Allow me to Introduce Myself…

I am a married Medical Assistant, parent of nine children (six sons, three daughters) and a currently serving Medic in the National Guard. I currently reside in a metropolitan city in the Midwest, though I’m a native Texan.

In case any are wondering, EngMed is short for Engineer Medic. I’m currently serving as a Platoon Medic in a Combat Engineer Company, so that seemed a fitting name, wouldn’t y’all think?

My interests vary between religion, politics, art, literature, hunting, camping, fishing, hiking, music, writing and serving the Lord. Yes, I am an evangelical Christian and I won’t ever shy away from the subject. I invite any to ask questions, debate and will gladly pray for any who ask.

In terms of politics, I’m a Conservative Constitutionalist. No, I’m not a Republican. I’m actually very disaffected with them, given that their commitment to conservative values tend to disappear faster than water on the surface of the sun.

I’m pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, and pro-limited government. I believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, not social whim.

I’m anti-Islam (a topic I will expand upon in the future), against virtually all forms of gun control, and I’m totally OK with the idea of legalizing marijuana, though I personally detest the stuff.

Well, I think that’s about all I have at this time. If y’all wanna know more, feel free to ask. I’ll just end with this quote:

“Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.” “It is sweet and fitting to die for your country.”

Subjective Morality Does Not Work

Whenever you engage in apologetics, one of the things that is inevitable is that people will find cause to argue with you. Their intent is to show that you are wrong in every way that they can, and then seek to prevent you from continuing in your efforts. They will attack from every front, and try to take your arguments apart. What we will cover here is one such avenue of approach that they like to use, and that is morality. As always, all definitions will come from the Oxford English Dictionary, and will be provided for the sake of clarity.

One argument that you will periodically deal with is the argument that morality[1] is subjective[2]. What this means is that the meaning of morality is flexible and to be determined by most of the people within society. It is a very democratic ideology that takes the concept of democracy to an extreme level and refuses to move from that spot. It is a concept that comes from the philosophical idea of relativism[3] and assumes that all moral codes are the same across the board. I am embarrassed to admit that there was a time when I espoused this line of reasoning and am glad to state that those days are long since over. I changed my mind when I began to see the logical failings of such a philosophy and have not looked back since. Where it begins to unravel is the Truth[4].

            The Truth is that point where all heresies, false teachings, and irrational thoughts go to die. Truth is objective[5] and can therefore function as a measure against which all belief systems can be compared. Consider that there are thousands of different religious belief systems on the planet, all of which make their own knowledge and truth claims about the world around us. They are all falsifiable, which means that they can be proved right or wrong objectively, and the same goes for morality.

The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) do not have a monopoly on religious belief and morality. Each of those different systems have their own belief systems and moral codes developed over the course of their entire history. This applies as much to the tribal religions found in places like the Amazon, as it does to the Bible. Everyone has a religion, even those who make the claim that they have none. I have certainly had no small number of conversations with atheists and agnostics who have demonstrated and defined a faith in materialism[6] or naturalism[7] that is on par with the biblical concept of faith, though they universally dislike it when I point that out. They like to believe that true faith is irrational and acknowledging their own faith belies that idea. One example is found in the following phrase,

“Science hasn’t answered all of the questions of the universe, but it will.”

Biblical faith, the evidence of things not yet seen, is defined, and demonstrated through a similar methodology. I trust in the Lord’s promises for future Salvation based upon the evidence that appears in the text of Scripture. That phrase, a loose paraphrasing of a sentiment expressed to me by many atheists and agnostics, is an example of biblical faith. We can then infer that Materialism and Naturalism are religious belief systems that are deeply flawed in most every sense except for how they define faith. This is a point that oftentimes leads atheists to become irrationally angry because it goes against the nice, happy little illusion they have built around their entire worldview.

            As for subjective morality, where this becomes a problem for the idea that all religious and moral codes are the same is that the reality shows this idea to be false. There are beliefs and practices that are acceptable to some and forbidden by others. For example, most nature-based pagan religions are inclined to be pro-life but are permissive of things like homosexuality. Of course, the Bible forbids homosexuality and supports the pro-life position, so that disparity (homosexuality) becomes a point of contention between pagans and Christians. This is a minor point, but a point, nonetheless. These are two differing moral codes which pokes a hole in the idea that all moral codes are the same. Logic dictates that there can only be one correct moral code, so treating them all as if they were the same is illogical.

            While some might argue that this is a minor point, and that everything is identical when taken down to the most basic level, the problem is that some of these systems MIGHT have similar moral definitions, but they can and will also have special dispensations for immoral behavior. The Islamic practice of Taqiyya is a prime example. This practice allows Muslims to commit what Islam defines as immoral acts, up to and including pretending conversion to another religion, to further the cause of Islam and Allah. After the attack on 9-11 some of the news reports spoke about the fact that the hijackers were drinking alcohol, visiting strip clubs, and carrying on in a way that was un-Islamic, and these actions were used by the media to draw a line between the hijackers and Islam itself, thereby implying that the hijackers were not real Muslims. Imagine being told that your god forbids you from committing all these deeds in life, except for times when you are using them to the benefit of your god. Taqiyya is that special moral dispensation in that it allows Islam to gain more ground in the West while Muslims continue to martyr themselves in the cause of Allah against targets in the West.

            Another issue found within subjective morality is that it is inconsistent with its own stated philosophy. This can take the form of what I call the “greater good” argument. Someone using the greater good argument is appealing to an external objective moral standard to justify their subjective view of morality. Confused? Consider the following. I have been told that morality is determined by society, not by any outside moral codes. Their position assumes that society is going to naturally gravitate towards the morally correct by way of the greater good, but does little to define what constitutes “morally correct” and where it comes from. In other words, this argument rests upon the idea that humans are inherently good but finds nothing inconsistent with the idea that “inherently good” implies that morality is objective and external, unless someone’s moral stance ends up at odds with their own. The question we ought to be asking is, “What do you do about the people who disagree with your concept of morality?”

            There are prominent examples found in history of people who were not only opposed to the idea of the greater good, but whose lives were prime examples of how not to live according to subjective morality. Muhammad ibn Abdullah was a man who was vain, narcissistic, prone to violence, determined to have his own way no matter the cost, and who very plainly cared little for the greater good of the society he lived in. He remade his native culture, turning it into a twisted caricature based more on his desire to be rich and swim in a sea of women than on anything resembling good governance. People like him have allowed people like me to rightly question the idea that humans are inherently good because there are no good qualities to be found in people like him. People like Adolf Hitler, Iosef Stalin, Mao Tze Dung, Pohl Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Un, and Che Guevarra are fine examples of the worst to be found within humanity, and they serve as solid refutation of the idea that humans are inherently good.

            Not only do they serve as primary examples, but the fact also remains that each of those men would have been little more than some crazy dude yelling in a field if their respective societies had chosen to ignore and marginalize them. This is an important distinction when it comes to morality. If most humans are expected to naturally gravitate towards the greater good, then what was the deal with the people who put these evil men into positions of authority? For there to be a greater good, there must be an external moral standard that is objective, and for people to instinctively gravitate towards this standard, then there must be agreement on what constitutes moral behavior and how to adhere to it. To date, neither is present within any of the numerous civilizations and societies of earth.

