Getting To Know God's Will: Finding your path in life

In an article I wrote, located here, I introduced a factitious character from the 2015, post-apocolyptic zombie game, Dying Light named Toygar. I showed that just as the creators of Dying Light, namely Techland and Warner Brothers designed Toygar to have a specific role in the video game God has designed His creation for one specific goal, namely to Glorify Him. So no matter where you may feel called as a believer in Christ to you are called to the same overarching goal namely to glorify God, (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23-31).

Finding the specific will of God for ones life can be difficult because it involves every aspect of their life. The Christian wants to know His will for them when it comes to relationships - should they get married or stay single? God's 'Will' invades their education and career; should they go to school to learn medicine or politics? And so on. These types of questions are important as it is one thing to say that its God's will for the Christian to glorify Him by 'whatever they do' (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:31), but it is a totally different question to ask: 'How do I bring glory to Him?'

The first step in being abel to do God's specific will is to know what His will is? As James, the half-brother of Jesus states:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. - James 1:27

This reiterates the point made in the aforementioned article about bringing glory to God by loving one's proverbial neighbour, but James adds a mandate to keep oneself separated from the unGodly world's morals, values and practices. John, Jesus' disciple encourages his readers to "...not love the world or anything in the world. ... —the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—..." - 1 John 2:15-16. So one way the Christian can bring glory to God is to stay on the right side of the line; in sum hold to Godly interpretations of abstracts concepts such as 'love'. Moreover, do not participate in practices that the world sees no issue with but God does; and also speak out against those practices. In other words irregardless of job-choice or choice of ministry, God has called the Christian to holiness, (cf. Lev. 11:44-45, 1 Peter 1:16).

How can one ascertain that something is Godly verses unGodly? Jesus promises to abide in us if we abide in Him; conversely he also promises that those who do not stay connected with him, will suffer eternally, (cf. John 15:1-17). The way we can learn what is Godly verses unGodly is to stay daily connected with him in prayer and in quite devotional times. However one also has to be attentive to what 'the world' believes so to be able to make the contrast, as there are several values that both 'the world' and Christianity share at the superficial level, such as to love one another. (cf. 1 John 3:11); but in the thick of it, Christianity's version of showing love to one's neighbour and the world's version of loving one's neighbour do not always see eye to eye. Representing God's views on various things bring's glory to God; it is God's 'Will' that we represent Him.

Another way the Christian can bring glory to God is to sit back and enjoy Him, through what he has made (cf. Psalms 46:10, John 1:3). God wants the Christian to not just stand up for him, but also relax in him, (cf. Psalms 23:1). Relaxing in the comfort of God brings God the glory of being a God of refuge, (cf. Psalms 46:1).

However how can the Christian know what they are called by God to do for their short time on this earth? All Christians irregardless of a specific calling are to abide in Him, rest in him, stand up for his morals and values, but not all people are called to be teachers, or go abroad as missionaries, or to work in the government, or preach from the pulpit, and so forth. How does the Christian ascertain God's will for them in terms of a life-calling? This is the billion dollar question. I ended the aforementioned article with this ascertain that Christians can make choices for their lives "...(move here, do this, do that, etc.) just as long as whatever choices they make are God-focused and ones that can bring Glory to God." We are called to glorify God in whatever we do, but can we do anything to glorify God? No. I for example, cannot look at internet pornography 'for the glory of God', because the nature of pornography is non-glorifying to God. So the Christian's choices are limited to those that can actually bring glory to God. There are two types of choices that one can make that can bring glory to God: one type of choice is Biblical and the other choice is neutrally-Biblical. The former is a moral choice that is founded upon Biblical values, while the latter is a choice that is neither for or against Biblical values and may also neither be a moral choice. One question the Christian should ask themselves is if the choice they are making falls into one of three categories: 1) Biblical, 2) neutrally-Biblical or 3) counter-Biblical (sinful choices.) If a Christian's decision falls into the third camp, it is undeniably and exclusively their will and counter to God's 'Will'; and therefore it can never glorify Him. If however the choice is in the second camp then the Christian should recognize it as permissible but ask if it is beneficial for themselves and or others. If this permissible choice is not going to be beneficial or constructive then it may be best to choose not to embrace this choice; and then of course if the Christian's choice falls into the first category then it should be a no-brainer that it is something that will bring glory to God as it is a Biblical choice.

Moreover, it is a fallacy to suggest that one's calling will be counter to their personal skills or design. I am not saying that God won't call someone to do something that will take them out of their comfort-zone and cause them to stretch as people, but it is a simple fact of life that there are people for example who are very impatient with young children but have a head-for-numbers; these people can spend hours going over a church's financial records and being in-tune to every dollar that is spent, but throw their hands up in frustration when a child is being incommunicative or taking a tantrum. God may be calling this person to be their church's treasurer and to work in a bank instead of being an AWANA leader and a kindergarten teacher. For that person to choose to take an economics course and strive to be a banker and or serve on the church's board of directors as the treasure is never going to be sinful or unGodly choice. For a concluding point of consideration one should also look at where their heart bleeds for. Nehemiah's heart was broken when he got word about the state of the Jerusalem wall (cf. Nehemiah 1). This inspired him to instigate a renovation project to fix it up. In parallel if one's heart bleeds to see Children come to faith in Jesus, then that person is probably called to children's ministry. Who does your heart break for?

Why Do I Exist?: Asking the oldest question, 'What God's 'Will'?

