Are Christianity and Islam incompatible?

There is nothing more the majority of the world could want more then world peace. The thought of a world united and not in a constant state of turmoil is unrealistic to say the least, especially when we fail to understand how most conflicts begin. Christianity’s adherents consist of around one-third of the earth’s population. While preaching love, grace, and acceptance through the incarnate Word-Jesus Christ; Christianity is no stranger to conflict. With a past of the Crusades, witch burning, the Spanish Inquisition under Torquemada, and Old Testament accounts of genocide, Christianity historically cannot claim that it will bring about peace anymore then Islam. Islam which claims around twenty-two percent of the world’s population is no stranger to conflict either. Non-Islamic societies often instill into its citizens minds that Islam is as far from peace as it gets. Deep in the roots of Islamic Theology is peace within its own society, of course this will come about through a theocratic-government while all citizens must be Muslims. Islam which consists of two major sects; the Shite (10-15%) and the Sunni (85-90%) have had a long history of “holy wars” in its history, reaching far beyond (in the minds of non-Muslims around the world) than any other religion in history. Can these two religions perspectives be compatible or reconciled? Do the “Co-Exist” bumper stickers hold any reasonable hope? I don’t believe so—as long as Christianity and Islam make up the majority of religious thought in the world they cannot be reconciled.

            As the top two major religions in the world, Christianity and Islam hold too many of the same beliefs and worldviews. First and most importantly, they both understand the other affirms the monotheism of a One True God. Both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm that God is sovereign, merciful, caring, mighty, wise, light, exalted, and much more. The Qur’an along with the Bible both affirms the virgin birth and miracle-filled, prophetic ministry of Jesus. Christianity and Islam are both considered Abrahamic religions, deriving their history and theology from Old Testament Patriarchs and other biblical prophets. Some of these prophets/patriarchs are: Abraham, Joseph, Elijah and his successor Elisha, Job, Jonah, King Saul, King David, and Solomon the Wise. Eternal Heaven (Paradise for Muslims) and Hell are both real factors found throughout the Bible and the Qur’an. John the Baptist and Jesus, along with the Bible are considered important in Islam. Also, interesting enough, both religions claim that there will be a day of Great Judgment upon the earth.

            Among the many differences Christianity and Islam share these appear to be the most important. The Bible teaches that God is knowable through Christ and reveals Himself, while the Qur’an teaches that God’s essence is not knowable and that He only reveals His will for humans. In the Bible, God invites life-transforming relationships, He is Triune (three in one), and there is an emphasis on sacrificial love. Contrarily in the Qur’an, God demands rightful obedience to commands, God is solitary in personality, and emphasizes sovereign power over sacrificial love. Christianity offers more of a “faith only” soteriology (doctrine of salvation); with some sects offering a works-based method. Islam has a solely works-based soteriology, adhering to the five pillars: belief in God, daily prayer, charity, fasting, and a pilgrimage. Muslims believe there is a book of every deed ever done and their good deeds must outweigh their bad deeds (no matter how small) and the only way to outweigh your bad and assure entrance into heaven is to become a martyr for the faith. While Christianity believes Jesus Christ to be God the Son, and the substitutionary atonement for their sins; Islam believes Jesus to be an important prophet of God who foretold the coming of Muhammad, the “another Comforter” Jesus speaks about in the Gospel of St. John. While both religions have held theocracies throughout time; Islam where it remains (along with some Eastern Thought religions) is the law of the land, the term for this is Sharia (Islamic law). As the Roman Catholic Church lost influence in Europe so it’s governing power; with Protestantism on the rise and Anglicism as the state religion of Britain—Roman Catholicism would never be a theocracy again. Christianity today seems to embrace the idea of a Biblical-theocratic-world-power, but the likelihood of this is slim anytime soon. Christians today struggle with government with regard to morality, but understand well enough that government will always be an obstacle for religion.

