6/30/15

From Mark Copeland... "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!" In Overcoming Depression




                        "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!"

                        In Overcoming Depression

INTRODUCTION

1. In this series we have been considering how faith in Jesus gives us
   the victory...
   a. In overcoming sin
   b. In overcoming what are often the consequences of sin or sinful
      thinking
   -- Using as our basic text 1Jn 5:4-5

2. We have stressed that faith in Jesus involves...
   a. A strong trust and conviction in who Jesus is, what He did, what
      He taught
   b. Accepting and acting upon His words and those of His apostles

3. We have looked at how faith in Jesus can address the problems of...
   a. Sin itself
   b. Anxiety
   c. Boredom

4. Now we will consider how faith in Jesus can help us overcome
   "depression"...
   a. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)...
      1) During any one year period, 17.6 million people suffer from a
         depressive illness
      2) Depressive illnesses often interfere with normal function,
         causing pain not only to those with the disorder, but to those
         who care about them
      3) Serious depression can destroy family life as well as the life
         of the ill person
   b. Christians certainly are not immune to the problem of "depression"...
      1) Great men of God have been known to suffer depression: Elijah,
         David, Jeremiah
      2) I know mature Christians who have had to deal with the problem
         of depression

[Overcoming depression is not easy, but it can be done.  As before, 
let's start by trying to understand the problem we face...]

I. UNDERSTANDING DEPRESSION

   A. DEPRESSION DEFINED...
      1. According to the American Heritage Dictionary: A psychotic or
         neurotic condition characterized by an inability to
         concentrate, insomnia, and feelings of extreme sadness,
         dejection, and hopelessness
      2. According to NIMH:
         a. Depression is a "whole-body" illness, involving your body,
            mood, and thoughts
         b. It affects the way you eat and sleep, the way you feel 
            about yourself, and the way you think about things
         c. It is not the same as a passing blue mood, nor a sign of 
            personal weakness
         d. It is not a condition that can be willed or wished away; 
            without treatment, symptoms can last for weeks, months, 
            years
      3. Two serious types of clinical depression are...
         a. Major depression - manifested by a combination of symptoms
            that interfere with the ability to work, sleep, eat, and 
            enjoy pleasurable activities.  These disabling episodes of
            depression can occur once, twice, or several times in a
            lifetime.
         c. Bipolar Disorder - formerly called manic-depressive 
            illness. Involves cycles of depression and elation or 
            mania. Mood switches can be dramatic and rapid, but
            normally are gradual. When in the depressed cycle, one can
            have any or all the symptoms of a depressive disorder. When
            in the manic cycle, any or all of the symptoms of mania may
            be experienced. It affects thinking, judgment, and social
            behavior in ways that can cause serious problems and
            embarrassment. It is often a chronic recurring condition.

   B. SYMPTOMS OF DEPRESSION AND MANIA...
      1. Depression
         a. Persistent sad, anxious, or "empty" mood
         b. Feelings of hopelessness, pessimism, guilt, worthlessness,
            helplessness
         c. Loss of interest or pleasure in ordinary activities, 
            including sex
         d. Insomnia, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
         e. Appetite and/or weight loss or overeating and weight gain
         f. Decreased energy, fatigue, being "slowed down"
         g. Thoughts of death or suicide; suicide attempts
         h. Restlessness, irritability
         i. Difficulty concentrating, remembering, making decisions
         j. Recurring aches and pains that don't respond to treatment
      2. Mania
         a. Excessively "high" mood
         b. Irritability
         c. Severe insomnia
         d. Grandiose notions
         e. Increased talking
         f. Disconnected and racing thoughts, easily distracted
         g. Increased sexual desire
         h. Markedly increased energy
         i. Poor judgment
         j. Inappropriate social behavior

   C. CAUSES OF DEPRESSION...
      1. Other illnesses can bring on depression (e.g., strokes, some
         cancers, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, hormonal disorders).
      2. Some medications cause depressive symptoms as side effects
         (e.g., certain drugs used to treat high blood pressure and 
         arthritis).
      3. Genetics and family history - Depression runs in families.
         Some people probably have a biological make-up that makes them
         particularly vulnerable.
      4. Certain personalities - People with low self-esteem or who 
         are very dependent on others seem to be vulnerable to 
         depression.
      5. Life events, such as the death of a loved one, divorce, 
         moving to a new place, money problems or any sort of loss can
         be linked to depression. People without relatives or friends
         to help have even more difficulty coping with their losses.

   C. TREATMENT FOR DEPRESSION...
      1. Medication - Useful for relieving symptoms, they include 
         antidepressants and are usually administered through trial and
         error to see which medications and dosage are beneficial to a
         particular patient
      2. Psychotherapy - Talking with a trained therapist can be 
         effective in treating certain depressions.  Therapy includes:
         a. Cognitive therapy - Aims to help the patient recognize and
            change negative thinking patterns that contribute to 
            depression
         b. Interpersonal therapy - Focuses on dealing more effectively
            with other people; improved relationships can reduce 
            depressive symptoms
      3. Biological treatments - This includes electroconvulsive 
         therapy; research is also being done on the use of light for
         the treatment of depression

[As a member of a family with a genetic predisposition toward
depression, I am particularly sensitive to the problem of depression. I
don't discount the value of medical efforts to treat depression or any
other illness, for even Paul counseled the medicinal use of wine to 
treat stomach ailments (cf. 1Ti 5:23).

