannot use the word ‘Allah’,” said Taib.

In his reply, Zahid said Taib’s stand on the matter is consistent with the government’s.

“What was said by Baling is the stand of the government of Malaysia, it is the stand of Jakim (Islamic Development Department),” said the de facto Islamic Affairs minister.

The use of the word Allah by non-Muslims has been a contentious issue in Malaysia after the Catholic weekly, The Herald, challenged the government’s directive banning the publication from using the word “Allah”.

Source: Here.

Religious freedom: 'Allah' part of Iban prayers
By : TAN SRI LEO MOGGIE ANAK IROK, Kuala Lumpur

VIEWS attributed to influential personalities, including Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, prohibiting the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslims are very disturbing -- including for those of us whose mother tongue is Iban.

Islam is the official religion of this country. No one questions that. Similarly, the Constitution guarantees the right of religious freedom.

Followers of different faiths worship in their own ways and there is always some sensitivity attached to religious issues. Thus, I will not touch on matters of theology or religious doctrine. Moreover, this is more a question of language.

I am told that "Allah" is a standard Arabic word for God and is also widely used in the Middle East by non-Muslims.

Datuk Daud Abdul Rahman, assistant minister in the Chief Minister's Department (Islamic Affairs) in the Sarawak government, noted that the word had been used by the followers of the Sidang Injil Borneo in Sarawak for more than 50 years.
Furthermore, the Majlis Islam Sarawak does not think that Muslims in Sarawak are confused when non-Muslims use the word "Allah" in their liturgy (Borneo Post -- March 9).

My parents and family members were baptised into the Catholic faith in 1947. As a 6-year-old boy, I was taught to pray to "Allah Taala". The Creed, the acclamation of faith in the Christian prayer, when rendered in Iban begins as follows: "Aku arap ke siko aja' Allah Taala, Apai Ke besai Kuasa, Ke ngaga Seruga enggau dunia."

In my own immediate family, through inter-marriage, there are Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Once a year, at Gawai Dayak, we visit the family longhouse. When the prayer leader reads excerpts from the Iban translation of the Bible, the words "Allah Taala" are an integral part of the prayers.

After the Gawai, when we return to Kuala Lumpur, the grandchildren continue to attend mengaji lessons. There is no hint of confusion among the Muslim members of the family.

Ahmad Zahid is no ordinary individual. He received the highest number of votes among the three newly elected vice-presidents in Umno. Going by tradition, it may be expected he will be appointed to a senior and important portfolio in the new cabinet line-up.

One hopes when he is given wider responsibility, as different from aspiring to a post in Umno, he will recognise that those of us who use the word "Allah" or "Allah Taala" in our Christian prayers and publications have no other agenda but to practise our faith in our own language.

How can that be made illegal?

As published on NST and The Star.

*********

What I find most objectionable in this whole issue is how an elected representative can even utter words like " the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims is an attempt to insult Islam"!

It's either a sign of his foolishness or worse, ignorance, and like that proverbial "katak di bawah tempuroung" who in his narrow little world, assumes that the word "Allah" should only be used by Muslims, while totally oblivious to the fact that "Allah" is a word that is used by Christians in many parts of the world as well. And as far as I know, no Muslim in these other countries has indicated that the use of the word is insulting to Islam or seen as a challenge to the sanctity of Islam!

Personally, I am in favor of abandoning the use of "Allah" when refering to our Almighty God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not because the Malaysian government has banned the use of the term in any publication using the Malay language, but because I feel that it is time that we use the most accurate name to call our Almighty God.

Let's start using Yahweh, the Hebrew word to refer to Almighty God, because it is the most accurate name for Almighty God, a name that occurs over 6000 times in biblical manuscripts.

It should be noted here that ArabBible.com has started replacing the name "Allah" with the name "al-Ilaah" on their online version of the Van Dyck Arabic Bible. The name "al-Ilaah" means "the god", and that term does not introduce a foreign word into the Arabic language.

Since the translated Bibles used by the indigenous groups in Malaysia is using "Allah" which is a borrowed word to refer to God Almighty, I see no reason not to, nor difficulty in, replacing the borrowed word with another, in this case a more accurate one, which is Yahweh. For the Christian, no matter what native tongue he/she is speaking, Yahweh is a familiar name.

For all the gods of the nations are (worthless) idols:
but the LORD (YHWH) made the heavens.
Psalm 96:5

Bumiputra Christians And The Use Of "Allah"

2008-07-08T07:56:00.000-07:00

The Christian community in Malaysia by and large is aware that there are two legal suits pending in the High Courts to determine whether we have the right to use the word "Allah". 9 July 2008 is a very important date. The latest development now witnesses Sikh's participation in the fray. Four State Islamic Councils have already applied to be the respondents in this case. They are Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Perak (MAIAMP), Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (MAIWP), Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu (Maidam) and Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang (MAIPP). Its outcome has far reaching implications over the missio praxis particularly among the Malay-speaking congregations who mostly are bumiputera of Sabah, Sarawak and Orang Asli of Semananjung Malaysia. In this context, our church leaders (ordained, lay and including politicians) are in the forefront to battle it out for us so to speak in the court of law. They are exercising their roles and responsibilities as church leaders. We thank God for them and we are grateful to them for doing what they are doing. Frankly speaking, making the final judgment is not going to be easy for the judges who will preside over the two cases.

As I searched the internet on the universal usage of the word "Allah" with particular reference to its currency in the Malaysian contexts, I came across Micah Mandate. I salute Mr Goh for interviewing Tan Sri Bernard Dompok in Putrajaya on major issues, among other things, religious freedom - the use of "Allah" by the Christian community in particular. I do not know Tan Sri very well but I do know one or two politicians who are close to him and through them I know he is a man of principle. Therefore, I BELIEVE in his words. Another contributor in the same site described the turn of events leading to the two court cases (I mentioned earlier) on the word "Allah": one was filed by the Roman Catholic Church (RC) and the other suit was filed by Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB).

The use of "Allah" in our Alkitab, kebaktian kudus, khotbah, latihan perlengkapan, perbualan, etc is long established. It may not be used every second of our daily lives but it is certainly used right through the rites of passages from the day one is baptized as an infant to the day of his or her funeral. It is used in Sunday or weekday services in churches as well as in our homes, in our daily prayers, teachings or cell group meetings. We continue to praise God in heaven and I believe God would accept our praises and worship containing the word "Allah" if we were to use it to address and worship him (see Rev 7:9-12). In short, it is impossible to cease the use of Allah from our communal and religious life.

We have used this word even before Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963. In fact the Malaysia Bible Society authority would affirm that the word "Allah" has been used in the Malay translation of Mathew's Gospel in 1612 some 350 years before the idea of Malaysia was ever conceived. When Malaysia was formed and proclaimed Bahasa Melayu (now Bahasa Malaysia) became the national language and Islam the official religion. Other religions were freed to exist, express and propagate their faiths. For us, the freedom enshrined in the Constitution also included the free use of words, phrases, terms and terminologies including the word "Allah". I do not think that from that day onward Christians were no longer allowed to use "Allah" in their community? I am interested to find a specific clause in our Federal Constitution spelling out that beginning 1963 Christians no longer can use "Allah" because it would confuse the Muslims and only Muslims can use the word. What has happened I suggest is rather an afterthought pronouncement so to speak, and if so, what other proactive approach could be taken to rectify it? For example, it is far effective to educate Malaysians regarding the use of Allah than legislate its use.

The word has become part of our story telling very early in our struggle towards nation building If we were to delete this most central and fundamental word from our vocabs; we would create huge vacuum in our Christian education programs. It impedes our understanding and teaching of who our God Almighty is. Our prayer language is devoid of the most fundamental truths and understanding of our God who became man, died and rose again and to whom we now make petitions. Charting this path of removing the word in our story telling may seem to others an effortless task - just a delete and forget processes. Or, just use another word - Tuhan. But we cannot underestimate the power of words. Nor can we easily brush aside history and the attachment associated with the word. This Allah word, when rightly taught and correctly understood evokes feelings of intimacy, love, fear, respect, honour and worship of God. It is intrinsic to our ecclesiastical, religious, linguistic and spiritual landscape. We are proud to use a foreign word that has become our national language and ecclesiastically proper when used to address and worship our God. Now we might face the possibility to forget it? The concern that we will lose this privilege to use the word "Allah" is real.

We must also allay the fear among Muslims that we might use the word to confuse or win them over. It is a legitimate concern, especially in the context of Malaysia. I sincerely believe the Christian community will not resort to this scheme. We know we cannot evangelise Muslims and that we can be prosecuted when doing so. What is the difference between our Allah and their Allah? I have sisters and many relatives who are married to Muslims by choice and converted to Islam. If they ask me to explain my "Allah" I will reply that my "Allah" is he who is righteous, loving, compassionate and forgiving. He hates sin but loves the sinner. No one has ever seen Allah because he is spirit but he became human and lived among humans. He died for everybod and rose to heaven. Whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. That is my "Allah". Period.

In Malaysia's multi-religious framework it is well and good to settle things amicably in the spirit of musyawarah. Musyawarah is considered a vital tool in problem-solving. However, going by the present situation we might as well allow the court to help settle this case once and for all. Let us pray that the judgment favours us. If the judgment does not favour us this scenario will take place; we cannot use the word "Allah" anymore in our daily conversation, religious or community activities. The reason is because we might "confuse" the followers of the official religion of this country. As a pastor-teacher-preacher and theologian in the local church I naturally follow this event with interest and anticipation because it has far reaching implications in the way we treat our literature, liturgy, songs, ministry and mission enterprises, etc. What will be our next option (I am not answering this question in this article, yet)?

