In the June 18, 2021 addition of “Anabaptist World,” Professor John D. Roth in “The Courage to Admit Failure,” page 32 explored the difference between the Amish and Mennonite concepts of failure to grow churches. Roth tells us the membership of the Mennonite Church USA has been reduced by nearly half in the last two decades.
Falling church membership is also a problem in other church denominations across the United States. What is the root cause of the shrinking church in America? Perhaps Christianity in America has been replaced by Scientism?
I recently read the book, “Scientism and Secularism,” by J. P. Moreland. What is scientism?
According to philosopher of science Tom Sorell, “Scientism is the belief that science, especially natural science, is . . . the most valuable part of human learning . . . because it is much the most [sic] authoritative, or serious, or beneficial. Other beliefs related to this one may also be regarded as scientistic, e.g., the belief that science is the only valuable part of human learning. . . .”1.
If we agree with this statement, we may have accepted the philosophy of scientism that is permeating America at this time.
Moreland explains that this statement is self-refuting. He says:
Let’s check it against the three criteria we saw for a self-refuting statement.
1. Does this statement establish a requirement of acceptability? Yes: it says that something must be testable to be true.
2. Does this statement place itself in subjection to the requirement? Yes: it purports to convey truth.
3. Does this statement fall short of satisfying its own requirement? Yes: this is a philosophical statement about science that cannot itself be tested by science.
So, not only is strong scientism false, but it is self-refuting. In addition, nothing will ever be discovered that can change this. No amount of future research or blockbuster discoveries can show that a self-refuting statement was true after all. Since the statement “Only what is testable by science can be true” will never itself be testable by science, a skeptic cannot respond by saying, “There may be no current evidence for its truth, but someday science will advance to the point of proving that it is true after all.” In other words, it is not only false and self-refuting, but it is necessarily so. No further scientific discoveries could make the statement true, so the skeptic’s response expresses a misunderstanding that the statement and others like it (see above) are necessarily false.3.
Moreland gives a few examples of truth that science cannot explain.
Examples: science cannot explain the origin of the universe; the origin of the fundamental laws of nature; the fine-tuning of the universe; the origin of consciousness; and the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. And these are all topics that theism can adequately address.4.
After reading “Scientism and Secularism,” I see three valuable tools available for us in the search for truth. Science, Philosophy and Theology.
If I think about the resurrection of Jesus, I can see that science can help us explore the evidence that the resurrection of Jesus occurred. Philosophy can help us understand the importance of following the teachings of Jesus. Theology can help us explore the truth of God reaching into our universe and can help us understand how to apply the teaching of Jesus to our lives.
J. P. Morland’s book “Scientism and Secularism” may be purchased at Amazon. Click here.
1.Moreland, J. P.. Scientism and Secularism (p. 29). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
I follow the blog of an atheist. I and the atheist have attempted to hold on-line conversations from time to time.
I think this atheist blog is wonderful.2 I like to read the writing of those with whom I disagree from time to time. It helps sharpen my thinking and sometimes I find holes in my own logic.
Recently I told this young lady that I had read some Bertrand Russell about 40 years ago and at that time I had found him quite persuasive. She shared Russell’s analogy of the teapot.
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” Bertrand Russell
I admit, that when I was young and naive, I found this analogy somewhat persuasive. But when I read it now it seems almost silly.
According to many scholars, the Hyksos seized power in Egypt around 1638 BC without war.1
David Rohl has written an excellent book suggesting that Egypt’s timeline as understood by most archeologists today should be moved forward 200 years and Israel’s timeline should be moved back to match the Bible.
The current paradigm in Archeology is against Rohl’s timeline. Sometimes it takes a many years for scientific paradigms to shift even when the evidence is irrefutable. Rohl has some very strong evidence. I will be watching with great interest as other archeologists analyze his theories.
If Rohl’s timeline is correct, then the Hyksos would have seized power shortly after the Egyptian army was drowned in the Red Sea. Suddenly we have archeological evidence that the miracles described in Exodus occurred. Perhaps the Hyksos came to power without violence because God removed the Egyptian Army. And then again perhaps the Hyksos were descendants of Joseph. God is dripping out of Russell’s teapot.
Until 5 years ago I thought that no evidence existed in Egypt to support the story of Moses. I was pleasantly surprised to find Patterns of Evidence, The Exodus by Tim Mahoney. The dripping of God from Russell’s teapot has quickened.
Lee Strobel tells us that many people have experienced miracles and life changing experiences as a result of their faith in God. “Among well-educated medical doctors 75% believe miracles are possible. 55% of US physicians have seen results in their patients that they would consider miraculous.” Page 31. See my review of Strobel’s book, The Case for Miracles. God is pouring from Russell’s teapot.
We have a strong argument for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument. William Lane Craig is an able defender of this argument. The leak in Russell’s teapot is becoming a strong steady stream.
Many scholars have written of the excellent evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. God is flooding from Russell’s teapot.
Bertrand Russell was once asked why he did not believe in God. He said, “Not enough evidence.” I wonder, is there any evidence that could have convinced Russell?
In addition to logical reasoning, I have sometimes heard atheists arguing using methods of argumentation such as 1. Ad Hominem. 2. Contradiction. 3. Ridicule. 4. Diversion.
When someone argues with me using these logical fallacies, my first thought is what are they afraid of? Then I think, are their arguments so weak that they cannot stand on the facts?
One atheist used the red herring argument. He suggested that one should not be a Christian or believe in God because Christians were involved in the Crusades against the Middle East. I told him that Lenin and Mao both atheists, killed more people.
Because Lenin and Mao killed many people does not prove atheists are killers and because some Christians participated in the crusades does not prove Christians killers.
Another atheist uses the ad hominem logical fallacy and often calls anyone disagreeing with the atheist position a liar.
The Creationist Argues
Unfortunately sometimes Christians use some of the same logical fallacies.
