Apologetics

The Way Science Actually Suports the Bible

Published by Papa Giorgio

Modern medicine is incredible. What might surprise you is how much of it can be traced back to the word of God! In this video, Todd examines five scientific discoveries laid out in the book “None of These Diseases” that support the supernatural authorship of our Bible.

The Book of Leviticus in the Bible was probably the first recording of laws concerning public health. The Hebrew people were told to practice personal hygiene by washing and keeping clean. They were also instructed to bury their waste material away from their campsites, to isolate those who were sick, and to burn soiled dressings. They were prohibited from eating animals that had died of natural causes. The procedure for killing an animal was clearly described, and the edible parts were designated.

Gwendolyn R.W. Burton and Paul G. Engelkirk, Microbiology for the Health Sciences, 6th Edition (New York, NY: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2000), 9.

See My Previous Post On Circumcision

 

Marijuana | Doing Some Connective Reading In An Airport

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Long layover at Nashville, doing some reading)

Two thoughts connected…. one from a book about marijuana use and its deleterious FX on the brain (keeping in mind the brain continues to grow/mature till the age of almost 30). The other from an apologetic minded book (Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies). Here is the 1st quote:

  • …Brain researchers documented in 2008 how chronic marijuana use starting in adolescence significantly decreases the size of two brain areas thick in cannabinoid receptors—the amygdala by 7 percent and the hippocampus by 12 percent. One result was that young chronic marijuana users performed much worse than nonusers on verbal learning tests. Heavy marijuana use “exerts harmful effects on brain tissue and mental health,” the authors concluded in the Archives of General Psychiatry in 2008… (Kevin A. Sabet, Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana [New York, NY: Beaufort Books, 2013])

Now the 2nd quote. And this better explains what the Amygdala does and how some people I know have had some family loss too soon and are struggling deeply with it. I wonder if they have distorted what would have been more of a healing process into more of an emotional wound. Forever lingering, never scabbing over.

This is an important note as well for the Apologist to know your audience and what may hinder them. This is regarding witnessing and how some may respond to reason and sound argument:

2. Compels People to Act Without Thinking Through the Issues

Emotions are great responders, but horrible leaders. Unfortunately, when a person has an emotional reaction to a statement, it becomes difficult to think about it rationally. This is actually the brain’s psychological response to emotion. Turning on the amygdala (the site of emotional processing) turns off the prefrontal cortex (the site of rational thought) …

[Insert a separate “info filler”]

…. The hippocampus and prefrontal cortex (PFC) have long been known to play a central role in various behavioral and cognitive functions. More recently, electrophysiological and functional imaging studies have begun to examine how interactions between the two structures contribute to behavior during various tasks. At the same time, it has become clear that hippocampal-prefrontal interactions are disrupted in psychiatric disease and may contribute to their pathophysiology. These impairments have most frequently been observed in schizophrenia, a disease that has long been associated with hippocampal and prefrontal dysfunction. Studies in animal models of the illness have also begun to relate disruptions in hippocampal-prefrontal interactions to the various risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms of the illness…. (Hippocampal-Prefrontal Interactions in Cognition, Behavior and Psychiatric Disease)

[…..]

The hippocampal formation (HPC) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) have well-established roles in memory encoding and retrieval. However, the mechanisms underlying interactions between the HPC and mPFC in achieving these functions is not fully understood. Considerable research supports the idea that a direct pathway from the HPC and subiculum to the mPFC is critically involved in cognitive and emotional regulation of mnemonic processes. More recently, evidence has emerged that an indirect pathway from the HPC to the mPFC via midline thalamic nucleus reuniens (RE) may plays a role in spatial and emotional memory processing. Here we will consider how bidirectional interactions between the HPC and mPFC are involved in working memory, episodic memory and emotional memory in animals and humans. We will also consider how dysfunction in bidirectional HPC-mPFC pathways contributes to psychiatric disorders. (Prefrontal-Hippocampal Interactions in Memory and Emotion)

[Returning to book quote]

… A person doesn’t choose for this to happen, it just happens. Research has shown that when when the amygdala and prefrontal cortex compete, initially the amygdala (emotional center) wins. People can be talked down from this state, but they must first realize that the switch from rational to emotional thinking occurred in the first place!

Hillary Morgan Ferrer, Gen. Ed., Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies (Eugene, OR: ‎Harvest House Publishers, 2019), pp. 65-66

That is a great connector that shows as brain damage is caused by what many consider harmless interactions with “grass”more are in fact, very consequential. And, how these people may interact with thinking through an argument or even a life crisis is distorted, at best.

MORE:

By constantly experimenting with breeding prac­tices and cultivation techniques over several decades, producers and growers steadily made progress in greatly elevating the levels of THC (the psychoactive ingredient) found in the oily resin of the marijuana plant’s leaves and flowers.

At the University of Mississippi, a potency-monitoring project has been under way for the past few decades, measuring the con­centration of THC in thousands of marijuana samples randomly se­lected from law-enforcement seizures. Since 1983, when THC con­centrations averaged below 4 percent, potency has intensified until it now exceeds an average of 10 percent. Many marijuana samples are in the 10-20 percent range. Some marijuana samples show THC concentrations exceeding 30 percent. If we were talking about alco­hol, this increase in intoxication potential would be like going from drinking a “lite” beer a day to consuming a dozen shots of vodka.

Kevin A. Sabet, Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana (New York, NY: Beaufort Books, 2013), 34

Gender, Sex, and Marriage | God Designed

Published by Papa Giorgio

BTW, unrelated to the topic, I highly recommend buying on AMAZON PRIME or through various creation ministries this movie (like CREATION SUPER STORE, or ANSWERS IN GENESIS, or the maker, GENESIS APOLOGETICS: — where you can watch it for free. But I suggest purchasing it to show support)

MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES

Does modern science validate what the Bible says about gender, sex, and marriage? Does living under the Bible’s idea on these topics make an impact on our lives? Our marriages? Our children? Watch this video to the end to find out.

22-minutes

Psalm 22:16 | “Pierced” or “Like a lion”

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Case for Messiah seeks to answer some the biggest questions and objections to the Messianic interpretation of scripture and strengthen your faith. In this Episode we dive into the Rabbinic Objections of our reading of Psalm 22 and modern and contextual arguments against the rabbinic interpretations. Dig deeper into one of the most powerful prophecies of the bible and let the roots of your faith be strengthened by this powerful podcast!

CLAIM 1: Christians corrupted original “like a lion” to “they pierced.”
CLAIM 2: Everywhere else כארי is used means “like a lion.”
CLAIM 3: Two other verses in Psalm 22 refers to lions, so this has to be a lion.
CLAIM 4: The New Testament never quotes this verse.
CLAIM 5: Psalm 22 is only about David.

GOT QUESTIONS has a quick summary as well. See also ONE FOR ISRAEL’s posts on this:

BIBLE HUB is also worth a Hebrew peruse.

Find out if Psalm 22 really speaks of the piercing of Jesus’ hands and feet, or whether it speaks of lions’ teeth instead.

Is Psalm 22 a prophetic psalm or does it refer to the story of David? Find out as Dr. Brown explains this psalm!

 

Struggling With the Trinity, Some Examples

Published by Papa Giorgio

JUMP to the update showing Allah and the his word (the Qur’an) got it wrong

DENNIS PRAGER

From the video description:

In an honest dialogue via a caller to the show, Dennis Prager tells us his lack of understanding of what seems so clear to Christians — MIND YOU, it is still a mystery, but not self-referentially false. In other words, coherent.

Two quick explanations are from two men I respect:

Here is a four part series by theologian Wayne Grudem:

See his books for more doctrinal specifics:

✦ Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
✦ Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith

MANY YEARS AGO when working at Whole Foods I got in a conversation with co-worker. He said he would read what I wrote for him regarding the Trinity. HERE IS THAT LETTER. Another response in a debate from a couple years before that letter to a co-worker may help as well, HERE.

DAVID WOODS UPDATE

ISLAM

  • “I understand a… 7th century Arabian caravan robber misunderstanding who is in the Trinity. I understand that. [….] It’s very weird that ‘god’ and his word misunderstood that.”