By the way, in the context of the universal declaration of human rights, does one has the right to require an adherent of another religion not to use a specific word because that specific word belongs only to his religion? The two judges shoulder a heavy responsibility in interpreting the law when they preside over the two pending and separate court cases over a common issue - the right to use the word "Allah" We trust in God and pray that the court will deliver a favourable judgment to us.

(By LIDIS SINGKUNG/ MySinchew)
-----------------------------------------------
Lidis Singkung is an Anglican clergyman and also a Kadazandusun. Presently
he serves in St Patrick's Anglican Church in Tawau). Used by permission of
www.themicahmandate.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Husband

2008-06-08T07:32:00.000-07:00

A HUSBAND COMES HOME FROM CHURCH; HE GREETS HIS WIFE AND LIFTS HER UP. HE THEN CARRIED HER AROUND THE HOUSE.

THE WIFE WAS SO SURPRISED AND SHE ASKED 'DID THE BISHOP PREACH ABOUT BEING ROMANTIC'?

THE HUSBAND SAID, 'NO, HE SAID WE MUST CARRY OUR BURDENS AND SORROWS'.

National Day of Prayer

2008-05-01T19:02:00.000-07:00

The first Thursday in May is National Day of Prayer. President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming the National Day of Prayer into law on April 17, 1952.

My church was open all day today for anyone who wanted to come in and pray.

The National Day of Prayer also coincided with my weekly Bible Study with a group of church ladies. After our regular study we spent about 10 minutes praying together over the prayer items listed in the National Day of Prayer leaflet.

*****

2008 Prayer for Our Nation

Dr. Ravi Zacharias
2008 Honorary Chairman, National Day of Prayer Task Force

Holy Father, in a world where so many are hungry,
You have given us food in abundance;

In a world where so many are hurting,
You offer to bind up our wounds;

In a world where so many are lonely,
You offer friendship to every heart;

In a world longing for peace,
You offer hope.

Yet, we are so stubborn and resistant.
Have mercy upon us, Lord.

Our nation is at a crossroads this year;
we look to you to be our strength and shield.

Please give us the guidance to elect one who will honor you
and to respond to the wisdom from above
so that our hope may be renewed and our blessings be treasured.

In God's holy name.

Christianity without Christ

2008-03-28T16:29:00.000-07:00

That triumphal barnburner of an Easter hymn, Jesus Christ Has Risen Today – Hallelujah, this morning will rock the walls of Toronto's West Hill United Church as it will in most Christian churches across the country.

But at West Hill on the faith's holiest day, it will be done with a huge difference. The words “Jesus Christ” will be excised from what the congregation sings and replaced with “Glorious hope.”

Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected – an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit – but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity's central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God.

Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill's Sunday service liturgy.

There is no authoritative Big-Godism, as Rev. Gretta Vosper, West Hill's minister for the past 10 years, puts it. No petitionary prayers (“Dear God, step into the world and do good things about global warming and the poor”). No miracles-performing magic Jesus given birth by a virgin and coming back to life. No references to salvation, Christianity's teaching of the final victory over death through belief in Jesus's death as an atonement for sin and the omnipotent love of God. For that matter, no omnipotent God, or god.

Ms. Vosper has written a book, published this week – With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important than What We Believe – in which she argues that the Christian church, in the form in which it exists today, has outlived its viability and either it sheds its no-longer credible myths, doctrines and dogmas, or it's toast.

She is considered one of the bright, if unconventional, minds within the United Church, Canada's largest Protestant Christian denomination. She holds a master of divinity degree from Queen's University and was ordained in 1992. She founded and chairs the Toronto-based Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity.

Full story here.

Ms Vosper should stop deceiving herself and her followers and just call themselves atheists or anything they like. Anything but Christians.

They do not believe in Jesus Christ or God. So what is the point of calling themselves Christians? Progressive or otherwise?

Resurrection? Prove it to me

2008-03-22T10:28:00.000-07:00

"Raised from the dead? Sure. Right. And I have a bridge I'd like to sell you."

That's how Thomas might have responded if he had lived in our day. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands, and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."¹ He'd seen dead people before. And Jesus was dead. He sounds like sophisticated rationalists of the Twenty-first Century. "It isn't plausible," they would contend. "It didn't happen."

But what if it did happen?

Thomas was convinced when Jesus appeared to him, reached out his hands to Thomas, and said, "Put your finger here."

Thomas dropped to his knees. "My Lord and my God!"²

It was self-hypnosis, you counter. The disciples wanted to believe that their Lord was not dead, so they just invented it out of whole cloth.

Really? Let's look at some of the evidence.

Jesus' body was missing. If the Jews could have found it, they could have stilled the preaching of Jesus' resurrection that filled Jerusalem. But they could not.
The body wasn't stolen. The Romans had no motive. The Jews had no motive. Ah-ha, you say, the disciples stole it. There is the matter of the Roman guards, and the disciples' initial disbelief when the women brought them the news early that Easter morning. This brings me to my third point.
If the disciples had stolen the body, you wouldn't expect them to risk their lives. People don't die for what they know is not true. But the disciples put their lives on the line, and nearly all were eventually martyred for their faith. They certainly believed it.
The church mushroomed size in Jerusalem, the very place he was crucified. Followers of Jesus in the city of Jerusalem grew from a few dozen to thousands upon thousands soon after Jesus' resurrection. They believed it was true.
Contemporary documents refer to the event. Thallus the Samaritan, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny contain references to Jesus. Jewish historian Josephus writes about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. They knew something had happened.

Jesus' resurrection from the dead is actually more plausible than any other explanation. That's why we Christians make such a big deal about Easter. That's why we celebrate.

Jesus' resurrection means that death is not the end. That though my body may lie mouldering in the ground, Jesus, whom the Father raised from the dead, gives me eternal life. Ultimately, we Christians believe, our bodies, too, will be raised from the dead.

And since Jesus is not dead, people can encounter him today. You can know him through a personal relationship. I could point to lots of people who can testify what Jesus has done in their lives to bring them from the brink of disaster to peace and meaning and joy. He changes people for good.

If you're not sure can't really say you've met this risen Jesus, this Easter Sunday why don't you slip into church to seek him. And perhaps in the midst of our celebration, you'll find him for yourself.

He's alive, you know. That's what Easter is all about!

By Dr. Ralph F. Wilson

A Soldier's View of the Tomb

2008-03-21T09:37:00.000-07:00

Cassius stood at rigid attention in front of the commanding officer of Jerusalem's military cohort. "Centurion," the officer barked, "explain yourself! One of your squads was assigned to guard a tomb, a dead man. What could be so hard about that? Now I'm hearing rumors that the body is missing? Tell me this is all a mistake!"

"Sir, may I be frank, one old soldier to another?" asked the Centurion. He and the Tribune went back a long way, though the Tribune was of the equestrian class, and he a mere commoner.

"Please, Cassius," he said somewhat more gently, and motioned for the Centurion to take a seat.

"I must beg your indulgence, sir," Cassius began. "The story actually begins weeks ago."

"Take your time," the Tribune said, relaxing somewhat.

"Ever since this Jesus began preaching around Jerusalem, we thought he might be some kind of revolutionary bent on stirring up the populace with his talk of the Kingdom of God. But I went and listened to him, sir. He was no threat. Thousands would sit in rapt attention as he would talk about his Father, and loving your neighbor, forgiveness from past sins, and beginning a new life. It was fascinating, sir. Made you feel like he cared about you personally, he did."

The Tribune was resting his chin on his hand. "Go on, soldier."

"The next I saw him, we had been ordered to stand guard outside the Governor's official residence. The crowd was getting ugly. Pontius Pilate was sitting up there on the judgment seat and Jesus stood before him. Someone had roughed him up a bit, sir.

"What did you expect, Centurion?"

"Finally," Cassius continued, "Pilate motioned for silence. 'I find no crime in this man,' he called out. Then he tried to set Jesus free. He asked them to choose between Barabbas--a known murderer and rebel--and Jesus."

"And now that criminal Barabbas is walking free again."

"Jews from the ruling Sanhedrin were shouting, 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' The rabble took up the cry. It was touch and go for a minute there, sir. Then Pilate called for a basin, and began to wash his prissy little hands ...."

"Centurion, I'll allow no disrespect," the Tribune said sharply.

"Yes sir, but you know Jesus was innocent, pure and simple. He had just offended some powerful priests. But when Pilate saw how the wind was blowing he went along. I thought Rome was about law and justice, not expediency."

"Ruling is sometimes dirty business, Centurion," interjected the Tribune.

"So is soldiering, sir. On your orders one of my squad was picked to scourge the man."

"Oh, they enjoyed it well enough," said the Tribune. "That tall soldier ... Publius, wasn't it? He flogged like a madman, as I recall, with the metal tips of the scourge biting into his back until the skin lay in tatters and blood ran free."

"Few times in my career have I been sickened by blood," commented Cassius, "but to see an innocent man treated with such cruelty...."

"I don't recall you stopping them from dressing him in a purple robe with a reed for a scepter and a crown of thorns. Oh, they were having fun, all right."