I am persuaded, however, that faith in Jesus can greatly complement any
effort to overcome depression...]

II. OVERCOMING DEPRESSION THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS

   A. JESUS ADDRESSES MANY ISSUES THAT CAN DEPRESS PEOPLE...
      1. Among many things that can make people depressed, there are 
         such things as:
         a. Guilt for sins committed in the past
         b. Concern regarding one's relationship with God in the 
            present
         c. Fear for what might happen in the future
      2. As we have stressed before, what Jesus has done, is doing, and
         will do, addresses such problems
         a. He addresses the problem of sin, through His death on the cross!
         b. He teaches us how to pray, and maintain a healthy 
            relationship with God!
         c. He gives us hope and promise concerning the future, through
            His resurrection and ultimate return!

   B. JESUS PROVIDES POSITIVE COGNITIVE THERAPY...
      1. Cognitive therapy seeks to help one recognize and change 
         negative thinking patterns that contribute to depression; 
         sample suggestions include:
         a. Don't set for yourself difficult goals or take on a great
            deal of responsibility
         b. Break large tasks into small ones, set some priorities, do
            what you can as you can
         c. Don't expect too much from yourself too soon as this will
            only increase feelings of failure
         d. Participate in activities that may make you feel better
         e. Try to be with other people; it is usually better than 
            being alone
      2. In His teachings, Jesus stressed similar principles!
         a. Reminding us of God's providential love and care - Mt 6:25-32
         b. Teaching us where to place our priorities in life - Mt 6:33
         c. Revealing our own limitations - Mt 6:34
         d. Pointing out the kind of selfless service can provide true
            joy - cf. Jn 13:12-17; Ac 20:35
         e. That God is longsuffering, willing to forgive and comfort
            the downhearted - cf. Mt 5:3-6; the parable of the 
            Prodigal Son, Lk 15:11-32

   C. JESUS PROVIDES POWERFUL INTERPERSONAL THERAPY...
      1. Interpersonal therapy focuses on one's disturbed personal 
         relationships that both cause and exacerbate the depression
      2. Jesus certainly addresses interpersonal relationships!
         a. Our relationship with God - cf. 2Co 5:18-21
         b. Our relationship with our fellow man - e.g., Mt 5:23-24; 18:21-22
      3. Through His death and teachings He strengthens interpersonal
         relationships!
         a. Reconciling us back to God and man - cf. Ep 2:14-17
         b. Teaching us how to love God and one another - e.g., 
            Jn 13:34-35; 1Jn 5:2-3
         c. His church is to be a family, providing strength and
            encouragement, even bearing one another's burdens - cf. 
            Ga 6:1-2; 1Th 5:14

CONCLUSION

1. Depression, like anxiety and boredom, is not something to be taken lightly...
   a. Many people suffer from it, including brothers and sisters in Christ
   b. It can have a debilitating effect on the one who suffers from it,
      and on those around them

2. Yet Christ can provide a way out for those willing to have faith in Him!
   a. Not just faith in the one suffering from depression
   b. But faith in those who are in position to aid the suffering
   -- It is only when both the "patient" and the "care-giver" accept
      and act upon the words of Jesus can there be the kind of joy,
      peace and comfort Jesus intended

3. Indeed, His teachings are designed to provide true joy and peace 
   - Jn 15:11; 16:33
   a. As Paul wrote, God "comforts us in all our tribulation" - cf. 2Co 1:3-4
   b. But such comfort is intended to be shared, that "we may be able
      to comfort those who are in trouble..."

Is our faith in Jesus what it ought to be?  Is it such that we can 
carry out Paul's admonition...?

   Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort
   the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. (1Th 5:14)

If so, then truly we can say:  "Faith Is The Victory!"

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

He Climbed Up the Waterspout by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=588