I'd like to introduce you to Toygar. Toygar is a factious character in the latest post apocalyptic zombie video game, Dying Light. Toygar is one of the animated side-characters who you can approach as the main and only playable character in the game Kyle Crane to get some of the side missions. This game of course has many side-characters, and like Toygar every character was designed by their creators, Warner Brothers and Techland to be stationed in one or two or three places in the factitious city of Harran. As such Toygar is pretty easy to find because he is always in the one place, that he was designed to be in: the main hideout called, The Tower. One popular place you can find him in The Tower is standing by a pin-board where other characters have posted requests which are several of the side-missions in the game. Essentially for most of the game Warner Brothers and Techland designed Toygar to stand by the pin-board and encourage me to help the other characters; in sum do the side-missions.

The way video-game developers like Techland design their games is very similar in intent to how God designed this universe and everything that resides within, (cf. Exodus 20:11). They design their characters to perform a single function or several specific functions. God has designed this universe and each life of every person, Christian and non-Christian alike for a very general purpose. One of the biggest endeavours and struggles that have burdened Christians throughout the centuries is finding that purpose for them as Christians and as people. "What is God's will for my life?" or simply, "What is God's 'Will'?" is the question that many Christians ask. This is a hard question to answer for many reasons, of which one is simply due to it being such a vast topic because it covers virtually every area in ones life: relationships, vocation, eduction, place of residence, Christian ministerial calling and so forth.

"What do I want to be when I grow up?" is a question that we all have wondered about throughout our childhood. From a Christian's viewpoint however the question could read like this: "Where do I feel called to?" We ask: "Does God want me to be a missionary? Or should I pull 9-5 desk job?" This question invades our relationships:"Is it God's will for my life, to be married or stay single?" It invades our para-ministerial goals: "Does God want me to get involved in children's ministry, homeless-ministry, prison-ministry or sing in the choir? It even causes many Christians to wonder about God's will for where on this earth they will live, work, eat and sleep: "Does God want me to move to this city or that country or stay where I am now?" These questions are a real burden for many Christians because the true Christian will truly want to ensure that they are fulfilling the will of God and not running off doing their own thing. Conversely however they are also human beings with desires, passions and personal ambitions. It should be a given that all Christians will gladly sacrifice sinful desires for the devotion to God and His Will; but what about those permissible desires? One burdening fear that many Christian's have is that their perfectly acceptable and non-sinful desires won't fit into God's 'Will' for their life. For example, what if I want to move to China but God wants me to stay in Canada? What if I long to get married, but it is God's will for me to stay single? What if my heart bleeds for children but I have this feeling God wants me to work in an adult's prison-ministry? And so on.

Before anyone can tackle such questions one has to ask the general question of God's will: "What is God's will - period?" This doesn't ask the question, "what is God's will for me? that is Ian Murray." But rather: "What is God's 'Will'?" Once the answer to this question comes to light personalizing God's 'Will' should become much easier to do.

There is an overarching theme in God's 'Will' for his creation. It is to glorify Him. Techland and Warner Brothers, designed Toygar for one meaning in life: to stay by the pin-board encouraging the player to help other characters in the game. And in the same way we exist to do one thing: glorify God.* The Apostle Paul highlights that the Christian has freedom in Christ. That is the Christian is not bound by the Mosaic Law. To the Christians in Corinth he explains the relationship between their freedom to do things and the rationality to do those things and the focus by which they should have so to make Godly decisions.

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. - 1 Corinthians 10:23

He indicates that even though they have freedom to do many things, many of those things may not be beneficial for themselves or be a benefit to others. He then asserts that "[no] one should seek their own good, but the good of others." - 1 Corinthians 10:24. What did Jesus say, was the first and second greatest commandments? To love God and to love one's neighbour (cf. Matthew 22:37-39). Paul's focus is to have them be God centred and represent God by showing His love to their proverbial neighbours. So even though one has the freedom to do many things, one's Christian mandate may functionally take that freedom away. Paul uses the analogy that even though all foods are no longer contraband for the Jew, the Jewish-Christian should not eat any food sacrificed to false gods, solely base on how doing so may offend unbelievers (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:27-30). The spirit of this lesson is, if doing something is going to have a negative effect on an immature believer or an unbeliever (or even cause distress to mature and immature believers [cf. Romans 14:15]) then it is right to think of them first and sacrifice your freedom in Christ to do the "offensive" thing. Paul summarizes his point with:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. - 1 Corinthians 10:31

There is a necessary connection between loving one's neighbour and bringing glory to God. Paul is saying that, in everything we do, we aught to honour the two greatest commandments that is to love God first and do so by loving one's neighbour (cf. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37-39). And we aught to do this not for our neighbour's sake, but for the sake of bringing glory to God. So every action the Christian takes, every word the Christian speaks, every thought the Christian thinks - every ounce of the Christian's being is mandated to glorify God; the Christian exists to glorify God.* This greatly frees-up the Christian to make choices in their lives (move here, do this, do that, etc.) just as long as whatever choices they make are God-focused and ones that can bring Glory to God.

____________________

* The mandate of this creation being designed to bring Glory to God is one reason that sin has separated his creation from him. Sin entered the scene (cf. Romans 5:12) disabling his creation from glorifying Him (cf. Romans 1:21). Since this universe and all that dwells within has been corrupted it no longer can glorify God (cf. Romans 8:6-7, 22). So God has solved this problem with sending Jesus to pay the consequences for sin, (cf. Romans 5:8). As such there will come a time when God will officially fix his creation en-toto (cf. 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 21:1-4) to the way it was supposed to be (cf. Genesis 1:31) thus restoring its original purpose, to glorifying God.

An Open Letter To A Fellow Brother In Christ

I tried to post this on Facebook as a response to a fellow brother in Christ in the Facebook forum: Den of Christian Apologists. However due to technical issues, I was unable to do it, so instead I'll respond as an open letter to my fellow brother in Christ. So to protect his identity I'll simply refer to him as: Fellow Brother. 