"I've crucified hundreds in my time," Cassius replied, "but this man was different. He didn't curse. He didn't whimper. He was half-dead already from the beating Publius gave him, and he fell on the way to Golgotha."

"Fell?"

"He was just too weak to carry the cross, so we conscripted a strong Cyrenean to carry it. Then we crucified Jesus."

"All men die the same."

"Not like he did," replied Cassius. "We spiked him to the cross-bar and hoisted it onto the upright, but I'll never forget his prayer: 'Father forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing.' Sir, I was responsible for killing him, and he forgave me."

"Haven't you been a soldier too long to be troubled by a guilty conscience, Cassius?"

"Then the thief crucified next to him asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom."

"His kingdom!" the Tribune sneered.

"But listen to his answer: 'Today you will be with me in paradise.' Amazing! About noon, Tribune, the sky grew dark. Everyone saw it, and felt the cold chill when he cried, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' He sounded like the loneliest man in the world, hanging in the darkness. He spoke scarcely a word until three in the afternoon when he shouted, almost triumphantly, 'It is finished!' And, if you listened closely, you could hear him whisper, 'Into your hands I commit my spirit.'

"At that very moment the ground began to tremble and roll," said Cassius. "Knocked me to the ground for a moment. And then the darkness began to lift. I tell you, Tribune, that was no mere man we crucified, he was the Son of God."

"A few freak coincidences and you're willing to declare him divine? He's just as dead as anyone."

"No, Tribune, he's not."

"He's not?"

"The chief priests and Pharisees insisted that Pilate guard the tomb so Jesus' disciples wouldn't steal the body."

"I know. I ordered it."

"We posted three men around the clock, relieved every eight hours as regulations call for. I sealed the tomb before they began. It was secure."

"So, what's this rumor that the body is gone?"

"It is gone, sir."

"I'll have your hide, Centurion!" the Tribune shouted, rising to his feet.

Cassius stood, too, but went on. "About seven o'clock Sunday morning, sir, the three soldiers on duty came running into the barracks like they'd seen a ghost. 'Centurion! Centurion!' they shouted. 'He's alive!' I got them calmed down, and made them tell me every detail.

"Their shift had begun about midnight," he said. They had been wide awake all night--telling stories about their girlfriends back home most of the time, I understand. Then, just before dawn, they said the garden tomb lit up as if it were high noon, and an angel with garments like lightning came and rolled the stone away from the tomb. They just sat there trembling. Then one of them got up-- Publius, I think they said--and looked in the tomb. The body was gone, and the graveclothes were lying on the limestone shelf wrapped round and round, but no body in them."

"You expect me to believe that?" the Tribune responded disdainfully.

"I questioned them closely. Each looked. Each saw the same thing. The body was gone."

"They must have fallen asleep, and told a story to cover themselves."

"They were battle-hardened veterans, sir, not some green troops. I know those men. Besides, sir, you'd think the sound of people trying to roll a huge stone would awaken sleeping soldiers. No, they were telling the truth, all right."

"What do you expect me to tell people, Centurion? That he rose from the dead?"

"I don't know what you're going to tell them, Tribune, but that's what happened. He's alive. I tell you, he's alive!"

"We'll tell the soldiers to say they fell asleep and his disciples stole the body," suggested the Tribune.

"What soldier is willing to say he fell asleep?" asked Cassius with a thin smile on his face.

"We'll pay them to say it," said the Tribune. "The chief priests owe us. They'll come up with a goodly sum to bury this story.... I'll take care of it from here on out, Centurion. You didn't see anything. You don't know anything. Got it?"

"But I do know, and I did see, Tribune. I can't change what happened. Jesus is out there alive. More than alive."

"Forget this ever happened, Cassius."

"Forget it if you can, sir. But with all respect, Jesus is alive, and that changes everything."

Source: Joyful Heart

Sherif Girgis: The Audacity of Hope

2008-03-05T19:42:00.000-08:00

This morning, on The Laura Ingraham Show, I heard a very articulate Princeton University student talk about the open letter he had written to Senator Obama.

Today was the first time I had heard of Sherif Girgis. I do not know how I could have missed this bright young man because I am, afterall, a subcriber of National Review.

This following is the letter Sherif Girgis wrote to Senator Obama, and reproduced from NRO.

~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~

The Audacity of Hope
A second-generational query.

By Sherif Girgis

Dear Senator Obama:

As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”

But do you mean it?

As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.

As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”

You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

— Sherif Girgis of Dover, Del., is a senior philosophy major at Princeton University and a 2008 Rhodes Scholar.

The Birth of Jesus Christ

2007-12-24T11:58:00.000-08:00

Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds and the Angels

8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

15When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

16So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Malaysian Catholic weekly told to drop use of 'Allah' in order to renew publishing permit

2007-12-22T17:53:00.000-08:00

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: A Catholic weekly newspaper in Malaysia has been told to drop the use of the word "Allah" in its Malay language section if it wants to renew its publishing permit, a senior government official said Friday.

The Herald, the organ of Malaysia's Catholic Church, has translated the word God as "Allah" but it is erroneous because Allah refers to the Muslim God, said Che Din Yusoff, a senior official at the Internal Security Ministry's publications control unit.

"Christians cannot use the word Allah. It is only applicable to Muslims. Allah is only for the Muslim god. This is a design to confuse the Muslim people," Che Din told The Associated Press.

Full story here.

Che Din Yusoff needs to go for further education. He is making himself and the predominantly Muslim majority government of Malaysia a laughing stock.

Have you ever heard Arab Muslims in the Middle East forbidding the use of the word Allah in the Arabic Bible or by non Muslims?

Does Che Din Yusoff not know that the word Allah the name for God is not only used in Islam? The word Allah was used by Arab Jews in Saudi Arabia long before the advent of Islam.

The Internal Security Ministry's publications control unit banned the Iban Bible over the same issue .. the use of Allah in the Iban Bible. That ban was lifted after an outcry by the Ibans in Sarawak.

It is dispiriting for me to read this news during this Christmas season. Malaysia loves to promote herself as a tolerant multi-racial, multi-religious society to the world but when issues like this arise, one has to wonder if the image is just a sham.

What Marriage is Not

2007-12-10T10:17:00.000-08:00

Marriage is not a dictatorship. The Bible does not give the husband permission to set up an autocracy in the home. Husbands are not to lord their authority over their family, but exercise it with humility.

Headship does not mean that the husband is superior. Men and women have an equal standing before Christ. (see Gal 3:28)

Headship does not mean that the husband must make all the decisions. Husbands are told to manage their households. (1 Tim.3:12)

Headship does not mean that the husband is always right. It does mean that he is responsible for the decisions that are made.

Headship is not to be demanded. Husbands are commanded to love their wives, not to make them submit by lecturing and haranguing them.

Howard Hendricks

Role of Men in Marriage

* Lover

The command is not to "Love your wife when she submits to you."
Love that is not conditional but continuous
A Love that is willing to die for someone - a sacrificial love as Christ loves his church

*Leader

The Husband is responsible for the Spiritual well-being of his wife (family)
To present his wife in all her glory as Jesus does his Church.
To cherish and Nourish his bride

Relevant Bible Passages:

1 Peter 3:1-6

¹Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, ²when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. ³Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. ⁴Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. ⁵For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, ⁶like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Ephesians 5:25-33

²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ²⁶to make her holy, cleansing^[a] her by the washing with water through the word, ²⁷and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ²⁸In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰for we are members of his body. ³¹"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."^[b] ³²This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. ³³However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Horizon Community Church - Sermon on 12/2/2007

God Answers Prayer

2007-11-15T08:42:00.000-08:00

Tues., Nov. 13, 2007

ATLANTA - Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue stepped up to a podium outside the state Capitol on Tuesday and led a solemn crowd of several hundred people in a prayer for rain on his drought-stricken state.

“We’ve come together here simply for one reason and one reason only: To very reverently and respectfully pray up a storm,” Perdue said after a choir provided a hymn.

Georgia and its neighboring states are caught in an epic drought that threatens public water supplies. Perdue has ordered water restrictions, launched a legal battle against the release of water from federal reservoirs and appealed to President Bush.

Full story here.

The above news was on Tuesday. And the following news was two days later. Co-incidence?

Of course not! God does honor prayers of the faithful. The governor and the people of Georgia believed only a higher power, God Almighty Himself, can change the weather patterns.

Was there even a hint of rain forecasted before the governor led the prayers? Only a slight possibility of rain said meteorologists.

Praise God, the God of the Universe! He can make a slight possibility into a storm, resulting in an inch of rain!

When his hour-long prayer vigil for rain ended with the sun shining through Tuesday, Gov. Sonny Perdue made a bold proclamation.

"God can make it rain tomorrow," he said.

Just like Perdue — and the National Weather Service — said, it was a rainy night in Georgia on Wednesday.

The rain was triggered by a cold front coming through, and it was expected to last until the early hours of Thursday morning.

"It will tease us a little bit," said Lans Rothfusz, meteorologist in charge at the Weather Service, "but it will come nowhere close to breaking the drought. The ground is so dry, it will absorb everything that falls on it."

More than 250 faithful Georgians joined Perdue outside the Capitol to ask for divine intervention to end the historic drought.

Full story here.

Sue them till they are forced to close down!