The fuller interview by Babylon Bee can be found HERE.

AN OLD POST RE-POSTED

SOME CULTS

The LDS Church teaches that “Elohim” properly refers to Heavenly Father, and that “Jehovah” refers to Jesus. While Mormons believe that both Elohim and Jehovah are “united in purpose”, Mormonism claims that “Elohim” and “Jehovah” are actually two separate exalted beings. This is significant, because it would mean that there are actually numerous “gods”—more than just one! But Christians claim that Jehovah (Or Yahweh) and Elohim are the same being, the One True God, who is uncreated and unchanging. Christianity teaches that there only ever has been and will be One Creator God. If Christians are correct, then the notion of eternal progression and exaltation are abominable and idolatrous. The idea that the Father and Son progressed to their current position is a blasphemous claim to the Christian! Therefore, the true nature of Jehovah and Elohim is a significant question! So what does the Bible teach? Does the Bible indicate that Elohim and Jehovah are two different gods “united in purpose”? Or does Scripture teach that Jehovah and Elohim are different names for the same being?

This is an update to an old post from my free blog from many yearn ago. It deals with certain aspects of Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witness’s understanding of a “bifurcation” (of sorts). Enjoy, I may re-edit this in the weeks coming. This edit is a shortening of the older debate (which itself references an even older discussion. I am thinking this was the late 90’s or early 2000s):

TRINITY

I recommend a book that will assist you in your understanding of Bart Ehrman, it is entitled, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.  Learning possibility aside, you believe that YHWH represents Jesus, and Elohim represents Heavenly Father, right?  I will elucidate with an old debate:

You Jeff, are not arguing against me when I speak of sex in heaven, you are speaking or arguing against personalities further up the LDS-chain of command than yourself (I have posted this before):

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.  We will have an endless eternity for this.

An endless eternity of celestial sex is what that last sentence meant.  Okay, I will leave you to argue with your ex-president in an LDS book Doctrines of Salvation. 

How many Jesus’ are there??  Lets do a little Bible study in Genesis.  I will post some scripture from Genesis 18 and 19.  The pink highlights are what we are going to read (pink is for Jehovah’s Witnesses, green is for Mormons… I will now have to add a bit of green to these verses as I can use them with LDS).

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

So again, with your understanding of who Elohim and YHWH is, as before, your theology is less fit for what the bible displays as clearly Trinitarian.  How can Jesus be three people, and then also speak to Himself in heaven while on earth?  I mean, you say YHWH is Jesus, orthodox Christianity says this is one name for God (1x1x1=1), Elohim is another.

No Christian doctrine depends on the longer version of the 1 John:7-8.  It never has, and Ehrman doesn’t reject the Trinity for this verse either.  He does so because he is a philosophical naturalist.  Matthew 28:19-20 states the concept of one God (“in name,” GK singular) expressed in three persons (“of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) just as clearly as those words in 1 John.

According to you Jesus is “a” God, as well as other “persons before Heavenly Father as well as after Heavenly Father.  However, the Old Testament states:

  • “See now that I, I am He, and there is no God besides Me” (Deuteronomy 32:39 NASB)
  • “Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me” (Isaiah 43:10 NASB)
  • “Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none” (Isaiah 44:8 NASB)
  • “I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5 NASB)

However, Heavenly Father’s parents on another earth may themselves not have achieved exultation, whereas a person who at one time (on another planet in the myriad of Mormon worlds with possible gods that inhabit them) could have owned a brothel, but later was sealed in a temple ceremony and repented of his way may be an even more powerful God than Heavenly Father.  Odd.

Just in case people here do not understand what Bot is doing, he is arguing against one infinite God and arguing for an infinite amount of finite Gods.

DIETY OF CHRIST

According to LDS theology, Jesus did not exist at one point in history… at least until Heavenly Father had a bit of foreplay with one of his wives and maybe a martini or two (Brigham Young was the only distributor of alcohol in Utah for some time… he’s exulted, right?) and a long night of hot – steamy… well, you get the point, Jesus was born.  This is not the belief of any Christian, the apostles, the church fathers, and the like.  Only LDS believe this, not the church even for the first 100 years believed this, as the Scriptures make clear.  Jesus created the space/time continuum, he was not pre-dated by DNA, matter, gods, or the like. 

Heavenly Father didn’t create the eye, or the pancreas, these predate Heavenly Father, and were passed on to him via his parents “sexing it up.”  And the DNA for eyes and pancreas’s were passed to them via an act of sex, and so on ad-infinitum.

Jesus and Heavenly Father were born into a cosmos that enforced its natural laws (both physical and moral) on Jesus and Heavenly Father, whereas these forces were created by God and didn’t pre-date God.  The former is not deity, the later is.

IRR has a good short article where they answer the following:

  • The Hebrew word elohim is grammatically a plural form, and in a couple hundred occurrences in the Old Testament does mean “gods.” However, about 2,600 times elohim functions as a singular noun. We know this for four reasons

Also, LDS struggle with the following a tad:

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

One of the best books I have read on the topic of the Trinity is by an ex-Oneness Pentecostal, Robert Bowman,

The rest of this book will be concerned with the biblical material relating to the Trinity, considering the arguments advanced by JWs to show that it is unbiblical.

We begin with the biblical teaching that there is one God. The JWs affirm that monotheism is the biblical teaching (p. 12), citing several Scriptures in support (p. 13). And trinitarians could not agree more. There is only one God, and this God is one. The oneness of God is the first plank in the trinitarian platform. For this reason I would agree with the booklet’s argument that the plural form elohim for God in the Old Testament cannot be evidence of the Trinity (pp. 13-14).

The Trinity and the Oneness of God

But two problems need attention. First, JWs claim that the Bible’s affirmations of monotheism mean “that God is one Person—a unique, unpartitioned Being who has no equal” (p. 13). As has already been explained, trinitarians do not regard the three persons as “partitions” of God, or the Son and Spirit as beings outside God yet equal to him. Indeed, if “person” is defined to mean an individual per­sonal being, then trinitarians will agree that in that sense “God is one Person.” Thus, in arguing as if these truths contradicted the Trinity, the JWs show they have mis­construed the doctrine. In fact, that God is one “Person” in this sense does not prove that he is not also three “persons” in the sense meant by trinitarians.

Second, biblical monotheism does not simply mean that the being of the Almighty God is one being. That is true enough, but the Bible also teaches simply that there is one God. The Bible is quite emphatic on this point, repeating it often in both the Old Testament (Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; Isa. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9) and the New Testament (Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25). And the very meaning of the word monotheism is the belief in one God.

It is therefore important to note that the JWs flatly deny this most basic of biblical teachings. Although they admit that there is only one Almighty God, they claim that there are, in addition to that God, and not counting the many false gods worshiped by idolaters, many creatures rightly recognized in the Bible as “gods” in the sense of “mighty ones” (p. 28). These “gods” include Jesus Christ, angels, human judges, and Satan. The JWs take this position to justify allowing the Bible to call Jesus “a god” without honoring him as Jehovah God.

The question must therefore be asked whether Wit­nesses can escape the charge that they are polytheists (be­lievers in many gods). The usual reply is that while they believe there are many gods, they worship only one God, Jehovah. But this belief is not monotheism, either. The usual term for the belief that there are many gods but only one who is to be worshiped is heno theism.

The more important question, of course, is whether the Bible supports the JWs’ view. The explicit, direct state­ments of the Bible that there is only one God (cited above) cannot fairly be interpreted to mean that there are many gods but only one who is almighty, or only one who is to be worshiped, or only one who is named Jehovah. There is only one Almighty God Jehovah, and he alone is to be worshiped—but the Bible also states flatly that he is the only God.

More precisely, the Bible says that there is only one true God (John 17:3; see also 2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20), in contrast to all other gods, false gods, who are not gods at all (Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Ps. 96:5; Isa. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20). There are, then, two categories of “gods”: true Gods (of which there is only one, Jehovah) and false gods (of which there are unfortunately many).