One time I contacted a gentleman who held to the theory of creation occurring 6,000 year ago. I was curious to learn the scientific basis for his position. I asked him why it appears that we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away if the earth was created 6,000 years ago. The gentleman used an ad hominem argument and told me that I had no faith. He did not give me an answer to my question. I saw no reason to question him further.
Using logical fallacies by Christians to put others in their place seems contrary to the love of Jesus to me. If the creationist gentleman had given me reasons for his belief instead of only attacking me, then I would have had some facts to consider.
I find intelligent design theories intriguing. I am not an expert in biology or paleontology. The current paradigm among scientists does not accept intelligent design. I have done some reading and the intelligent design theories appear to me to have merit.
J.P. Moreland tells us about a time when he was giving lectures at UCLA:
“William Dembski had given a lecture defending intelligent design theory. The biology faculty of the university instructed their students to boycott Dembski’s lecture. There was a lot of mocking and ridicule of him among the biologists—despite the fact that Dembski has a master’s degree in science, a master’s degree in statistics, a master’s degree in divinity, a PhD in philosophy, and a PhD in mathematics—along with postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. But if Dembski is so stupid and his proposals on intelligent design are so patently ridiculous, why wouldn’t the professors simply send their students to the lecture and have them tear his arguments apart? That should be easy. Of what were the biology faculty afraid?
Around that time, while giving some lectures at UCLA, I met a doctoral student in microbiology. He pulled me aside and said that his dissertation supervisor admitted to him in confidence that his dissertation proposal was excellent. It was a proposal to provide empirical verification or falsification for intelligent design theory. But the supervisor told him to stay far away from intelligent design. If he insisted on this topic for his dissertation, he would not only flunk, but he would have his funding withdrawn and would be kicked out of the doctoral program.” Moreland, J. P. Scientism and Secularism (pp. 192-193). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
I too question the fear of professors of Biology at ULCA. Perhaps they cannot argue conclusively against intelligent design? Certainly, intelligent design does not conform to their paradigm.
As the debate among biologists continues, I will watch with great interest to see if the paradigm changes.
The Love of Jesus
Love is action. When asked about the most important commandment Jesus said, 29 “The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:29-31.
How do we show the love of Jesus when we debate with those with whom we disagree?
How do we show love to the homeless man on the street?
How do we show love to the student experiencing transgender feelings?
How do we love the poor, the helpless and the prisoner?
Has the Just War doctrine created more division, hatred and heretics in the church than any other doctrine?
Who is more heretical? A Mennonite who causes his church to divide arguing about the color of carpet or a person killing our brothers and sisters in Christ because the government told them they were fighting a just war and needed to kill these Christians?
I recently read an article by Frank Viola and Greg Boyd, “Who are the Real Heretics.”
Viola and Boyd say that in the New Testament, “If a person divided a genuine church, they were guilty of heresy. Consequently, a person could be a heretic with the truth!”1
Many people who ascribe to the Just War Doctrine are not heretics, but the Just War Doctrine causes a situation that creates heretics.
What doctrine has created a situation where more Christians kill each other? What doctrine has caused more hatred and division in the church?
What if Christians were willing to die like Jesus died on the cross? What would have happened in past wars if all Christians involved refused to fight and had allowed the enemy soldiers to kill them instead?
How many soldiers would have been willing to follow the orders of Hitler?
How many soldiers would have been willing to follow the orders of Winston Churchill?
In many wars, members of the same congregation have fought on both sides
Christians fighting Christians killed 1/3 of the European population during the 30 years war from 1618 to 1648. All sides claiming just cause.
In the American Civil War both sides claimed they were fighting a just war. Both sides claimed to be Christian. Between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers died in that war, Christian brother killing and hating Christian Brother.
In World War I, both sides claimed to be Christian. About 20,000,000 people died. Over half were innocent civilians. Both sides claimed they were fighting a just war. Christians from Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Christians and Muslims from the Ottoman Empire killed Christians from Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Japan and the United States. And vis versa.
If World War I had not been fought, World War II and the Cold War could have been avoided.
Consider the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.
Jesus said,13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” John 15:13. NIV
Jesus died on the cross and said of his enemies as he died. “Forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing”
Jesus said, “Whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:27. NIV
John said, 9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 1 John: 2:9 NIV
I am not convinced that it is possible for a Christian to fight a just war.
Aquinas’s conditions for a Just War – jus ad bellum
The war must have a just cause – eg against invasion, or for self-defence – and not to acquire wealth or power.
The war must be declared and controlled by a proper authority, eg the state or ruler.
The war must be fought to promote good or avoid evil, with the aim of restoring peace and justice after the war is over.
Later conditions developed by other Christians – jus in bello
The war must be a last resort when all peaceful solutions have been tried and failed, eg negotiation.
The war should be fought with ‘proportionality’, with just enough force to achieve victory and only against legitimate targets, ie civilians should be protected.
The good which is achieved by the war must be greater than the evil which led to the war.
Reasons I question the possibility of Just War.
I do not see anything in the teachings of Jesus that allow for Just War of violence by Christians.
I do not see anything in the teachings of the church prior to St. Ambrose that states Christians may be involved in violence.
The prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah began teaching a way foreshadowing non-violence.
How does a Christian soldier stop fighting if he finds out he in an unjust situation?
How does a Christian stop a war that does not meet the just war criteria of Aquinas?
If a countries foreign policy does not have a system to test each military endeavor to determine if it is a just war, can a Christian fight in such a military?
How is a war determined to be just by the US government?
Christians in Germany and Christians in Great Britain both thought they were fighting a just war in World War one. If both sides claim to have Just cause can both sides be following Jesus when they declare Just War?
Are we arrogant when we claim our side is right and God is protecting our country when we attack other Christian nations who think they are fighting a just war?
Osama Bin Laden in his letter to America after 9/11 talked about the decades of bombing of innocent people in the Middle East by the US and it’s allies. If he was fighting an invading enemy and thought God was on his side and would help him win, was he fighting a just war?