2007-10-27T10:50:00.000-07:00

Planned Parenthood faces criminal charges for aborting late-term, pre-born babies in violation of Kansas state law. Today, Kansas District Attorney Phill Kline filed a 107-count indictment against the abortion group. District Court Judge James Vano found probable cause. The charges are as follows:

23 felony counts of making a false writing
29 misdemeanor counts of performing unlawful late term abortions
27 misdemeanor counts of failure to maintain records
29 misdemeanor counts of failure to determine viability

"Planned Parenthood is accused of falsifying records to cover up numerous violations of state law against aborting late-term babies," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA). "Now we know what Planned Parenthood means by 'privacy' when it refuses to release information on the abortions it commits on pre-born babies -- it is claiming privacy on its own alleged illegal actions."

"Planned Parenthoods around the country receive federal funding, so our tax dollars may be subsidizing this alleged illegal activity. The Department of Health and Human Services should begin an immediate investigation to discover whether other Planned Parenthoods around the country engage in the same type of potentially illegal activities, violating state and federal law."

Judy Smith, State Director of CWA of Kansas said, "We believe that the allegations brought against Planned Parenthood of Overland Park need to be investigated. The people have a right to expect that the laws enacted by their representatives are followed to the letter. As a women's organization, we want to ensure that every woman receives the legally approved medical standard of care on any procedure, including abortion. If this is not happening at Planned Parenthood clinics, women should be able to rely on the law to protect them."

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.

Source: ChristiansUnite.com

About time. Planned Parenthood receives funding from the government, and I say it is time to end the funding of legalized murder of the the unborn using our taxpayer dollars.

Planned Parenthood uses a large chunk of public funds to lobby for unrestricted access to abortion. I say, now is the time to stop this barbaric practice of abortion on demand.

I am praying for the time where abortion is not a "right". I am praying for the time when the "constitutional right" that was discovered by judges in Rowe v Wade is overturned.

RU 486

2007-08-22T14:38:00.001-07:00

WASHINGTON, (christiansunite.com) -- Misleading conclusions are being drawn in news stories based on a study that has indicated that the RU486 abortion drug is no more dangerous than surgical abortions.

"Reporters are drawing the erroneous conclusion that this study means RU486 is completely safe. That's not what the study says, and nothing could be further from the truth," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. "Women are dying at an alarming rate from RU486 abortions and its widespread misuse in the abortion industry. That has not changed."

The study indicates that future pregnancies are equally affected by RU486 abortions and surgical abortions. However, it is a leap in logic to say that either are safe when the study simply shows that the risks to future pregnancies of both abortion methods are equal.

"Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions. It is no accident that the study refused to compare these two groups of women, because we know they would have found that abortion hurts women, and that is obviously a conclusion that they did not want to reach," said Sullenger.

RU486 is a drug approved for abortions in pregnancies under six weeks. Three office visits are usually required for this kind of abortion. Some reports indicate that RU486 has a 15% failure rate, meaning that many women who receive the drug must also have a surgical abortion to completely remove the pre- born baby and other pregnancy tissue.

"Women aborting with RU486 can pass their babies anywhere. This has created a lot of emotional trauma for women who do not expect to come face to face with a tiny baby complete with arms, legs and a recognizable face," said Sullenger.

"The reputation of RU486 has suffered recently because of the publicity generated by a number of abortion deaths related to the drug. The media distortion we are seeing is a simple case of public relations damage control," said Sullenger. "Hiding the possibility of RU486's life-threatening dangers from women really shows that there is more concern for selling abortions than for protecting and informing women. This misinformation campaign is really a horrific thing when you think about it that could needlessly cost women's lives."

Read more here.

When I was younger I was quite ambivalent about abortions. One of my neighbours when I was a kid did not practice any kind of birth control. When her children got too many she resorted to abortions to reduce their number. One of her kids was born without fingers and toes, and I believe that was a result of a failed abortion.

I think there are worst things in life than being pregnant. Whatever reasons that are given by those who have had abortions, it all boils down this - having a child is an inconvenience. I do not buy the "mental health" reason for having an abortion. Except for a serious risk to the mother's life, abortion should be banned. Rape and incest, give birth to the child, and give it up for adoption. Two wrongs do not make a right.

A woman's right to privacy ... what a lot of bull! Abortion is sanctioned murder.

Gay Church in Malaysia?

2007-08-17T09:38:00.000-07:00

Muslim-majority Malaysia will block a plan by the country's first and only openly gay pastor to establish a church embracing homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals, a minister said Monday.

Reverend Ouyang Wen Feng, an ethnic Chinese Malaysian ordained in the US, caused controversy after saying he wanted to set up the church by 2010.

The government would block the plan, Tourism Minister Adnan Tengku Mansor told AFP, adding the country had always sought to portray itself as a "family-oriented" holiday destination.

"We have no intention of being portrayed the same way like other cities such as Bangkok or those other cities in that league," Mansor said, apparently referring to the Thai capital's sex industry.

"We are here to be seen as a multicultural country with people who are good, excellent followers of their respective religions," Mansor added.

Homosexuality falls under a Malaysian law prohibiting sodomy, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and whipping.

Ouyang's plan to start the church had stirred anxiety, Reverend Wong Kin Kong, the secretary general of Malaysia's National Evangelical Christian Fellowship, said last week.

This was "because Christians do not want others to assume they condone such a thing," he said.

But Ouyang remained unfazed and urged a congregation of about 80 people -- including his male partner -- to "reclaim faith and celebrate our sexuality" in an underground mass Sunday.

"For some of us, especially our gay brothers and sisters, we have experienced first hand that Christianity has been used to persecute minorities," Ouyang told the mass, according to press reports.

Source: Yahoo News

Why do you think Ouyang was quite brazen about starting a church in Malaysia even though he is a practicing homosexual? Is it because he was trained in the US where homosexuality and same sex unions are acceptable in some Christian churches?

I won't be surprised if that was his primary motive. He has become one of those liberal Christians who choose to ignore clear biblical teachings about sexual purity, and sodomy. Listen to what he says about Christianity being used to persecute minorities. If he thinks that emphasizing biblical teachings and wanting your flock to adhere to those teachings is persecution, then is it persecution too if the church admonishes its unmarried members from abstaining from sex before marriage?

I don't know what Bible Ouyang is reading but my Bible does not teach me to "reclaim [our] faith and celebrate our sexuality". The only celebration of our sexuality that the Bible clearly teaches is within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman.

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 2 Timothy 4:3

How true!

Can you be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time?

2007-08-14T16:04:00.000-07:00

Is it possible to be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time? That idea is both illogical and contradictory, if not heretical! Apparently it is not illogical or contradictory for the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding a clergy woman of the Espiscoplian church of St. Mark's in Seattle, Washington.

In Islam, Jesus Christ is merely a prophet, even lower in esteem than Mohammad. In Christianity, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and this doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and salvation through Christ only is totally incompatible with Islam.

But then the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding is one of those liberal Christians who rejects the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. It is therefore not surprising that she can embrace both Islam and Christianity.

Rev. Redding should be thankful that she was a "Christian" first before she decided to embrace Islam at the same time. If it had been the other way around, I doubt her Muslim superiors would be as understanding if she had decided to embrace Christianity while remaining a Muslim!

I agree with Dr. Emir Caner, dean of The College at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, when he described Redding’s faith conviction as “an extraordinary illustration of what has become Postmodern Christianity in America.”

Further Readings:

Christian Theologians: 'Episcopal Muslim' Faith is Illogical, Contradictory

An Episcopal Muslim?

Pray to Allah?

2007-08-14T12:57:00.001-07:00

The Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, wants people to start calling God Allah. He says the Netherlands should look to Indonesia, where the Christian churches already pray to Allah. It is also common in the Arab world: Christian and Muslim Arabs use the words God and Allah interchangeably.

Speaking on the Dutch TV programme Network on Monday evening, Bishop Muskens says it could take another 100 years but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches. And that will promote rapprochement between the two religions.

Read the rest of the story here.

I understand what this bishop is saying, and why he is saying it. I understand the "what" but I cannot agree with the "why".

I come from a background where the word "Allah Taala" is used to refer to God Almighty. And I do not refer to God as "Allah" because I want to promote rapprochement between Islam and Christianity.

What needs to be emphasized here is that the word "Allah" has been in existence long before Islam. The word "Allah" when referencing to God cannot be exclusively used by Islam even though Islam would like to claim the word for their own. In Malaysia, the bible in the Iban language was banned for a time because of the use of terms that are found in the Qu'ran. The reason for the ban was that the Iban Bible might confuse the Muslims, which in my view, is a ridiculous claim.

When Christians in the Middle East, Indonesia and Malaysia use the word "Allah" to refer to Almighty God, they are most definitely not referring to the Muslim God. This is where I dissent with Bishop Muskens. He makes no distinction between the Christian Allah and the Muslim Allah when he encourages people to start calling God Allah.

When I use "Allah Taala" to refer to Almighty God in my mother tongue I know which Allah I am referring to. I am referring to Allah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. I am referring to Allah who is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I am referring to "Allah" the God who is the redeemer of my soul, the pioneer and perfecter of my faith.

Summer Camp

2007-07-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

I was pleasantly surprised when NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, on their Faith in America segment featured a story about how and where some American youths were spending their summer.

The American youths who went to Mexico, went under a Texas based group called Teen Mania Ministries. They had to raise their own money for the trip and they brought food, toys, shelter and most importantly shared their faith with the poor people in that part of Mexico.