The JWs, however, in agreement with most anti­trinitarian groups today that claim to believe in the Bible, cannot agree that there is only one true God, despite the Bible’s saying so in just those words, because then they would have to admit that Jesus is that God. Therefore, they appeal to a few isolated texts in the Bible that they claim honor creatures with the title gods without implying that they are false gods. We must next consider these texts briefly.

Are Angels Gods?

There are two kinds of creatures that the JWs claim are honored as gods in Scripture—angels and men. We begin with angels. The usual prooftext in support of this claim is Psalm 8:5, which the NWT renders, “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones.” The word translated “godlike ones” here is elohim, the usual word for “God,” but (because plural) also translatable as “gods.” Since Hebrews 2:7 quotes this verse as saying, “You made him a little lower than angels” (NWT), the Witnesses con­clude that Psalm 8:5 is calling angels “gods.”

There are numerous objections to this line of reasoning, only some of which can be mentioned here. First, it is questionable that in its original context elohim in Psalm 8:5 should be understood to refer to angels and translated “gods” or “godlike ones.” This is because in context this psalm is speaking of man’s place in creation in terms that closely parallel Genesis 1. Psalm 8:3 speaks of the creation of the heavens, moon, and stars (cf. Gen. 1:1, 8, 16). Verse 4 asks how God can consider man significant when com­pared with the grandeur of creation. The answer given is that man rules over creation—over the inhabitants of the land, sky, and sea (vv. 6-8; cf. Gen. 1:26-28). What links this question and answer in Psalm 8 is the statement that God made man “a little lower than elohim,” which parallels in thought the Genesis statement that man was created “in the image of elohim,” that is, in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This makes it quite reasonable to conclude that in its own context Psalm 8:5 is meant to be understood as saying that man is a little lower than God, not angels.

If this view is correct, why does Hebrews 2:7 have the word angels rather than God? The simple answer is that the author of Hebrews was quoting from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament prepared by Jewish scholars and in common use in the first century. The fact that the writer of Hebrews quoted the Septuagint does not imply that the Septuagint rendering he quoted was a literal or accurate word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text (after all, “angels” is certainly not a literal translation of “gods”). Rather, Hebrews 2:7 is a paraphrase of Psalm 8:5 that, while introducing a new understanding of it, does not contradict it. Psalm 8 says that the son of man (meaning mankind) was made a little lower than God; Hebrews 2 says that the Son of Man (meaning Christ) was made a little lower than the angels. The psalm speaks of man’s exalted status, while Hebrews speaks of Christ’s temporary hum­bling. Since the angels are, of course, lower than God, and since Christ’s humbled status was that of a man, what Hebrews says does not contradict Psalm 8:5, though it does go beyond it.

It must be admitted that this is not the only way of reading Hebrews 2:7 and Psalm 8:5. It is just possible that Hebrews 2:7 does implicitly understand Psalm 8:5 to be calling angels “gods.” If this were correct, it would not mean that angels were truly gods. It might then be argued that the point of Psalm 8:5 was that man was made just a little lower than the spiritual creatures so often wrongly worshiped by men as gods. This would fit the context of Hebrews 2:7 also, since from Hebrews 1:5 through the end of chapter 2 the author argues for the superiority of the Son over angels. That is, Hebrews might be taken to imply that even God’s angels can be idolized if they are wrongly ex­alted or worshiped as gods (which some early heretics were doing [cf. Col. 2:18]).

Moreover, this interpretation would also fit Hebrews 1:6, which quotes Psalm 97:7 as saying that all of God’s angels should worship the Son. Psalm 97:7 in Hebrew is a com­mand to the “gods” (identified in the immediate context as idols) to worship Jehovah. Thus, Hebrews 1:6 testifies at once both to the fact that angels, if they are considered gods at all, are false gods, and that Jesus Christ is worshiped by angels as Jehovah the true God.

There are other reasons for denying that angels are truly gods in a positive sense. The Bible flatly states that demonic spirits are not gods (1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8). Since demons are just as much spirits, and presumably are just as much “mighty ones” (though wicked) as the holy angels, it fol­lows that angels cannot be gods by virtue of their being “mighty ones. “

Furthermore, the translation of elohim in Psalm 8:5 as “godlike ones” runs into the problem of contradicting the Bible, which flatly and repeatedly states that none are like God (Exod. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23; 1 Chron. 17:20; Ps. 86:8; Isa. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Mic. 7:18), though creatures may reflect God’s moral qualities (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:2).

Finally, even if angels were gods in some positive sense, that would not explain in what sense Jesus Christ is called “God,” since he is not an angel—he is God’s Son (Heb. 1:4-5); is worshiped by all the angels (Heb. 1:6); is the God who reigns, not a spirit messenger (Heb. 1:7-9); and is the Lord who created everything, not an angel created to serve (Heb. 1:10-13).

Before leaving this question, it should be noted in passing that Satan is called “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4 Niv), but clearly in the sense of a false god, one who is wrongly allowed to usurp the place of the true God in the present age. That is the point of 2 Corinthians 4:4, not that Satan is a mighty one.

Are Mighty Men Gods?

The Witnesses claim that not only mighty angels, but also mighty men, are called “gods” in Scripture in rec­ognition of their might. This claim, however, is open to even more difficult objections than the claim that angels are gods.

The Bible explicitly denies that powerful men, such as kings and dictators and military leaders, are gods (Ezek. 28:2, 9; see also Isa. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4). In fact, frequently in Scripture “man” and “God” are used as opposite catego­ries, parallel with “flesh” and “spirit” (Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3; Hos. 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2). In this light, texts that are alleged to call men “gods” in a positive sense ought to be studied carefully and alterna­tive interpretations followed where context permits.

The usual text cited in this connection, as in the JW booklet, is Psalm 82:6, “I said, you are gods,” which is quoted by Jesus in John 10:34. This verse has commonly been interpreted (by trinitarians as well as antitrinitarians, though with different conclusions drawn) to be calling Isra­elite judges “gods” by virtue of their honorable office of representing God to the people in judgment. Assuming this interpretation to be correct, the verse would not then be saying that judges really are gods in the sense of “mighty ones.” Rather, it would simply be saying that as judges in Israel they represented God. This representative sense of “gods” would then have to be distinguished from a qualita­tive sense, in which creatures are called “gods” as a description of the kind of beings they are.

There are good reasons, however, to think that the Isra­elite judges are being called “gods” not to honor them but to expose them as false gods. This may be seen best by a close reading of the entire psalm.

In Psalm 82:1 Jehovah God is spoken of by the psalmist in the third person: “God takes His stand… He judges…” (NAss). The psalmist says, “God [elohimi takes his stand in the assembly of God [el]; he judges in the midst of the gods [elohimr (my translation). Here we are confronted with two elohim: God, and the judges, called by the psalmist “gods.”

In verses 2-5 God’s judgment against the Israelite judges is pronounced. They are unjust, show partiality to the wicked, allow the wicked to abuse the poor and helpless, and by their unjust judgment are destroying the founda­tions of life on earth.

Then in verse 6 we read, “I said, ‘You are gods….‘” This is a reference back to the psalmist’s calling the judges “gods” in verse 1: “…He judges in the midst of the gods.” The succeeding lines make clear that although the psalmist referred to the wicked judges as “gods,” they were not really gods at all and proved themselves not up to the task of being gods. This is made clear in two ways.

First, the second line of verse 6 adds, “And all of you are sons of the Most High.” What can this mean? The similar expression “sons of God” is used in the Old Testament only of angels (Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1), unless one interprets Genesis 6:1-4 to be speaking of a godly line of men. The Israelite judges were neither angels nor godly men. Hosea 1:10 speaks prophetically of Gentiles becoming “sons of the living God,” but this has reference to Gentiles becoming Christians and thus adopted children of God (Rom. 9:26). The judges were not Christians, either. The easiest, if not only, explanation is that they are called “sons of the Most High” in irony. That is, the psalmist calls them “sons of the Most High” not because they really were, but because they thought of themselves as such, and to show up that attitude as ridiculous (see a similar use of irony by Paul in 1 Cor. 4:8). If this is correct, it would imply that they were also called “gods” in irony. Thus the thought would be that these human judges thought of themselves as gods, immortal beings with the power of life and death.