*** 

Hi Fellow Brother,  

You said: 

"Any argument that supports the ban on gay marriage from Christ's point of view is an argument from silence or "inference" which is the same exact thing. ... Inference is still an argument that has nothing concrete, otherwise it would be fact."

In my previous discussion with you Fellow Brother I showed you an example of an argument from silence. Jesus does *not* need to talk about homosexuality in order to have his views on it shown. Matthew 19, is *not* an argument from silence, nor is it an argument from inference. It is a conclusion from a proper exegesis of Scripture. At worst, arguing against homosexuality from Matthew 19, is an “inductive argument” that is “the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning). When we hold John 8:58 and 17:5, that is he is God and 2 Timothy 2:13b, that is God cannot deny himself, to be true then God’s original design for sexuality and marriage leaves zero wiggle room. God is God; any compromise on his standard will compromise that and that is simply impossible for God to do, that is God cannot compromise on his nature; in sum God cannot decide not to be God. Therefore taking this into account, Jesus’ non-support of homosexuality is *fact*. The assumed inductive argument is really a deductive argument. That is linking “...premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning)  

Premise #1: God cannot deny his nature and he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good, (cf. Genesis 1:31).  

Premise #2: Jesus is God (cf. John 1:1) 

Conclusion: Jesus cannot deny his nature and since he designed sexuality to be heterosexual in nature as that what his nature declared to be very good: (cf. Genesis 1:31); and therefore *any* alternative sexual orientation, including but not exclusive to, homosexuality, violates his nature, i.e. is a sin. 

In sum: Jesus is against homosexuality and thus any behaviors that spins from it may it be sexual or political (i.e. legal marriage) is a no-go; and we as followers of Christ should likewise represent that. Just as an ambassador of a country represents the policies and values held by their country, we are ambassadors for Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:20) and therefore we represent the policies and values held by Christ. 

And then just as I posted Part 1 of my response, because Facebook didn’t allow me to post my entire message in one shot forcing me to partition my response you (without waiting for the rest) responded as follows:  

"Jesus never said gay marriage is wrong and yet you assert He did. There is no difference, only selective reasoning and at the least blind ignorance."

Translation: Did not!  

This, Fellow Brother is not a valid argument. And then you advised me to not read “...Wiki for the record, that's a bit elementary.” Let’s translate that: “I’m not going to see what your ‘elementary’ recourses state, I am going to attack the medium of the message and not look at what the message is.” Again not a very good apologetic tactic.

You then wrote a big paragraph where you added within:  

”...we'll pick the laws of Leviticus that suit our needs and toss out the rest."

Some of the Levitical laws were exclusively for the OT Jewish people, i.e. eating shrimp; others were universal to everyone Jew or Gentile, such as homosexual behaviour. There are two Hebrew words that are translated into ‘abomination”: Sheqets (Shelfish - Lev. 11:12) & Tow`ebah (Homosexuality - Lev. 18:22). I didn't do an exhaustive search into which verses are declared 'Sheqets' while other are 'Tow`ebah', but considering that in the main stream eating selfish is often brought up when arguing for homosexuality I'll use Lev. 11:12. 

"Sheqets' means: “detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8263&t=NASB). Tow`ebah means, a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in a ritual and or ethical sense. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8441&t=NASB) So homosexual behavior according to Old Testament Scripture is a disgusting, ethic; or a disgusting ritual, or both: a disgusting unethical ritual. And the wrongness of this disgusting unethical ritual is reestablished by Paul, in the new covenant, via Christ’s authority (cf. Acts 9:15-16, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-11).  

So as I said in my previous post: “By proxy of the authority given to Paul by Christ to speak Scripture, homosexuality is explained to be a bi-product of a corrupted original design, (cf. Romans 1:26-27). Of which again isn’t a new decree but an old one carried over from Moses.” The same Moses who spoke Scripture by authority of God, who is Christ. Moreover, Paul also reestablished God's decree that the requirement to keep “The Law” such as those pertaining to dietary laws was completed in Christ, (cf. Matthew 5:17, Acts 10:9-16, Galatians 2:16). I am sure that you won’t disagree that Paul declared, or mimicked Christ’s declaration that “...man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” - Galatians 2:16. Why then do you fight against his words, via his authority given to him by God himself to speak Scripture regarding homosexuality?  

You said: 

"I have a Degree in Religion and Masters in Divinity and Counseling."

So what? 

You said: 

"What about slaves in your home? Paul seems to think women shouldn't lead and having slaves is just."

You are guilty of a “bait & switch”. We are talking about homosexuality and you, in a defense of your view on this subject redirect the conversation to other and irrelevant subjects, (that is subjects that are irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality). This is a common tactic by many (but not all I’m sure) pro-gay activists; and all who present these arguments are guilty of ‘bait & switch’. 

But since you brought it up I’ll address only one of your side-topics, slavery, as the “women in leadership” issue is too complicated to discuss as a tag-line on a discussion on homosexuality. You asserted that Paul “...saw slavery as just.” This is simply not true; but lets pretend that he was pro-slavery; it doesn’t negate the morality of homosexuality. Someone can be in support for something that is not good and be correct regarding the ungodliness of another view; but as I said this is just to illustrate the point, as Paul was not pro-slavery.  