            The relations between Christianity and Islam are tainted by misunderstanding and fear. After several attempts (some continual) of dialogue, few stand up to the test of becoming productive. In the eyes of Christians, Islam and its aggression towards the West have been devastating in the eyes of Christian culture and beckons resentment toward any communication. On the other hand, Western Civilization (representing Christianity) constantly imposes its power into the Islamic world—influencing its leaders and oftentimes overthrowing its government to raise up leaders who see eye to eye with Western society. Both have been, and still are guilty of these very things. Islam’s ideology is to create a theocracy (Sharia) wherever Islam is present, which threatens sovereign nations ruled by democracies of the majorities will. Western society is constantly involved in the Middle East: establishing bases, giving foreign aid, training governments and creating them to be dependent upon the giver (the United States). If Islam and Christianity are to stay on the path they are on currently there will be no amends or understanding. With respect to both the Qur’an and the Bible, the Qur’an’s message to its believers on human character and being a representative of God is not as moral as the Bible. The Bible preaches love, kindness, grace, and mercy on others—oddly enough on believers and non-believers. The Qur’an too preaches about charity, being a good member of society, but lacks the moral teaching of bestowing grace and mercy upon the world. This is not to suggest that Muslims are not gracious towards non-believers, but speaking in terms about the Qur’an little to nothing is mentioned about treating non-believers morally, as is the Bible.

            With these fundamental disagreements between Christianity and Islam, I see it near to impossible of there ever being reconciliation between the two. With Islam’s focus on the complete sovereignty of God and Christianity on a personal, relational God; this will always come between the two. Both the Qur’an and the Bible claim divine inspiration, while both being similar in some aspects, the overwhelming differences is what will continually keep bridges among the two. As long as both sides continue in their ignorance of the others beliefs, no communication will suffice. Finally, and most importantly, the governmental aspect of each religion is inconsistent. As stated before, the Qur’an demands a theocracy, this (besides Muslims) is the only representation of God on earth and is to be taken with the utmost respect and reverence. Nations under Sharia often times stone adulators, homosexuals, prostitutes, and women who disobey their husbands on a weekly basis. The Bible though not as extreme on punishment, is guilty of the same immorality. Though “Christian” nations differ in influence and authority (Roman Catholic/Anglican/Protestantism), the toleration of abortion, gay-marriage, and racism/discrimination is a slap in the face to the teachings of the Bible. Muslims look at this as an example of why a theocracy is necessary, to hold the people accountable for their morality—to keep nations from falling away from God’s purpose and restoring God’s favor among the people. These two societies could never co-exist without serious doctrinal sacrifice, and if they were to sacrifice the legitimacy of each religion would fall and would not do any justice to their long history and traditions.

21st century Christianity.

I continually ask myself about other faiths constantly. Now, comparative religions is what initially brought me towards Christianity. Though I believe nothing can hinder that, nonetheless, other religions often times provide something that Christianity lacks, acceptance.

     This acceptance is more like tolerance, Christianity is made up of fallen people coming together as a Church attempting to follow the example of perfection--God's son Jesus Christ. Tolerance is something that is often talked about in church, sermons, and among the evangelicals in discussion. The fact is that Christianity holds to ultimate truth to the point that if something doesn't seem familiar it's regarded as foreign and most likely will not be looked upon as vitally important. Christianity IS guilty of ad hominem; the act of disregarding ones argument or experiences solely based on what they follow or what kind of person they are. 

Let's be honest here... If you were presented two books, lets for the sake of saying Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich or Islamic Theology by Binyamin Abrahamov. You and me both would pick Paul Tillich's book. The initial response is to read the Christian book to gain knowledge or to reaffirm already held beliefs. But, what if I told you that both were just as healthy to your spirituality? The Christian book no doubt would have amazing doctrinal insight. The Islamic book could even be a Buddhist, Mormon, or Hindu book for that matter. The truth is all these religions doctrines are the compilations of many years of scholarship and organized beliefs of people who have devoted their lives teachings and understandings to that system of beliefs. And should not be considered as nonsense.

     All truth is God's truth. No matter who says it, under what circumstance or location any truth spoken has its origin from God. The Dalia Lama a peaceful-humble leader of the Buddhist faith reminds me of what many Christians should attempt to be more like. Christians have a tendency to look through a microscope with a Christian film already shaping the view. Now this is acceptable when determining orthodoxy or orthopraxy, but should be avoided when looking at the world. What if the Dalia Lama's insight on spiritual matters actually in a sense reflects the humbleness Christianity continually tries to accomplish? 