He Climbed Up the Waterspout

by  Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

As David stood before the city of Jerusalem, the Jebusites, confident of their city’s natural and manufactured fortifications, taunted him: “You shall not come in here; but the blind and the lame will repel you...” (2 Samuel 5:6). In response, David persuaded his army: “Whoever climbs up by way of the water shaft and defeats the Jebusites...he shall be chief and captain” (2 Samuel 5:8). The parallel account in first Chronicles indicates that Joab accepted and accomplished David’s challenge (11:6).
For years, scholars have debated the exact means by which Joab penetrated the city’s fortification, questioning the translation of 2 Samuel 5:8, its historicity, or both. Yigal Shiloh, who re-examined the waterworks in the City of David (ancient Jerusalem), argued that such shafts as that mentioned by David appear on the historical scene after the time he conquered Jerusalem (1981, 7[4]:39). Hence, supposedly there was no water shaft at Jerusalem through which Joab could have entered the ancient city.
Translation considerations do not resolve this tension. The Hebrew word translated “water shaft” (2 Samuel 5:6) is tsinnor. This word appears only one other time in the Hebrew text, where it is translated “waterfalls” (Psalm 42:7), which is consistent with the aquatic imagery of this psalm. Further, the related word tsanterot appears in Zechariah 4:12, and means “pipes” or “tubes” (cf. Harris, 1980, 2:771; Kleven, 1994, 20[4]:34). Biblical usage, therefore, links tsinnor with a conduit of water, which is consistent with the traditionally accepted translation appearing in English versions. Additionally, Ugaritic texts corroborate the translation in 2 Samuel 5:8 as a type of water shaft (Kleven, 1994, 20[4]:35).
Cut-away view of the waterworks beneath the City of David (after Gill, 1994, 20[4]:24). Geologist Dan Gill has shown that ancient inhabitants merely modified a natural system of shafts and conduits formed by water eroding and dissolving limestone and dolomite rock. Joab’s assault force could have entered through the Gihon Spring and Warren’s Shaft, or through a conduit exiting on the eastern slope. At some unknown date, the spring’s drainage was diverted from the Kidron Valley, transforming Warren’s Shaft into a well, which was accessible via tunnels from behind the walls of the city. In 701 B.C., Hezekiah enlarged the conduit from the spring, bringing water 1748 feet into the Siloam pool.
Therefore, if Shiloh is correct, there is a serious problem with the Bible’s integrity. How could David speak of a water shaft that was non-existent? Recently, Dan Gill, the geologist on Shiloh’s staff, suggested that there were at least two points outside the city’s wall through which Joab could have entered Jerusalem by stealth: (1) from the Gihon Spring and up Warren’s Shaft; and (2) through a tunnel that exists on the eastern slope (1994, 20[4]:30). Warren’s Shaft, discovered in 1867 by Captain Charles Warren (and named after him), provided the ancient city with guarded access to the Gihon Spring, which lay outside the city’s protective wall. The irregular dimensions of the channel suggest that Warren’s Shaft was not humanly contrived initially; rather, in all likelihood it was a naturally occurring sinkhole (erosion shaft) caused by water percolating through dolomite (see Shanks, 1985, 11[6]:38). Thus, before artificial water systems became architectural norms in royal centers, the Jebusites had access to a much-coveted water supply. It is reasonable to believe that the Jebusites’ city was well known for this unusual accommodation. Fortunately for David, that convenience was the city’s Achilles heel.
Warren’s Shaft most likely was the aperture through which Joab ascended—a valiant feat that led to the demise of David’s unsuspecting enemy, and won him a place of honor in his king’s army. We can be certain of one thing: the physical evidence suggests that there was a water shaft at the ancient Jebusite city as mentioned by David. Thus, archaeological and geological data are consistent with the biblical record, and corroborate its historical reliability.

REFERENCES

Gill, Dan (1994), “How They Met,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[4]:21-33,64, July/August.
Harris, Laird, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody), 2:771.
Kleven, Terence (1994), “Up the Waterspout,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[4]:34-35, July/August.
Shanks, Hershel (1985), “The City of David After Five Years of Digging,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 11[6]:22-38, November/December.
Shiloh, Yigal (1981), “Jerusalem’s Water Supply During Siege: The Rediscovery of Warren’s Shaft,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 7[4]:24-39, July/August.

Does God’s Existence Rest Upon Human Consensus? by Kyle Butt, M.A.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2767