Moreover, you rehashed your fallacious type of argument, namely that Paul was pro-slavery whereas if he wasn’t “...he would have spoken against it...”. Just as Jesus doesn’t need to say the words “I am against homosexuality” for us to know that he is against it, Paul doesn’t need to say “I am against slavery” for us to know that he is against slavery. Another brother in Christ informed you that slavery was an institution in the first century that simply couldn’t have been abolished overnight. Paul had one topic on his heart, salvation for the lost and Christ as LORD in the lives of everyone. Our fellow Christian brother who I alluded to above asked you for references for your view that Paul supported slavery and you provided him: Ephesians 6:5-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18 and Philemon. 

Paul is Gospel focused; when he instructed Christians who were slaves to not disrupt the flow of society it wasn't because he was in support of it. He wanted his readers to put Christ ahead of the social institution. In sum serve with great passion (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22-23) their ‘earthly master’ so to show Christ and his love, (Ephesians 6:6, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18). In sum serve your earthly master as a means of serving Christ. Paul’s concentration is to redirect the persons’ attention from considering themselves as an slave to an earthly master to as a slave to Christ. (Colossians 3:24) Paul also reiterates that wrongs will be taken care of by God (Colossians 3:25). Given the surrounding context Paul is suggesting that slavery is wrong and it will be dealt with. 

And with Philemon Paul states “[for] perhaps he [Onesimus] was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” - Philemon 1:15-16. Paul is arguing that Philemon’s former slave, Onesimus ran away and God used that situation to bring him to faith in Christ through Paul. Paul then says to Philemon to take Onesimus back, but as a brother in Christ, not as a slave.   

Paul had to pick his battles and establishing ones eternal salvation and representing Christ in every situation was the most important battle for him to fight. But he did seem to way in on the subject in Col. 3:25. And then you implied that the church should be involved in current slavery abolishment. Many are: https://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=482 (FYI, read the first line on this webpage.) I believe this ministry is a Christian ministry but even if they are not a “Christian ministry” the point is moot because many members of the “the church” I am sure are involved either in this ministry or others like it and or other ministries, which deal with yet equally important issues. 

Moreover, you asked are not gay people “...marginalized, oppressed, and cast out? Does that not make them the "least of us?” Unfortunately gay people have been marginalized due to their sexual orientation. In the context of Matthew 25:31-46, persons who have been beaten down either metaphorically and or physically would fall into the category of “the least”. And to a degree vs. 45 would in my view apply to many homosexual people.  

However as I stated in a previous discussion, regarding marriage everyone was equal under heterosexual marriage. If a gay man wanted to marry, he was within his full rights to find a woman who would be willing to engage into marriage with him; and visa-versa for the gay woman. Instead however what the LGBT group wants is not equal rights for marriage, but rather marriage reformation. Read what Matthew Vines states on his Reformation Project website:  

“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Through building a deep grassroots movement, we strive to create an environment in which Christian leaders will have the freedom to take the next steps toward affirming and including LGBT people in all aspects of church life.” (http://www.reformationproject.org/about)  

Homosexual Christians are abel to participate in church life. The only stipulation that any orthodox Christian church would expect from its leadership would be repentance of sin - something that is expected for everyone, irregardless of sexual orientation and nature of sin. So a church can have a homosexual pastor, a pastor who is an addict and so on, just as long as he is not a practicing homosexual, or an active addict or whatever. In sum just as long as they are living according to Scripture. A church can have people who are homosexual, or addicts teaching children’s church or singing in the choir, or sitting on the board of directors, etc., just as long as they are not a practicing homosexual, or drunks or druggies, etc. Again, just as long as they are living according to Scripture. What Vines and yourself are supporting is what Vines states in the first line of the aforementioned paragraph:  

“The Reformation Project exists to train Christians to support and affirm lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.” 

An affirmation of homosexuality, not just the people who are homosexual. What you want is Biblical support to sin. Persons who are unrepentant of a sin (homosexuality, heterosexual sexual immoralities, drunkenness, etc.) should not be permitted to take up any leadership role in a church, may it be from pastoring a congregation or handing out bulletins to church members on a Sunday morning.   

In Christ,

Ian  

Christians Are Not At War With Gay People and Women

My body-my choice, stay out of my uterus, separation of church and state, bigot, closed-minded, intolerant and hater. Do these slogans sound familiar? If you've ever attended a publicized pro-life event or an event that questioned the morality of homosexual marriage and or behaviour, they should. Many of these types of events have three types of people in attendance:

1. The group who is putting on the event, e.g. a university pro-life campus group and fellow pro-life advocates. 
2. Those who are apposed to the view held by the organizers of the event e.g. the university pro-choice campus group and fellow advocates, but who want to open a dialogue.
3. Those who likewise do not support the views held by the organizers of the event, e.g. the pro-choice campus group and fellow advocates, but who want to shut down any discussion in a vain attempt to keep their views coming under scrutiny. 

I take issue only with those in the third camp. These people simply do not want to discusses the issues because they don't want to have the morality of their positions questioned; but they will with obliviousness wipe over your views with one or two superficial quotes or name-callings, and then plant their flag of perceived victory. These people come in three forms:

1. Sign-bobbing and slogan chanting protestors. 
2. People who pridefully make it clear that, you are the close-minded, unintelligent, (and assuringly) religious bigot; and you are the one who can't be reasoned with, and so they won't even begin to try. 
3. Those who simply do not think about their argument before putting it forward. You could say to these people, "Jesus is against homosexuality" and they'll accuse you of three things: A) making an argument from silence. B) Unjustly declaring the falsity of every religious system until you have studied every one of them; and C) arguing that a person who has not experienced an unwanted pregnancy, or has not experienced same-sex attraction cannot speak on the morality of such issues.