The next lines, in Psalm 82:7, confirm such an inter­pretation: the judges are told that they are ordinary men who will die. The clear implication is that though they seemed to rule over the life and death of their fellow Isra­elites, they were no more gods than anyone else, because—like even the greatest of men—they will die.

Then, in verse 8, the psalmist addresses God in the sec­ond person, “Arise, 0 God, judge the earth!…” (NASB). In other words, the judges have proved themselves to be false gods; now let the true God come and judge the world in righteousness.

This way of reading Psalm 82 does not conflict with or undermine Christ’s argument in John 10:34-36. When he says, “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came…” (John 10:35 NASB), nothing in the text demands that the “gods” be anything but false gods. Jesus’ argu­ment may be paraphrased and expanded as follows:

Is it not written in the Law which you call your own, “I said, `You are gods”? The psalmist, whom you regard as one of your own, and yourselves as worthy successors to him, called those wicked judges, against whom the word of God came in judgment, “gods.” And yet the Scripture cannot be broken; it must have some fulfillment. Therefore these worthless judges must have been called “gods” for a reason, to point to some worthy human judge who is rightly called God. Now the Father has witnessed to my holy calling and sent me into the world to fulfill everything he has purposed. That being so, how can you, who claim to follow in the tradition of the psalmist, possibly be justified in rejecting the fulfillment of his words by accusing me of blasphemy for calling myself the Son of God? How can you escape being associated with those wicked judges who judged unjustly by your unjust judgment of me?

By this interpretation, Jesus is saying that what the Isra­elite judges were called in irony and condemnation, he is in reality and in holiness; he does what they could not do and is what they could not be. This kind of positive fulfillment in Christ contrasted with a human failure in the Old Testa­ment occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, notably the contrast between the sinner Adam and the righteous Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45).

To summarize, the judges called “gods” in Psalm 82 could not have been really gods, because the Bible denies that mighty or authoritative men are gods. If they are called “gods” in a positive sense, it is strictly a figurative expres­sion for their standing in God’s place in judging his people. But more likely they are called “gods” in irony, to expose them as wicked judges who were completely inadequate to the task of exercising divine judgment. However one inter­prets Psalm 82, then, there is no basis for teaching that there are creatures who may be described qualitatively as gods.

We conclude, then, that the biblical statements that there is only one God are not contradicted or modified one bit by the prooftexts cited by JWs to prove that creatures may be honored as gods. There is one Creator, and all else is created; one Eternal, and all else temporal; one Sovereign Lord, and all else undeserving servants; one God, and all else worshipers. Anything else is a denial of biblical monotheism.

Robert M. Bowman, Why You Should Believe In The Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 49-58.

Two SCRIBD Papers

A Letter I Wrote A Co-Worker by Papa Giorgio

Apologetics – Trinity Defined by Papa Giorgio

Does the Bible Advocate For “Open Borders”?

Published by Papa Giorgio

This was from a Facebook post from a friends wall… I wanted to add this verse to a discussion I had from 2018 when Santa Clarita was discussing becoming a “sanctuary city”

This post should be read as a companion to the above, older post.

I will post the “meme” making a point about Leviticus… which the WASHINGTON TIMES (June 24, 2018) responds to well. Even their headline: “Suddenly, the left loves Leviticus“ Funny, they reject the edicts against the gay lifestyle in Leviticus but accept what they want.

Here is the “meme”

Great article by Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, at the Washington Times:

This week in the news: All of the sudden, the mainstream media, Hollywood, the liberal church, and other members of our national intelligentsia seem to care about what the Bible says. In particular, they appear to have suddenly acquired some affection for the Old Testament — a book that, heretofore, these proud members of the “smarter-than-thou” club have excoriated as laden with “hate-filled rhetoric.”

More to the point: These newly minted defenders of biblical orthodoxy seem to have all of the sudden fallen in love with the third book of the Jewish Torah (otherwise known as the Pentateuch); a book referred to in the Bible as Leviticus.

One of the passages quoted over and over again in recent days has been that of Leviticus 19: 33-34, “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

As a Wesleyan university president and as a Christian, I am always thrilled when anyone wants to discuss scripture. But let us first be sure we are taking every measure to be historically, theologically, logically, linguistically and hermeneutically accurate in our efforts. I hope we can all agree that any exegesis to the contrary, any misusing and misapplying the Bible for political gain, is a detestable and damnable practice.

Old Testament scholar and Wheaton College Professor James Hoffmeier is a person who actually lived as an alien in the Middle East growing up. His family had to flee Egypt because of the 1967 war. For nearly two months, they lived in tents at a mountain camp in Cyprus. Not only does Mr. Hoffmeier know his Bible, he knows what it is like to be the “stranger” in a foreign land.

It is fair to say that he is not insensitive to plight of immigrants. Please read carefully what Mr. Hoffmeier has to say about the Levitical directive to care for the “stranger” in our midst:

“What I learned in my study is that there are three relevant terms used in Hebrew [for the word ‘stranger’] (ger, zar, nekhar). [Some translators] render them all as [simply] ‘foreigner.’ That is misleading and incorrect.

“Zar and nekhar, indeed, refer to foreigners or visitors passing through a foreign land. [But], Ger refer[s] to foreign residents who live in another land with the permission of a host The law is clear that ger is not to be oppressed but they were also obligated to live in accordance with the laws just like the Israelites.”

Mr. Hoffmeier goes further:

“The Law does not, however, extend to the zar and nekhar such [protections], benefits and services. From this I conclude that ger was viewed as a legal alien. The mistake of some well-meaning Christians is to apply the biblical laws for the ger to illegal aliens in America even though they do not fit the biblical legal and social definition.”

Mr. Hoffmeier concludes:

“The Old Testament Law is very clear about the practice of sanctuary The purpose of sanctuary was not to avoid the law or one’s sentence, but to get a fair trial So, when American[s] offer their cities as sanctuary from federal law, or when churches offer their facilities as a refuge for illegal immigrants who have been tried and order deported, they are neither following the letter or spirit of the Old Testament law.”

The biblical narrative is not one without borders. Just read the book of Nehemiah — it is a story about rebuilding a wall. Boundaries have existed throughout antiquity. Yes, Abraham was a sojourner who crossed borders, but he sought approval in order to do so and such permission was granted contingent upon his agreement to honor and obey the laws of the country of his desired residence.

Yes, Egypt and Israel alike allowed “strangers” to travel in their countries, but they never stopped defending their own sovereignty and territorial integrity. Bottom line: Abraham was an alien who sought permission before entering Egypt and there is no indication that, centuries later, Mary and Joseph did anything different as they crossed the same boundaries with the baby Jesus.

A quote this week from a Facebook friend named Nancy is perhaps the best response of any to those suddenly infatuated with Leviticus:

“Manipulating the definition of words is one of the hallmarks of genius propaganda. Take a sliver of truth and use misquotes or quotes out of context Ignore history and facts. Get all the people who read the first few sentences of an article all worked up and sit back and smirk at the mayhem Could [this] all be a giant power play at the expense of the children who are apparently just pawns in this game?”

Amen, Nancy. Amen.

Here are some quick takes as well:

19:33 The “foreigner” (Hb. ger) in the Bible was most often a foreign merchant, craftsman, or mercenary soldier. This term never refers to the prior inhabitants of the land. Generous actions to foreigners were motivated by the memory of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (Ex 23:9; Dt 5:14–15).

Ted Cabal et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 182.

Do him wrong: the verb may be translated “mistreat,” “oppress,” “exploit,” or “take unfair advantage of.” In this context there seems to be the idea of a person in a position of power taking unfair advantage of one who is weak.

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 299.

Vers. 33, 34. Lange: “Humanity towards the stranger, who is not a Jew, who thus certainly might dwell as a private man in the future inheritance of Israel. He was to be treated exactly as an inhabitant in human intercourse. Thou shalt love him as thyself.—With this the remembrance is still preserved that the Israelites had been strangers in the land of Egypt.” The royal law of ver. 18 is here expressly extended to the stranger, and notwithstanding the national narrowness necessary to preserve the true religion in the world, the general brotherhood of mankind is hereby taught as far as was possible under the circumstances.