     In the case of the Dalia Lama he is much like Christians for he affirms the use of faith to come first, but not because we are to willing to see the world through our faith, but because out of necessity we must see the world through faith. Throughout his writings he frequently states that whatever the simplest answer is usually the most correct one, but not always. He views faith (to me at least) as a somewhat inferior yet humbler way of viewing events and experiences. Not inferior in importance but in understanding, he realizes that natural events can be explained by science but affirms some simply cannot. Nature to him is like God, where science lacks clarity or understanding faith takes over for spiritual awareness of the littleness of humankind. The Dalia Lama shows that he attempts to harmonize nature with his faith.

     It's almost as if science or nature for this matter is always ahead of faith, but for certain instances faith must take over to ensure natures survival; to comfort it, to direct it, to save it. All while working together to come to an understanding that we are a grain of sand on a beach full of ongoing struggling--knowledge.

     What if the Jehovah's Witnesses are right about the constant awareness and reminders of the last days? What if Mormons are right about the eternalness of Family? What if the Muslims are right about theocratic rule? We generally disregard ideas because it doesn't fit into the common mold used by our theologians, philosophers, or church leaders; and as a result we become ignorant of potential knowledge in the universe--true or false, knowing which one it is-is the difference between ignorance and awareness. 

     I attend a Christian college for Theology, often times I get puzzled looks from other people even seniors when I tell them there is some truth to most religions. The concept of accepting something foreign invades their own bubble. They have indoctrinated into themselves the idea that certain religions or ideas are false without giving it any thought, instead, they rely on leaders or people in a position of power to think about these concepts for them. This is pure ignorance. To claim something as false you must have sufficient evidence of falsehood, quoting others to substantiate "evidence" does not cut it. 

     Now I understand (I included) cannot read up on everything being thrown at us and keep up to date. But, realizing the ad hominem in our beliefs we can come that much closer to truth. If one were to exam members of other faiths and then contrast them with Christians you would find that in some cases Muslims, Mormons, and Jews, and in most cases Buddhists and Hindu's seem more receptive and contemplative of spiritual matters. They are not condemning or damning anyone. They do not preach as if their knowledge was 100% true. Because theology and understanding is ever so changing, one cannot be entirely consistent in their own beliefs when they read others. These religions have an advantage--they are not ignorant, but accepting and understanding which is what Christianity will need to adapt to reveal to the world that we are not ignorant. 

     Affirm the Christian creeds and doctrines but be aware of the revolving wheel--whose center that all religions attempt to understand, the one constant remaining factor the--Great Spirit.

Neitzsche vs. Murdoch/ Morality as Anti-Nature vs. Morality and Religion

Morality as Anti-Nature vs. Morality and Religion

            Friedrich Nietzsche a prominent German philosopher in the 19^th century is one of the most well-read philosophers of the past two-centuries, his ideas regarding morality and nature continue to be discussed and debated to this day among scholars of all beliefs. Irish Murdoch perhaps one of the best novelists of the 20^th century; with her background in philosophy and literature always engages her readers into an unbiased discussion on moral-philosophy and its connection with religion and nature. Both of these philosophers deal with the problem of morality in a very similar, yet different way. Nietzsche presupposes subjective morality and atheism (arguably agnosticism) and argues from a naturalistic perspective on how religion is anti-nature and about how humanity is responsible for controlling their nature-given passions. Murdoch, like Nietzsche (though being a Deist, most likely a Buddhist Christian) argues that morality also comes from human nature. Murdoch in many cases does not presuppose objective morality in her arguments, but rather tries to argue for morality with and without God or religion being in the equation.