Does God’s Existence Rest Upon Human Consensus?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Three minutes and 45 seconds into Dan Barker’s opening statement in our Darwin Day debate on February 12, 2009, he presented an argument that he has often used in other debates and writings. In his list of “probability” arguments, he included as his fifth argument against God’s existence the following comments: “There is no agreement among believers as to the nature or the moral principles of this God that they are arguing for. They all differ with each other” (Butt and Barker, 2009). According to Dan, since those professing Christianity come down on either side of moral issues such as abortion, divorce, and the death penalty, then the God Who wrote the Bible “in all probability” does not exist, and the Bible must not be a sufficient guide for human morality.
Is Dan correct in his assessment that disagreement among professed believers nullifies the existence of God? Certainly not! Barker is incorrect for a number of reasons, the majority of which are quite clear after the briefest consideration of the argument. First, we could simply say that Dan’s argument, used against his own brand of atheism, refutes itself, since he admits that atheists do not agree on moral issues. In his book godless, Barker stated: “Most atheists think that values, though not objective things in themselves, can be objectively justified by reference to the real world.... Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that morality exists in the universe” (2008, p. 213-214, emp. added). Notice that Barker qualifies his statement with the word “most,” implying that some atheists do not see morality as he does. In his discussion of human free will, Barker wrote: “By the way, this contributes to my compatibilist position on human free will. (Not that all atheists agree with me.) I am an determinist, which means that I don’t think complete libertarian free will exists.... I admit that my definition of free will is subject to debate” (2008, p. 128, emp. added). If Barker’s statement about disagreement of professed believers is true, we could, with equal force, use it on atheism and say that since there is no agreement among atheists on moral issues, then atheism “in all probability” is false.
Of course, Barker does not want to extend his “truth” criterion to atheism. And his statement is inherently flawed in the first place. If two or more people disagreed on whether the holocaust happened, but they all professed to be honest historians, would their disagreement prove that there never was a holocaust? If two people, who both claim to be honest geographers, disagree on the fact that the continent of North America exists, would that negate its reality? Or if two or more people adamantly disagreed on the idea that Dan Barker exists, would his existence be jeopardized based on their disagreement? No, on every count. Agreement among people cannot be used as evidence of the truth or falsity of any proposition.
Barker’s atheistic colleague, Sam Harris, has eloquently written on this truth. He disagrees with many atheists about ethical questions. In spite of his atheism, he contends that objective right and wrong do exist (an impossible proposition for a true atheist to maintain, by the way). He wrote:
The fact that people of different times and cultures disagree about ethical questions should not trouble us. It suggests nothing at all about the status of moral truth. Imagine what it would be like to consult the finest thinkers of antiquity on questions of basic science: “What,” we might ask, “is fire? And how do living systems reproduce themselves? And what are the various lights we see in the night sky?” We would surely encounter a bewildering lack of consensus on these matters. Even though there was no shortage of brilliant minds in the ancient world, they simply lacked the physical and conceptual tools to answer questions of this sort. Their lack of consensus signified their ignorance of certain physical truths, not that no such truths exist (2004, p. 171, emp. added).
The irony of this quote from Harris is that it manifests the atheistic community’s lack of consensus on ethical issues, which should disprove atheism according to Barker’s line of reasoning. Furthermore, it hammers home the self-evident truth that consensus among professed followers of any concept or entity has no bearing on its existence or its claim to truth. Harris further remarked: “It is quite conceivable that everyone might agree and yet be wrong about the way the world is. It is also conceivable that a single person might be right in the face of unanimous opposition” (2004, pp. 181-182, emp. added).
While it is true that the lack of consensus on moral issues by those who profess Christianity does nothing to discount the existence of God, it is appropriate to ask why such disparity exists. Again, it is ironic that Dan Barker has answered his own question in this regard. In his speech, “How to be Moral Without Religion,” given at the University of Minnesota on October 19, 2006, Barker stated: “A tendency that we all have, we look through our documents to try to find what supports our already prejudice views about what we think morality should be like.” In one succinct sentence, Barker explained why there is a lack of consensus among professed believers on moral issues. It is not because God does not exist. It is not because the Bible is hopelessly confusing and cannot be understood. It is not because there is no objective moral truth. It is simply because humans bring their already prejudiced views to the text of the Bible and try to force it to say what they “think” it should say.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2006), “How to be Moral Without Religion,” [On-line], URL: http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/CASH1.mp3.
Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

Atheist Parenting Book by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2223

Atheist Parenting Book

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the July 16, 2007 issue of Newsweek, Lisa Miller informed readers about a new and different parenting book, titled Parenting Beyond Belief. Edited by Dale McGowan, this volume “aims to help folks who are raising their kids without religion deal with the sticky questions that come up about Santa Claus and heaven, and it raises more serious concerns about how to bring up ethical, confident, non-believing kids in a culture saturated with talk about God” (Miller, 2007, p. 10). According to McGowan’s Web site, Parenting Beyond Belief “is the first comprehensive parenting book by a major publisher on raising children without religion” (2007). McGowan added: “We hope it isn’t the last” (2007).
Included in Parenting Beyond Belief is discussion about a new summer camp for children of atheists. Camp Quest: The Secular Summer Camp, which operates in six different locations in North America, claims to be “the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view” (Camp Quest, n.d., emp. added).
It seems as if atheists are more determined than ever to indoctrinate children with godless materials and ideologies. In the end, Dale McGowan’s hope of seeing more atheistic materials for families ultimately fails to provide reasonable, not to mention comforting, answers to life’s biggest questions. Imagine the child who ponders his origin for the first time: “Mom, why are we here?” “Ricky,” mom replies, “we’re here because, by chance, billions of years ago a tiny ball of matter exploded. Eventually Earth was formed, life emerged from lifeless matter, and millions of years later humans evolved from lower animals.” “So we’re here by accident?” Ricky asks. “That’s one way of looking at it,” says his mother. Parenting Beyond Belief and Camp Quest no doubt help atheistic parents explain origins and ultimate destinations to their children in a more creative way. However, the bottom line is, children will learn that life ultimately is meaningless because their existence is accidental and there is no life beyond death.
The key to an abundant life, both in the present and in the afterlife, is found only through Christ Jesus (John 10:10). May God help us to teach our children this truth, as well as reach out to those reared by atheists, who may never have heard the answers that Jesus and His Word can provide.

REFERENCES

Camp Quest: The Secular Summer Camp (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.camp-quest.org/.
McGowan, Dale (2007), “Parenting Beyond Belief,” [On-line], URL: http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/.
Miller, Lisa (2007), “BELIEF WATCH: How To,” Newsweek, July 16.

Capital Punishment and the Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=683

Capital Punishment and the Bible

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Bible is the written Word of God. Within its pages, we find the wisdom of God. We find what is best for the human race—how God intends for life to be conducted. What is God’s view of capital punishment? Both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament address this subject.

OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING

Very early in human history, God decreed that murderers were to forfeit their own lives: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he the man” (Genesis 9:6). This standard continued into the Mosaic period (cf. Numbers 35:33). As a matter of fact, the law God gave to Moses to regulate the Israelite nation made provision for at least sixteen capital crimes. In sixteen instances, the death penalty was to be invoked. The first four may be categorized as pertaining to civil matters.
1. Under the law of Moses, the death penalty was required in cases of premeditated murder (Exodus 21:12-14,22-23; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-21). This regulation even included the situation in which two men might be fighting and, in the process, cause the death of an innocent bystander or her unborn infant. It did not include accidental homicide, which we call “manslaughter.”
2. Kidnapping was a capital crime under the Old Testament (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). One movie, which was based on an actual incident, depicted the kidnapping of a seven-year-old boy as he was walking home from school. The man who stole him kept him for some seven years, putting the child through emotional and sexual abuse, before the boy, at age fifteen, was finally returned to his parents. He was a different child, and never again would be the same. God would not tolerate such a thing in the Old Testament, and much of the same would be stopped in America if such crimes were taken more seriously.
3. A person could be put to death for striking or cursing his parents (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9). Jesus alluded to this point in Matthew 15:4 and Mark 7:10.
4. Incorrigible rebelliousness was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 17:12). For example, a stubborn, disobedient, rebellious son who would not submit to parents or civil authorities was to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
The next six capital crimes can be identified as more specifically pertaining to religious matters.
5. Sacrificing to false gods was a capital crime in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:20).
6. Violating the Sabbath brought the death penalty (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36).
7. Blasphemy, or cursing God, warranted the death penalty (Leviticus 24:10-16,23).
8. The false prophet, specifically one who tried to entice the people to idolatry, was to be executed (Deuteronomy 13:1-11), as were the people who were so influenced (Deuteronomy 13:12-18).
9. Human sacrifice was a capital crime (Leviticus 20:2). The Israelites were tempted to offer their children to false pagan deities, like Molech. But such was despicable to God.
10. Divination, or the dabbling in the magical arts, was a capital crime. Consequently, under Mosaic law, witches, sorcerers, wizards, mediums, charmers, soothsayers, diviners, spiritists, and enchanters were to be put to death (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:26,31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14).
The next six crimes pertain to sexual matters.
11. Adultery was punishable by death under the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22). Can you imagine what would happen in our own country if adultery brought the death penalty? Most of Hollywood would be wiped out, as well as a sizeable portion of the rest of our population!
12. Bestiality, i.e., having sexual relations with an animal, was punishable by death (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15-16).
13. Incest was a capital offense in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:6-17; 20:11-12,14).
14. Homosexuality was a capital crime (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).
15. Premarital sex brought the death penalty (Leviticus 21:9; Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
16. Rape of an engaged or married woman was a capital crime in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Again, imagine what would happen in this country if rape brought the death penalty! Much of the unconscionable treatment of women now taking place would be terminated.
Capital punishment was written into God’s will for the Jewish nation in the Old Testament. The death penalty was a viable form of punishment for at least sixteen separate offenses. Some people have misunderstood one of the Ten Commandments which says, “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). They have assumed that the law forbade taking human life under any circumstances. But God required the death penalty for some sixteen crimes. Therefore, the commandment would have been better translated, “You shall not murder.” In other words, the command was a prohibition against an individual taking the law into his own hands and exercising personal vengeance. But God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities.

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

Moving to the New Testament, which reveals God’s will this side of the cross, the matter of capital punishment is treated virtually the same. The New Testament clearly teaches that capital punishment is God’s will for human civilization. Consider, for example, Romans 13:1-4.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
This passage clearly affirms that the state—civil government—has the God-ordained responsibility to keep law and order, and to protect its citizens against evildoers. The word “sword” in this passage refers to capital punishment. God wants duly constituted civil authority to invoke the death penalty upon citizens who commit crimes worthy of death.
For about the last thirty years, Americans have actually witnessed a breakdown on the part of judicial and law enforcement system. In most cases, the government has failed to “bear the sword.” Instead, the prison system has been overrun with incorrigible criminals. Premature parole and early release has become commonplace in order to make room for the increasing number of lawbreakers.
The apostle Paul, himself, articulated the correct attitude when he stood before Porcius Festus and defended his actions by stating, “If I am an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying” (Acts 25:11). Paul was acknowledging that the state properly possesses the power of life and death in the administration of civil justice.
Peter held the same position as that of Paul. He enjoined obedience to the government that has been sent by God “for the punishment of evildoers” (1 Peter 2:14; cf. Titus 3:1). Jesus implied the propriety of capital punishment when He told the Parable of the Pounds. Those who rebelled against the king were to be brought and executed in his presence (Luke 19:27). Compare that parable with the one He told about the wicked husbandmen in Luke 20:15-16 in which He indicated that the owner of the vineyard would return and destroy the husbandmen.