However, despite the differences between these three camps, they all share a common denominator. All three camps believe to varying degrees that they are being victimized. In The Independent an Oxford student proudly advertises that she "...helped shut down an abortion debate between two men...".[i] Why? Because her "...uterus isn't up for their [discussion.]"[ii] Let me translate this or you: 'I helped shut down an attack on me.' Of course she wasn't implying that she felt physically threatened by a discussion on abortion, but rather a perceived threat of another human being taking control of her body. Consider what she says:

Access to abortion impacts the lives of women, trans and non-binary people every day, and the threat pro-life groups pose to our bodily autonomy is real, not rhetorical.[iii]

This again is merely her perception as it simply is not true. The pro-life advocate is not seeking to usurp control over anyone's body. Moreover in Bloomington, Indiana, Christian Pastor and Apologist, Douglas Wilson gave nearly a three hour lecture on homosexuality from the Biblical perspective. He was repeatedly interrupted with shouts, jeers, ad-homonym attacks and chants. At one point in the first section of his lecture entitled Creation Sexuality, some members of the audience stood up and loudly accused him of supporting slavery. They paralleled his non-support of homosexual marriage to marginalizing African people.[iv] Are pro-life and pro-natural marriage proponents attacking women and gay people with their relative messages? No. In the Christian Scriptures the Apostle Paul explains what the battle is truly over:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12 (KJV)

The pro-life and pro-natural-marriage proponents wrestle not against human beings but against leaders (principalities [GK. ἀρχή])[v] with an agenda, and its the agenda that we are fighting. We are battling against human choice (powers [GK. ἐξουσία])[vi], but a choice that is in the direction of unGodliness (wickedness [GK. πονηρία])[vii]; and it is the unGodliness that we are fighting. In sum we are fighting against the morals of the supreme unGodly ruler (rulers [GK. κοσμοκράτωρ])[viii]. The pro-life and pro-natural-marriage proponent is attacking the morality of the practices of homosexual behaviour, gay-marriages and abortion.

The ungodliness of abortion by demand, is the perceived right of divine authority that a women has over another human being.[*] This is the view that the pro-life advocate is fighting against. Even many of the chants that pro-choice advocates recite state this fact. Take for example, the slogan: My Body, My Choice. Every pro-life advocate should be 100% in agreement because this is the very message that the pro-life advocate supports. That is it is my body and therefore it is *not your* choice. The woman nor a man or a child has the moral right to take the life of another human being. Nobody, but God is God, and as such has the right to act as if they are.

People have the right to make choices for their own lives. If people want to be reckless and participate in dangerous sexual behaviour then they should feel free to go a head and do it; but it doesn't mean that their choice is wise and that others should support their choice. Of course nobody - gay or straight - are immune from STIs (sexually transmitted infections) like HIV, hepatitis or chlamydia; and there are many heterosexuals who have been stricken with these diseases for a variety of reasons of which sexual misbehaviour is just one. However take note of what the Canadian Aids Society reports regarding HIV among gay men:

Since the early 1980s, AIDS has had a direct impact on gay men. Men who have sex with men account for nearly 80% of all AIDS cases reported in Canada and 46.4% of the cases reported in 2001 affected that same population.[xi] 

In 2010 Health Canada wrote: 

Starting in 1979 and up to December 31, 2008, there had been 21,300 AIDS cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Since reporting began, the MSM [men who have sex with men] exposure category has accounted for the largest proportion of total AIDS cases among adults...[x] 

This is just one piece of the evidence that shows how, among many other acts (e.g. drunkenness and drug abuse) homosexual sex is dangerous. Regarding same-sex marriages, marriage is the connection of two things that go together, by not just choice but also by nature. The homosexual person will argue that a same-sex partner is by nature their natural partner. Men and women fit not just physically but metaphysically. Men and women are different but our differences is what makes us compatible. In sum two rights do not make a circle and neither does two lefts; you need one left and one right to make a complete circle. It is the morality of the legal recognition of homosexual unions that is being discussed.

A word to the pro-choice and the pro-gay advocate

The next time you are confronted with a pro-life advocate or a natural marriage-proponent don't take an offence to their message; they are merely addressing your claims. Try opening a dialogue and with pleasantness and maturity address their claims in return.

______________

[*] - This of course does not negate the fact that for a lot of women, the choice of abortion is spun from despair and fear. Many women will have, very understandable reasons for desiring to have an abortion, but that does not mean that their reasons justify killing someone. Irregardless the belief of a right to kill someone, may it be at the pre-born or post-born stage is a belief that they have that right; and nobody has that right but God. 

***

[i] - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-helped-shut-down-an-abortion-debate-between-two-men-because-my-uterus-isnt-up-for-their-discussion-9867200.html - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[ii] - Ibid., - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[iii] -Ibid., - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[iv] - http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/ - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[v] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G746&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[vi] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 
[vii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4655&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014.
[viii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2888&t=KJV - accessed November 19, 2014. 

[ix] - http://www.cdnaids.ca/hivaidsandgaymen - accessed November 20, 2014

[x] - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/9-eng.php - accessed November 20, 2014

The Gay Christian Movement Is Putting Pleasure Before God

 

Today's culture can ... be characterized by Paul's words. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, Paul states that there "...will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." - 2 Timothy 3:1, 4. Of course both secular and religious systems that value pleasure before God have always existed since sin came on the scene, and they still exist today. However today there is an ideology running rampant within the walls of the Christian church that suggests that what God pronounces as sinful is good if the sin is something innate.[i]

The above quote is from an article I recently wrote that is entitled The Gay-Christian Movement Is Mixing God's Goodness With Evil. The 'evil' that the article discussed was the amalgamation of the sin of active homosexuality with one's identity as a Christian. Members of the Gay Christian Movement preach that someone can be both a practicing homosexual and a practicing Christian. I do not go into why that simply is impossible, but instead I went into why one should not tie their sin (e.g. homosexuality) with their Christian identity. However there is some ambiguity in the above citation. It begins to concentrate on: ones focus on their pleasure rather than on God; and then its focus changes to: homosexuality as something innate. In the aforementioned article I argued why the alleged innateness of homosexuality does not determine homosexuality being good but I didn't highlight how Paul's words in 2 Timothy 2:1 & 4 also apply to homosexuality. I am going to do that here. 