Some Christians claim that any war the United States fights is a just war. If we allow the government to make moral decisions for us, are we worshiping the government?
If we allow the government to protect us instead of trusting God for protection, are we worshiping the government?
If we support a government fighting an unjust war are we endangering our souls?
What do we do with the teachings of Jesus that contradict Aquinas’ just war theology?
When I was young I was tempted to join the military. I did not. When I start thinking about the answers to the above questions, I cannot come up with good reasons how a Christian could violently support any empire that has ever existed while following the teachings of Jesus.
Making arguments Taking Scripture Out of Context
Some Christians take Biblical passages out of context to justify violence. A few examples:
Romans 13 says we are to be subject to the ruling authorities, however Paul never gives permission to Christians to disobey God in order to be subject to the ruling authorities.
Some Christians even use Romans 13 to justify wars such as the Revolutionary War. Paul was unjustly imprisoned by a repressive Roman government. The injustice of Great Britain against the American colonies was far less than the injustice St. Paul experienced from Rome. I believe the Revolutionary War was not a just war in the eyes of St. Paul.
I am of the opinion we must read Romans 13 in the light of Romans 12. Is it possible to overcome evil with good when you are bombing innocent women and children.
Can a Christian fight in a military taking revenge for 9/11 and protecting Americas wealth and easy living by protecting oil wells owned by American companies?
I think we must also take these passages in context with Romans 8:28. God always brings about good for those who love him through the actions of evil men. We do not need to join in their evil activities.
For the first 3 centuries of Christianity, three times the Roman Empire tried to wipe out Christians like Hitler tried to wipe out Jews. These Christians remained faithful because God works for the good of those who love him through all things.
We can also compare the good that God brings when our enemies conquer us as compared to the good brought about through God using Babylon to bring about good for the Jews when they were taken captive and taken to Babylon.
God uses evil men to control the violence of evil men.
Some Christians have mentioned to me that when Jesus healed the centurion’s servant, he was demonstrating that violence by Christians is acceptable. The centurion was an enemy soldier. It is possible the centurion was one of the soldiers involved in killing Jews on crosses, as was common at that time.
Rather than demonstrating that violence was acceptable, Jesus was showing us how to treat our enemy. Jesus healing the centurion’s servant is like an American Christian supplying Osama bin Laden with a dialysis machine in 2002. Or an American doctor helping a close adviser of Hitler during World War Two.
Amazingly some have suggested that because Paul compared Christian service to military service that this means it is acceptable for Christians to use violence. In verse 12 Paul clearly says that our struggle is not against flesh and blood. And in 2 Corinthians 10:4 Paul says the weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world.
Ephesians 6 is showing us that fighting evil like Jesus fights evil is dangerous and we will suffer losses. Fighting for Jesus is a real war. More real than any war fought by Kingdoms of this world. But we have the resurrection on our side.
When we sign up to fight for Jesus, we experience true freedom. It is a freedom that does not need a government to pamper us in our faith. A Christian can live under a government run by Boka Horam and die by the sword a few days later and have greater freedom than a Christian living in the United States.
Some Christians claim that we as Christians have the responsibility to use violence if we are in government. Jesus passed the test of government in Matthew 4. Why are we different than Jesus?
God demonstrates in the crossing of the Red Sea that he will fight for his children.
Throughout history many Christians have been miraculously delivered from evil men. More Christians died for their faith in the 20th century than throughout all history before that.
Living as a nonviolent Christian is not safe in this world. But I would like to suggest that it is safer to be killed by our enemies when we are loving them than it is to live in the temporary freedom and wealth earned by killing our enemies.
Strongly influencing the Assembly of God in the early years was Arthur Booth-Clibborn.
At age 26, in 1881, Arthur Booth-Clibborn became a Quaker minister, soon afterward at the invitation of General William Booth, Clibborn joined the Salvation Army an married Booth’s daughter Kate. Booth served in the Salvation Army until 1902 when he converted to Pentecostalism
Clibborn’s family were Quakers and Clibborn considered himself a Quaker all his life. Some of his children were founders and ministers in the Assembly of God church.
Another Quaker strongly influencing the Assemblies of God was Hannah Whitall Smith. Smith held to a Wesleyan and holiness theology and a strong Quaker peace stance.
In the beginning, the Assembly of God considered themselves pacifists.
The following statement by the General Council of the Assemblies of God appeared in a 1917 Weekly Evangel article titled “Pentecostal Movement and the Conscription Law.”…
Therefore, we, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith.” 1.
Booth-Clibborn did not support antiwar movements or arguments that were not Christian. He believed that “moralists” who placed their hopes “in the social effort of man to save his own world on material lines” were doomed for failure. 2.
Today many Assembly of God members are far removed from their pacifist roots.
During the debate about the military service article at the General Council in 1967 one Assemblies of God minister blatantly revealed their quest for acceptance (by American Churches) as a reason for opposing conscientious objection 2.
Proclaimed at the Council of Narbonne, August 25, 1054
1. First, we order that no Christian shall slay his fellow Christian. For he who kills a Christian, without doubt sheds the blood of Christ. If anyone unjustly kills a man, he shall pay the penalty according to law. “Christian Peace and Nonviolence,” Edited by Michael G. Long, Page 59.
What if the Council of Narbonne is correct? What if when we kill a Christian, we “shed the blood of Christ?”
What if when we kill a Christian, we crucify Jesus again?
What if when we join the US military and kill enemy soldiers who are followers of Jesus, we crucify Jesus again?
What if during the Revolutionary War, American Christian soldiers who killed Christian soldiers from England were crucifying Jesus again?
When Christian soldiers from the North who killed Christian Soldiers from the South during the Civil War were they crucifying Jesus again?
When Christian soldiers for the United States killed Christian soldiers in the Philippines, were they crucifying Jesus again?
What if Christian soldiers from the United States, when they killed Christian soldiers in Germany during WW I and WW II were crucifying Jesus again?