I am happy and encouraged to hear of the existence of groups like Teen Mania. I am sure there are many churches who send youths to places like Mexico for the summer. My church does it too, and they have three different groups go to Mexico every summer.

This year we were able to contribute to the trips by donating six bags of used clothes because among the things that my church group brought this year were clothes. Each of the group that went to Mexico built a home for a needy family. All the materials for the building were bought and paid for with money raised by the youths who went.

We also "bought" two pairs of Helping Hands. Helping Hands was a way that some of the youths raised money for their trip. They offered services like yard work, baby sitting etc to raise money.

Almost everyone of the young people who have gone on one of these trips to Mexico experienced a life changing experience. A life changing experience not only from their service to the Mexicans they interacted with, but also to their Christian walk, and they had a better understanding of what fellowship and service with other Christians meant.

Faith's Subjectiveness

2007-07-19T21:42:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager talks about everything and anything on his radio talk show. I always enjoy listening to the topics that he brings up. One of the things that Dennis Prager often says about faith is that it is subjective. Can anyone prove or disprove the genuineness of someone's faith?

In Christianity, faith is only as good as the object of our faith. If I place my faith on something that is not deserving, say a rock, then no matter how genuine my faith is, that faith is delusional. Believing in something that is false does not make it true.

As a Christian, I have to first of all acknowledge that I am a finite being, with limitations trying to understand and reach out to an infinite God, a God who is not limited by time and space.

I have to put my trust in His Word which he has left behind as " a lamp to my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalms 119:105). I have to put my trust in Him because He tells me so, and not to rely on my own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5,6)

I can only do these things with my faith. My faith makes it possible for my limited understanding to reach out to the One who is without limitations.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him". Hebrews 11:6

What is a Mother?

2007-05-12T21:00:00.000-07:00

When the good Lord was creating mothers, he was into his sixth day of overtime when the angel appeared and said, "You are doing a lot of fiddling around on this one."

And the Lord said, "Have you read the specs on this order ?"

"She has to be completely washable, not plastic, have moveable parts, all replaceable, run on black coffee and leftovers, have a lap that disappears when she stands up, a kiss that can cure anything from a broken leg to a disappointed love affair, and six pairs of hands."

The angel shook her head slowly and said, "Six pairs of hands, no way !"

"It's not the hands that cause the problems, said the Lord. It is the three pairs of eyes that mothers have to have."

"That's the standard model," the angel asked?

The Lord nodded. "One pair that sees through closed doors, when she asks, "What are you kids doing in there, " when she already knows. Another in the back of her head that sees what she shouldn't but what she has to know, and of course the ones here in the front so that she can look at a child when he goofs and says, "I understand and I love you," without so much as uttering a word.

"Lord," said the angel, tugging his sleeve gently, "Come to bed .."

"I can't," said the Lord. "I am so close to creating something so close to myself. Already, I have one who heals herself when she is sick, can feed a family of six on one pound of hamburger and can get a nine year old to stand under a shower."

The angel circled the model of a mother. "It's too soft," she sighed.

"But tough," said the Lord excitedly. "You cannot imagine what this mother can do or endure !"

"Can it think ?"

"Not only can she think, but it can reason and compromise," said the Creator.

Finally the angel bent over and ran her fingers across the cheek. "There's a leak," she pronounced. "I told you that you were trying to put too much into this model."

"It's not a leak," said the Lord. "It is a tear."

"What's it for ?"

"It's for joy, sadness, disappointment, pain, loneliness, and pride."

"You are a genius," said the angel.

The Lord looked somber. "I didn't put it there," he said.

As found on The Story Bin

Good Friday

2007-04-06T14:43:00.000-07:00

Good Friday

~ | ~ | ~

O my chief good,

How shall I measure out your blood?

How shall I count what you befell,

And each grief tell?

Shall I your woes

Number according to your foes?

Or, since one star showed your first breath,

Shall all your death?

Or shall each leaf,

Which falls in Autumn, score a grief?

Or can not leaves, but fruit, be sign

Of the true vine?

Then let each hour

Of my whole life one grief devour;

That your distress through all may run,

And be my sun.

Or rather let

My several sins their sorrows get;

That as each beast his cure does know,

Each sin may so.

Since blood is fittest, Lord, to write

Your sorrows in, and bloody fight;

My heart has store, write there, where in

One box does lie both ink and sin:

That when sin spies so many foes,

Your whips, your nails, your wounds, your woes,

All come to lodge there, sin may say,

No room1 for me, and fly away.

Sin being gone, oh fill the place,

And keep possession with your grace;

Lest sin take courage and return,

And all the writings blot or burn.

Modern Version of Good Friday
from The Temple (1633), by George Herbert

Grace Vs Works

2007-03-15T19:27:00.000-07:00

I have been watching videos at YouTube of former Muslims who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ. Muslims find it hard to believe that there are people who have left Islam to follow Christ. The following are some of their comments.

* poor sick lady dont know anything about islam . you try to get sympathy and love from non muslims by misleading them . dear poeple go and read about islam from the right source from the holy quran .

* show us i you have a real story not this one,you can see this man was never a Muslim in his life but always a Christian

*i would like to talk to this person....may i have his email id or yahoo or msn ....let me find th truth....he lies...he cannot be a muslim...and muslim evangelist..thats bosh...who r u fooling....just give me his id...or a face to face conversation and all those people who approached him...

*what bull shit! I still haven't found one real muslim who converted to christianity! why do christians have to lie?

*What a weakling. He should be Ashamed of Himself for being such a Sell Out. He just wants to be accepted by the white man with his broken english. Sounds like he has personal inner issues with himself Allah is the Most Forgiveing, Most Merciful, Allah's Love is more than a Mother's Love for her Child. We shouldnt even pay attention to people like this! Staghfirallah that we are not like this.

*fake conversion videos

Why is it so difficult for Muslims to believe that there are people who would choose

- grace over works? Ephesians 2:8-9; Surah 17:13-14

- a personal relationship with God over a ritualistic and legalistic religion? Isaiah9:6, John 20:28; Surah 1:2-4

- assurance of salvation over uncertainties of heaven or hell? 2 Peter 3:9, John 2:2; Surah 14:4, Surah 17:13-14

- unconditional love based on the blood of Jesus Christ over conditional love based on obedience to Allah? Romans 5:8; Surah 60:1

To this day Muslims pray to Allah: O Allah! the Lord of this perfect call and the everlasting prayer, grant to Muhammad nearness and excellence and raise him to the position of glory which thou hast promised him as mediator on the Day of Judgment.

Why would anyone pray to a god asking him to keep his promise regarding Muhammad who was supposedly his last and final prophet? According to this prayer, Muhammad was promised a position of glory, but the Muslim is not sure because he has to say this prayer on Muhammad's behalf at least five times a day.

Is it any wonder that the people in these videos would choose the God of Jesus Christ over the god of Muhammad?

Jesus' Burial Site Found?

2007-03-06T12:59:00.000-08:00

Claims made in a new documentary about the discovery of Jesus's burial site have raised some questions among believers and non-believers.

As a believer, this news is just one of many and many more to come, to discredit the Christian faith. It is hard for me to take this more recent claims seriously.

When the early Christians started preaching the gospel, their faith stood or fell with the claims of Jesus' resurrection. The following passage from 1 Corinthians 15, best summarises the basis of their faith, and our present day faith.

¹²But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Therefore, it is hard for me to believe that if Jesus had not resurrected from the dead, that the early Christians were able to spread the message of the gospel. Their claims would easily have been discredited and their message rejected entirely. And they were right that they should be pitied more than all men, if Jesus had not resurrected.

But Jesus was indeed resurrected, and later ascended to heaven. There were witnesses to his resurrection and ascension (Luke 24:1-52).

Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist had this to say about the claims to the Jerusalem Post, "It makes a great story for a TV film, but it's impossible. It's nonsense. .. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE." Also according to Prof. Kloner, the "Jesus son of Joseph" inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years.

It seems to me that James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici are very good at stirring this controversy and therefore drawing attention and interest to their Discovery Channel documentary.

In God We Still Trust

2006-09-15T14:32:00.000-07:00

Religious Rights Undermined in Malaysia

2006-08-11T10:31:00.000-07:00

Compass Direct) – Hotels in Malaysia have refused to host a series of religious rights forums after angry protestors shut down an event on May 14 and accused the organizers of being “enemies of Islam.”

Article 11, a coalition of 13 religious and human rights groups, had organized a series of forums to discuss constitutional rights and the dilemma created by a dual legal system incorporating both civil and sharia law.

The coalition is named after the same article in Malaysia’s constitution, which guarantees the right of every citizen to “profess and practice his religion.”

Cases such as Lina Joy’s failed application to drop the word Islam from her identity card after becoming a Christian, and the sharia court’s insistence that national hero M. Moorthy had converted from Hinduism to Islam prior to his death, have stirred heated debate in Malaysian society in recent months.

Third Forum Undermined
Two initial forums were held in Petaling Jaya and Malacca without incident. On May 14, however, police cordons and a crowd of roughly 500 demonstrators waving banners and shouting slogans greeted participants arriving for a third forum in Penang.

Some banners protested against a planned inter-faith commission, although Article 11 would have no connection with such a commission. Other banners carried slogans stating, “Allah’s laws prevail over human rights.”