The relationship between homosexuality and Paul's words to Timothy is not homosexuality itself but rather the person, but not as a homosexual but as a sinful human being. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is something that is condemned as sinful. In Moses' time the homosexual act was declared evil (cf. Genesis 19) and declared a capitol crime (cf. Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Paul reminds his readers that among many different choices of lifestyle people who chose the homosexual lifestyle will not inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). He also explains the origin of the sinful nature which gives birth to a variety of sexual immoralities of which homosexuality is merely one, (cf. Romans 1:18-32).

Unwrapping Romans 1:18-32

Although we as God's creation naturally know God we do not glorify him or recognize him as God (cf. Romans 1:21). What causes us to recognize God's existence but not give him glory or recognize him as God? We naturally suppress the truth of God, (cf. Romans 1:18-20) namely "God’s invisible qualities [such as] his eternal power and divine nature..." (cf. Romans 1:20). We reject God's omnipotence and its implication on reality and His nature that is the standard for moral choices, His divine wisdom, His divine will (His desires to have things done in a certain way) and so forth. This deliberate abandonment of God-focusness caused futile and foolish intentions on our part, (cf. Romans 1:21) resulting in foolish thinking and obliviousness to that very fact; in sum we claim to be wise, but our actions speak of a different story. Instead of being God-focused we turn and offer glory and divine recognition to the created order, (cf. Romans 1:22-23). 

How did God respond? He let us go. If we human beings want to abandon Him as our God and give worship to inanimate objects (cf. Romans 1:22), then so be it. God let us go to not just invent pseudo gods but serve ourselves as our own god. Our rebellion took us over to the degrading of ourselves; of which is evidence of foolish thinking and self-centeredness. The example Paul gives is shameful sexual desires, (cf. Romans 1:24-25), such as just as how many men exchange natural sexual relations [heterosexual] for sexual relationships with each other [homosexual] many women do the same. (cf. Romans 1:26-27).[ii] The last stretch in this fall from God-focusness is to not "think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave [us] over to a depraved mind, so that [we] do what ought not to be done." - Romans 1:28. 

By nature all of us - adult and child alike - naturally lean on our own way of thinking and look out for our own desires (cf. Romans 3:23), and homosexual people are no exception. This is what causes members of the Gay Christian Movement to attempt to reinterpret the portions of Scripture discussed above. The sinful nature is self-centered and so the Gay Christian Movement aims to make Scripture friendly to their desires instead of making themselves friendly to Scripture. In an informal debate between Dr. Michael Brown and gay activist, Matthew Vines, on the relationship between being a follower of Christ and a practicing homosexual, Vines asked Brown: 

...do you acknowledge that there are some people for whom life long celibacy is the consequence of an absolute rejection of a same-sex relationship...?[iii] 

Given the topic of the discussion Vines' question is clear:

'Do you acknowledge that the doctrine, that same-sex relationships are actively sinful necessarily requires the Christian who is irreversibly same-sex attracted to forsake spiritual, sexual and emotional intimacy?'

Listen to the podcast below to hear Brown's answer to that question and the discussion in its entirety; however if I was asked that question my answer would be simple: "Yes. For the true Christian whose sexual orientation has not changed and is something that they simply cannot overcome, life-long celibacy would be the natural consequence." I alluded to the true Christian because it would only be the true Christian who would be aiming to serve Christ in both devotion and deed. For the true Christian who is exclusively same-sex attracted and has not changed on that front, a sexual, emotional and spiritual intimacy would be the sacrifice that he or she would have to make.[iv] This of course does not negate the fact that that the gay man or woman still will desire to be with in an intimate relationship with someone who they are sexually, personally and emotionally attracted to; but ones desires do not likewise negate the consequences for rejecting truth of God's Wisdom and Will, (cf. Mathew 7:21-23).

To conclude picture in your mind a three step staircase with a landing extending from the top step and one protruding from the bottom step. The second and third steps is the stage described in Romans 1:22-28 and this is where society (from the macro perspective) is today; but we are very close to falling completely onto the third step (cf. Romans 1:24-28) - the stage of the complete rejection of the knowledge of God and the complete focus onto ourselves as the god of our own lives. As a society we no longer even try to daily recognize God as God, and give him glory and thanks, (cf. Romans 1:21). Paul's words in Timothy describes today's culture because we are loving pleasure - what we want - rather than God, namely what God wants.

However being on the third step in this staircase of morality is not irreversible. Every Christian, gay and straight ought to take a good look at themselves to determine where on that staircase they personally lie. The landing from the bottom of these three steps is the point of no return, as is the landing at the top of the first step; both these represent the crossing over to eternity were the bottom represents eternal damnation and the top eternal life (cf. Hebrews 9:27); but while any one is on the first, second or third step they are not out of God's reach. As Paul promises if you actively "...declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

_______________

[i] - http://acrazychristian.blogspot.ca/2014/11/the-gay-christian-movement-is-mixing.html - accessed November 7, 2014

[ii] - It is important to note that homosexuality is not the only example one can give for wrong sexual practices; it is merely the example  Paul gave to illustrate his point.
[iii] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI - accessed November 7, 2014

[iv] - This of course does not include close friendships between persons of the same sex. It is very fortunate for someone if they can find that same-sex friend to whom they can develop an intimate friendship and bond with. There is a clear difference between close friends and lovers. The biggest dividing line between the two is sexual intimacy.