Jesus has been calling many Muslims to become Christians. What if when we kill “terrorists” in Iraq or Afghanistan we are crucifying Jesus all over again?
Jesus said, 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
When we join the United States military and destroy homes and fields and kill innocent men, women and children, causing hunger, thirst, illness and nakedness what if we are crucifying Jesus again?
When US pilots napalmed fields in Vietnam, were they crucifying Jesus again?
When US snipers killed innocent men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan were they crucifying Jesus again?
Pilate tried to wash his hands, what if when we join the military and work as an accountant or cook, we crucify Jesus again?
What if when we manufacture guns for the military, we crucify Jesus again?
What if when we accept the spoils of war we crucify Jesus again?
I have heard and read several arguments from the new atheists about why it does not make sense to be a Christian. But, based on the evidence, I have found their reasons to be unconvincing.
I think it is always important to keep an open mind and look at the evidence.
Reasons New Atheists give:
Science proves God is unnecessary.
. Genesis creation story contradicts our scientific knowledge, therefor Christianity is invalid.
The archeological evidence does not match the Exodus story in the Bible, therefor the Bible is a fraud.
Moses could not have written the Torah, therefor the Bible is a fraud.
The Resurrection did not happen.
David Hume has shown that Miracles do not occur.
The physical world is all that exists.
Christianity is too violent.
REASON # 1, SCIENCE PROVES GOD IS UNNECESSARY.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What if as scientists say, the beginning of creation (Big Bang) happened 13.7 billion years ago?
I have read a few books concerning the history of the universe and the history of life, including “Evolution, The Whole Story” by Steve Parker, “Saving Darwin, How to be a Christian and Believe in Darwin,” by Karl W. Giberson, “Darwin’s Doubt,” by Stephen Meyer, “Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism,” Edited by Andrew Petto, “Undeniable,” by Douglas Axe and “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME BY STEPHEN HAWKING
About 25 years ago I read “A Brief History of Time,” by Stephen Hawking. As I read, I kept thinking that the universe God created was so amazing. Then Hawking began discussing the theory he had developed to avoid the Big Bang and a beginning of the universe. He claimed his theory proved that there was no need for God, I was amazed. I thought to myself, how could Hawking know what he knows and not be amazed with the universe and see God?
I’ve read other scientists who claim that Hawking’s theory fails to prove that the universe does not have a beginning.
Perhaps Hawking developed his theory to avoid a beginning for the universe because he thought the Kalam Cosmological argument is valid if the universe has a beginning?
“EVOLUTION, THE WHOLE STORY” BY STEVE PARKER
In the book “Evolution,” as I read, I saw the history of God creating life. I had feelings similar feelings as I felt when I read Stephen Hawking. How could someone know all these wonderful things about nature and the history of life on earth and not be amazed by God.
Alice Roberts wrote the forward for “Evolution”. She said, “The concept of humans as a special creation made by an intelligent designer, stands in direct opposition to the idea we are a product of unthinking natural selection.” In this statement Roberts is making untenable claims.
Roberts untenable claims:
“Unthinking natural selection:”
Roberts claims unthinking natural selection. I did not see anywhere in the book where Parker claims to be demonstrating unthinking natural selection. Parker’s book in no way proves unthinking natural selection. God can use natural selection to create animals if he so desires. He could guide each step of evolution and we would not be able to prove scientifically that he did or did not.
“Creation by an intelligent designer is in opposition to natural selection.”
If God is God, he can create however he wants even if he uses natural selection to create. God could use natural selection to create animals if he so desires. If God guided natural selection, then natural selection is not unthinking. Perhaps God planned each step and each step is a miracle. Humans could very easily be very special to God.
What if all animals ever created are special to God?
What if we will find all animals that ever lived in heaven when we get there because God wants to enjoy his wonderful creation forever?
As I read the book, I felt Parker was simply showing the history of life. He was not attempting to make a statement about God. If as Roberts contended, Parker was attempting to prove that God is unnecessary, Parker failed miserably.
SCIENTISTS CONFRONT INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM, EDITED BY ANDREW PETTO
The authors of the book made many excellent points. They helped me understand better the science behind paleontology. I felt they did demonstrate the great age of the earth, (4.5 billion years) and age of the universe, (13.7 billion years) by using current standards for measuring time. I felt they did demonstrate that young earth creationism is questionable. However, many young earth creationists claim that God created the earth 6,000 years ago but made it appear to be much older. They are not arguing from a scientific point view at that point.
The authors of Petto’s book failed to deliver on their promise to Confront Intelligent Design as a failed theory. These authors failed to prove that life was not created by God and they failed to prove that natural selection is not guided by God.
The authors of Petto’s book try to demonstrate that Meyer and Axe are not defending a valid scientific theory of “Intelligent Design” and they failed.
This book was extremely interesting, and I learned a great amount about paleontology.
“DARWIN’S DOUBT,” BY STEPHEN MEYER AND “UNDENIABLE,” BY DOUGLAS AXE
In these books Meyer and Axe argue for the theory of Intelligent Design.
Meyer successfully shows some of the problems of current theories in paleontology concerning the Cambrian Explosion.
These certainly made a good case demonstrating problems of evolution creating life without a God. I think they demonstrated that it is quite reasonable to study the history of life and believe in God.
It appears to me that Intelligent Design is a logical and valid, but still unproven theory.
Atheists are incorrect, science has not proven that God is unnecessary.
REASON #2, GENESIS CREATION STORY CONTRADICTS OUR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, THEREFOR CHRISTIANITY IS INVALID
Genesis was written by Moses in about 1450 BC. Paleo-Hebrew written alphabet was developed at about the time of Joseph 400 years earlier. Any scientific claims made by Moses would align with the scientific knowledge of his time. He was raised and educated in the palace of the Pharaoh of Egypt therefor his scientific knowledge would come from Egyptian science.
Moses may have had written sources from the time of Joseph to include in Genesis.