            In comparing both of these intellectuals’ arguments it seems evident that both take into account the presence of other philosophies that offer counter arguments. However, Murdoch unlike Nietzsche, engages these philosophies in great depth and incorporates them into her discussion. Nietzsche while using other intellectuals (majority being deists), instead gives little to no credibility to their beliefs or experiences. Oddly enough, both of these methods of dealing with opposition can be equally persuasive. While deists, scholars, and researchers can find heed in the engagement of other philosophies while reading Murdoch, she in turn gives readers the choice to accept or decline her argument at any point during her discussion. But this could also in the readers’ mind, open the possibility that the authors mind might still be unsettled, perhaps leading the reader to believe the author hasn’t made up their mind either. Nietzsche however in his rhetoric, affirms his beliefs in light of his opposition. By doing this the reader gets the feeling that while being an authority of philosophy, it provides a persuasive atmosphere for which you get a feeling that since he discounts these philosophers and novelists, they must by in error. Though this might be an exaggeration of what the reader ultimately believes, it does bear some relevance. Any reader who is interested in morality and human nature will (at most times) read or hear of Nietzsche or another scholar for that matter before he/she reads them. Since his writings have been read over the centuries it is only natural to assume they bear some truth. This while persuasive towards some, can backfire his arguments and deplete his credibility to those who seek scholarly engagement.

            Another comparable belief is that both Nietzsche and Murdoch derive their beliefs about morality from human nature. Nietzsche examines the inner passions of human beings to reveal the source of their own morality. Since Nietzsche denies objective moral values, each individual has a certain duty to carry out their passions, which determine if they are being immoral or moral. Nietzsche believes that as a part of our humanity we are given passions from nature. The strong-willed and reasonable person can dip into their natural passions and while controlling these passions reap the benefits without any of the drawbacks of the weaker-willed persons. There are also those who are not strong enough to control their passions, they in turn suffer greatly because their passions overpower them and to control it they must abstain from their passions altogether. Finally, the weakest of these are the ones that cannot resist the temptations of their passion; they (being clergymen, principalities, or rulers) are overpowered with oppression from their passions. They then begin to craft and label their passions as evil and tell others to abstain from it to hide their own weakness. These moralities as Nietzsche believes are covered in a religious cloak. The morality religion (dominantly the Christian Church in Nietzsche’s mind) teaches is actually unnatural-morality, which is why he claims that “the church is hostile to life.” An attack on naturally given passions is an attack in Nietzsche’s mind, on the roots of life, for what can be more immoral to go against one’s own passion? The greatest of moralities are those that accommodate nature, the weakest are those that deny it. Nietzsche provides for us a system that can benefit us in life, this system of discernment is not limited to morality, but also can be applied to love and hostility.  Murdoch however, takes a psychological approach and examines the virtue of duty. Murdoch argues that fulfilling one’s duty towards: others, institutions, and nations is a virtuous act outside of the realm of religion. She goes on to say that dutifulness is linked with reason, and if reason and morality can be linked then it is fundamentally in our human nature.

            In contrasting these two authors the major theme of their work consists of examining morality in light of religion. The focus of Nietzsche with regard to religion and morality is as previously stated, that the church is hostile to life; in other words it goes against the desires that nature gives us. Nietzsche provides for the reader an example as to how his morality is better than the typical religious mans’:

We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers. More and More, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize all the holy witnesses of the priest, of the diseased reason in the priest, rejects—that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous. What advantage? But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.

Nietzsche’s use of this is to persuade the reader that his morals of accepting people’s passions and desires is a higher, more virtuous moral than of the priests that silence any passions that go contrary to what their predecessors (former priests, church fathers, or scripture) have taught them. The naturalist is more accepting than the Christian in the nature that God has provided them with to live and survive. Another compelling example Nietzsche gives is found in paragraph twenty:

Most of our general feelings—every kind of inhibition, pressure, tension, and explosion in the play and counter-play of our organs, and particularly the state of the nervus sympathicus—excite our casual instinct: we want to have a reason for feeling this way or that—for feeling bad for feeling good. We are never satisfied merely to state the fact that we feel this way or that: we admit this fact only—become conscious of it only—when we have furnished some kind of motivation.

Though the first half of this statement is good, the second part makes the reader realize that the naturalist accepts his passions and desires and embraces them and is not afraid of his natural instinct; as are the Christians when they feel guilt for pursuing a passion that is only but a natural instinct that life provides us with. Nietzsche makes it seem as if the Christian is being a hypocrite, because the very nature that man possesses, the Christian is denying by believing they need to change their nature. But, the immoralist embraces these passions and controls them and reaps the benefit, while the Christian hides behind the teachings of the Church and limits their involvement with the world.