            In the end, the idea of the greater good, subjective morality, and moral relativism all die deaths of a thousand cuts when looked at through the lens of logic, reason, and history. People who adhere to these ideological positions do so by turning themselves into irrational moral cowards who fail to fully grasp the implications of their morality until it finally morphs into Auschwitz. That leaves us only with external objective morality, the Law that God has written on our hearts, and our own wretched brokenness before the Lord who gave us life.

            If you find yourself wondering why it is that people willingly cling to ideological beliefs that are so obviously false, I do not have a concrete answer for you. At best I can speculate, and my speculation is that the reasons are as varied as the people who hold them. Certainly, there is a case to be made for laziness, complacency, intellectual dishonesty, a desire to avoid accountability, love of Sin, or a combination of any of the abovementioned. However, it comes down to their motivations and those are oftentimes known only to the people holding them.

No matter the sin, pride always rests right under the surface, ready to convince us that we do not need God, His Word, or His Law. Many who espouse the idea of subjective morality will make the argument that atheists and agnostics can be moral people, and this seems to be enough in their minds. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Gospel Message knows that this is fallacious thinking, but good luck convincing them of this.

            Finally, there is one last type of subjective morality to address. This is the idea that all moral codes are subject to the dominant culture and possess no forms of objectivity. Setting aside the obvious tendency towards moral cowardice that this ideology leads to, the main issue is that proponents of this ideology tend to become very objective in their moral judgments the instant you disagree with them. Most often, I am able to demonstrate the absurdity of this position using hypothetical questions such as,

            “What happens if rape suddenly becomes legal tomorrow?”

            If morality is to be determined solely by society and culture, then no one can be right or wrong, especially in societies that are made up of a plurality of different cultures. At that point, there is no longer a need to discuss morality in any form, as the subject becomes entirely academic. Who determines which moral code gains supremacy? They cannot all be treated as equals because there will inevitably be differences that cannot be reconciled. Does it then become a majority rule proposition? If so, then what of the minority cultures? Are they simply to be shoved to the side and disregarded? If you have paid any attention to human history, then you may have already noted that this is the line of reasoning that lends itself most to atrocity. If it is all academic, then it is all up for debate. If it is up for debate, then murder, rape, theft, assault, and perjury may likely become acceptable social norms and any idea of morality goes flying out the window. What follows then will be lawlessness, and humans tend to become exceedingly violent and destructive when faced with lawlessness. Just ask survivors of Hurricane Katrina from New Orleans.

            Clearly, the idea of subjective morality is unworkable. It is an untenable position that takes people down a dark path to horrendous atrocities that are unspeakably horrible. As such, this is an argument that you must never shy away from because to do so is to be willing to stand by as your neighbors stumble off to slaughter, likely taking you and your families with them. It behooves us to speak out on this rather than leave it alone because it is an idea that is highly dangerous for all involved.

---

[1] Morality: principles concerning right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

[2] Subjective: based on your own ideas or opinions rather than facts and therefore sometimes unfair.

[3] Relativism: the belief that truth and right and wrong cannot be judged generally but can be judged only in relation to other things, such as your personal situation.

[4] Truth: the true facts about something, rather than the things that have been invented or guessed.

[5] Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts.

[6] Materialism: the belief that only material things exist.

[7] Naturalism: the theory that everything in the world and life is based on natural causes and laws, and not on spiritual or supernatural ones.

Funny Parenting Moments

Four year old is chasing ten year old in circles around the kitchen.

Ten year old: What are you doing?

Four year old: Hurting you!

The rest of us were laughing too hard to be of any use.

What is Anti-Intellectualism and why is it Dangerous?

During a conversation with a Mormon, I was chided for relying too much on experts, science, facts, and figures. I had dropped my best arguments against the Book of Mormon on him, and rather than attempt to disprove my arguments, he chose to disregard the evidence entirely. His argument was that I should be able to feel the truth in my heart, and that someone who is too intellectual is likely going to be unable to recognize the Lord when they finally see Him. This has remained in the back of my mind for some time because I found myself deeply confused by that sentiment. How can anyone conclude that evidence is irrelevant? How can we declare that the heart is the arbiter of truth when it often runs completely counter to reality?

My Mormon opponent was not the only one to take an anti-intellectual direction, either. I once conversed with an atheist who was unwavering in his belief that Christianity is anti-intellectual at its core. He repeatedly made statements to the effect that Christianity forbids scientific and intellectual pursuits, and no amount of Scripture quoted on my part would dissuade him of this. His argument was that Christians must follow the Bible, and the Bible does not allow people to learn about the world around us. To this day, I remain confused as to where he got that idea, but it turns out he was not the first to come to that conclusion, nor will he be the last.

What we must do is examine Scripture and determine for ourselves the truth of the matter. Does Christianity preclude intellect and critical thinking, or does it demand it? This is one of the questions we must answer to further understand the biblical position on intellectual and academic pursuits. Are believers discouraged from seeking knowledge and intellectual pursuits, or are we encouraged in the endeavor?

As with many other topics, we will begin by defining terms,

Intellectualism: the use of your ability to think in a logical way and understand things rather than of your emotions. (Anti-Intellectualism would then be the opposite, the refusal to be intellectual.)

Pragmatism: thinking about solving problems in a practical and sensible way rather than by having fixed ideas and theories.

We will begin with a simple statement. Over the course of the last century, the Church has become convinced that emotions must triumph over intellect in all areas of Christian life. The adoption of this philosophical standpoint has led largely to a general abandonment of academia by Christian Conservative elements of the Church, which has in turn led to the takeover of Liberal and Leftist ideologies. For some strange reason, the Western Church has allowed itself to become allergic to the idea of acquiring head knowledge, and this is a huge problem for us.

Much of the new ideas promulgated within academia make their way into the public by way of our colleges and universities. If the only new ideas coming out of academia are Liberal and Leftist in origin, then we end up with a huge disconnect between Conservative elements and the rest of society. We suddenly find ourselves without a voice to be heard, a platform in which to share the Gospel Truth, and without anyone willing to stand up and help us defend our way of life! Entire societies have gone extinct for far less, and we would be fools to ignore the very real danger we are in! Complacency kills, people!

One of the main issues with anti-intellectualism is that it emphasizes emotions over everything else, which in turn leads to people declaring true things that are objectively false and vice versa. I can declare that green is really a number all day long, but without evidence to back up the claim it cannot ever be proved or disproved. In the end, it remains a color, and I only look like a fool. This becomes a problem when we are trying to convince people of the Truth of the Gospel. If we simply tell them, “Well, you just have to feel it inside”, then what is the point in evangelizing? Very few will ever be swayed by such an argument and preaching becomes useless. Going beyond that, Scripture makes a very clear distinction between the head and the heart, and this bears heavily on the topic at hand. When it comes to matters of the heart, Scripture says,

“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9)

Compare this with Jesus’ own words in Mark 12:30,

“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”

The conclusion we can draw from this is that the heart alone is not to be trusted, but when balanced with the soul and mind and focused solely on the Lord, it can then become a useful tool. We were never meant to be cold and emotionless, but we were meant to seek a balance between raw emotion, spirit, and the intellect. Each one is supposed to temper the other in a way that proves useful and edifying for all. Note that Jesus never once displayed a lack of emotion, and you can infer that the heart is important and useful. The main problem then becomes the role being assigned to the heart in our society.