However, stories before Joseph are word of mouth stories.
Some of these stories are based on fact. The Stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob appear to be based on stories of those who lived the experiences.
We can see in the story of Adam and Eve that man turned to sin and violence. In the story Noah we see that God hates evil. We also see God began revealing himself to man before Abraham.
Genesis is about the history God reaching out to man and is not a scientific text.
If Genesis does not conform to scientific knowledge today, that does not make Christianity invalid.
REASON #3, MOSES AND THE EXODUS
We have archeological evidence in Egypt, the Saini Peninsula, Midian and Israel which show that the exodus, the wandering of the Israelites in the desert, and the conquest of Canaan occurred as recorded in the Bible.
Many archeologists claim that the exodus took place about 1250 BC. In the “Patterns of Evidence, The Exodus” documentary by Tim Mahoney, Mahoney demonstrates that the archeological evidence shows that the exodus place about 1450 BC. When the timeline is corrected, the evidence in Egypt and Palestine line up perfectly with the Bible stories. Mohoney’s Documentary Series includes “The Exodus,” The Moses Controversy’,” “The Red Sea Miracle,” Part 1, and “The Red Sea Miracle,” Part 2.
Archeologist David Rohl studied Egyptian history timeline extensively and has shown how Egyptian archeological evidence relates to the Biblical story. See David Rohl’s book “Exodus, Myth or History.”
Atheist’s such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have used the lack of evidence for the Exodus as part of the foundation for their atheism. We can see from the Mahoney films and Rohl’s book that this is no longer a valid argument supporting their position.
REASON #4, JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD
Many authors have demonstrated very convincingly that Jesus has risen from the dead. If he has risen from the dead, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus is God. Several authors that have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that Jesus is risen from the dead. Books include “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” by Josh MacDowell, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.
In reading these and other similar books, I conclude that the new atheists have a lot of work to do to defend their position against this evidence.
REASON #5, DAVID HUME AND MIRACLES
Some atheists base their position on the writings of David Hume. Lee Strobel in “A Case for Miracles,” discusses David Hume’s arguments. Mr. Strobel conducted a survey about miracles in the US. About 94,000,000 Americans believe they have experienced miracles. This contradicts the claims of Hume. Strobel demonstrates that Hume’s arguments are based on presuppositions and circular reasoning.
REASON #6, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A NON-MATERIAL WORLD.
Probably the argument I have heard the most often in favor of atheism is the lack of scientific evidence for a non-material world. I recently read John Burke’s “Imagine Heaven.”
Many blind people when they have near death experience describe colors they have never seen before.
One girl during a near death experience observed a tennis shoe on the outside windowsill of a hospital window. The girl had no previous knowledge of the tennis shoe. Later the doctor who heard her story, went from window to window around the hospital until he found the tennis shoe.
Many other stories include facts verifiable by a third party, that cannot be explained by physical knowledge of the person experiencing the near-death experience.
Burke’s book does not scientifically prove the existence of heaven or hell described in near death experiences, but it does convincingly demonstrate a spiritual world or parallel spiritual universe to our material world.
Once again, atheists have some explaining to do to defend their position.
REASON #8, CHRISTIANITY IS TOO VIOLENT
Many Atheists claim Christianity is invalid because Christians are too violent.
In a discussion with one atheist, I mentioned that Lenin, and Mao as atheists killed more people than any two Christians ever killed. He rightly pointed out it is against his own personal standards to kill people.
Many of the people killed by these regimes died of unnecessary starvation, caused by Socialist central planners following the guidelines of atheist Karl Marx. “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism.” By Kevin D. Williamson.
Today atheist leaders still impoverish and use violence against their own people in such places as North Korea, China and Cuba.
My friend’s claim that Christians are the most violent and pro-war people in the USA may be true. However, Jesus taught and demonstrated non-violence as the best way to live as a Christian. It is impossible for my atheist friend to claim that because many Christians are violent, then Christianity is invalid.
Many Christians fail to follow the teachings of Jesus concerning violence. That does not prove that God does not exist.
My friend’s case that Lenin and Mao do not represent atheist philosophy is very weak. The violence of Lenin and Mao certainly show one valid possible outcome for following atheism where it logically leads.
Atheists also appear to be more prone to violent suicide than people with a religious affiliation.
Recently a study of “Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt “was undertaken. The study was published December 1, 2004 in “The American Journal of Psychiatry.” RESULT: “Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation.”CONCLUSION:“Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients.”
Based on the facts, with violence as a criterion for a valid belief system, atheism fails.
I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST
Faith is belief that something is true based on the best evidence we have. With that definition of faith, then I would say in agreement with Frank Turek, “I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist.”
JESUS CAME TO SAVE
One atheist asked sarcastically, “What did Jesus save us from?” He does have an excellent question. Who did Jesus come to save?
“On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17
Who are these healthy people who do not need the healing of Jesus?
Anyone who is righteous and is not a sinner.
Anyone who can avoid illness and death.
Anyone who can feed all the hungry.
Anyone who can prevent all homelessness.
Anyone who can cause human flourishing without damaging the environment.
Anyone who can prevent all alcoholism and drug addiction.
Anyone who can change the heart of a human so that he no longer kills and steals but loves his neighbor and turns the other check.
Anyone who does not need to experience the rebirth as explained in John 3.
Anyone who can prevent all child abuse.
Anyone who can prevent all spousal abuse.
Anyone who can prevent all child slavery.
Anyone who can prevent all child sexual abuse.
Anyone who can take away the fear of death.
Anyone who can prevent all wars and conflicts.
Anyone who can bring friendship between God and man.
Anyone who can heal the death and violence in the environment so that Lions eat grass and wolves lie down with the lambs.
Anyone who can heal the universe, so it never dies.
Jesus has promised to heal people and the earth. If he can raise himself from the dead, I think he can fulfill his other promises also.