The Gay-Christian Movement Is Mixing God's Goodness With Evil

My name is Ian Murray. I am 36 years old and I have made some stupid choices in my life. There was a time when I could have identified with many characterizations described in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. I was a drunkard, or an alcoholic and drug addict as it would be classified today. I lived on the street as a panhandler. I was despicable, as I used my disability (I am in a wheelchair) to make people feel sorry for me and give me money for food; but I'll give you three guesses as to where their five, ten and twenty dollar bills really went, but you'll only need one - drugs and booze. This made me a swindler. I wasn't satisfied with 'just enough' to get me through the day, I wanted more than enough; this made me greedy. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 does shed some very unpleasant facets of my life. I am also very happy to pronounced though that today I can identify myself with the word located in verse 11, 'were'. I am no longer a drunk and a swindler. Today I am over 10 years sober from alcohol, drugs and cigarettes and I am the youth pastor for my church.

There is however another part to this story. When I was five years old I truly and wholeheartedly asked Jesus Christ, the son of the living God to come into my life and save me from the consequences of my sinful nature. All through my childhood, preteens and even into my early teens, I was used by God and I saw Christ in my life and many other people did too. However, even though this is the case there was a factor about me that played into my downfall with alcoholism. I had a serious rebellious streak. What does this mean? This means that through my rebellion and all my drug and alcohol use, I was a Christian.

Would it be correct then to say that during that time I was a drunkard-Christian? Or how about a rebellious-Christian, or a swindling-Christian or a greedy-Christian? Of course not. If I was to marry my drunkenness, dishonesty, greed or rebellion with my Christianity I would be saying that those acts are in the same category as my active Christianity, and this is simply not true. Am I cured from my past's transgressions? No. I don't get tempted to swindle people out of their money any more but that life style in all of its evil has left me with daily battles. I still do get tempted once in a while by a beer commercial on television and I can only spend so much time around friends who are enjoying a mere alcoholic beverage with dinner. I classify myself as a 'recovering alcoholic', however I don't classify myself as a recovering-alcoholic-Christian. So instead I state that I am a Christian who is: a recovering-alcoholic and a recovering-drug addict. You may think that I am playing with semantics, but there is a difference. The identity - recovering-alcoholic-Christian - forces me to share my sinful temptations with my Christianity, while the identity - a Christian who is a recovering addict - shows a separation between my Christianity and my temptations to sin. In the same way regarding my choice to begin my journey towards sobriety I don't classify myself as a smart-Christian because such a characterization robs Christ of the credit for the work he did in me through all those who helped me get me to where I am today. As such I am a Christian who eventually made some good choices.

Today's culture can also be characterized by Paul's words. In Paul's second letter to Timothy, Paul states that there "...will be terrible times in the last days. People will be... lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God..." - 2 Timothy 3:1, 4. Of course both secular and religious systems that value pleasure before God have always existed since sin came on the scene, and they still exist today. However today there is an ideology running rampant within the walls of the Christian church that suggests that what God pronounces as sinful is good if the sin is something innate. The face of this ideology is the Gay-Christian Movement and their message is that homosexuality is innate and thus it is not a sin but something to be praised and promoted. This movement is tying together their homosexuality with their identity as a follower of Christ. Many gay activists in one way or another ascribe to the view that someone's sexual orientation is not a choice but something that is a part of the gay man or woman. Members of the Gay-Christian-Movement believe that God made the gay man or woman gay and therefore conclude that being gay must be good. Many disagree that homosexuality is innate, however even if they are wrong and it is a part of someone's being that doesn't mean that homosexuality is within itself good. In fact the alleged innate status of homosexuality advocates for the Scripture's teaching of the corruptness of creation. Scripture is clear that nature was affected by sin (cf. Romans 8:22) and so it stands to reason that one's sexuality (a very natural part of every human being) would also be affected by sin. Homosexuality is then just one form of a corrupted sexuality. As such the prophet Isaiah has a few words for subscribers of the view that homosexuality is good despite God's declaration of it being evil:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, - Isaiah 5:20

Jesus' disciple John states that "[if you] claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, [you] lie and do not live out the truth." - 1 John 1:6 Associating anything sinful with your Christian identity provides strong evidence that the light is off and you are milling around in the dark as you say "I am a Christian." It is however important to never deny your struggles! If you struggle with addiction to booze, drugs or pornography; or if you struggle with homosexuality or any other sexual sin, or pride, or anger, and so forth - come out! John warns that the truth of God is not in you if you do not admit that you are a sinner, (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10). So own your sin but then disown it. John promises us all including you that:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." - 1 John 1:9 

In sum if you are a Christian battle your sin; don't identify with it and certainly don't amalgamate your sin with your Christian identity.

Jesus: Who is the real 'he'?

There are a lot of quotes that are attributed to Jesus, (The Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7, Mathew 19:26, Matthew 26:39, Matthew 27:46, Matthew 28:19, Mark 2:10, Mark 15:34, Luke 2:49“, Luke 4:4, Luke 23:34, John 3:12, John 8:12, John 8:24, John 8:24, John 10:10, John 14:6, John 19:10-11, John 19:30) and so on; and there are a few citations that are attributed to his mouth that he actually didn't say such as the world-renowned John 3:16. Everything Jesus says and what the apostles said is important; everything Jesus says and what the apostles said, is said with a purpose. However there is one thing Jesus said that I'd like to highlight. This is not because I believe that this citation is especially important, but rather urgently important.