Police allowed about 50 protestors into the venue to attend the forum. When the protestors stood up and interrupted the speakers, police insisted that the forum be shut down, despite having issued an official permit for the event.

“This incident shows how serious the breakdown in constitutional values is,” National Human Rights Society deputy president and lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a speaker at the forum, told local reporters. “We have lost the ability to dialogue. If we cannot speak on the constitution, where are we as a nation?”

In an open letter to Prime Minister Dato Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders – a task force of the United Nations – reprimanded the police for failing to control the protestors.

“The Observatory is very preoccupied by the fact that the police decided to cut short the forum, instead of guaranteeing the security of the organizers and ensuring that it would take place without being disrupted,” the letter read in part.

The Observatory urged Malaysian authorities to honor the U. N. Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which awards every citizen the right to “promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights,” and “to draw public attention to these matters.”

In conclusion, the Observatory called on authorities to comply with international human rights agreements signed or ratified by Malaysia, “all the more since Malaysia was elected on May 9 as a member of the new United Nations Human Rights Council.”

‘Enemies of Allah’
Two days after the forum was shut down, a group calling itself the Anti-Interfaith Commission (BADAI) issued a press release, which was e-mailed to the Malaysian Bar Council. BADAI’s president described Article 11 as an “enemy of Allah” and threatened the coalition members, saying, “I guarantee that the Article 11 coalition and the like will face greater risk than what happened on May 14.”

Article 11 immediately reported the incident to police, accusing BADAI of criminal intimidation.

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) and the human rights group Aliran also expressed their concerns. Both groups assisted Article 11 in organizing the forums.

Amidst the furor surrounding these events, Abdul Hadi Awang, president of the opposition Islamic Party of Malaysia, remarked that, “In our political history, the position of Islam has never before faced such a challenge. It is the responsibility of every Muslim ... to protect the position of Islam in this country.”

Equal Rights
Article 11 members insist that the forum was called simply to reaffirm the supremacy of the constitution and to reiterate the fundamental rights of all Malaysian citizens.

Some protestors had claimed that the forum was held to undermine the special position of Islam, described in Article 3(1) of the constitution as the “religion of the Federation.”

Non-Muslims, at 40 percent of Malaysia’s 26 million-strong population, form a significant part of the federation.

Article 8 of the constitution guarantees equal status before the law for all citizens, according to Siew Foong of the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship of Malaysia.

“But in recent years, we’ve seen a worrying trend,” Siew explained. “The civil courts are refusing to exercise their jurisdiction on freedom of religion cases. People accept that Malaysia is an Islamic country because it is constantly proclaimed. Some have argued that the constitution recognizes Islam as the official religion, and therefore sharia should be the underlying principle of all civil laws.”

In a landmark court case in 1988, then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas ruled that the mention of Islam in Article 3(1) referred only to the practice of Islamic rituals and ceremonies and was never intended to raise Islamic law above civil law.

“Islam is the religion of the federation as stated in Article 3, but it is not the basic law of the land, and only Islamic laws governing personal and family matters are allowed by the constitution,” Siew said. These laws, he added, should not be applied to non-Muslims – hence the need for a clarification of the dual legal system.

State-Funded Islamic Missionaries
In a curious aside, officials in Kelantan state, northeast Malaysia, reportedly hope to convert 10,000 people to Islam through state-funded missionaries.

The state will provide missionary candidates with training, free housing, a monthly allowance of 1,000 ringgit (US$271) and a four-wheel-drive vehicle, Hassan Mohamood, head of Kelantan’s Islamic development and missionary panel, reportedly said.

The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, in power in Kelantan since 1990, has closed betting outlets, restricted alcohol sales and banned rock concerts in the state. The party also wants to impose sharia law, including extreme punishments such as amputations and public lashings for criminals, but is prevented from doing so by federal law.

Member Organizations of Article 11

- All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
- Malaysian Bar Council
- Catholic Lawyers Society
- Interfaith Spiritual Fellowship
- Malaysian Civil Liberties Society (MCLS)
- Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism,
Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS)
- National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)
- Pure Life Society
- Sisters in Islam (SIS)
- Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
- Vivekananda Youth Movement, Seremban
- Women’s Aid Organization (WAO)
- Women’s Development Collective (WDC)

Reprinted from Persecution Alert June 29, 2006

Blessing Israel

2006-08-03T19:00:00.000-07:00

Passage Genesis 12:1-3:

¹ The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

² "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
³ I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

That passage from Genesis is the basis for the support evangelical Christians give to Israel. Israel, as a nation, is not without its weaknessess, but as a Christian I see beyond the controversies surrounding the nation of Israel. I see Israel's role in the destiny of mankind.

With the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the anti-semitic rhetoric is more pronounced than ever. Why are there so many conspiracies involving Jews? Jews are the cause for practically every problem in the world, even the tsunami! The radical Islamists' aim is to exterminate Israel and the Jews.

If only the anti-Israel crowd knows what God has said about Israel. They will be a lot more peaceful than they are today!

In the World But Not of the World

2006-07-20T11:10:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, I received a letter of solicitation from People for the American Way (PFAW), a liberal interest group. If you visit their website, they proclaim loudly that they are for defending democracy.

What they actually are, is clear to me. They are anti-Christian, especially what they call the Religious Right. They say they are for "respect for individual liberty, celebration of diversity, religious freedom, love of country and reverence for the democratic institutions" but their actions belie their words. What they are for, one might find in a socialist party manifesto.

Christian personalities like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are considered intolerant and religious extremists. People for the American Way feel threatened by the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Traditional Values Coalition, and the American Center for Law and Justice.

Why do PFAW feel threatened by such groups? Because they know that the majority of the population believe in the values espoused by such groups, and as such PFAW can only demonize those groups in order to advance their liberal beliefs and values. PFAW decry intolerance and bigotry, yet by their very actions against people of faith and people who hold traditional moral values, they are the very thing they charged others with.

As a Christian I am not at all surprised that groups like PFAW hate what Christians stand for. The words of John 15 have never been so true.

John 15:18-19 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

What the world holds dear are opposite to what the Christian is focused on. The Christian has an eternal perspective, and looks beyond what the trends are in the world today. Christians are called to be "in the world but not of the world" .

And as such, should Christians be exempted from participating in public discourse especially about the direction the nation is heading? I think not. Christians are to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13) and we can only do that if we influence society and not the other way round. We can do that by standing up to Biblical truths, and emphasizing Christian morality. If we fail to do this then we are as good as surrendering ourselves to the church of secular humanism which is prevalent in our society today.

Liberal Christianity

2006-07-16T11:02:00.000-07:00

The following article reminds me why I do not go to an Episcopalian (Anglican) church here in the US. I was raised Anglican but the majority of the Anglican churches in the US are practising liberal theology.

I live in an area that is under the see of the Diocese of Sacramento, and this diocese is well known for its liberal and pro-gay agenda .. a no no for me.

I am, however, heartened to hear that the more bible-based Anglican churches in the US, like the one in Plano, Texas are thriving and growing in membership.