Murdoch branches away from depths of the human psyche to examine an often overlooked reason for morality. Murdoch provides the reader with the concept that art pushes us into a metaphysical realm which we then examine from a third-person view (much like God) to contemplate reality as if there was something essentially wrong with it. Art steps us outside of reality to examine the world and our own life from a standpoint with no flaws, much like a perfect specimen looking at an imperfect world, attempting to gain insight on what went wrong. Murdoch describes this metaphysical state as proof of a morality, artists (while being in a self-controlled state, fulfilling their passion while reaping their benefits with pieces of art) would not aspire to create such works if there was not something wrong with humanity that needs to be understood. The very realization of art entails redemption, desiring to fix or to hold society up to a standard not currently being met—reveals the redemption that humanity continually desires. This goes against Nietzsche, because he denies that any sort of redemption is necessary because we are all following our nature desires, we are flawed for holding ourselves to a standard that we must conform to. Lastly, Murdoch believes that religion increases morality because it can instill a belief and conviction in a person when they are in an uncontrolled state; unlike Nietzsche’s philosophy of one’s own subjective passions determining morality. Murdoch reveals a potential flaw in Nietzsche’s argument. Instead of giving up one’s passion because of a weakness in self-control or the possibility of losing control altogether; being held to a higher standard such as a church, organization, or group could ultimately give the person a sense of “duty” to a specific cause that might aid them in the self-control of their passions.

While studying both of these essays strongpoints, I believe out of necessity Irish Murdoch has the upper edge in her views on morality. One of these upper edges is the belief in objective moral values, for Murdoch there is a right and a wrong, it is not based on any one person’s perspective. However, for Nietzsche where is the limit to morality? Could one man’s passion while being controlled harm people? The reality is that there has to be a line that is drawn. What if one person’s passion is to kill multitudes of people, does being in control of their passion only lead them to kill a few people? One man’s self-controlled passion could be equivalent to another’s passion getting the best of him and suffering as a result of it. Any passion whether it be charity, murder, or lust can be justified in a subjective moral stance. Since anything is permissible, Nietzsche has no right (morally) to discredit any of the clergymen’s actions. The clergymen could simply be following his passion to see others not be consumed by their passion, so instead of a war in the individuals psyche, the clergymen labels it as an evil to warrant no further suffering. Nietzsche has no authority according to his own belief to credit the clergymen’s actions as immoral. Though some aspects of Nietzsche’s arguments seem valid and would be for that matter—if morality was subjective

Wives be submissive to their husbands.

In Jewish and Greco-Roman culture women were seen as secondary citizens. The male Jew could at any time for no reason write a letter of dismissal to divorce his wife. In fact, the devout Jew would recite a prayer daily thanking God that he was not a woman. Such behavior was well understood to Paul, who being a devout Jew himself. Paul begins his lesson on marriage by first stating that women are to be subject/submissive to their husband as an expression of their submission to Jesus. Paul does not say that they are to be just as submissive to their husband as they are to Jesus nor that women were to be submissive to all men nor that women were inferior to men. Submission does not mean inferiority or a loss of one’s identity it means giving oneself up to someone else. Our universe is an example of authority and submission; which is a natural necessity to maintain order: God has authority over man, man has authority over nature, husbands have authority over their wives, parents over their children, governors over which they govern, employers over their employees, and spiritual leaders over those they lead spiritually. I believe Paul is trying to show that submission leads to voluntary organization which leads to completeness and oneness in marriage. In Greco-Roman culture men had no responsibilities towards their wives, as wives had many toward their husbands. Paul summarizes the wives duty as submission and the men’s job as love (agapate) which means seeking the highest good for another person; just as Christ gave up his life for the salvation of mankind. He gave up his rights in order to fulfill his responsibilities, so must the man in relation to his wife. This love must consist of unconditional acceptance, sacrificial action, and self-denial of your passions when hers are at risk.

Abortion: Systematic Injustice

An essay I wrote for my English class.