19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. Romans 8:19-21
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10
To us humans, this healing that Jesus is giving us seems to be taking a long time. But if the universe is 13.7 billion years old and God is eternal, then the healing Jesus is giving us is taking only the blink of an eye.
“it’s a dangerous world out there, and pacifists depend for their safety and security on the generosity and good will of non-pacifists. Prior to the Christianization of the Roman empire, many Christians were not faced with the responsibility of defending the public and ensuring public order.” Were the Early Christians Pacifist, by Jimmy Akin
What if the Sermon on the mount is a sermon of subversion? What if Jesus is teaching poor people the proper way to rebel against an abusive and enslaving government and society? What if the United States is an abusive and enslaving government?
Jimmy Akin attempts to make a case that Christians began to use violence and the military to control people because they became responsible for protecting the public. When Christians obtained political power, it became their responsibility to run government using the violence of government.
Jimmy spends a great deal of time trying to defend his position of violence by demonstrating that the early Christians were not pacifist.
The real question is not whether Christians were pacifist, but is it possible for a Christian to join the military or to use violence to ensure public order while following the teachings of Jesus.
St Ambrose was Roman Governor in Milan. The people loved him, and he became Bishop of Milan by popular acclamation. St Ambrose was government man. Most likely he would agree with Jimmy Aiken that maintaining the peace and governing the people is one of the most important tasks of a Christian. As Bishop, St. Ambrose advocated killing the pagans. Jesus taught going into all the world, baptizing and teaching people to follow everything Jesus commanded.
St. Ambrose’s approval of killing pagans by Roman soldier is similar to our country using the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery stems from the papal bull which gave Europeans the right to kill and conquer. Pope Alexander VI issued the Papal Bull ‘Inter Caetera,” on May 4, 1493.
THE UNITED STATES
The United States foreign policy from the beginning has followed the Doctrine of Discovery, where a “Christian” country of greater power has the right to kill and destroy weaker peoples in order to take what belongs to the conquered for the conquerors. Using the Doctrine of Discovery, the United States stole land from the Native Americans and Mexico.
In 1899 the Philippine-American War was fought to enslave the Philippines as a United States colony. The War Prayer, By Mark Twain.
The United States has sent Marines all over the world to protect American financial interests. The Marines have been sent to protect American Banana companies and keep banana plantation worker working at a low wage.
The United States military protects American oil wells in the Middle East. Throughout its history the United States has used its military to obtain wealth and power by killing and enslaving people.
Does Jimmy really approve of Christians joining a military who upholds these values?
THE SUBVERSIVE SERMON
I think the Sermon on the Mount is a great place to start to determine if Jimmy Akin’s premise that Christians should violently defend to the public and ensure public order really follows the teachings of Jesus.
Some claim that the Sermon on the Mount only applies to our personal lives, maybe at the level of social interactions in a small village, but not on a larger scale, especially when it comes to government.
Many people in the time Jesus were enslaved and controlled by the Romans. At the same time wealthy Jews took advantage of their fellow Jews to gain great wealth.
But what if the Sermon on the Mount applies to how the poor are to treat the rich and the oppressor. What if the Sermon on the Mount is the way the poor are to deal with superpowers like Rome and Great Britain and the United States with their great militaries and great wealth?
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:38-42
Many feel that in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is asking us to take the violence like a doormat. But Jesus is showing us how to nonviolently fight for freedom and justice for the weak, the vulnerable and the poor.
Walter Wink explains the Greek word in Matthew 5:39 and suggests a better translation “Do not retaliate against violence with violence.”
Wink says, “Jesus was no less committed to opposing evil than the anti-Roman resistance fighters. The only difference was over the means to be used: how one should fight evil.
There are three general responses to evil: 1) passivity, 2) violent opposition, and 3) the third way of militant nonviolence articulated by Jesus. Human evolution has conditioned us for only the first two of these responses: flight or fight….
Neither of these alternatives has anything to do with what Jesus is proposing. It is important that we be utterly clear about this point before going on: Jesus abhors both passivity and violence as responses to evil. His is a third alternative not even touched by these options. The Greek word “Anistenai” cannot be construed to mean submission.
Jesus clarifies his meaning by three examples. “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Why the right cheek? Try it. A blow by the right fist in the right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of exclusion and ten days penance (The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS 7) The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the right hand. What we are dealing with his unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her “place”. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did, the fine was exorbitant…. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands backhanded wives; parents backhanded children; men backhanded women; Romans backhanded Jews. The only normal response would be cowering in submission.
It is important to ask who Jesus’ audience is. In every case, Jesus’ listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or imposed forced labor, but their victims….
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, “Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me.”…
The second example Jesus gives is set in a court of law. Someone is being sued for his outer garment… Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish las strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that is all the poor had in which to sleep…the poor debtor has sunk even deeper into poverty, the debt cannot be repaid, and his creditor has hauled him into court to try to seize his property by legal means….
Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor’s place and imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him….
Nakedness was taboo in Judaism, and shame fell on one causing the nakedness.
Jesus’ third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the very enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples.
To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt. One does not “befriend” the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial might and he minced no words about it., though it must have cost him support from the revolutionary factions.
But why walk the second mile? Is this not a rebound to the opposite extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative, how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar’s, about how one responds to the rules- that is God’s, and Caesar has no power over that.
Imagine then the soldier’s surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack, and now you do it cheerfully and will not stop! Is this a provocation? Are you insulting his strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther than you should? Are you planning to file a complaint? Create trouble?
From a situation of servile impressments, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice…
Jesus’ Third Way:
Seize the moral initiative
Find a creative alternative to violence
Assert your own humanity and dignity as a person
Meet force with ridicule or humor
Break the cycle of humiliation
Refuse to submit to or accept the inferior position
Expose the injustice of the system
Take control of the power dynamic
Shame the oppressor into repentance
Stand your ground
Force the Powers to make decisions for which they are not prepared
Recognize your own power
Be willing to suffer rather than to retaliate
Cause the oppressor to see you in a new light
Deprive the oppressor of a situation where a show of force is effective
Be willing to undergo the penalty of breaking unjust laws
Die to fear of the old order and its rules
Quoted from “Christian Peace and Nonviolence” by Michael Long. Chapter 4. “Walter Wink”
Would Jesus want us to join a military that causes the very poverty, injustice and enslavement that he is overcoming? Does Jesus want us to join the government and become the oppressor?