Christians are called to be in the world but not of the world. A church that does not adhere to biblical orthordoxy, and can't even acknowledge the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus Chrisit is no church at all.

~~~~~~~~

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-allen9jul09,0,2668973.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

Out-of-the-mainstream beliefs about gay marriage and supposedly sexist doctrines are gutting old-line faiths.

By Charlotte Allen
CHARLOTTE ALLEN is Catholicism editor for Beliefnet and the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus."

July 9, 2006

The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.

Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.

Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.

You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.

When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.

Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years.

The Episcopalians have smells, bells, needlework cushions and colorfully garbed, Catholic-looking bishops as draws, but who, under the present circumstances, wants to become a Presbyterian?

Still, it must be galling to Episcopal liberals that many of the parishes and dioceses (including that of San Joaquin, Calif.) that want to pull out of the Episcopal Church USA are growing instead of shrinking, have live people in the pews who pay for the upkeep of their churches and don't have to rely on dead rich people. The 21-year-old Christ Church Episcopal in Plano, Texas, for example, is one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country. Its 2,200 worshipers on any given Sunday are about equal to the number of active Episcopalians in Jefferts Schori's entire Nevada diocese.

It's no surprise that Christ Church, like the other dissident parishes, preaches a very conservative theology. Its break from the national church came after Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion, proposed a two-tier membership in which the Episcopal Church USA and other churches that decline to adhere to traditional biblical standards would have "associate" status in the communion. The dissidents hope to retain full communication with Canterbury by establishing oversight by non-U.S. Anglican bishops.

As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. A number of liberal Episcopal websites are devoted these days to dissing Peter Akinola, outspoken primate of the Anglican diocese of Nigeria, who, like the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans reported by the Anglican Communion, believes that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" (those words are from the communion's 1998 resolution at the Lambeth conference of bishops). Akinola might have the numbers on his side, but he is now the Voldemort — no, make that the Karl Rove — of the U.S. Episcopal world. Other liberals fume over a feeble last-minute resolution in Columbus calling for "restraint" in consecrating bishops whose lifestyle might offend "the wider church" — a resolution immediately ignored when a second openly cohabitating gay man was nominated for bishop of Newark.

So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure.

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times |

The Da Vinci Code Delusion

2006-06-15T11:35:00.001-07:00

The Da Vinci Delusion documentary is designed to answer questions introduced by the “Da Vinci Code” book. This 48 minute documentary focuses on the fundamental flaws found in Dan Brown's book with respect to the following: - Jesus as a historical figure - Are the canonical gospels accurate historical documents - What about the “Gnostic Gospels” - What about historical claims made by The Da Vinci Code?

Now, discover the truth! Unlock the secrets behind the DaVinci Code that others want left in the dark. Come face-to-face with the cultural implications of Dan Brown's best selling novel and decide for yourself. Who is Jesus? Is the Christian Bible reliable as an accurate historical account? The DaVinci Delusion is a thoughtful, hard-hitting documentary that is guaranteed to help you answer all the questions that you've been left wondering about.

Gospel Armor Podcast

2006-06-10T22:25:00.000-07:00

I've been looking around for some good christian podcasts and came across this one, Gospel Armor Podcast. I have yet to listen to the teachings but since the topics covered included a study on Revelations, I thought I'd subscribe to this site. I have always enjoyed any study on the book of Revelations.

There are several christian podcasts available through sites like Oneplace.com, and Christian Podcasts and Digital Podcasts. Of course you'll have sieve through what is available out there and subscribe to those that you think will be of benefit to you.

Now that I have an iPod, my time can be further maximized as I work in front of my quilting machine or as I lie and relax on my sofa. :-)

What a wonderful invention a portable mp3 player is!

God's Wings

2006-06-09T13:21:00.000-07:00

Because you are my help, I sing in the shadow of your wings. Psalm 63:7

I have been watching my two geese and their 3-week old goslings. I never knew that geese were monogamous and that both the male and female were involved in the care of their offsprings.

When the eggs were hatched the goslings stayed under the protective wings of their mother, and it wasn't till the next day that the goslings were allowed to take their first steps into the world. The parents honked every time in encouragement when they got left behind among the tall weeds.

I watched how protective the parents were when I or any member of my family was any where near them. They hissed and flapped their wings. The father goose is the most aggressive. Every time I turned my back on them, he would come after me with his neck lowered as if ready to bite me.

It reminds me of the verses in the bible that talk about finding refuge under the shadow of God's wings. God is pictured as a hen, drawing and giving shelter to any who would go to Him. ( Psalm 17:8; Psalm 61:4; Psalm 63:7; Matthew 23:37)

It is always a comfort to think that God is always there, a shelter in times of distress, and we are promised His love and protection.

Our world can be topsy turvy, beyond our human ability to deal with, but God is near, calling and drawing us under the shadow of His protective wings.

The God who is there

2006-05-28T21:21:00.000-07:00

What is involved in the question and importance of God's existence?

Man's very constitution, the way he is made, reveal that God exists. Whether we call him God is beside the point at this stage; the evidence shows that man has not been around from all eternity; he is made and the things around him are made. Something made has a Maker. An effect has a cause. A creature has a Creator. God's existence is much more obvious than my existence, but I write this as a "believer." This does not invalidate or weaken my statement. For "to believe" is not a lower form of knowledge than to "scientifically prove" something. Proving God's existence by scientific methods is nonsense, for scientific methods are limited and applicable only to material and physical objects, whereas God is pure Spirit and infinite in his being. "To believe" is the proper way when dealing with God. Augustine formulated the right approach: "I believe in order to understand." It is "Fides quaerens Intellectum," faith seeking understanding, not the other way round. "For he that cometh to God MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS." This is the sine qua non in our quest. For this very reason, the Scripture, with utter consistency, never attempts to give a formal and reasoned proof of God's existence, which might be disappointing for the immature Christian, but elicits much joy in the Spirit-filled disciple.

When the bare intellect supersedes the faith principle, then proofs of God's existence become essential and of utmost importance. Thomas Aquinas devotes a good portion of his Summa to prove God, giving some five evidences, which are "fine" for the Christian, and really unnecessary for he already believes, not only in God but believes God. But the unbeliever remains unconvinced in the face of all the evidence, not because the proofs are weak or illogical (for they aren't), but because he does not want to believe. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. He finds no place for God in his life; he disregards the testimony, not only of Christian philosophers but, more seriously than that, the testimony of God himself, his works of creation which the creature simply cannot escape.

The existence of God, therefore, is not an intellectual issue, but a moral one. Man desires to "annihilate" God, and in his iniquity, he oftentimes carries his desire to its logical conclusion: there is no God. (This is analogous to what I heard happened in Libyan schools some decades ago: geography students were given atlases containing a map of Europe, but England was not indicated on the map. Why? Because Libya didn't want England to exist, not because England didn't exist.)

In the same way, Hume, Sartre, Camus and others have published long diatribes to convince others that God does not exist. But before they adopted such a stance, they entertained some notions of God and the corruptions of their heart led them to an atheistic philosophy. But no-one is born "a pure atheist."

Having your eyes open, you may choose to shut them tight, and then deny that anything exists, but the material world would still be around you. The problem, then, is not in the evidence afforded (which certainly renders man inexcusable before God), but in the one receiving and considering the evidence. God is, and He is not silent (Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-3; Acts 17:28), but because of man's alienation, running away from God, only Scripture and God's Spirit can reveal Him sufficiently and effectively for man's salvation (1 Corinthians 2:9-10; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 59:21).

There is a vast difference between knowing about God and knowing Him. The first spells one's condemnation, the second one's salvation.

In Aquinas’ footsteps Will it be beneficial for you to have a summary of the various evidences of the fact of God? If so, read on...

Someone did it

The cosmological argument states that the universe, this present order of things, is an effect. Thus there must be an adequate cause for it. The only sufficient cause is God (cf. Hebrews 2:4; Psalms 19:1; Genesis 1:1).

This must be so, for everything exists either from eternity, or everything gave existence to itself (which is nonsense) or else God gave everything its existence.

But if everything existed from eternity, then everything is necessary, and so everything must be immutable and indestructible. But experience shows us that the world is passing away (2nd law of thermodynamics) and so it could not be from eternity.

The only reasonable alternative is that God made everything that presently is.

A watch must have a watchmaker

Another argument is from the design we see in the universe. Chance, working at random, cannot produce design.

This is amplified beautifully in W.Paley's treatise "Natural Theology," of the 18th century. No critic has answered his argument decisively, though there have been many attempts, among them Richard Dawkins' "The Blind watchmaker."

In the universe we perceive a purpose and design, so this argues in favour of an existence of One who has a will and a mind to plan things.

I ought, I should, I must

Considering man as he is built up, with conscience and a sense of duty (cf. the "du sollst" argument of Kant), he is undeniably a moral being.

Where did he get his morality? If this is a relic of his primitive state, how come he is still "burdened" with it? How much easier to conclude that a Supreme moral Being fashioned him, to be somewhat like him?

Everyone knows about God!

There is also a universal belief in a Supreme being, even though this belief is warped and defaced.

Jesus is God

We cannot deny the historical fact of a Person who claimed, in the most explicit way, that he is God himself, and that he came from God. Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure just as Julius Caesar, and his life is an irrefutable testimony to the fact that God is.

Source: Truth For Today

The Essentials of Christianity

2006-05-27T21:54:00.000-07:00

Essential Christianity. We hear a lot of discussion about essentials and non-essentials, but what are the essentials of Christianity?

When we talk about the essentials of Christianity we're referring to the basic elements that make up and characterize our faith, and which, of course, separate it from other beliefs. Let's survey these doctrines.

First, we believe in the authority of Scripture, which is another way of saying that the Bible is God's inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. It's the ultimate source for knowledge about God, as well as the definitive guide for our daily lives.

Next we affirm the existence of a triune God or one God in three distinct persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, and loving. God created the universe from nothing and He rules over His creation sovereignly including both human and angelic beings.

We also hold that man is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God's image. But because of his sin or transgression, man has lost his fellowship with God. The extent of sin is so great that its effects continue to this very day in the form of cruelty, suffering, and death.

By God's grace, Jesus Christ - Who is fully God and fully man - was sent to save us from our bondage to sin. We believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for our sins, physically rose from the dead, and will one day return to judge the world and deliver His people. Faith in Christ is the only means by which mankind can escape eternal damnation and judgment.