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS

Those who oppose capital punishment raise a variety of objections to its legitimacy. For example, someone might raise the question: “Did not Jesus teach that we should turn the other cheek?” Yes, He did, in Matthew 5:39. But in that context, He was impressing upon the Jews their need not to engage in personal vendettas. The same point is stressed in Romans 12:14-21. Paul said, “Repay no one evil for evil” and “do not avenge yourselves.” In other words, Christians are not to take the law into their own hands and engage in vengeful retaliation. God insists that vengeance belongs to Him.
Notice, however, that Romans 13 picks right up where Romans 12 leaves off and shows how God takes vengeance. He employs civil government as the instrumentality for imposing the death penalty. So, individual citizens are not to engage in vigilante tactics. God wants the legal authorities to punish criminals, and thereby protect the rest of society.
A second objection to capital punishment pertains to the woman taken in adultery. “Did not Jesus exonerate her and leave her uncondemned?” Surely the story about the woman taken in adultery in John 8 has been misused and misapplied more than almost any other Scripture. Yet a careful study of this passage yields complete harmony with the principle of capital punishment. At least four extenuating circumstances necessitated Jesus leaving the woman uncondemned:
First, Mosaic regulation stated that a person could be executed only if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient to evoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). The woman was reportedly caught in the very act, but nothing is said of the identity of the witnesses. There may have been only one.
Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man on this occasion? Obviously, this was a trumped up situation that did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go.
A third point to take into consideration is the precise meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7). If this statement is taken as a blanket prohibition against capital punishment, then this passage flatly contradicts Romans 13. Instead, what Jesus was getting at was what Paul meant when he said, “you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1). Jesus knew that the woman’s accusers were guilty of the very thing of which they were willing to condemn her. He was able to prick them in regard to their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew they were guilty of the very same thing. The Old Law made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). Jesus was striking directly at the fact that the woman’s accusers were ineligible to fulfill this role.
Fourth, capital punishment would have had to have been levied by a duly constituted court of law. This mob was actually engaging in an illegal action—vigilantism. Jesus, though the Son of God, would not have interfered in the responsibility of the appropriate judicial authorities to handle the situation. Remember that, on another occasion when one of two brothers approached Jesus out of a crowd and asked Him to settle a probate dispute, Jesus responded: “Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?” (Luke 12:14). So the effort by this mob in John 8 to ensnare Jesus was without legal justification.
Jesus actually handled the situation appropriately, in keeping with legal protocol of both Old Testament law as well as Roman civil law. The woman clearly violated God’s law, and deserved the death penalty. But the necessary prerequisites for pronouncing the execution sentence were lacking—which is precisely what Jesus meant when He said, “Neither do I condemn you.” Since the legal stipulations that were needed to establish her guilt were not in place, He would not override the law and condemn her. Jesus’ action on this occasion in no way discredits the legitimacy of capital punishment.
A third objection that has been raised in an effort to challenge the propriety of capital punishment is the insistence by some that the death penalty serves no useful purpose—especially when it comes to deterring other criminals from their course of action. Opponents insist, “capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime.” This kind of humanistic, uninformed thinking has held sway for some 30+ years. It might be believable if it were not for the inspired Word of God informing to the contrary.
Even if capital punishment did not serve as a deterrent, it still would serve at least one other worthwhile purpose: the elimination from society of those elements that persist in destructive behavior. The Bible teaches that some people can be hardened into a sinful, wicked condition. They have become so cold, cruel, and mean that even the threat of death does not phase them. Paul referred to those whose consciences had been “seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2). Some people are so hardened that they are described as “past feeling” and completely given over to wickedness (Ephesians 4:19). God invoked the death penalty upon an entire generation because their wickedness was “great in the earth” and “every imagination of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).
So the human heart and mind can become so alienated from right, good, and truth that a person can be unreachable, incorrigible, and irretrievable. The death penalty would spare law-abiding citizens any further perpetration of death and suffering by those who engage in such repetitive actions. How horrible and senseless it is that so many Americans have had to suffer terribly at the hands of criminals who already have been found guilty of previous crimes, but who were permitted to go free and repeat their criminal behavior!
So even if capital punishment was not a deterrent, it is still a necessary option in society. It holds in check the growth and spread of hardened criminals. A careful study is warranted of the expression “so you shall put away the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 1 Corinthians 5:13).
But the Bible clearly teaches that the application of penal punishment, including the death penalty, is, in fact, a deterrent. For example, God wanted the death penalty imposed upon any individual, including one’s relative, who attempted secretly to entice others into idolatry. Such a person was to be stoned to death in the presence of the entire nation with this resulting effect: “So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you” (Deuteronomy 13:11).
Another instance of this rationale is seen in the pronouncement of death upon the incorrigible rebel: “And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously” (Deuteronomy 17:13). The principle is stated again when the Jews were instructed to take a rebellious and stubborn son and stone him to death with the effect that “all Israel shall hear and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:21).
This same perspective is illustrated even in the New Testament. Paul emphasized that elders in the church who sinned were to be rebuked publicly “that others also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:20). Ananias and Sapphira, a Christian couple in the early church, were divinely executed in Acts 5, and in the very next verse Luke wrote: “So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things” (Acts 5:11). These passages prove that a direct link exists between punishment and execution on the one hand, and the caution that it instills in others on the other hand.
The Bible teaches the corollary of this principle as well. Where there is inadequate, insufficient and delayed punishment, crime and violence increase. Notice Ecclesiastes 8:11—“Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” This very phenomenon is occurring even now in America.
The court system is clogged and backed up to the point that many cases do not come to trial for literally years. Criminals who have been shown to be guilty of multiple murders and other heinous crimes are given light sentences, while those who deserve far less are given exorbitant sentences. A mockery of the justice system has resulted. Such circumstances, according to the Bible, only serve to encourage more lawlessness. The overall citizenry cannot help but grow lax in their own attitudes. This principle is evident in the biblical expression, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).
If the Bible is to be believed, capital punishment is, indeed, a deterrent to criminal behavior. The elimination of hardened criminals is necessary if societies are to survive. The liberal, humanistic values that have held sway in America for the last 40 years are taking their toll, and getting back to God’s view of things is the only hope if the nation is to survive.
A fourth quibble that someone might raise is that capital punishment appears to be a rather extreme step to take since it is as cruel, barbaric, and violent as the action committed by the criminal himself. Is it not the case that capital punishment is resorting to the same kind of behavior as the criminal? May capital punishment be viewed as a vindictive retaliation? The biblical response to this question is seen in the oft’-repeated phrases: “his blood be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9,13,27; Deuteronomy 19:10; Ezekiel 18:13; 33:5) and “his blood be upon his own head” (Joshua 2:19; 2 Samuel 1:16; Ezekiel 33:4; Acts 18:6).
Those who carry out the death sentence are, in reality, neutral third parties. They are merely carrying out the will of God in dispensing justice. The criminal is simply receiving what he brought upon himself—his “just desserts.” The expression “his blood be upon him” indicates that God assigns responsibility for the execution to the one being executed. It’s like we tell small children: “If you put your hand in the fire, you’re going to get burned.” There are consequences to our actions. If we do not want to be executed, we should not commit any act that merits death. If we do commit such an act, we have earned the death penalty, and we deserve to get what we have earned. The one who metes out the punishment is not to be blamed or considered responsible for the execution of the guilty.
Rather than oppose those who promote capital punishment, painting them as insensitive ogres or uncaring, callous, uncivilized barbarians, effort would be better spent focusing upon the barbaric behavior of the criminals who rape, plunder, and pillage. It is their behavior that should be kept in mind. Tears and compassion ought to center on the innocent victims and their families. Lethal injection of a wicked evildoer hardly can match the violent, inhuman suffering and death experienced by the innocent victims of crime. They continue to suffer, while the perpetrator carries on for many years, many trials, and many appeals before justice is served—if it ever is. The God of the Bible is incensed and outraged at such circumstances. The time has come to start listening to Him as He speaks through His inspired Word.