In many Disney productions over these last decades there has been the overarching message that we should just follow our hearts to the truth and happiness. The problem with this, and many of Hollywood’s own efforts in this area, is that the message is that we should simply shut off our brains and run solely on emotion. Words cannot begin to express how stupid and ignorant this idea is. Entire lives have been destroyed by this sentiment, and yet, Liberal Christians everywhere end up compromising biblical Truth because of their emotional anti-intellectualism. They were all told that they are to entrust all matters of the utmost importance to a biomechanical pump that the Bible describes as being “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked”. How does that make a bit of sense?

It has been my experience that the places where the anti-intellectual sentiment can be most often found is among heretical groups, though it certainly is not exclusive to them. The Jehovah’s Witnesses incorporate anti-intellectualism in their doctrines, encouraging their followers to take direction from the higher Church authorities only. The Latter-Day Saints follow along a similar track. Even the cult that my wife spent her childhood in, the Restorationist Branch of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (RLDS), has woven anti-intellectualism into their doctrines. What this does is create a congregation fueled entirely by emotion, which in turn becomes easier to control. If you control the flow of information, and how that information is interpreted, then you have a captive audience incapable of independent thought. Cults are nothing if not clever in the ways that they control and manage their members, and this is a lesson we would do well to examine closely when determining the role that head and heart must play in the pursuit of right relationship with the Lord God. Anti-Intellectualism can be declared satanic in nature, and that is exactly what I do declare it to be. It is a philosophical position that seeks to prevent people from getting to know their God, and from developing relationship with Him, which makes it just as antichrist as Islam.

Why is anti-intellectualism such a problem? Consider that we are commanded the share the Gospel. Our primary mission is to tell the people of all the nations why we choose to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. We are commanded to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3), to stand for the faith, and to reason with people so that they may choose to follow or not (1 Peter 3:15). When the Apostle Paul went to a new city, he first went to the Synagogues and reasoned with the Jews. After he finished there, provided a riot did not break out, he would then move on to the Gentiles (Acts of the Apostles). Everywhere he went, he reasoned with the people, and he did so from where they existed. One cannot reason with people in this manner and be anti-intellectual! Anti-Intellectualism runs counter to Scripture, and you would think that this would be the end of it. Sadly, no. That we are covering this topic shows that it must still be dealt with.

The final aspect of anti-intellectualism that must be considered is the emotional damage caused. Someone with an intellectual basis for their faith will be far better grounded in hard times than those who lack this. Paul struggled mightily with various problems, inside and out, and it was his intellect that helped him find the strength to stand with the Lord through it all. Coping mechanisms are developed through time, experience, and knowledge. Someone who refuses to exercise any form of intellectualism will find themselves unable to develop any of the coping mechanisms necessary. Imagine what will happen when Christians in this nation finally face real persecution. So many who have jumped on the anti-intellectual bandwagon will find themselves unable to deal with being persecuted, discriminated against, or otherwise abused by society at large. The ones who will survive will be the ones who know and understand the intellectual underpinnings of their faith. They will be the ones who have found that balance between head, spirit, and heart that the Lord Jesus said are essential for loving the Lord your God.

I would like to end with this challenge. Read books. I do not care if you are reading e-books or real books. Pick up books on theology and apologetics, and pick up the Bible. Go into the deep topics and spend time in the Word. Take the time to ground yourself in the works of Wesley, Tozer, Sproul, Calvin, St. Augustine, and many others. Wade into the heavy subjects of apologetics, theology, textual criticism, and develop a solid understanding of the nuts and bolts of our faith and our God. Seek Him out in prayer, and in the Word. Find that balance between head, heart, and spirit. Keep chasing after the Lord in all your ways. There is no time limit on this challenge, so do not make the mistake of thinking that you will ever hit an end date. That will be the day the Lord calls you home, so be prepared.

Do we Live in a Christian Nation?

Like it or not, we live in a Christian nation. I know this will cause fear, confusion, and anger amongst some of you reading this, but it is the truth. No matter which way you look at it, this country was founded upon biblical principles. The founding fathers intended for this country to be governed by biblical principles. They also intended for this country to be populated by people operating under the same. What we will look at is an important distinction that I think gets lost in the debate over the role that religion plays in government, one that should help to shed light on this debate.

We will begin by defining a term that is essential to this topic,

Theocracy: A system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Anyone looking at that definition will understand what I mean when I say that these United States are not, and have never been, a theocracy. We have never been governed by priests operating in the Name of God. To my knowledge, few, if any, American Christians desires theocracy in this country. When we make the statement that America is a Christian nation, we are neither declaring theocracy, nor laboring for it. What we are declaring is that this is a nation governed by Christian principles laid out in the Bible.

This is what the founding fathers intended, a nation governed by people who live according to those principles, and this is evident in their writings. Had the men who formed this nation desired theocracy, they had a funny way of showing it. Theocracy looks nothing like a Constitutional Republic. It looks like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the newly reformed Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Those are modern examples of what opponents to this idea envision when they hear “Christian nation”, and this is the idea that needs to be dealt with.

The first point that needs to be made is intent. The intent of the founding fathers must be addressed when determining the role that they intended for religion and government to play. While it is true that some of the founding fathers were deists[1], it is also true that the majority of them were Christians. The fact that some of them believed in an impersonal god who created the universe and then left it alone changes nothing with regards to the overall intent of the founding fathers, and this is an important consideration.

George Washington, well known to have been a Christian said the following at his farewell address in 1796,

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports….Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Pay close attention to the first and final sentences in the quote, because these are the words of the first President of these United States, and he states unequivocally that it is religion and morality that are indispensable. This brings up a historical note that most of you reading this might not know. When the word “religion” was used in those days, it carried a different connotation. Not a different meaning, but a different connotation. When the word was used in the singular and general, it was synonymous with Christianity. There is a phrase that was oft used in the South that has fallen out of use in recent times, and it is one that illustrates this point. Whenever people heard of something that they regarded as shocking, unseemly, abhorrent, or disturbing, they would say that they were losing their religion. The phrase typically meant that the person was about to lose their temper over an issue, which is important. Among other things, Christianity demands self-control from believers and losing control is seen as being unchristian.

George Washington also said, “True religion affords to government its surest support.” The origin of this sentiment can be found in Scripture, James 1:27, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Taking it a step farther, Washington also said,

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

He calls it the duty of ALL nations to acknowledge Almighty God. This does not sound like someone who disagreed with the idea of the US being a Christian nation, rather the opposite. He firmly believed that the US belongs to Almighty God.

The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made similar statements. He was quoted as saying,

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Can you imagine a Supreme Court justice making such a statement today? People would be up in arms, and that is the point. John Jay was not tossed out of the Supreme Court for making that statement! That no one ended his career by cancelling him speaks volumes to the intent of the founding fathers, and that is where we will go next. We will begin with the author of the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson. He said,

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

The man who enshrined our rights in the Constitution states that our rights and liberties as a nation are a gift from God! This speaks volumes to the thought process behind the First Amendment, and it was not what people have turned it into today! This is what he was thinking, this is what he believed, and this is where his mind was when he wrote the Bill of Rights. We cannot miss this, and we cannot ignore this. It would be foolish to do so.

Looking at statements made by other founding fathers drives the point home. In addition to Thomas Jefferson, there is Benjamin Rush, who said,

“I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.”