         

            In almost all societies over the span of history, systematic injustice has always existed in one form or another. During those times in history, many groups spoke out against whatever they believed were systematic injustices, but were received as “radical” because these acts of injustice were culturally acceptable. Time proves most of these cultural norms to be inherently wrong. One of the most (at the time) culturally acceptable injustices to take place in recent centuries would have to be the Jewish Holocaust, in which five million Jews lost their lives under Nazi Germany. Tragic, as the Jewish Holocaust was, there exists an injustice even more culturally accepted today that is claiming even more lives. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability. Abortions claims more than 1.21 million deaths a year in the United States and are responsible for 50 million total deaths since it was legalized. Abortion is an injustice; as it intentionally deprives potential life of experience and enjoyment, the loss of one’s life is the greatest loss one can suffer. Pro-life and pro-choice supporters often debate and get distracted by the definition of life and the point at which it starts. The definition of when life begins does have a major role in determining whether abortion is an injustice or not in many people’s minds. Even if life is to be agreed to start at birth, it does not undermine all Pro-choice choice arguments that are readily available in the public realm.

            If anything, history teaches us that humans have a capacity for abusing other human beings. These abuses extend past an individual or a small group, to crimes against humanity. The concept of “Crimes against humanity” was created by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin was influenced by the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks in World War One. But, his proposals were not passed until 1943 when leaders of Nazi Germany were charged with genocide during the Nuremberg Trails. Genocide is defined as “The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable.”(Webster’s New World Encyclopedia)  Abortion is an act of genocide because it targets a very specific group of human beings: unwanted, unborn children. Americans in many instances tend to dehumanize a group of people who stand in the way of something we want or are working for, as do pro-choice supporters who dehumanize the fetus to justify its elimination. Many take offense to comparing abortion to other crimes against humanity because it reveals a scandal. Such was the case when Dr. King compared the abuse of black Americans to the Holocaust. It is easy to condemn crimes that happen in another time-period. It is much harder to condemn crimes when they are a cultural norm and are running swiftly throughout our society. Pro-choice supporters often argue that the unborn aren’t really people and cannot be compared to any atrocities committed against humanity; not realizing that this is exactly what Hitler argued against the Jews, and earlier when America said African-Americans were only three-fifths of a person. Abortion is a form of genocide, and is a form of systematic injustice that is presently taking place in the majority of the world’s superpowers, with the exception of Middle-East, islands in East Asia, and some South American nations.

            What if (for argument’s sake), that the abortion of an unborn fetus isn’t immoral, that it does not constitute as a human being and therefore the termination of it isn’t unobjectionably immoral? What if the actual taking of physical life isn’t what makes abortion wrong? Philosopher Don Marquis of the University of Kansas wrote an article, "Why Abortion Is Immoral," which appeared in the Journal of Philosophy.(Marquis 86:4) Marquis argues that killing is not wrong because it shows the killer to be barbaric, or because it saddens the state of the family and relatives. Instead, killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of life. The loss of a life is the greatest possible loss anyone can suffer. It eradicates all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that one’s future self could have experienced. Injustice applies to any act that involves unfairness to another or violation of one's rights. Our government has passed laws supporting the view that it is morally acceptable to abort an unborn child. This, as have other events in the history of mankind, seems acceptable at the time; but in order to stop the deprivation of millions of lives every single year, we must fight injustice. If the death of three-thousand potential humans along with their memories, experiences, and their future accomplishments everyday isn’t enough to protest and act out upon; then nothing else is. If this is to be stopped; awareness is necessary; we need to direct our voices to the common citizen in public and private about this injustice, letters are to be written to the appropriate offices by the opponents of this injustice, and civil protest at the places of injustice is a must. To lay one’s freedom down for another’s, especially one without a voice, is one of the noblest acts of all.

            There is an injustice greater than any other injustice witnessed by mankind in today’s society. Even more upsetting, this injustice is culturally acceptable by the citizens of the government that made it legal, and ultimately morally acceptable. Though some argue concerning the morality of aborting an unborn fetus, it is apparent that aborting them robs them of any future experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments in their potential life. Aborting is not just about the physical death of a fetus, but instead the possibilities of its potential future. We must stand firm against injustice and reveal the ugly truths that reside within our society, just as Lemkin and Dr. King have done. This systematic injustice is robbing others, as Lemkin puts it simply, “A future like ours,” (Marquis 86:4) and ultimately everything that makes up who each individual human being consists of, memories.

Works Cited

¹ Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992

² Marquis, D. "Why Abortion Is Immoral". Journal of Philosophy 86:4 (April 1989): 183-202.