From Gary... Motivation, with a view to reality!!!


Last night, my weigh-in at weight-watchers was the same as it has been for the past few weeks. And believe it or not, I am happy about it!!! Why? Because before I started WW I was gaining about 5-7 pounds a month- every month!!!  So, even though I have only lost 4 pounds since I joined (seven weeks ago), things are changing, albeit slowly.

Now, I have come to the realization that I just need to see things differently- in short, I need to be motivated!!! So, when I was on Google+ today and saw this picture, I laughed!!!  And I thought- if it takes a hard dose of visual reality to see the genuine physical reality of things, then what would it take to see true spirituality?

As usual, Jesus has the answer....

Luke, Chapter 7 (WEB)
 24  When John’s messengers had departed, he began to tell the multitudes about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?   25  But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously dressed, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts.   26  But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and much more than a prophet.   27  This is he of whom it is written, 
‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, 
who will prepare your way before you.’


  28  “For I tell you, among those who are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptizer, yet he who is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he.”

and of course, there is also this passage...

Matthew, Chapter 17 (WEB)

1 After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. 2 He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light.  3 Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him. 


  4  Peter answered, and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you want, let’s make three tents here: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 


  5  While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them. Behold, a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

Again, the answer to spiritual reality is Jesus!!!  Not sure about the mirror thing... Sounds a little scary!!!!!


Gay marriage ruling: What does it mean for Christians? By Steve Singleton




Gay marriage ruling: What does it mean for Christians?

By

Steve Singleton


The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2015, declared that gay couples have a right to marry anywhere throughout the United States and that such couples who marry deserve the same rights, privileges, and benefits of other married couples.

This will likely have two negative effects for New Testament Christians. It will appear to give gay marriages legitimacy because they are now recognized officially by government officials and agencies, and it will reinforce the false notion that rejecting that legitimacy is tantamount to being a bigot who opposes granting people their fundamental civil rights.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Roberts warns, “Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.”