Loosely translated, the Constitution is not Scripture, but it is the next best thing, with its underlying principles being derived from the Bible and the teachings contained therein. This man was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the men who helped found our nation.

A signer of the Constitution, John Dickinson, said,

“[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.”

Our rights come from God. We do not derive them from any other source but God. As our rights came from Him, it behooves us to live according to the principles He laid out in His Word!

John Adams said,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If ever you were looking for a clear statement from one of the men who helped make this country, there it is. Not only was this country intended to be governed by Christian principles, but it was geared towards people who would implement the same in their daily lives. This is beyond essential when deciding where one stands on this issue, and it cannot be ignored.

John Quincy Adams said,

“The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”

He also said,

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

The final quote comes from a Supreme Court case, Church of the Holy Trinity vs United States (1892),

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a Christian nation.”

What does that look like? If a Christian nation is not a theocracy, then what does it look like? It looks like the Bill of Rights which outline the rights due the people, reserved for the people, and held in trust by the government. It looks like a government that operates within the confines and constraints set forth in the articles, sections, subsections, and clauses of the Constitution while wisely preserving those rights held inviolate by the Bill of Rights. It looks like a population of people acting in accordance with their own whim and conscience, informed by the dictates of the Word of God while holding their elected officials accountable for the performance of their jobs and the decisions they make therein. That is what the founding fathers intended, and not what they ultimately got.

What we have now is a bloated, godless, behemoth of a cancer that intrudes on people’s lives and tramples on their rights. We have exactly what many of the founding fathers feared most because they recognized that government, being the necessary evil that it is, is the natural enemy of individual liberty. That is why they designed the Constitution the way they did, to ensure that our nation had the best chance at success as a Christian nation. Sadly, those safeguards can only function if the people of this nation use them and maintain them, and most people are too busy worrying about paying bills and misgendering people to look too closely at what is happening in all levels of government. This is to our collective detriment and is why I felt the need to clarify this point.

Unless our nation turns to God, broken and weeping over the ways we have strayed from His principles and His will, there is not a lot of hope for us. Unless we humble ourselves before the Lord who gave us life and blessed us by allowing us to exist in this great nation, we will find ourselves experiencing suffering that Western Christians have not experienced in centuries, if not millennia. This is the crossroads we find ourselves standing in, repentance or persecution. These are the only two roads that will bring us back to the Lord, and my most fervent prayer is that we repent as no nation has done before! If you were to ask me which road we will ultimately choose to go down, I cannot see into the future. However, if past behavior is in any way an accurate predictor of future behavior, then I think persecution will be the fire that refines the American Church and purges all the impurities out.

Not too long ago, I was watching a podcast by John Doyle (Heck-Off Commie) on YouTube[2], and he made a statement that punched me in the gut. He said, “A Christian population worthy to be martyred doesn’t exist in America”. One of the common themes I have pushed in my writing is that we must be willing to lay down our lives for the Lord. Jesus commands it of us! How heartbreaking is it to realize that we can be so complacent and lackadaisical about our religion that a strong, Christian young man can make such a statement and be greeted with, “Ouch. Sad but true”? My heart hit the floor when he uttered those words and I felt like crying. My heart breaks for my grandchildren when I think of what may come, but I am also heartened by the thought that some of them may stand before their persecutors and boldly speak the Truth in love no matter what happens next. “Iesous ho Kyrios!” Jesus is Lord! As for the bulk of the American “Church”, I suspect that they will fold like lawn chairs at the first sign of real trouble, and their capitulation is what will most likely lead to the worst of the persecution. Embrace the suck, Christian Warriors, and pray and labor hard for repentance, revival, and reformation! That is how we will survive, by relying on the Lord, trusting in the Lord, and placing Him firmly in the forefront of ALL that we do, say, and think. It is the only way to preserve our Church and our nation from those who would destroy both! Not by compromise or capitulation!

I will finish with this thought. Some of you may be wondering where the famous separation of Church and State fits into all of this. The short answer is theocracy. As theocracy was never the intent of the founding fathers, the separation of Church and State was meant to ensure that our government would never transition from a Constitutional Republic to a Theocracy by ensuring that the Church cannot supplant the State in its role of guaranteeing the rights of the people and their free exercise therein. No part of that was meant to be used to drive God from the public square, especially considering that the First Amendment stipulates to the free exercise of religion in the public square, and the misuse of this idea is what resides at the heart of our sociopolitical problems as we have turned away from God, forgotten where His place is in our lives and our nation, and now live ungodly and rebellious lives spitting in the face of God.

---

[1] Deism: Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

[2] “The Unpopular but Correct Take on the Afghanistan Crisis”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SGSDxd55Cc&lc=UgwiLMYC9yhVLji0eWl4AaABAg

No Longer Silent

Something has recently happened, and I must now speak up. One of the practical lessons I learned as a child was that men should not abuse women in any way, shape, fashion, or form. In a previous post, I wrote about the biblical position on abuse, and how abusive relationships are not supported or condoned by Scripture[1]. On a very basic level, I believed that this went entirely without saying. It is wrong for a man to physically assault a woman. I have recently learned that I was mistaken in that assumption, and it has now become acceptable for a man to step into a ring and brutalize a woman if he “identifies” as a woman[2].

In what universe does this make sense? What kind of mental gymnastics are required for someone to conclude that it is acceptable for a biological male to step into a ring and fight a biological woman? That he has undergone hormone treatments is immaterial, he out masses virtually every woman competing, and has real world combat experience, setting aside the fact that he is a MAN! He spent time in the US Army Special Forces, which makes this even more embarrassing for me as a Soldier! This fight was already decided before the opponents even set foot in the ring! If you take a moment and look at pictures from the fight, especially those taken right after the fight had ended, you will note a marked size difference between the two. This was his FIRST MMA bout, and he took his opponent apart, and the only part that I find more infuriating about that is that there are people who declare this “beautiful” and “bold”. Bear in mind that the woman he beat down had been fighting in MMA for a decade! That she lasted two rounds against this guy speaks volumes to her skill as a fighter.

For decades Feminist movements have fought for total equality for women. They demanded that women be allowed into all the same places that men are, including combat roles in the military, the corporate world, etc. They got what they wanted, but it seems to have come with a price, as they are now forced to affirm delusional men as “women”. To compete in their own sports, they must do so against biological males who are intent on crowding them out. There are women being crowded out of track, rugby, and now MMA fighting. Earlier this year, a man from New Zealand took a spot on their Olympic Women’s Weightlifting Team that should have gone to a woman! In all these sports, there are talented women being forced out by men who could not survive in male sports. How is it that feminists everywhere are not now up in arms? Where are the marches, the protests, the outspoken advocates demanding justice and equality? This is yet another example of men taking from women what is rightfully theirs, and all we hear from the feminists is crickets?

It goes without saying that I do not subscribe to feminist ideals. I believe that feminism is a dangerous ideology that has caused incalculable harm, and I say that as someone who once supported them. Yet, I am surprised that feminists are silent on this issue. Why? If a male who did not “identify” as a female were to step into the ring against a biologically female opponent, cities would be on fire. People would lose their minds. It would be declared abuse, sanctioned violence against women, and they would be correct in that assessment. They would be justified in that outrage. This somehow ceases to be true when the male in question suddenly becomes delusional and decides that hormone treatments and caricatured feminine mannerisms are enough to make him the same as a natural born woman.