Maybe we Americans don’t like the teaching of Jesus because we are the wealthy in the world, enslaving others with our military? What if we are the goats Jesus discusses in Matthew 25?
What if the whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 is any superpower who accumulates great wealth and military power through enslaving the poor and calling it self-defense and national interest?
Perhaps to be a pacifist who follows the teaching of Jesus is far more dangerous than depending on the government for our safety and security?
Perhaps Jesus would only want us to be involved in government if we refuse to do anything that is contrary to his teaching?
Perhaps if St. Ambrose had seen the Sermon on the Mount as a call to fight against the injustice of the Roman government, he would have used these principals to preach the gospel and bring justice to the pagans? Perhaps he would have refused to endorse the Roman Military?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
There was war in heaven and Satan was thrown from heaven.
Many scientists tell us the universe is 13.7 billion years old. What if Satan was thrown from heaven 13.7 billion years ago? Did Satan’s fall from heaven cause the universe to begin dying, as the universe expands it grows colder. The beginning of violence?
Scientists tell us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. What if as God created animal life at each step of what scientist call evolution. Satan interfered and introduced death and violence each step of the way. Dinosaurs killed dinosaurs.
THE FALL OF MAN
Then God created Adam and Eve. They lived in the Garden of Eden as equals. They sinned and because of man’s stronger physic, man protected woman from the dangerous animals and evil men and used his greater strength to provide food and shelter. Man abused his strength and power over women.
Cain killed Abel. God protected Cain from revenge, but Cain and his descendants created cities and government and used the power of violence to protect thenselves. The sin of men brought about great violence.
God repented of creating man because of their violence. He started over with Noah and promised never to wipe out mankind again. God would find a way to overcome the sinfulness and violence of man without using a flood.
Man built violent and evil empires such as Sumer, Egypt and the Akkadian Empire. These empires used war and violence to control and enslave people.
GOD REVEALS HIMSELF
God began revealing himself to man and bringing about the salvation of man by becoming a friend to Abraham.
God sent Joseph to Egypt to save his family and Egypt. Joseph became vizier of Egypt during the reign of Amenemhat III. 1,2 Pharoah gave Joseph and his family a home in city of Avaris in the land of Goshen.
God blessed the Israelites, they had many children and there was a great multiplication of their numbers.
A pharaoh (Sobekhotep III)1. who did not know Joseph, enslaved the Israelites.
Then Dedumose II1,2 is confronted by Moses. God through many miracles convinces pharaoh to let his people go. 600,000 men, their wives and children leave Egypt. The pharaoh changes his mind and pursues the Children of Israel to the Red Sea. God fights for Israel and defeats Egypt, casting the pharaoh’s army into the sea.
God is leading his people to a way of nonviolence and love of enemy as he protects his people in weakness and they win a great victory.
God fights for Israel and they defeat Jericho and many other fortified cities. God is the protection of Israel.
THE TIME OF THE JUDGES
Often the Children of Israel refuse to depend on God and take their defense into their own hands. Sometimes they depend on God and win great victories in weakness, such as in the time of Gideon.
Through the law of Moses and the prophets, God teaches his people that he wants them to care for the widow and orphan, the poor and the helpless and to show compassion to the foreigner. God wants his people to trust him for protection.
FALLING INTO VIOLENCE LIKE THE NATIONS
In Deuteronomy 17: 14-20 Moses gives guidelines for a King.
Often the people take detours and do not depend on God for protection.3.
The people take a major detour and against the advice of Samuel crown Saul King.
The Kings do not follow the guidelines set by Moses.
Saul begins to depend on his own strength like the nations and loses his Kingdom to David.
David, a man after God’s own heart, defeats Goliath.
For hundreds of years during the time of the Judges, Israel did not maintain a standing army. The Israelites did not know war.
David, as King becomes a man of great violence. He depends on his own strength. Instead of depending on God, David hired foreign mercenaries to fight for Israel and to train soldiers for Israel.
David displays the sword of Goliath. Was he displaying his own great military prowess?
Because of his great violence, God does not allow David to build the Temple.
Solomon builds the temple. He also does not follow the guidelines set by Moses for a King. Solomon worships idols and has many wives. Solomon accumulates great wealth.
The Kingdom divides after the death of Solomon, some Kings allow God to fight for them and they are successful. Some Kings depend on themselves and end in defeat.
GOD PUNISHES ISRAEL
With the Babylonian capture of Judah, the King experiment ends.
God is showing his people that they will live in the nations and be a blessing to the nations.
With Ezra and Nehemiah, the people return to Israel so that the messiah can be born in Bethlehem and die and raise from the dead in Jerusalem in fulfillment of prophecy.
Alexander the Great conquers Jerusalem in 332 BC.
The Jews rebel in violence.
In 63 BC Pompey conquers Jerusalem for Rome.
The Jews rebel in violence.
God does not allow the Jews to win against their oppressors. God is leading them to be a blessing to all the nations and to live out among the nations, he does not allow the return to the rule of earthly kings of Israel.
JESUS, KING OF PEACE
Jesus is born.
He is tempted in the desert by the devil to take political power. The Kingdom of God on earth is not an earthly kingdom, but a Kingdom with members living in every nation.
Jesus preaches the Kingdom of God. He teaches us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, visit the prisoner to love our brother and sister and to love our enemy so that they can become our brother and sister.
Jesus sent out his 72 disciples representing the 72 nations of the earth as mentioned in Genesis. Jesus sees Satan fall like lightening from heaven. See Luke 10.