Finally, we recognize the church as God's ordained institution headed by Christ. The church is composed of all believers, and is organized for worship, for fellowship, for the administration of the sacraments, for spiritual growth and support, and for evangelizing the world.

Much more can and will be said, but we hope this summary has encouraged you to explore the links on the right and continue studying the essentials.

Source: Christian Research Institute

Universal belief in God

2006-03-20T22:28:00.000-08:00

Humans at all times and in every place believe in the existence of God.

Prehistoric structures (Stonehenge in England, Hagar Qim and the Hypogeum in Malta, etc.) all testify to the fact that man is a "religious animal," distinct and radically different from the beasts and all living creatures upon the face of the earth. The earliest civilisations (Sumerians, Egyptians, Incas, etc.) all without exception has a strong sense of religion; these people all attempted to Re-ligio, to be bound to their Maker and Superior.

Their earliest records and structures all point to the fact that religion is not an opium for the people, as Marx mistakenly believed. It is rather his desperate and unsuccessful attempt to make amends with God.

Admittedly, he is the Unknown God, as Paul took the hint from one of the numerous Athenian altars, who is worshipped in ignorance, in superstition and idolatrously. But man, inevitably, lives and moves and exists in Him. He is the offspring of God and therefore man is incurably religious.

This pervasive idea of God has been explained away by some modern anthopologists. In our Scientific era, when we know what causes lightning and rain and earthquakes and tornadoes, we no longer have room for God. These events that used to terrify our forefathers are easily explained now. So the idea of God is outdated and needless. Not so! For the most learned men are still religious. They are still influenced by their belief, however warped and inconsistent, in a Supreme Being. Logic and reason are both within man's constitution, but these have never defaced the notion that there is a God. Man still desires to worship and bow down, even though it be (quite illogically) before stocks and stones. People may arrogantly live as if there is no God; they learn to do this quite will and boast themselves of being atheist. But even Voltaire, who tired himself of mocking the Scriptures and the church, when caught in a storm and in danger of death, is known to have spontaneously pray to God to deliver him. To say glibly, "There is no God," is the oppose all mankind, to deny the course of human history, and to contradict your own nature.

Customs, traditions, politics, commercial methods, art, and everything else in a state of flux; everything changes, but man, as a religious being, does not change. His religion may change, but he is still religious, and his conscience unceasingly testifies of his moral nature. Now since man is a moral and intellectual being, it is certain that a Higher than he has made him, who is also moral and intelligent. Man's moral nature (at all times and among all nations), his religious instincts, and his conscience all argue forcibly in favour of God's existence. His sense of moral duty may be weak of strong, defiled or pure, but is never totally absent. The only adequate explanation for all this is that God, the Supreme moral Being, who made us, also implanted this moral sense within every human being. No other explanation is satisfactory.

Humanity has an idea of a supreme being. This idea was frequently challenged (by atheistic idealogies, such as Communism) but never wiped away. While the concepts about God found among different cultures are varied, yet the idea remains.

Source: Truth For Today

God and Suffering

2006-02-26T15:06:00.000-08:00

If God Is Good, Why Is There So Much Suffering in the World?
Bob and Gretchen Passantino, ©Copyright 1997

Each of us has watched a loved one die, been the victim of a crime, lived among the poverty-stricken, or in some way been confronted with the reality of suffering. Human history sometimes seems like one long chronicle of suffering and despair. In the midst of suffering we cry out,

Why is light given to those in misery, and life to the bitter of the soul, to those who long for death that does not come, who search for it more than for hidden treasure. . . . For sighing comes to me instead of food; my groans pour out like water. What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me. I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil. [Job 3:20-21, 24-26]

Why is there suffering? Why are the innocent victimized? Is there purpose in pain? Is there any escape? For the Christian, who believes that God is all-good and all-powerful, answers to these questions are especially important.

Skeptics frequently challenge Christians with the problem of a good God allowing suffering. Usually their argument says, “If God is all-powerful, he could prevent or eliminate suffering. If God is all-good, he would not want his creation to suffer. Since you say God is both, suffering should not exist. In fact, however, we see suffering all around us and experience it ourselves. Therefore, God doesn’t exist, or he’s not all-powerful, or he’s not all-good.”

First, we need to distinguish between philosophical and personal engagement with suffering. When someone is in the midst of anguish, all the logic and truth in the world is incomplete without a demonstration of compassionate love. Answers are not merely conclusions of mental exercises, they should have consequences in our lives.

Second, we need to consider the consequences of accepting the skeptic’s alternatives: Suffering proves that God does not exist, or He is not all-powerful, or He is not all-good. If God does not exist, then all of existence, including our suffering, has no enduring value, purpose, or goal. If God is not all-powerful, then we have no hope that suffering will ever be eliminated. If God is not all-good, then to pain and despair we must add the threat of immanent divine sadism. Each of these alternatives is at least as problematic as the Christian alternative, so the skeptic has merely exchanged one answer he doesn’t like for others equally unpleasant. The skeptic has not solved the problem of suffering merely by refusing to solve it. We should judge answers by truth, not emotion.

Third, we need to understand that many problems with theology come from problems with personal world views and values. For example, the pleasure of helping someone who is needy has absolutely no value to the person to whom self-indulgence is the highest good. Many people struggle with the problem of God and suffering because they reject a Christian world view. Avoiding suffering has become preferable to learning patience; immediate gratification means more than self-discipline; self-gratification is more important than sharing; and physical pleasure is superior to spiritual joy.

Fourth, the skeptic assumes parts of the Christian world view in order to indict the Christian God, but he is unwilling to acknowledge the other parts of the Christian world view that answer his indictments. He assumes a standard of “good” that is absolute and eternal (and, therefore, cannot have its source in changing, finite humans), but denies the existence of the absolute and eternal.

In a non-theistic world where values are social conventions, survival mechanisms, majority opinions, or assertions of the most powerful, there can be no absolute, eternal values. “Good” as a social convention is merely what a society declares to be good; in one society it might be eating one’s enemies, in another it may be loving one’s enemies. “Good” as a survival mechanism could include killing off imperfect, non-productive members of the species, such those with less than average intelligence or poor eyesight, or restricting reproduction to the physical and mental elite; etc. If the skeptic wants to borrow the Christian definition of values as absolute and eternal, then he can’t reject the Christian explanation of suffering which is consistent with such values.

If the Christian world view is considered, there are a variety of approaches to the question of God and suffering. Biblical convictions include (1) suffering does not originate with God and will be eliminated at some point; (2) God works good in the midst of suffering; (3) not all pain is suffering in the moral sense; (4) and physical, transient suffering and death are relatively inconsequential compared to spiritual, eternal suffering and death.

God is all-powerful, meaning He can accomplish anything that can be accomplished with power. He cannot use power to do “non-power” kinds of things, such as the logically impossible. He cannot make two plus two equal five, violate His unchangeable nature, make Himself go out of existence and come back into existence, and He cannot make morally responsible persons without allowing for the possibility of those persons making wrong choices. The Bible says that suffering is the consequence of the wrong choice (sin) of morally responsible persons. If God always prevented people from sinning, or always prevented the consequences of sin, then human goodness would be mere programming, not true goodness. We do not pat a computer on its head when it executes its program -- it is a determined function, not an exercise of moral responsibility. Suffering, the consequence of human sin, is not caused by God, but by the sin of persons with moral responsibility. Also, God has not abandoned the world to eternally suffer the consequences of sin. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide ultimate freedom from the consequences of sin. It is wrong to indict God because suffering is not yet eliminated, just as it would be wrong to indict a doctor who treats a gunshot wound he didn’t cause, simply because the wound is not healed instantly.

Our assurance that God will eliminate suffering is not the only comfort God gives us. While God did not cause suffering, he has given it purpose. It became the vehicle for our salvation when “Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame” (Hebrews 12:2). Complete avoidance of suffering is not an option for any of us. Our option is to waste our experience or realize God’s purposes in the midst of suffering. Through suffering we can learn patience, self-discipline, trust, and many other “virtues.” When we suffer we can experience the love, compassion, and self-denial of those who help us. When we help someone who is suffering, we find significance in our own lives as well.

Not all pain is “bad” in the moral sense. God created us with nerve endings that use pain to protect us. Pain keeps us from burning our hands in a campfire, bending our legs back until the joint breaks, neglecting nourishment until we starve, etc. Suffering can also be a direct, just consequence of our own actions. Our sense of justice says that it is “good” when an exploiter loses his friends, even though loneliness is “painful.” It is good when a mugger is locked up, even though he “suffers” the loss of his freedom.

All humans have a moral conscience, even corrupted by sin and often ignored. Our conscience should not rejoice in sin, suffering, and death. When we see innocents suffering, we should experience moral outrage and seek to rescue the sufferer. When we see someone suffer death, we should experience loss and sorrow. Sin, suffering, and death are not the destinies for which God created us. He created us to enjoy perfect, good, loving fellowship with Him for eternity. Despite our moral betrayal, he continues to offer eternal life.

The skeptic has it partly right -- suffering should offend our sense of goodness and justice. Sadly, he misses the rest of the argument: Because suffering violates goodness and justice, there must be an all-good, all-powerful God whose remedy restores the perfection he created. This is the hope that the Christian offers in the midst of suffering:

I consider the that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. [Romans 8:8]

Suffering and death in this sinful world are not without remedy. The only reasonable response to the existence of suffering is confidence in God’s promises for eternity:

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. . . . Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matt. 5:3-10]

Faith in the Unseen

2006-02-25T21:17:00.000-08:00

Faith is a reasoning trust, a trust which reckons thoughtfully and confidently upon the trustworthiness of God - John R. Stott

Recently, I befriended a blogger who is a self-proclaimed atheist. In the course of our chat, the subject of the existence of God came up.

His main reason for no longer believing in the existence of God is the suffering found in the world. His reason is that if there is a God why doesn't He stop bad things from happening. God is supposed to know how much pain and suffering people will have to endure through famine, war, natural disasters, diseases etc but yet he does nothing about it. Therefore there is no God.

Also he said, he doesn't believe what he cannot see.

His challenge to me is to prove to him that there is a God. :-) How does one set about proving the existence of God to someone who only believes in material things? God is infinite, outside time and space.

There are many arguments for the existence of God, but to a hard-core atheist none of these is persuasive enough.

Anthony Flew, a well-known atheist philospher turned theist, in an interview conceded that there is a God because he “had to go where the evidence leads.” He could not ignore the possibility of Intelligent Design because natural evolution has never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.”

Not many atheists are as honest as Anthony Flew. As a philospher and an intellectual he was willing to go beyond the the rigid beliefs of atheism.

The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' Psalm 14:1