Frankly, this is the point where many of those movements fail. While hypocrisy is a universal human trait, there is something to be said about displaying hypocrisy at the worst possible moment. This is one of those examples. There are women who have worked hard to get where they are, and they are being robbed of opportunities due them by men who cannot make it as men. Someone seeking to be consistent with their stated beliefs would take this and run with it. However, what has been happening is that people who should be speaking up are choosing to remain silent, thereby violating their own stated beliefs. This is known as hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is what takes someone off the moral high ground and sends them into the deepest, and darkest of valleys.  

The first time I encountered something like this was when trans MMA fighter Fallon Fox began beating on women professionally, and my objection to that was just as strenuous as this one. I have neither respect nor regard for men who beat on women, and I do not care if they are men who have deluded themselves into believing that they are women. Men cannot ever be women, and women cannot ever be men. No man knows what it is like to be a woman, and no woman knows what it is like to be a man! To think otherwise is illogical, irrational, and delusional.

One of the things that we must always consider when dealing with circumstances and issues in our world, is that we must take the time to see what Scripture says about it. I know that some of you may believe you have some unique situation that the Bible could not consider or cover, but this is fallacious thinking. Truth be told, while the Bible does not address the existence of many things, including the internet, modern technology, etc., it does address the moral issues involved. It makes no difference if you are online or on the street, it is still wrong to lie, cheat, or steal. Why? The Word of God says so, which means that He says so.

In this case, Scripture is very clear on the matter of transgenderism. Deuteronomy 22:5 says,

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Bear in mind, this does not necessarily forbid someone from wearing opposite gender clothing for purposes such as escaping a dangerous situation, or in the case of playing a theatrical part. For example, this verse does not condemn Tyler Perry for playing the character Madea, namely because there is a point where the makeup, prosthetics, wigs, and dresses come off and he returns to being himself. I know that may ruffle a few feathers, but Madea is not what this verse pertains to. What it does condemn as abomination is a man putting on women’s clothing and choosing to live as if he were a woman. It also applies in the reverse, as it explicitly condemns women for putting on a man’s clothing and behaving as if they were men. We are all to live as He intended us to, in the full knowledge and understanding of what it is that makes us special.

The added element here is that the Lord used a word that has made appearances in a few select places, and that word is תוֹעֲבַ֛ת (towabat). The root of this word is תּוֹעֵבָה (toebah), and is found in Leviticus 18 among other places. This is the word the Lord used to describe homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), and this is a significant point. When you delve into the statistical data surrounding the LGBTQIA+ lifestyles, you find that these are lifestyles that are damaging to society in general, and to individual humans in specific. The Lord did not forbid things because He felt like it, He forbade them because they cause damage to our societies. Men and women choosing to deny their inherent nature for something they could never be only works when someone chooses to repent of their Sin, confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, and follow Him. Anywhere else, and you walk right into the path of error, delusion, and falsehood.

I will finish up with this. That it is wrong for a man to beat on a woman should go without saying. This is a fact that ought to be assumed. Yet, we have these men who want to be treated as women. They take this to such a ridiculous extreme that they want to step into a ring and beat real women to a bloody pulp for sport. This is savage, barbaric, disgusting, and inhumane. It is little more than the latest in a long list of offenses that we have committed against the Lord as a society, and I pray that we collectively turn to the Lord, broken and weeping over the ways in which we have offended Him. I pray that our nation repents before the Lord, and I pray that it happens before it is too late.

---

[1] https://engmedblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/does-the-bible-allow-domestic-violence/

[2] “Transgender Fighter Alana McLaughlin wins MMA Debut”, https://nypost.com/2021/09/11/transgender-fighter-alana-mclaughlin-wins-mma-debut/

Uh…what?

There are moments when I experience instant regret over my tendency to check the news first thing in the morning. This morning, I encountered the following:

White House National Security Adviser Declines to Call Taliban an Enemy: ‘It’s Hard to Put a Label on It’ https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/wh-national-security-adviser-declines-to-call-taliban-an-enemy-its-hard-to-put-a-label-on-it_3977737.html

What does this even mean?! It is politics, not a rom com! Hard to put a label on it? For real? Where are we, high school?! What is so complicated about terrorists? What is so difficult about this scenario?

The Taliban are terrorists. They hate us. They want to convert us, subjugate us, kill us, or die trying. We want to live free and keep it that way, or die defending it. Neither the twain shall meet!

There are only two things we do with terrorists, and neither negotiating nor diplomacy are on that list! Either sneak missionaries and Bibles into their country in an effort to bring down the Islamic Republic from the inside, or hit them with overwhelming force. Ignoring them will not work, that is how we lost the twin towers on 9-11. Diplomacy will not work, I direct you back to their stated mission. We can either subvert them or send them to Allah. That strikes me as being rather a bit uncomplicated.

Have we forgotten that this is America, and that we most certainly do NOT negotiate with terrorists? Give an inch, they take us for a continent. This is beyond stupid, I should not have to write this.

Answering the Islamic Objection to Substitutionary Atonement

One of the objections you will encounter from Muslim opponents is the idea that Jesus could not have died for our sins. They reason that no one can bear another’s sins and therefore Jesus could not have died for ours. The problem with this belief (for them) is that it can be easily refuted, and that is what we are going to do here. We will begin by establishing where their argument comes from,

Qur’an 6:164, “Say, “Shall I seek a Lord, other than Allah while He is the Lord of all things?” And no soul earns evil but only against itself; nor does any bearer of burden bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord will be your return, and He will inform you of that wherein you used to differ.”

Qur’an 17:13-15, “And We have fastened every man’s deeds to his neck, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall bring out for him a book which he will find wide open. (It will be said to him): “Read your book. You yourself are sufficient as a reckoner against you this Day.” Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his own self. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another’s burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).”

Qur’an 35:18, “And no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden, and if one heavily laden calls another to (bear) his load, nothing of it will be lifted even though he be near of kin.”

Qur’an 39:7, “If you disbelieve, then verily, Allah is not in need of you, He likes not disbelief for His slaves. And if you are grateful (by being believers), He is pleased therewith for you. No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you what you used to do. Verily, He is the All-Knower of that which is in (men’s) breasts.”

As we can see, their argument is very much rooted in the Qur’an, and this is where they run into a problem because, as clear as those verses are on the matter, the Qur’an is deeply inconsistent here. This is due to the fact that the Qur’an pulls what we would call a flip-flop on the topic, requiring us to turn to the Hadith literature for clarification.

First, we will look at some more material from the Qur’an, and follow it up with the Ahadith. We will begin with Qur’an 16:22-25, “Your God is one God; so (as for) those who do not believe in the hereafter, their hearts are ignorant and they are proud. Truly Allah knows what they hide and what they manifest; surely He does not love the proud. And when it is said to them, what is it that your Lord has revealed? They say: Stories of the ancients; that they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.“

Qur’an 29:12-13, “And those who disbelieve say to those who believe: “Follow our way and we will verily bear your sins,” never will they bear anything of their sins. Surely, they are liars. And verily, they shall bear their own loads, and other loads besides their own, and verily, they shall be questioned on the Day of Resurrection about that which they used to fabricate.”

Here we have two passages that clearly state that there are some who will bear the sins of others as punishment for their disbelief and false teachings. This is what we would call a glaring contradiction, especially in light of the contradictory nature of Qur’an 29:12-13. The Ahadith further expand on this theme,

Sahih Muslim 6665, “Abu Musa reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.“

Sahih Muslim 6666, “Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. Umar b. And al-Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger.”