Perseverance of the Saints

Well, though I have one follow at this moment, I still feel terrible for not blogging. I'm sure my follow doesn't even check on any blogs so... I will be writing this to me.

Ah... T.U.L.I.P., how the majority of Christianity ignores you and bases your affirmations on a tyrant-God like deity. I for one (as I continually hope) am always open to theology, especially theology that we tend to overlook when we attend an either Arminian or Calvinist based church. Now many people do not like these labels put towards certain groups of believers, but for the sake of theology why not? I attend a Arminian college for my Bachelors in Practical Theology. Though the core of my classes at this very moment are not deeply rooted in theology, there still exists a certain bias towards Arminianism; which it should be.

One thing that always sets in the back of my mind when discussing theology is Calvinism. Early in my studies of theology when I first received the grace of salvation (converted in late high school),  I intensely studied why certain people believed Calvinism and Arminianism (mainly ministry leaders). Now I will be honest, the idea of a completely sovereign God that wills things into being continuously completed, which has total control over everything that He wills, and the idea the humanity cannot please God; therefore God must reconcile humanity to Himself seems to be perfect in all ways logically.

I soon spoke to my leaders in church and other people which eventually persuaded me into a Arminianistic ideology. Thus leading me to for many years ignore Calvinistic theology (though realizing it was Christian).

Through the years and the broadening of my horizon due to college and growing in maturity has brought me to an odd and interesting view on the concept of being saved. This topic has been widely debated since the Reformation, to be completely honest, there are many verses to support both sides of "once-saved always saved, and being capable of falling away." But with my limited understanding I have come to a conclusion that indeed it is both. Now putting aside all theological implications of believing either or I think logically it works.

Now I will attempt to explain my view with as little scripture as possible for less confusion and chances of "exegetical" responses. Firstly, I have experienced friends and acquaintances come to know Christ at a moment (not a certain point of time but a period of time) of repentance. These people realized the need for something stable and truthful in their life that would help them overcome their current state in life. But, as do many they fall away after returning to the daily routine of the world because it is either to much work or they forget that experience in which the Spirit softened their minds to realize their need for Christ. Their are others (which I am included) that come to a state of repentance and need, fight the good fight (sometimes slipping and walking away), but always returns with a sense of security and acceptance. I have many times forgotten about the ways in which a Christian should conduct themselves and the ways in which to keep God at the top of your mind to avoid straying away. No matter the event or obstacle I always will know that there is a God who has a plan.

Now colliding these views  is not that difficult. Firstly, (in my opinion) there are two states of saving knowledge. All Christians will go through the first state, that being the coming to knowledge of the Holy Other. We all experience a sense of comfort, security, and love radiating from the invisible as I say with trembling hands "Concept" (only at first of course) that has brought these emotions into our lives. Now next is what leads us to the next state, The current believer or repentant heart is at this moment saved. They have experienced Christ, repented and realized the need for something bigger than them in their lives that has it all figured out, and most importantly has a plan.  Either this person can pursue God after this moment and press more into his presence or they can fall away and return to life and go about their life. If someone were to "supposedly" remain  in their current state of knowledge and so called "stay in church" they are not in fact pursuing God and obviously are going for some alternative motive; they have gone astray. Now to the one whom pursues God, Holy Spirit permitting, they will become more knowledgeable about God and come to a true and realistic understanding to the work of Christ and to the extents in which he went to accomplish his promise. Thus, being engraved in their mind have come to an understanding of their fallen state and the need to continue on the straight and narrow path in which only Christ can provide.


With this said and unfortunately not going into great detail, I believe that Someone can repent and believe, but soon as the weeds overcome grass, will fall away. However, I also believe that anyone who comes to a true and realistic understanding as to who God is and what exactly he has done for humanity;knowing their fallen nature as a human cannot fall away from God for they know the good they ought to do. God with his grace has bestowed via the Holy Spirit the  knowledge that no matter what God is real and present in your life, whether you like it or not


Thanks for reading, I will at some point edit and revise this time permitting.
Godspeed.

Christ's Diety

This Topic has been under discussion for around 2,000 years, there is nothing new under the sun. These arguments and examples are just basic scriptural support for the view of Jesus' deity. If you have objections to whatever is in this essay message me and I will respond to it. If you want a more in depth (with some greek scholarship) I can provide that to if you wish. Again this is basic Christian theology 101.