Who is Jesus?

This is a very important question to answer as it has eternal consequences. When I was in my local bookstore one day I was being shown the selection of audiobooks, as per my request by a pleasant young man who worked there as a customer care worker. He asked me about what kind of books I'd be looking for and I responded, with a cringe: "Religion", as I know how that word religion is perceived in today's culture; but I knew that in order to conduct business it was a necessary word to use as books about world religions, faith-based books, etc. are in the 'religion' section.

However this man, who I'll call John so to protect his identity didn't just point to the small rack of audiobooks, dividing them for me into fictional and non-fictional, he offered a personal suggestion: Zealot: The Life And Times Of Jesus Of Nazareth, authored and read by Reza Aslan. It was this book that started a conversation between me and him about Jesus. John told me that he took a course on the 'historical Jesus' in university and that in his personal theological journey caused him to convert to Mormonism from Roman Catholicism. Both me and him looked at the other 'religious' books that were on display, many of which pertained to Jesus as we chatted about the big-deal Jesus is - to everyone, irregardless of religion, creed or sexual orientation.

Who Jesus is will depend on which worldview He is filtered through. When filtered through Christian theism Jesus is God (cf. John 1:14). When filtered through Islam Jesus is just a prophet, (cf. Sura 5:72); and John explained that Jesus is one who has a divine personage, a.k.a, a god when he is filtered through Mormonism. Now the religious pluralist will argue that that is okay as long as it helps the believer be happy and live good. However it is important to note there that there is a correct view of Jesus and figuring out who this correct Jesus is literally a case of "life and death". Jesus made this very clear when he said:

...if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. - John 8:24

When teaching this concept to the youth who I oversee as their youth-leader I paint the picture of Jesus using a power-point presentation when giving his lecture in John 8. I suggest to them picture Jesus when saying the phrase pointing to the slide that had a picture of, or the name of, the "He" that he is talking about. Who is that 'He'? Jesus makes it very clear that if you do not believe that he is the specific "he", you will suffer eternal damnation.

Now as a Christian I filter Jesus through Christianity. Jesus being 'God', not just 'a god' seems to be a natural confusion, especially in light of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I refer to this as a 'natural confusion' because my heart one recent Sunday jumped when I was going over the memory verse (Isaiah 46:9) with one of my five year old Sunday school students. Isaiah 46:9 is clearly monotheism:

I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

And as you do with little children repetition is a good start in driving home a teaching and things you want them to remember. After going over the memory verse with her, (with actions to help) I got her to say it by her self. What she said was: I am [a] God, and there is no other; I am [a] God, and there is none like me. Of course her being only five years old and in kindergarden, I initially figured she was just trying to get the premise of the verse down; and likewise she didn't recognize the grammatical difference between 'a God' verse 'God'. But this was one mistake I felt that needed to be corrected as it has connotations that are greater than being bad-grammer. I patiently, but directly corrected her that it is important that she learn this verse correctly because there are many people who believe that God is just that 'a God' - and they are wrong. There is only one God, and God is one (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4). What she said to me was surprising:

Well, there is God and then there is Jesus.

When I corrected her that Jesus is God, she expressed that "that is weird". How many people attribute deity to Jesus but in their hearts don't attribute monotheism-deity to Jesus, and more specifically Trinitarian-Monotheism to Jesus? How many people believe what this little girl believed namely that 'there is God and then there is Jesus'?

One objection offered to theists in general by atheists and agnostics is the idea of teaching children the abstract concept of the nature of God and other theological issues, such as heaven, hell, sin and salvation, etc. Some argue that children as young as five years old cannot understand the concepts of God. Others argue that it is wrong to impose onto children such teachings as truth, instead of personalized views: "This is what your mother and I believe."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, world renowned science teacher and agnostic, Bill Nye at first paints a positive view of a belief in God by acknowledging that there are a lot of people who do believe in God and as a result, community and good deeds are encouraged; however he continues to say:

"...we are talking about specific claims that affect the future of science students in the world leader in science..."[i]  

In context Nye is referring to the USA as the world leader in science (or at least in the top three he detracts), and the specific claim he is referring to is about a belief in God. So it can be inferred that Bill Nye believes that a belief in Jesus as the creator mentioned in Genesis 1:1 is detrimental to scientific progress, (as a belief in any supernatural creator in general stumps scientific progress).

So how important is the true nature of Jesus? What affect does the correct doctrine of Jesus have? If Bill Nye is correct then the doctrine of Jesus' deity is only detrimental to scientific discovery. Others argue the belief in God in-toto is detrimental to life in general. If these such people are correct then the doctrine of The Deity, Jesus' deity or any other proposed deity is detrimental to life on earth in many ways. If however the Muslim is correct then a belief in Jesus' deity will result in eternal damnation for the sin of shirk, as attributing deity to Jesus is associating him with God (Allah), (cf. Sura 5:72-73). However if what Christianity asserts is true then it is only those who embrace his triune-monotheistic divine nature and faithfully follow his will (cf. Matthew 7:21-23) that will receive eternal salvation, (cf. John 3:16).

Who is Jesus: A nice guy? A great philosopher? A great teacher? A prophet of God? God? Proverbs 22:6 states: "Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it." This is why it is important to begin teaching this to everyone, including children.  It is true that a lot of Christian teaching is hard to understand or at least accept for children and adults alike; but a hard to accept or understand doctrine doesn't nullify its truthfulness and thus its importance in education.
_________________

[i] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_4645891.html - accessed September 1, 2014