Sahih Muslim 6668, “Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.“

110 Hadith Qudsi #8, “Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.“

The first point that needs to be made here is that the references from the Ahadith are classed as Sahih. This means that Muhammad really said these things. The second point is that Suras 16 & 29 were revealed after Suras 6, 17, 35, & 39, which means that the references from 16 & 29 abrogate the others. Finally, the Ahadith references cement the fact that penal substitutionary atonement on the part of humans is entirely possible according to the Qur’an.

If Muhammad stated that the sins of Muslims will be piled on top of Christians and Jews, then what we have here is both an example of penal substitutionary atonement, and an example of how unjust Allah truly is. This speaks to the fact that YHWH and Allah are not the same being, as YHWH is always just. Muslims would have us believe that we all worship the same deity, but this makes clear that this is a lie.

For those who may not be familiar, the doctrine of abrogation is an Islamic concept whereupon any contradiction found within the text of the Qur’an is settled by when given references were revealed to Muhammad. As the Suras (chapters) of the Qur’an do not appear in order of revelation, the doctrine of abrogation allows the reader to determine which side of the contradiction is the binding reference. Simply put, should you encounter a contradiction, the newer reference is the one that is in effect, as it replaced the older one (Qur’an 2:106, 16:101). For our purposes here, this means that the Islamic argument against Jesus’ act of atonement on the Cross falls apart because the Qur’an acknowledges that the concept is a true one.

There is another point that must be considered. The references I provided at the beginning stipulate that someone who already bears the burden of Sin cannot bear the sins of another. This is an interesting point given that both the Bible and the Qur’an agree that Jesus never sinned. As He never sinned, then this plainly does not apply to Him.

Qur’an 19:19, “He [the angel] said [to Mary]: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son [i.e., Jesus].”

Hebrews 4:15, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.“

1 Peter 2:21-22, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:“

1 John 3:5, “And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.“

There is also Messianic texts to consider here. For example, the prophecy of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) states in part that the Messiah will be rejected despite bearing our sins,

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isa. 53:4-6)

This prophecy also states that the Messiah would be righteous, a state that no other human is capable of becoming by virtue of our sinful nature (Isa. 64:6),

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isa. 53:11-13)

Both sides of the Bible stipulate that the Messiah, Jesus, would be sinless. The Qur’an agrees with this. As such, this further undermines the Islamic argument against Jesus’ substitutionary atonement on the Cross. If the stipulation for bearing the sins of others is that one must be sinless, then Jesus is the One who is able to do this. This also has the effect of destroying the Islamic adoration of Muhammad as being the perfect moral example.

For one, someone who is morally right would not need to abrogate any part of the message they bring from God. For another, the Qur’an and Ahadith state that Muhammad sinned on a regular basis,

Qur’an 40:55, “Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin, and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours.”

Qur’an 47:19, “So know (O Muhammad) that there is no God save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest.”

Qur’an 48:1-2, “Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, that Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path . . .”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6307, “Narrated Abu Hurairah: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying, “By Allah! I seek Allah’s forgiveness and turn to Him in repentance for more than seventy times a day.‘”

According to the Qur’an, Muhammad bore a burden of Sin. According to Imam al-Bukhari, Muhammad needed to beg Allah’s forgiveness more than 70 times per day. Compare and contrast that with the Qur’anic and Biblical references to Jesus and what we find is a stark contrast. There is more.

According to Jami at-Tirmidhi a martyr is not only granted immediate entry into Jannah, but they are also allowed to atone for the sins of 70 of their relatives, granting them immediate entry. He says,

“Narrated Al-Miqdam bin Ma’diykarib:

That the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “There are six things with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood (he suffers), he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head – and its gems are better than the world and what is in it – he is married to seventy two wives along Al-Huril-‘Ayn of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives.” (Tirmidhi 1663)

The Islamic argument against Jesus’ substitutionary atonement can safely be declared fallacious, and it can be proved that by virtue of their own texts. Furthermore, the same texts that undo their argument also gives both positive and negative reasons for substitutionary atonement. According to them, someone who dies a martyr’s death is declared righteous by having their sins removed from them. Their righteousness is then imputed upon 70 of their close relatives, thereby atoning for their sins by way of substitution.

In the end, we must conclude that this Islamic objection to Christian doctrine is incomprehensible nonsense. Their objection is not to substitutionary atonement itself, but rather to Jesus’ substitutionary atonement on our behalf. One theme you will pick up when studying Islamic theology is that Salvation is purely works based. Admitting that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, that He conquered death through His resurrection, and that He is seated at the right hand of the Father awaiting the time of His return, undoes that entire idea.

Finally, Some Good News!

At a point when I was looking for something resembling good news in our news cycle, this popped up from my home state of Texas. Way to go, y’all!

Texas Law Banning Abortions After Heartbeat Detection Set to Go Into Effect https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/texas-law-banning-abortions-after-heartbeat-detection-set-to-go-into-effect_3971315.html

The best quote from the entire article is, “The groups, which include Planned Parenthood, said the law could lead to abortion providers, clinic staff, and others being “saddled with endless lawsuits that consume their time and resources and prevent them from providing health care services, ultimately forcing them to shut down.'”

Sadly, this does not do away with abortion altogether. That will take time. However, this represents a significant victory in the area of saving lives. This law will prevent the wholesale slaughter of babies and will hopefully lead to the total abolition of abortion in this country.

Take note of something else. Per usual, those in favor of murdering babies in the womb like to equate that murder with “women’s health” and with “providing healthcare services”. This law does none of that. All it does is prevent abortions while leaving women’s healthcare services entirely intact.

We cannot make the mistake of assuming that we can be complacent. Keep fighting for the lives of those babies, keep fighting for the preservation of human lives and human rights. We cannot compromise, we cannot back down from this fight, and we cannot allow this to continue. We are under the Lord’s judgment for the crimes of our nation, and it is time that we turn back to Him broken and weeping with repentant hearts and minds! The sooner, the better.

A Teachable Moment

There are moments that cement themselves in our minds as teachable moments. These are the moments that force us to learn hard and valuable lessons. Seldom ever are these lessons easy to bear, as they are generally very painful and costly. It is unfortunate that we humans learn more from pain than we do happiness and joy, because many of our lessons come with price tags attached. Yesterday, such a moment presented itself and I find myself wondering if we have come away from this with any kind of lessons learned.

After a series of suicide attacks outside of the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, 13 US service members lost their lives, along with several Afghans. I have learned that dozens of others have been wounded and are receiving treatment in nearby hospitals.

I have also learned that there were intelligence reports suggesting that there would be a VBIED arriving at the airport to deliver its own payload at some point. For those who do not know a VBIED is a car bomb. Think really hard about that. A car filled with explosives, being driven by a human being who has chosen to end their own life in such a way as to take as many people with them as possible.

There is no reasoning with that. There is no negotiating with that. You cannot take someone with that sort of mindset and reason with them. Why? Because their god, Allah, has convinced them that it is not merely a righteous act to die in that manner, but that it is the most righteous way for them to die. Fighting and dying in the cause of Allah is regarded as the premier method for ensuring that one gets a one-way ticket to Jannah (heaven, paradise).