Many people in the world today consider Jesus (if they believe He existed) to be a good person or a good moral teacher and nothing else. There is quite a huge problem with that claim, if any one of them ever read the claims or teachings of Jesus recorded in the Bible and especially what John the Apostle recorded their stance would be slightly rendered. With what Jesus claimed, He was either a complete lunatic or He was God in flesh.

Most people I talk to or have conversations with have never grasped the concept that Jesus Christ is God,
even students in my old youth group never knew in detail the claims of Jesus. And to me that is one of the most exciting things about Christianity. Christianity is not just another religion that claims it can help you find the path to an afterlife or complete knowledge it is based on a man who started a revolution which sole purpose was to drastically change the way people thought about God.

Today i am going to talk about Jesus Christ and how we know that He is Divine. For this short period i will be teaching out of the Gospel of John which is considered to be centered more around Jesus' divinity then any of the other gospels.Firstly We will begin by examining seven claims that should not be taken lightly. In exodus chapter three verses 14 through 15 Moses asks God what he should tell the Egyptians that he is to go and
free from captivity who sent him to their rescue and God declares to him tell them "I AM sent you". We are focusing here on the I AM statement. Now in the Gospel of John, John records seven statements by Jesus claiming the "I AM". Here they are "I AM the bread of life" (John 6:35). " I AM the light of the world" John 8:12, "I AM the door" John 10:9, " I AM the Good Shepherd "John 10:11," I AM the Resurrection and the Life" John 11:25, Sixth which is the most famous" I AM the way, the truth, and the life "John 14:6, finally " I AM the true vine" John 15:1. The origin of the I AM statement from the Hebrew language and used 6828 times in the Old Testament means "To Be", so Jesus' claim is to be, leaving no room for speculation as to His divinity.

There is one more "I AM" statement that proves of Jesus' divinity, in John chapter 8 verse 58 Jesus makes a tremendous claim by saying. "Before Abraham was, I AM" Now Abraham was considered the Father of righteousness to the Jews, and also the Jews took pride in being the descendants of Abraham Issac and Jacob. There are two important aspects to this claim first is "BEfore Abraham was" reveals the Jesus
existed before Abraham who lived 2,000 years before Him. A couple verses before this statement Jesus tells the jews that "Abraham rejoicedto see My day, and he saw it and was glad."


# "In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw Yahweh sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. " Isaiah 6:1
# "For my eyes have seen the King, Yahwah of hosts." Isaiah 6:5
# "Then I heard the voice of Yahweh, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" " Isaiah 6:8
# "These things Isaiah said because he (Isaiah) saw His (Christ's) glory, and he spoke of Him (Christ)." John 12:41

Jesus in these passages makes the same claims YHWH or Jehovah of the Old Testament made, which elevates Jesus to equality with The Father,


The second thing we are going to look at is The very first verses in the first chapter of John. John 1:1-2; 14 states " In the beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And Verse 14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." The WORD or LOGOS in the greek, is Jesus Christ as signified in verse 14 when it states "dwelt among us," notice how John descibes how the WORD was
present in the beginning of the universe, also how He was with (face to face with) God and was God. As stated before John 1:14 states the Word became flesh, if you put the words together you can say without a doubt that, In the beggining was Jesus, Jesus was with God and Jesus
was God.

In John 20:27-29 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and His God, some will go to the lengths of saying that Thomas committed blasphemy when hesaw Jesus, but if that is so why did Jesus compliment Thomas right after and say "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." IF Thomas did commit blasphemy Jesus would have certainly corrected Him.


A few more verses to conclude this topic is


   
JOHN 5:18
For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was
calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.



John 10:33
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For
which of these do you stone me?"

 33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."



In conclusion the bible clearly states that Jesus Christ is God, The he has existed forever and took the form of a man and died so that we may have ternal life through and with Him. The bible is not just a fable made up but, a historically accurate account of the days of Jesus Christ, and testifies of a God who is Love.


These are only passages out of the Gospel of John there are 26 other New Testament books that testifies as does this Gospel that, Jesus Christ is God over all blessed forever amen...