John Peter Lange, Philip Schaff, and Frederic Gardiner, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Leviticus (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 152.

Here is a good short video via GOT QUESTIONS regarding illegal immigration:

  • What does the Bible say about illegal immigration? How should Christians view illegal immigrants?

And here is a good post over at CULTURE WATCH:

….I want to focus on the Hebrew terminology used in the Leviticus passage (and in others). One expert that is worth being aware of is Old Testament professor James Hoffmeier. He has written a very important and incisive volume on these matters called The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible (Crossway, 2009).

I have quoted from him before, as in this piece: CHRISTIANS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

In pages 48-52 of his book he has a section called “What is an alien according to the Bible?” It is a very important discussion indeed. However, for those who cannot get hold of his excellent book, he did an article-length discussion of these particular matters in 2011 called “The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Immigration Debate”.

Since the material in the article is fairly similar to what is found in his book, let me make use of the article here. He opens his piece with these words:

Secularists and liberals, both political and religious, are typically loath to consult the Bible when it comes to matters of public policy. So it is somewhat surprising that in the current debate about the status of illegal immigrants, the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible is regularly cited in defense of the illegal. Debra Haffner, a Unitarian Universalist minister — a denomination not known for taking Scripture seriously — offered a recent critique of the Arizona illegal immigration law in the Washington Post online (May 25, 2010), saying “It’s as if the 70 percent of Arizonans who support the law have forgotten the Biblical injunction to ‘love the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.’” This verse and others like it are frequently quoted in the name of “justice” for the illegal immigrant. A left-wing Christian advocacy group Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which is affiliated with Sojourners, had this passage on its website: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the stranger. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you.” (Leviticus 19:33)

But the main point is how the biblical writers use certain specific terms when they seek to make specific points – something that can get easily lost however in some English translations. So let me quote this important part of his article:

What about the “stranger” or “alien”? The Bible is not “a living breathing document” that can mean whatever you want it to say. This question must be answered contextually and based on what the key words meant when they were written before we apply what that might mean in our own times. The most significant Hebrew word for our discussion is ger, translated variously in English versions, which creates some confusion, as “stranger” (KJV, NASB, JB), “sojourner” (RSV, ESV), “alien” (NEB, NIV, NJB, NRSV), and “foreigner” (TNIV, NLT). It occurs more than 80 times as a noun and an equal number as a verb (gwr), which typically means “to sojourn” or “live as an alien.” The problem with more recent English translations (e.g. TNIV and NLT) is that they use “foreigner” for ger, which is imprecise and misleading because there are other Hebrew terms for “foreigner,” namely nekhar and zar. The distinction between these two terms and ger is that while all three are foreigners who might enter another country, the ger had obtained legal status.

There are several episodes in the Bible that illustrate how a foreigner became a ger. The individual or party had to receive permission from the appropriate authority in that particular culture. Perhaps the best-known story has to do with the Children of Israel entering Egypt. In the book of Genesis, we are told of how during a time of famine in Canaan, the sons of Jacob did the natural thing under the circumstances — go to Egypt where the Nile kept the land fertile. Even though their brother Joseph was a high-ranking official who had recommended to Pharaoh that they be allowed to settle in the northeast delta of Egypt, they felt compelled to ask Pharaoh for permission:

He looks at Genesis 47:3-6, and then discusses a few other passages. He then says this:

From the foregoing texts we can conclude that in the ancient biblical world, countries had borders that were protected and respected, and that foreigners who wanted to reside in another country had to obtain some sort of permission in order to be considered an alien with certain rights and privileges. The delineation between the “alien” or “stranger” (ger) and the foreigner (nekhar or zar) in biblical law is stark indeed. The ger in Israelite society, for instance, could receive social benefits such as the right to glean in the fields (Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 24:19-22) and they could receive resources from the tithes (Deuteronomy 26:12-13). In legal matters, “there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:15-16). In the area of employment, the ger and citizen were to be paid alike (Deuteronomy 24:14-15). In all these cases, no such provision is extended to the nekhar or zar. In a sense, the ger were not just aliens to whom social and legal protections were offered, but were also considered converts, and thus could participate in the religious life of the community, e.g. celebrate Passover (Exodus 12:13) and observe Yom Kippur, the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:29-30). They were, moreover, expected to keep dietary and holiness laws (Leviticus 17:8-9 & 10-12). It is well known that within Israelite society, money was not to be lent with interest, but one could loan at interest to a foreigner (nekhar). These passages from the Law make plain that aliens or strangers received all the benefits and protection of a citizen, whereas the foreigner (nekhar) did not. It is wrong, therefore, to confuse these two categories of foreigners and then to use passages regarding the ger as if they were relevant to illegal immigrants of today. cis.org/Report/Use-and-Abuse-Bible-Immigration-Debate

I could quote from various critical commentaries on Leviticus and other OT books to further make these distinctions with the Hebrew terminology, but hopefully you get the point. Simply ripping a text out of its context – especially while ignoring important grammatical and linguistic nuances – is not how a political point should be made by believers.

As both Hoffmeier and I have often said, yes, having a compassionate response to the needy, including genuine refugees, is one thing. But misusing texts to push for radical open border policies, and to call to ‘tear down the wall’ is not how the biblical Christian should proceed.

In another excellent (and long) article at BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY, the conclusion sums up the MUST READ article well:

The basic message we get from this study is that there are two basic kinds of immigrants in Scripture: the ger who, though not natives of a nation, have all the rights and privileges of the native citizens; and the nokriy, who have a second-class status because they are unwilling to take the steps the fully privileged immigrants were.

In addition, it is clear that a great majority of the passages dealing with the ger are of a prescriptive nature, being based on explicit instructions from God. It is thus safe to view them as being of enduring pertinence for basing policy decisions on.

Regarding those termed the nokriy, it is clear that although they, like the ger, have crossed a country’s border, they are distinct and separate from the ger in terms of the rights and privileges they are granted. That they are not mentioned in many passages where the rights of the ger are clearly delineated strongly implies that, in God’s sight, they do not warrant receiving these privileges.

This study thus offers biblical support-i.e., God’s sanction-for policies which preferentially give immigrants who show a willingness to do what it takes to integrate into and fully participate in the life of a society, rights and privileges which do not accrue to those who do not. The claim that it is unjust or unloving to withhold any privileges from those unwilling to do certain things appears to be a gross misapplication of ‘social justice.’ The Apostle Paul said, ‘For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat’ (2 Thess. 3:10). This principle can easily be seen to apply to immigration issues. Privileges come to those who do what it takes to warrant them, a truism that applies to a biblical perspective on immigration as well as to so many other things in life. And it should be added that, since the Church is to obey the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-8), Christians should not be advocating people from foreign nations to break laws when they attempt to cross into another country. We who claim to be the Lord’s children have an obligation not only to follow His principles ourselves, but to encourage others to do the same. Since the loving God we serve is not wishy-washy but has definite opinions about how we should live, we should make every effort to line up our opinions and policies with His.

My Debate With A Sikh (Imported From My Old Blog)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This was originally posted in January of 2009 on my old blog. The debate took place in August of 2007. I am combining my parts ONE and TWO as Blogspot [at the time] had a cut off on the length of the post.

PART ONE:

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

What a wonderful Hadith verse… however, if you accept that, you should also accept this:

Hadith from Bukhari, vol. 7, # 715, that details Islamic wife beating:

“Narrated Ikrima: ‘Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.” Allah’s messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.””

Also, book 009, Number 3512, 3526, and 3527 show that beating your wife is legal.

Sahih Muslim #2127:

…When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…

Muhammad even beat women. When Peter struck the ear of the Roman Guard, Jesus healed it. Muhammad hit women and even was involved – personally – with the slitting of 900 throats. There are pictures of Jesus with children all around him, even telling his disciples they should be like them. There are no such renderings of Muhammad.

Muhammad personally murdered. He personally beat women. And he slept with very, very young girls and had many more wives than “Allah” would allow.