I know that a great many want to believe that Islam is the religion of peace, but this simply is not the case. The only peace to be found in Islam is either found in Jannah, or the day that Shari’a takes over the whole of the earth. Until then, there is to be no peace according to Islam, only a gradual overtaking of the world by Islam through the sword, dawa, or the womb.

How much value is placed in martyrdom? Muhammad answers that question in Sahih Muslim 1876,

“…I love to fight in the way of Allah and be killed, to fight and again be killed and to fight again and be killed.”

Of course, people who die in the cause of Allah are not the only ones defined as martyrs. He defines a few other types as martyrs, and those are found in Sunan Abu Dawud 3111,

“There are seven martyrs besides one who is killed in the way of Allah: the victim of plague is a martyr, the one who drowns is a martyr, the one who dies of chest pain is a martyr, the one who dies of stomach infection is a martyr, the one who burns to death is a martyr, the one who is crushed under something is a martyr, and the pregnant woman who dies giving labor is a martyr.”

Take note of the fact that none of the others listed off by Muhammad are even remotely relevant to this topic, so we will disregard them. We have also managed to preemptively nip the argument that there are different ways to fight right in the bud. Muhammad said that he liked to fight and wanted to be killed. That cannot be interpreted as anything other than physical combat.

Compare that with Jesus’ command to love God with all our hearts, spirits, and minds, to love neighbor as ourselves, and to keep His Commandments, and you see a marked difference. On the one hand, you have a group whose ideology forces them to surrender their humanity, to cast aside empathy and compassion. On the other hand, you have people who are doing their level best to provide an escape route for terrified people WHILE in full retreat themselves! This is a key element in what is going on, and I want you to keep this firmly in mind when examining what is going on here. To cement this distinction, consider this video which shows people passing their children to US service members in Kabul,

Watch that video and compare it to the carnage unleashed by Daesh yesterday. What we are seeing in the references above is the justification for the actions taken by Islamic terrorists for as long as there have been Islamic terrorists, to include current events. Each one of those suicide bombers ended their own lives expecting to suddenly find themselves in Jannah, surrounded by dark-eyed houris. Sadly, what they find on the other side will not be what they were sold. Caveat emptor.

I would like to address another point. In these attacks, many of the victims are also Muslims. To many of you, I’m sure there is some confusion. Why would they target and kill their own? How can they justify that? Their reasoning is very simple. You are either a Muslim, a Kaffir (unbeliever), or a hypocrite/apostate. The category you fall into plays a role in this whole mess.

Muslims are regarded as the greatest of people (Qur’an 3:110), while unbelievers are regarded as the worst of creatures (Qur’an 98:6). Apostates are regarded as being as low as unbelievers because Islam teaches that all humans are born Muslim, and unbelievers simply choose to rebel against Allah. As apostasy is rebellion against a particular teaching and ideology, then there is a certain sameness in their minds between Kaffirs and apostates. Consider that Christianity teaches that we are not born Christian, we must convert.

According to the Qur’an and Hadith, there is only one thing to be done with apostates, and that is kill them. Qur’an 4:88-89,

“What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray – never will you find for him a way [of guidance]. They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.”

In the eyes of Daesh, the Taliban are hypocrites and apostates (read “traitors”) for cooperating with the withdrawal of the Coalition forces. They see them as not being Muslim enough to warrant the name. Their belief dictates that they should fight to the last man to liquidate the whole of the Coalition forces within their borders. This means that the Taliban are just as marked for death as we are. As for the true believers caught in the blasts, they get to die a martyr’s death, which is a one-way ticket to Jannah. Their reasoning is that they are doing the true believers a favor by sending them to Jannah, so there is nothing morally wrong with fellow Muslims dying as collateral damage.

While there is not much material to be found in the Qur’an regarding the punishment for apostasy, there are quite a few references found in the Hadith. One example that presents itself is Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 9, book 84, no. 57,

“Narrated by ‘Ikrima
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.‘”

While there are some who would argue that the reference above is weak because they do not trust the narrator, you should bear in mind that the reference is classed as Sahih, which means it is a reliable narration. Furthermore, there are other references that support this one, and those references do not come from the same narrator. Examples include Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 9 book 83 number 17,

“Narrated ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.“

Sahih al-Bukhari, volume 9 book 84 number 64,

“During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.“

The point can be plainly made that the death penalty is applicable to apostates. What of hypocrites? We must first determine what constitutes a hypocrite in the Islamic lexicon. Sahih al-Bukhari 33 and Sahih Muslim 59 say,

“Among the signs of a hypocrite are three, even if he fasts and prays and claims to be a Muslim: when he speaks he lies, when he gives a promise he breaks it, and when he is trusted he betrays.”

Hypocrites then are liars and oath breakers. The dishonest and dishonorable. Pretty simple. What does the Qur’an say about hypocrites? As it turns out, the Qur’an seems to be inconsistent regarding hypocrites, but it only seems so. In Sura 33, Muslims are commanded to refrain from harming hypocrites. Qur’an 33:60,

“And do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites but do not harm them, and rely upon Allah. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.”

It would seem that the command is clear. Let the hypocrites live, and let Allah deal with them in the afterlife. There is an issue with this. Compare this with the command given in Sura 9, and you can see an apparent contradiction,

“O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.” (Qur’an 9:77)

On the one hand, they are commanded to refrain from attacking hypocrites, however, there is the command in Sura 9 to consider. How do we determine which one is the binding command? This is where we need to be reminded that Sura 33 was revealed before Sura 9, and the doctrine of abrogation dictates that any inconsistency can be cleared up simply by going with the newer reference. In effect, Sura 9 abrogates Sura 33 on this matter, which means that Islam teaches that hypocrites are to be fought as if they were unbelievers. Refer back to what I said about the Qur’an declaring that unbelievers are the worst of creatures, and you can see why they have no qualms about killing their own. In their mind, those we regard as being among their own are either hypocrites/apostates, and worthy of the brutal deaths they receive, or are being granted an express pass to Allah and their prophet.

Does this seem to be a sane and rational way of life? Consider that most religions do not have rules for dealing with apostasy. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Atheists can leave their beliefs behind and do so with the reasonable expectation of a nonviolent response from those in their communities. (No, words are not violence) Granted, there are exceptions, but we can safely say that the exceptions do not make the rule.

Do be aware of the fact that we are dealing with an implacable enemy whose sole desire is to either convert you, kill you, or die trying. There is no reasoning, negotiating, or appealing to their innate humanity. Their minds and spirits are so twisted that they regard anything contrary to their firmly held beliefs to be anathema and unworthy of care, consideration, or acknowledgment. In their eyes, we are worse than subhuman, we are lower than pigs, dogs, and slime. We are things to be exterminated, and you cannot reason with that. You cannot reason with someone who wants to treat you the way we treat cockroaches in our homes!

Edit: After posting this, I remembered a picture I once saw out of Afghanistan a number of years ago, and this picture sums up perfectly the difference between our people and people like the Taliban. This is a picture of a pair of Marines using their bodies to shield an Afghan man and a child I assume to be his son. This is the measure of our people, and neither the Taliban nor Daesh can ever hope to match this unless they turn away from Islam.