Fellow dissenter Justice Alito concurs: “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. . . . It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. . . . The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

Committed Christians are not bigots because they oppose a redefinition of marriage. They are only submitting to what God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and his apostles teach on the subject.
The Bible speaks clearly about homosexual acts: they are an abomination to the LORD. Leviticus 18:22 declares, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Also, Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

The word abomination (Hebrew: tôʿēbâ) is a category that includes homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), along with a number of other unlawful deeds:
• prostitution (Deut. 23:18; 1 Kings 14:24)
• sexual impurity (Lev. 18:26, 27, 29)
• idolatry (Deut. 17:4; 20:18; 32:16; 2 Kings 21:11; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:8, 14; Ezra 9:1, 11, 14)
• making idols (Deut. 27:15)
• child sacrifice (2 Kings 16:3)
• worshipping the Astoreth (a fertility cult, 2 Kings 23:13)
• offering a blemished sacrifice (Deut. 17:1)
• witchcraft or sorcery (Deut. 17:9; 18:12; 2 Kings 21:2)
• cross-dressing (Deut. 22:5)
• using unjust weights (Deut. 25:16; Prov. 11:1; 20:10, 23)
• wickedness in general (Prov. 3:32; 6:16; 8:78; 11:20; 15:9, 26; 16:12)
• lying lips (Prov. 12:22)
• sacrifice of the wicked (Prov. 15:8; 21:27)
• being proud in heart (Prov. 16:5)
• perverting justice (Prov. 17:15)
• scoffing (Prov. 24:9)
• the prayer of the lawless (Prov. 28:9)
• being an unjust man (Prov. 29:27)

I give this long list so that you can decide: does a change of covenants from the Law to Grace transforms an abominable deed into one that is now holy and pure? An apparent exception to this list is prohibited foods (Deut. 14:3), where, in a context discussing idolatry, the same word is used, when typically a different Hebrew word for ‘abomination’ (Hebrew: Å¡eqeá¹£) occurs (see Lev. 11:10-13, 20, 23, 41-42; Isa. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10). We know that “Jesus declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). No such similar declaration regarding homosexual acts occurs anywhere in the New Testament.

The New Testament makes equally clear statements about homosexual acts. For instance, in First Corinthians 6:9-10, the Apostle Paul declares, “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (This rendering found in the English Standard Version has a footnote for the phrase “men who practice homosexuality” that says: “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.”)

Whether those engaged have a casual or committed relationship does not make the homosexual acts committed illegitimate or legitimate. In Genesis 2:24, Moses writes, “[A] man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” The Hebrew word for ‘man’ or ‘male’ and for “husband” are the same word (ʾīš), and the Hebrew word for ‘woman’ or ‘female’ and for ‘wife’ are the same word (ʾīšâ).

Likewise, in First Corinthians 7:2, Paul commands, “[E]ach man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Here, the Greek word for ‘man’ or ‘male’ as well as for ‘husband’ are the same word (anÄ“r) and the Greek word for ‘women’ or ‘female’ as well as for ‘wife’ are the same word (gynÄ“). Both the Old and New Testaments, therefore, clearly define marriage as heterosexual.

The first chapter of Romans states that as a consequence of willful rebellion against God, “God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom. 1:26-27).

These passages are enough to establish the consistent teaching of the Bible that homosexual acts are abominable to God and, along with other willful sins that a person may persist in committing, disqualify him or her from entering God’s kingdom. We need not debate with Christian gays the sin of Sodom, and we can dismiss as ridiculous their claims that biblical homosexual couples include David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, or even Jesus and “the disciple whom He loved.”

The same Bible also teaches, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18; Mark 12:31 and parallels), and our neighbors include the lesbian, the gay man, the bisexual, and the transsexual. We should be aware and sympathize with the struggles individuals of these orientations may have had, struggles that often include rejection and abandonment by family members, isolation from those around them, the deeply distressing ambivalence of a self-imposed compulsion to hide and to lie.

We can join our homosexual friends in condemning violence against gays, and we can offer them friendship, a listening ear, and acceptance of them as persons without condoning what the Bible calls sin, just like we make friends with those guilty of other sins that our society doesn’t stigmatize, like being greedy, getting drunk, overeating, overworking, indulging in heterosexual lust, being haughty, and being selfish.

We can confess to them our own sinfulness and our need for a Savior who inspires us to turn away from sin and find forgiveness in His cleansing blood. We can help them discover the Body of Christ, which meets our deep-felt needs for friendship, love, and unconditional acceptance. In time we may convince them, even if they never become Christians, that we are not bigots, that we care what happens to them, that we are committed to being their friends, and that we truly love them.

Want to go deeper?

Highly recommended:

• Eros Defiled: The Christian and Sexual Sin by John White. (www.amazon.com/Eros-Defiled-John-White-ebook/dp/B003ZSIS80/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435359669&sr=1-1)

This Christian psychiatrist writes with understanding and compassion about sexual sins. He claims that most professional counselors believe that homosexual orientation can be corrected, and that the more experience they have in the profession, the higher is the proportion of those convinced it is possible. He concludes by explaining how local congregations can deal with sexual sin in a context of love and forgiveness.

• A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality by Kerby Anderson.
(www.amazon.com/Biblical-Point-View-Homosexuality-ebook/dp/B00547QX9Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435360311&sr=1-3)

Chapters are: Homosexuality and Society, Homosexuality and Relationships, Homosexuality and Families, Homosexuality and the Schools, The Causes of Homosexuality, Homosexuality and the Bible, Homosexuality and the Church, Same-sex Marriage and Politics, Answering the Arguments for Same-sex Marriage, and The Social Impact of Homosexuality.

• The official opinion of the Court, published June 26, 2015 (www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

• The four dissents from the majority opinion (Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito): www.scribd.com/doc/269783479/Same-Sex-Opinion

• The opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, which the Supreme Court overturned: www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0275p-06.pdf