The Quran clearly states that Muhammad was a sinner (his own words), and that Jesus was sinless. Is Muhammad really the superior “prophet” to look to? Especially in light of Jesus clearly stating himself to be the creator of the space-time continuum… e.g., Jesus created and sustains the cosmos.

GODSDOG SAID…

hi Papa,

i would caution in putting full faith in all of the hadiths as many are of questionable source and interpretation for a muslim, only the koran is the revealed scripture, the hadiths are creations of man

i agree that much of the misogny and violence coming out of islam is due to emphasizing the hadiths over the koran also, i could reference interpretations that show muhammed to be the kindest and most gentle of men, but since he was commissioned by god (as many of the jewish prophets), we must be careful in judging based on third parties and hearsay i am a sikh, i earnestly try to show respect for all the spiritual traditions of the world

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Beating of the wife, a call to murder (“prescriptive,” whereas the passages in the Bible are histories, or “descriptive”), the relegation of non-Muslims to Dhimmitude (second-class citizens), and the fact that Muhammad is called a sinner in the Quran and Jesus is called sinless, are all in line with the Hadith.

Also, that caution against the Hadith, then, would caution me when others use quotes from it, either negative or positive. (Like your post.)

All this still does not change the fact that verses ascribed to a Jin were removed, nor does it deal with the historical fact that Muhammad slit the throats of young boys and men as well as other murderous acts in history. His marrying a 9-year old is another issue.

Jesus ministry stands in stark contrast to Muhammad’s, Godsdog.

GODSDOG SAID…

papa,

you are entitled to your view and i certainly cannot change it

please understand i am not comparing or contrasting jesus and muhammed…that is not the purpose of this blog

i have great love for the christ as well as the deepest respect for muhammed(pbuh), the sikh gurus hold a special place in my heart

as a sikh, i feel the lord in his infinite mercy has revealed to different people (even today) different paths to him

personally, i feel the best and easiest way is to humbly submit to the lord in your heart…this truth is indisputable and is verified by the bible…by the koran…by the torah…by the vedas…and by guru granth sahib

anger at and disrespect of other religions and their founders is an obstacle which must be removed from the path if one truly wishes to see clearly

there is truly only one judge

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Unfortunately, Godsdog, using the rules of logic (non-contradiction and excluded middle), your saying many paths lead to one is easily proven unwarranted by the mutually exclusive claims between these religions. Your main problem is when you say this: “as a sikh, i feel the lord in his infinite mercy has revealed to different people (even today) different paths to him.” This goes against Judaic thinking, Christian thinking, and Islamic thinking. You are here judging these religions are wrong and your opinion about them is right, and thus, I am wrong. You are self-refuting your claims in your post above.

One author put it this way:

I feel it a duty to bear my solemn testimony against the spirit of the day we live in, to warn men against its infection. It is not Atheism I fear so much, in the present times, as Pantheism. It is not the system which says nothing is true, so much as the system which says everything is true. It is not the system which says there is no Saviour, so much as the system which says there are many saviours, and many ways to peace! – It is the system which is so liberal, that it dares not say anything is false. It is the system which is so charitable, that it will allow everything to be true. It is the system which seems ready to honour others as well as our Lord Jesus Christ, to class them all together, and to think well of all. Confucius and Zoroaster, Socrates and Mahomet, the Indian Brahmins and the African devil-worshippers, Arius and Pelagius, Ignatius Loyola and Socinus – all are to be treated respectfully; none is to be condemned. It is the system which bids us smile complacently on all creeds and systems of religion. The Bible and the Koran, the Hindu Vedas and the Persian Zendavesta, the old wives’ fables of Rabbinical writers and the rubbish of Patristic traditions, the Racovian catechism and the Thirty-nine Articles, the revelations of Emanuel Swedenborg and the Book of Mormon of Joseph Smith – all, all are to be listened to: None is to be denounced as lies. It is the system which is so scrupulous about the feelings of others, that we are never to say they are wrong. It is the system which is so liberal that it calls a man a bigot, if he dares to say, “I know my views are right.” This is the system, this is the tone of feeling which I fear in this day, and this is the system which I desire emphatically to testify against and denounce.

Another author said:

The Achilles’ heel of the claim that all paths lead to the same destination is the problem of internal consistency. Each religious tradition makeqs truth-claims which contradict the truth-claims of other religious traditions. We will briefly examine three areas of disagreement.

(1.) The first area of contradiction regards the nature of the ultimate reality (such as God). One discovers there is a vast chasm between monotheistic religions (such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam), and pantheistic religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism). Muslims claim that there is only one God, Allah, who created the universe from nothing. Some Hindus, on the other hand, believe not in a personal creator, but in Brahman, an impersonal absolute reality which permeates all things. Other Hindus believe that there are millions of deities (such as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Krishna) which are manifestations of Brahman.

(2.) A second area of contradiction relates to the fate of individuals at death. According to Islam, each of us will die once and then face judgement by Allah. Depending on Allah’s judgement we will spend eternity in heaven or hell. In contrast, many Hindus claim that we will live (and have already lived) many lives on earth. Hindus believe that the conditions of our past and future existence are determined by the cosmic laws of karma. Following death each of us is reincarnated into a different form (human, animal, etc.).

(3.) Each religious tradition also identifies a universal problem that afflicts humanity. This brings us to a third area of disagreement. Hindus, for example, claim that the universal problem is samsara. Samsara is an endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth (reincarnation) in which every person is trapped. Only through knowledge of one’s relationship to Brahman and religious devotion can this cycle be broken and moksha (release) experienced. Christianity, on the other hand, maintains that the universal problem facing every person is separation from the God. According to Christianity, each person has rebelled against God by violating his commands (what the Bible calls sin). Christianity insists that there is no human solution to this problem. Only through a relationship with Jesus Christ can this problem of separation from God be overcome. Christians believe that Jesus Christ paid our sin-penalty through his death on the cross in order that our relationship with God might be restored.

These conflicting claims about the nature of the Ultimate, the fate of individuals at death, as well as the universal problem facing humanity are only a few of the conflicting assertions made by different religious traditions. These conflicts render implausible the claim that “all paths lead to the same destination.” Perhaps the following will help illustrate why this is the case. Consider the following two statements:

—– Northwestern University won the Big Ten championship in football in 1995.
—– Northwestern University did not win the Big Ten championship in football in 1995.

It is obvious that both of the these statements cannot be correct at the same time. This self-evident truth is often referred to as the principle of “non-contradiction.” This principle has a significant implication for our investigation. Two contradictory assertions cannot both be correct. Thus, if two religions make truth-claims which contradict each other, they cannot both be right. For example, when Hindus claim that there are many Gods and Jews claim that there in only one God, one of them must be wrong . In addition, when Muslims claim that each person lives only once and then faces judgement and Hindus claim that each person lives many lives determined by the law of Karma, one of them must be wrong.

GODSDOG SAID…

thanks papa,

well reasoned and logical,

you are right and i am wrong

i will end with this…true god realization is not a function of reason or logic…it is primarily, perhaps only, a function of love and humility

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

All I am pointing out is the following Godsdog:

“All truth is relative!” (Is that a relative truth?); “There are no absolutes!” (Are you absolutely sure?); “Its true for you but not for me!” (Is that statement true just for you, or is it for everyone?) In short, contrary beliefs are possible, but contrary truths are not possible.

It isn’t that I say you are right or wrong, it is that Logic is a universal law, like math is. When the Hindu says that nothing exists and that all is an illusion, but then builds a house using geometry, math, physics, and the like, he is throwing his own philosophy to the wayside and accepting the Theistic philosophy… whether he realizes it or not.

In fact, these laws are so universal that one cannot refute the Law of Contradiction without using it (thus undermining his purpose).

Jesus spoke differently than any other founder of a religion. I have already pointed out that the Quran speaks of this difference by calling Muhammad a sinner (Sura 40:55) but saying Jesus was sinless (Sura 3:46).