To Vaccinate, or not to Vaccinate, THAT is the Question

Unless you happen to be living under a rock without any contact with the outside world, there is a fair chance you have heard more than an earful of the controversy surrounding vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, etc. Up until now, I have chosen to remain mostly silent on the issue because I had a personal stake in it. Full disclosure, I have not had COVID-19, nor have I been vaccinated against it. My reasons for avoiding the vaccine are more personal than anything else, and I am sure some of you might understand, while others might take issue.

Beginning in May of last year, I was ordered to Active Duty by the National Guard and placed on the COVID-19 Taskforce. My job, as a Medic, was first to travel as part of a team to the various State Penitentiaries throughout my state and run COVID-19 testing sites for the prison staff. Once that mission was completed, those of us who chose to remain on orders were folded into the Community Based Testing mission, and traveled throughout the state operating drive-thru testing sites in parking lots. We did this until the week prior to Christmas.

The week prior to Christmas, I was part of a team of Medics tasked with providing direct patient care in the COVID ward of one of the State Veteran’s Homes. Our job was to augment the Nurses and CNAs providing care to critically ill veterans who had tested positive for COVID-19 and placed in quarantine. I will not be going into a lot of detail on that mission, except to say that I was honored and humbled to have provided care to brothers and sisters who were at the end of their lives. Given a chance, I would do it again.

Just after the New Year, I was sent to the State Capital, and folded into the data entry team. Our job was to enter COVID-19 test results into a database, and I was involved with that for nearly two months. After that, I was reassigned to the vaccination teams and sent out to work mass-vaccination sites. During the course of that mission, I am not sure how many vaccinations were given out, but I would estimate that my personal count was several thousand doses given, and mine was lower than everyone else’s because I refused to handle the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In case you are wondering, no, I was not given any trouble over my refusal to handle that vaccine. My command not only worked with me on that, but opted to make me something of a floater, sending me out to targeted sites that dealt with Pfizer or Moderna. They understood my religious objection to the J&J vaccine and respected it.

By the time my mission finally came to an end, I had clocked thousands of travel hours, covered tens of thousands of miles, seen parts of my state that I had not seen in 20+ years of living here, stayed in more hotels than I could keep track of, and was exposed to hundreds of thousands of people, an unknown number of whom were COVID-19 positive. During that time, I had more than enough exposures to come to a few conclusions regarding this illness. All of this has helped me form a different perspective on the pandemic crisis.

For the people who think it is a hoax, you are very wrong. Coronavirus is very real, and the illness it causes is as serious as we have all been told. That it can and will kill people, even in demographics that would normally be resistant or immune, is a certainty. You can be very certain of all of that, and as you read through what I have to say next, I want you to hang on to what I have just said, and from where my conclusions derive.

For the people who think the whole thing has been overblown, you are mostly correct. The facts, as I see them, are as follows. The evidence makes a strong case for the idea that this virus “escaped” from a virology lab in Wuhan Province, China. As I do not believe in coincidence, I am fairly certain that the “accidental” release of this virus was not as “accidental” as we have been led to believe. The timing was too suspicious, and the responses from various world governmental bodies lead me to believe that there is a lot that we are not being told. I am also unwilling to speculate any further than that because I am neither a conspiracy theorist, nor am I given to panic.

My honest opinion is that, while this disease CAN be serious for SOME of the people who contract it, it is neither a death sentence, nor an existential threat in and of itself. In fact, the high survival rates all across the board, the exceedingly low reinfection rates, and the sheer number of people who CHOSE to take the vaccines, make clear that this disease is NOT the threat it has been made out to be. Furthermore, while people keep panicking over the number of people who have died from this disease, they fail to recognize just how lucky we have been.

When the Bubonic plague hit Europe, it wiped out roughly half the population of Europe. Imagine entire cities and towns completely empty of living people, having to travel hundreds of miles to find anything resembling functioning civilization, and you have some idea of what happened to Europe during the plague. It was a dystopian hellscape. None of that happened here, and there is good reason for it. No, I am not going to hammer on the whole First World vs Middle Ages thing. While our modern tech certainly helped, it was not that at all.

Years ago, I ran across an article in which genetic scientists determined that most of those who survived the Bubonic plague did so because they carried a gene mutation that effectively rendered them immune to the disease. As it turns out, this happens frequently. There have always been, and likely always will be, people who possess natural immunity to certain diseases. However, it does not stop there.

Last year, I decided to conduct a little personal study and figure out how it was that people survived the plague, and I found that the genetic evidence only answered for a segment of the population of Europe at the time. As it turns out, many of the others who survived took a few steps that were revolutionary then, but commonplace now. First, they washed their hands. Second, they got fresh air and ate good food. Third, they socially distanced as a rule and quarantined when necessary. That was it. The people who did those things enjoyed higher survival rates than those who did not. Sadly, medical science in those days was what we would call “backwards”, so there were not very many physicians who were recommending sunshine, fresh air, good food, and social distancing/quarantine. The only physician I am aware of prescribing such things was the famous Nostradamus. Yes, the whack-a-doodle astrologer whose “predictions” and horoscopes have caused no end of amusement and panic was also a physician whose treatment methods for the plague more closely resembled our own. Who knew, right?

My point is, our cities are still populated, our roadways are still functioning, our economy is damaged but not dead, and we are still able to function on a level that Europe in the days of the Plague could not. When you compare mortality rates, there is simply no basis for comparison. Modern science and common sense have both come together to provide us a cushion from the worst of a disease that should not have happened to begin with. Yet, we still have people panicking and becoming worked up over the number of people killed. Why? If I knew the answer to that, I would probably make a lot more money than I currently do.

This brings me to my next point. Make no mistake, there is a serious illness prowling around our nation, devouring lives along the way. However, it could be much worse, and this is something that we need to hang on to as we move forward. Of late, I have heard people debating the topic of vaccine mandates. I have heard people engaging in discussion over the morality of vaccine mandates and compliance, the constitutionality of vaccine mandates and compliance, and various topics associated with those two topics. The reason for their discussion is tied with the fact that there is a sense of unwarranted urgency surrounding COVID-19 and its variants.

I get why people panic. Disease fills us with a sense of revulsion that is just plain visceral. When standing before a physical threat, I know what to do, and I am confident in my ability to handle it. Fight back, protect life, or die trying. It is clean, simple, straightforward. But, what do we do when beset by an enemy that cannot be seen with the naked eye, and that attacks from within? It is deeply unnerving and violating, is it not? I know why people panic, and this is why I urge people to be extra cautious and mindful of the consequences of their decisions during times of high stress.

If certain people in our government have their way, all who have chosen not to take the vaccine may well be commanded to do so. Let that sink in, folks. Citizens of a FREE society, in a FREE country, are facing the very real prospect of being ORDERED by their government to take a vaccine against their will. How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where our government is comfortable with the idea of violating the conscience of the average citizen of these United States in order to deal with a disease whose impact has been overblown? I ask that question rhetorically, but with all seriousness. I need you, the reader, to carefully consider the implication not only of the question itself, but also of your choice to comply or not.

Without going into where I stand on the matter, I urge you all to think very carefully about how you will proceed IF our government mandates vaccines for people to function normally. Think very carefully about how you will proceed if your employer does the same. This is a matter of conscience and I cannot tell you what to do. It is for you to decide. In order to help, I will share this link. It is a series of episodes of Wretched Radio in which Todd Friel discusses the biblical perspective of this issue. Make up your own minds, and act according to your own conscience. That is all I can tell you.