The zealots wanted to fight violently for freedom. Simon the zealot is Jesus disciple. But Jesus teaches peace.
Jesus died without resistance to conquer his enemies when he had 12 legions of angels at his disposal.
50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend. Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” Matthew 26:50-54
After the resurrection Jesus sends his people to preach to every nation. His Kingdom is a part of every nation. Jesus allows persecution in Jerusalem to push the Christians into all the world.
Even when Jesus ascended to heaven, the disciples were asking when he would restore the earthly kingdom of Israel:
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1 6-8.
Jesus said we must be willing to die in the same way:
Jesus said: 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:27
Paul continues the idea of a Kingdom of God that does not include a earthly kingdom. Paul tells us Christians do not fight with weapons of the world such as guns and knives and swords, but put on the armor of God. Ephesians 6.
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6: 11,12
The Ephesians passage is reminiscent of Luke 10. Demons rule the nations.
The Jews rebel violently against Rome and suffer great defeat in 70 AD, just as Jesus predicts.
The church depends on God for protection.
Prostitutes, tax collectors and soldiers become followers of Jesus.
CHRISTIANS TURN TO VIOLENCE
Most Christians were pacifist but as time passed soldiers began to remain in the military. In 170 AD, the first soldiers to become Christian and to remain in the military are confirmed historically.
Christians in the military became a problem for the church.
The 300 Bishops in the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) addressed this problem and called Christians to leave the military.
“Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who afterwards yielded to wickedness, and returned to the army, shall be excommunicated for ten years.” Excerpt from Cannon 12 of the Council of Nicaea.
Then St. Ambrose, a master politician, was made bishop by popular demand. Ambrose called for the killing of pagans by Christians. The preaching of the gospel was put on hold and earthly power was grasped by Christians. Romans and Christians discriminated against pagans.
Soon only Christians could become soldiers in the Roman Army.
The military was used to force people to become “Christian.” Instead of preaching the gospel and teaching people to choose Kingdom of God through love, Christians turn to the violence of the world.
St. Augustine wrote about just war. Even his watered-down teachings concerning violence were twisted and ignored.
Christians fought for land and power and safety and did not trust God for protection.
Christians fought the Crusades to conquer Jerusalem and kill the Muslims. Christians are not loving their enemies and preaching the gospel to Muslims, they are killing their enemies like the nations of the earth.
Christian governments prove they are no better at peace than were the Empires of Rome and Egypt. The Holy Roman Empire, France and England fought constantly, Christian slaughtering Christian.
Thomas Aquinas refines the Just War theory.
Nations continue to ignore the teachings of Jesus. Nations and Christians alike refuse to follow Aquinas’ Just War theory.
Protestants and Catholics fought and killed each other. In the 30-year war 1/3 of the population of Europe died as this religious and political conflict raged. Were Christians becoming more violent than the world?
VIOLENTLY CONQUERING THE WORLD
Pope Alexander VI issued the Papal Bull ‘Inter Caetera,” on May 4, 1493. This came to be called the “Doctrine of Discovery” used by “Christian” European Empires such as Spain, England and France to conquer foreign lands in North and South America, Africa, Australia and India for profit. The Doctrine of Discovery allowed the United States to legally and with the blessing of the church steal land from the Native Americans.
The Unites States has fought many wars with Christian nations. Fighting for land, resources and power.
The United States became a nation as a result of the Revolutionary War in direct disobedience to Paul:
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bringjudgment on themselves. Romans 13:2
Today many of the most vocal war mongers in America call themselves Christian.
In 1918 after Germany signed the peace treaty, Germans were starving. The US Congress voted not to send wheat to Germany. Nearly 1,000,000 Germans starved to death as a result. Because to the starvation Germans elected Hitler. If we had feed the hungry as instructed by Jesus could we have prevented World War II? And with that one act perhaps we could have prevented the Cold War? And the Korean and Vietnam Wars? See What about Hitler.
Jimmy Carter submerged the US in endless war in the Middle East to ensure large quantities of cheap oil for America. Military contractors make huge profits from the war in the Middle East. Soldiers protect oil wells to ensure profits of oil companies and the war continues. See “America’s War for the Greater Middle East.”
Can we in America be saved from God’s judgment for our violence?
Europe and America brought slaves from Africa. America fought the Civil War in direct disobedience to the teachings of Jesus. Christian brother killing Christian brother. This war was about power and greed. The south rebelling against unfair taxes and refusing to free their slaves. The North demanding taxes and politicians using the end of slavery as a means to gain political support. Great Britain ended slavery without war. Why not America?
We can see through history how true are the words of Jesus: Live by the sword die by the sword. America’s war and death continues in the Middle East as Christians fail to follow Jesus’ words of peace.
HAS SATAN WON?
Today Satan still seems to rule the Christian nations, as Christians fail to resist the temptation to rule through worldly politics. The same temptation Jesus overcame in Matthew 4: 8-10.
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” Matthew 4: 8-10. NIV
Jesus and Paul gave us a way to defeat Satan if we only take it. See Luke 10 and Ephesians 6.
Today Jesus still calls us to love our enemies and preach the gospel to all creation. Our brothers and sisters, our fellow members of the Kingdom of God live in every nation.
How can we feed the hungry, house the homeless and give water to the thirsty when we join the military and kill the hungry and thirsty? Or join the military make more people hungry and thirsty? How can we love our brothers and sisters in Christ if we join the military and kill them? How can we love our enemies when we join the military and kill them?
Jesus will continue to build his Kingdom even when Christians do not follow his gospel of peace.
Remember that Jesus saw Satan falling when he sent out the 72. Jesus defeated evil on the cross and has won the victory even if Christians do not follow his teaching. Whatever our sin, we can all expect Jesus to work in our lives as he teaches each of us to become more like him.
Jesus will have the victory.
Coming soon: A new heavens and a new earth without death and violence.
Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest by David Rohl.
Patterns of Evidence, The Exodus, Documentary by Tim Mahoney