One author puts it thus:

I want to leave the reader with this thought by Robert Hume. In his book, The World’s Living Religions, he comments that there are three features of Christian faith that “cannot be paralleled anywhere among the religions of the world” [I can add here, the cults either]. These include the character of God as a loving Heavenly Father, the character of the founder of Christianity as the Son of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Further, he says:

“All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion” (p.285-286).

Jesus said He was God Almighty, not a way or a path. Jesus said He was the Way, the Path, the Light. He said He was the Creator of the space-time-continuum, and the Jews tried to stone him for saying it. (See John 8:58-59 for one example of the many.) You give lip service to Jesus, but do not give his own words credence.

Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, and all the guru’s and religious leaders who have misled the masses since have not all made the claim in such Theistic terms that they are the creator of life itself. Only Jesus.

I didn’t say it, nor did I infer it. Much like the laws of logic are separate truths unto themselves. So to are Jesus’ words.

In order to change their plain meaning one has to “add” something to them, another text or person’s opinion (like the Book of Mormon or Nanak’s interpretation). Remember, Jesus said that all those who came before him (Buddha, Confucius, and the like) were liars. I didn’t say it. Jesus did.

GODSDOG SAID…

sura 3:46 (of jesus)
[3:46] “He will speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult; he will be one of the righteous.”

<<>>

in sura 3:51, jesus says:
[3:51] “GOD is my Lord and your Lord; you shall worship Him alone. This is the right path.”

<<>>

sura 3:55
3:55 (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.

brother…let us agree to let the one lord god be the judge

amen

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Who are the others that are righteous? Jesus said in John 7:24 for us to “judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

In Matthew 7:16a, Jesus says we will “know them by their fruits…”, this knowing requires judgment Godsdog. Religious pluralism. Like you posit, cannot know their fruits. I use what we know about the fruits of both Islam and Muhammad to judge that they are doctrines of death. Can you name one Islamic country where the Quran is law where a person is not killed for converting from Islam to Christianity? I know them by their fruits Godsdog.

1 Timothy 5:20 tells us to “rebuke” the sin of someone before other people. In order to rebuke someones sin we must judge that someone’s conduct.

In Luke 12:51, Jesus says that he brings division, not peace. This division is the fact that he claims to be our Creator, not the messenger for the Creator. This “absolute” divides people, such as ourselves Godsdog. (Have you read the Bible? I am curious, many who do not understand Jesus have not read the New Testament the whole way through. Have you?)

II Timothy 4:2 tells us that the word is for “reproving, rebuking, and exhorting, with all long suffering, and doctrine.” Doctrine is what I am talking about here.

And, Godsdog, do you discount Jesus calling Himself God? And if so, on what basis, or why. Is it that you feel the Scriptures have been changed? Is it that you do not realize whom and to what culture Jesus was speaking to? Is it because you have been told repeatedly by people who themselves haven’t read the Bible that Jesus isn’t who he said he was?

GODSDOG SAID…

papa,

i have read the bible (once cover to cover and still randomly read passages from it)

i guess, my understanding of it is a bit different than mainstream christians

was jesus god? yes

was he the one and only son of god? not in my understanding

when one become perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, the lord brings one so close to himself that there remains no distinction

the ability to become one with god is a wonderful gift given to the human soul, not even the angels have been bestowed this gift

al-hallaj also said “i am the truth” and was duly tortured and killed, many saints have realized the same reality

take care in the distance you assume between yourself and the lord…he is closer to you then your very breath and heartbeat

in the true name of the victorious

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

When you see the Bible (specifically the New Testament) speak of the “Son of God,” you cannot interpret that with a 21st century meaning. You have to understand what that phrase meant to the 1st century Jew.

Al-hallaj may have said he was truth, but Jesus is the only one to prove that He was God Almighty (raising Himself from the grave)… again, the Creator of space and time. Al-hallaj is not the Creator of the space-time continuum. In other words, Jesus claimed to be God, not part of creation, but the progenitor of it. This is the clear understanding of Jesus’ words in light of the 1st century Jew.

I think this should wrap up this conversation. I will pop in here and there to discuss these important issues… but I must congratulate you for having more nerve than most to stay in the conversation and debate/discuss such issues. This is more than many others do. Even if you didn’t deal with the main topic, that is, who Jesus said He was, not who I or you say He is.

God Bless, Godsdog.

PART TWO:

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Do Sikhs believe in reincarnation?

GODSDOG SAID…

yes, sikhs believe in reincarnation

krishna, buddha, muhammed, nanak and all the perfected ones took innumerable bodily incarnations until they realized the one lord and attained to his infinite presence

accordingly, these perfect souls at times choose to take additional bodily incarnations in order to teach and set an example to their brethren

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Thanks,

You should consider reading my blogs on this:

By-the-by. You have just judged the Holy Scripture of Christians and Muslims. Why? Because they reject pantheism as a worldview. I am merely pointing this out because you seem to not want people to “judge,” yet you just did by saying one position is true which by logic says other positions are wrong.

GODSDOG SAID…

hi papa,

i look forward to reading your blog and will get back to you

btw, i am not “judging” the bible or the koran, simply stating my understanding of reincarnation as it applies to the prophets and saints of the world religions

whats all this in the bible about john being elijah come again?

as you know, belief in reincarnation was tolerated if not explicitly accepted by the early christian church until the nicene council

as for the koran:

“And you were dead, and He brought you back to life. And He shall cause you to die, and shall bring you back to life, and in the end shall gather you unto Himself.” (2:28).

cheers

[….]

papa,

i’ve read over the two links you listed and you make some very good points

now i’ll refrain from going point-counter point with you as we will be here for weeks…g

btw, i am not a pantheist and neither is sikhism…my posts here are my beliefs and understanding,

i’ve never intimated that mine is the only truth…but you have

so be it

cheers

[….]

papa,

question for you, if “jesus” is the only way to salvation and the lord wants us to realize this, why isn’t everyone born into a christian family? its not fair that some are born muslims or sikhs or hindus or buddhists and not able to hear christs message without bias…why is the heavenly father so unfair that he handicaps billions in the search for truth?

if there is only one way, why so many different types of flowers, trees, dogs etc., one kind of each would be sufficient, no?

cheers

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Godsdog,

Engaging as always I see. That’s a good thing. I want to tackle two quick things that if you wish we can talk about later. First, reincarnation is impossible outside of the pantheistic (or panantheistic) worldviews. I have studied comparative religious thought for about 20-years, and I can emphatically state that monotheism or atheism do not allow for the regression of the soul. That’s one, not two. Reincarnation was not accepted in the Christian community until Nicea. I have likewise studied the early church for almost as long as comparative religions… and I can likewise – emphatically state – that this is not the case. Usually people who believe this also believe the Bible was put together at Nicea, Jesus was elevated to God-Almighty, and the like. I would love to discuss these things more with you in the near future if you wish. However, since I love Scripture, we will start here… sorta.

Before we get into the Scripture you mentioned, and oft repeated one in New Age and Eastern thinking, I want to get some ground rules going, and these ground rules are exegesis and hermeneutics (I will post them on my site under “Science of Interpretation” – you should read it before going further). These rules have been around for 2,500-years. You should become acquainted with them as they will make your studying more fruitful. Okay, the Bible… what fun!

Matthew 17:12: (Jesus Words) “But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did do to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.”

John and Elijah did not have the same being — they had the same function. Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was literally Elijah, but simply that he came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).

Secondly, Jesus’ disciples understood that he was speaking about John the Baptist, since Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:10-13). Since John had already lived and died by then, and since Elijah still had the same name and consciousness, Elijah had obviously not been reincarnated as John the Baptist.

Thirdly, Elijah does not fit the reincarnation model, for he did not die. He was taken to heaven like Enoch who did not see death (2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5). According to traditional reincarnation, one must first die before he can be reincarnated into another body.

And finally, this passage should be understood in the light of the clear teaching of Scripture opposing reincarnation. Hebrews 9:27, for example declares, “It is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment” (John 9:2).

So, we have Scripture clearly stating that John the Baptist came in the “spirit and power”. Saying that when I send a lawyer to court to sign papers for me, he is going in my spirit and power is not saying the lawyer is me. Same concept. Also the Bible clearly mentions that we die once. These two verses define the limits of the other verse you quoted from. The Bible interprets the Bible Godsdog.

Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

Rule of Usage.
Don’t add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period
when the passage was written?

Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

Rule of Historical background.
Don’t separate interpretation and historical investigation.

Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.

Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

GODSDOG SAID…

papa,

thanks for the reply,

reincarnation is not a make or break issue for me personally, i don’t care if i’ve haven’t “lived” before or if i have to “come back” as long as i don’t forget the one lord

reincarnation does, however, make intuitive sense to me

although there are numerous references to reincarnation in sri guru granth sahib, sggs also states that this human body is extremely difficult to obtain and there is no guarantee when one will obtain one again

so we need to cherish this human life and follow the lords call to faith and righteousness and not assume we have innumerable human lives ahead of us to make amends

i feel there is a last day of judgement (as stated in the bible and koran) when this current cycle of the lords play comes to an end

on that day, if i am consigned to hell due to my beliefs or statements…so be it…i ask only that i do not forget the one…if this wish is granted, hell will be a paradise for me

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

Okay Godsdog, track with me buddy… focus like a laser beam. The Quran and the Bible are theistic books. They have in mind a being that created even time itself.

Here, maybe that didn’t help, let me try this. The Biblical view of God and His action in the world and final judgment is neither that of Kismet, the fatalism of Islam, nor that of Karma, the deterministic cause-and-effect of Hinduism and Buddhism. The human actors always behave as if free in their choices and therefore responsible for them.

If you read that small paragraph above, you will see that reincarnation cannot stem from theism, and even within theism there are theological differences that preclude Allah (in Islamic thought) from even caring enough to Judge righteously.

So to the first point. The theistic God has personality, He grieves, feels pains when people decide to reject Him, and is even angered. The God that Sikhs and Buddhist, Taoists, Hindu’s and others speak of is merely a force. This God did not create the “time/space continuum,” but matter and the universe are eternal like this “Mind” is eternal. (There are deep philosophical problem to an actual infinite regress of events in history, but this is a discussion for another day.) Reincarnation, in fact, can only run in a pantheistic worldview.

And since we know that both the theistic God who is personal and creative cannot exist at the same time as a “Force” who is impersonal and not creative (even using “who” for this pantheistic “god” is wrong), then either there is judgment or there is not. Logically then, both gods (the pantheistic one and the theistic one) could both not exist, making atheism the answer. But in pantheistic thinking this “Force” has always “existed” alongside matter, or, nature. This then makes this “Force” susceptible to nature’s influences and laws. The Judeo-Christian specifically created nature and therefore nature’s laws. So He is above these laws and not subject to them in any way, shape, or form. (I might add that the laws of logic and order come out of God’s nature of Being.) The “Force” of reincarnation is subject to nature and human actions.

This conversation shouldn’t be about debate; this one should be about clarity of thought. I want you to walk away from this conversation learning new truths that you may not have considered in the past. Our world puts limitations on us — in that one cannot disavow logical applications of thought about certain issues. And reincarnation and pantheism are at odds with your personal talk of judgment and a God who is active and cares and is angered. Both concepts cannot be true, and if this is what Sikhs believe — that both concepts are true — then you can surmise on your own if this belief is true or not. It is not my opinion or yours… you can reason to the logical conclusion using principles outside of yourself that both you and I can tap into.

GODSDOG SAID…

thanks papa,

very impressed with your theological knowledge and thought processes

i would humbly submit, however, that you do not truly understand sikhism

the waheguru of sikhism is not a “force”, it is a personality and the timeless supreme being (akal purakh)

please read some of sukhmani sahib to at least get a better understanding of sikhism and its expounding of the one without a second, the most high lord

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

I do not truly understand… like I do not truly understand the “prophet” of Allah, Muhammad.

I will read what you mentioned.

[….]

Realize Godsdog that Hindus teach that there is a “Mind” that is timeless. But this “Mind” is impersonal, and that all “personalities” are an illusion because this eternal “Mind” is not personal. In fact, this is why pantheists – those who believe in reincarnation – try to rise above personality by altered states of consciousness, as well as other techniques (some completely stop talking and engaging with loved ones – like in Tibet and in India for example).

Absorption into this “Mind” seems to be the goal of Eastern philosophy. They lose “themselves” in the infinite Mass/Mind… there is no “me” or “you” in Eastern thought. …

… …

Which, if true and believed by you, you are one mind arguing with another mind (mine) that no minds like ours exist. That is self-refuting. But, I will look into this even more. But I have read Nanak and others and feel I have a decent grasp on your philosophy, with areas that I need to grow in knowledge in of course.

GODSDOG SAID…

hi papa,

long time, no chat huh?

these are very subtle points you are bringing up

the drop merging in the ocean (becoming one with god) and other such metaphors are applicable to some extent

the impersonal Mind you refer to is the classic advaita vedanta, where the impersonal brahman is elevated beyond and is considered higher than the personal ishwara or lord

in sikh philosophy there are two simultaneous aspects of the one lord

nirgun – without attributes
sargun – with attributes

one aspect is not greater than the other, the lord is both simultaneously

if your question is does our individual personality remain after merging with the one lord…i believe it does, it is the ego (sense of separateness) that is lost

cheers

PAPA GIORGIO SAID…

A couple things, I just put two videos up on my site that I think you will enjoy watching… I just found them but they are similar in discussion matter.

and, I have a site that I think you would benefit from (I have read every article on this site… good stuff. Especially for the seeker), it is:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

 OF THE MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS

FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

THE END

Caller: Roe v Wade at His Synagogue (Dennis Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

A caller notes his experience the day after the Supreme Court announced their Federalist ruling at his synagogue. Dennis Prager makes a great argument from our [pro-life] point of view. I have used a similar “extreme” example to counter the Left’s extreme examples, but a “well-ta-do” family with the means to care and raise the child is a good one as well… uses the Left’s argument of “poor” persons with no means of caring for said child and turning the argument around on them.

This is the quote I always use:

  • “If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”

Dale A. Berryhill, The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals (Lafayette, LA: Vital Issues Press, 1994), 172.

[BTW, this was the first book I read that made excellent arguments using the Left’s positions to show just how vacuous their stance was.]

Even well-known atheists GET IT. And the BIBLE IS CLEAR in the Old Testament about the issue.

IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE VIDEO IN HD, CLICK THE GEAR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE VIDEO AND CHOOSE 1080P

Does The Bible Say All Conservatives Are Going To Hell?

Published by Papa Giorgio

So I had a cousin (wife’s side) mention a conversation and wanted me to join it. Here is the starter of the convo by his friend:

Here are the verses:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the [c]holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.

33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;

36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?

38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?

39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;

43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer [d]Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Here is my response that…. got me banned from this guys Facebook. LOL:

I think you have a misconception as to who gives more time and money to the needy. Here for instance is a 28-minute interview (via my YT) with Arthur Brooks discussing his book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism”

I include this in a larger post [on my site] discussing the free market and the wealth it affords people to help others (Capitalism, The Moral Choice | PragerU and More).

…However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks’ research for every income group, “from poor to middle class to rich.”

This “giving gap” also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found “if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.”

When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that “red” states in the 2004 election were more charitable than “blue” states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, “The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.”

Why? A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that “the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.” People who “disagreed strongly” with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who “agreed strongly” with the statement.

One’s values, beliefs and political philosophies seem to impact how much one shares of one’s own income with the less fortunate in society. Facts are often surprising and illuminating.

(BELIEF NET)

See also “GOING TO THE MAT’s” post:

So… adopting your premise [what I think is your premise], the opposite is true.

Response?

Censorship.

The go to by the left.

Adrienne Johnson: Why I Am No Longer an Atheist

Published by Papa Giorgio

PragerU Chief of Staff Adrienne Johnson was once a cynical atheist, struggling to find meaning and purpose in ways that left her feeling even more adrift and alone. After hitting rock bottom, she learned that it’s never too late to take responsibility and change your life. Adrienne shares her powerful personal story of how finding faith in God gave her a second chance at life.

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.

Blaise Pascal (Pensees 10.148)