• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?

Does the word Jewish refer to a race or a religion?
Jewish race or religion
Question: "Does the word Jewish refer to a race or a religion?"

Answer:
It can be difficult to define what it means to be “Jewish.” People may assume that being Jewish means that one is a physical descendant of the ancient Jewish people, but there is much more to consider. Being Jewish can be defined in terms of religion, race, culture, and nationality. Any one (or more) of the varied definitions may apply to a given individual, but all of them are not true of all Jews.

To speak of being Jewish religiously means that one follows the Torah and/or the Mishnah. There are many who do not follow the tenets of Judaism but who consider themselves cultural Jews, since they observe certain festivals or traditions, albeit in a non-religious way. But there are also converts, or proselytes, to Judaism, and they, too, are “Jewish,” regardless of their background or ethnicity.

There is only one race, and that is the human race, so to speak of the “Jewish race” can be problematic. Various courts in the U.S. have ruled that Jewish people classify as a race in order to extend them protections under anti-discrimination laws. But when a Jew filling out a survey or application is faced with the choice of “Caucasian, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian, Black, or Pacific Islander,” he could be any of the above.

Using the word Jewish to refer to a specific culture bypasses the religious and racial considerations, but “Jewish culture” can be elusive to pinpoint, as well. The particulars of worship and practice are not common to all Jews. Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, for example, practice some different customs, follow slightly different liturgies, and have different accents in their Hebrew pronunciation.

In the Bible the Jews were called to be a special nation, but it is impossible today to define Jewishness according to nationality. For almost 2,000 years the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were a people without a country, and when modern Israel was established in 1948, there were a great many Jews who did not support it. Today people living in Israel are called Israelis as opposed to Israelites, but there are many Israelis who are not Jewish at all. By the same token, most of the Jews in the world are not Israeli citizens.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz suggests a that the proper way to think of the Jewish people is not as a religion, a race, a culture, or a nation, but as a family (We Jews: Who Are We and What Should We Do?, 2005). Jews, according to Steinsaltz, are united in that they are the extended spiritual and/or physical family of Jacob.

The Bible is clear that God chose the children of Jacob for a special purpose. Paul, who was himself a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, wrote of his willingness to give up everything, if he could, for the sake of his fellow Jews’ salvation: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen” (Romans 9:3–5).

Recommended Resource: Faith of Israel, 2d ed.: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament by William Dumbrell

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Is belief in God a virus?
God virus
audio
Question: "Is belief in God a virus?"

Answer:
Among the ranks of evolutionary scientists are those who teach the idea of “evolutionary psychology,” an attempt to explain all of life through the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest.” One of the more interesting metaphors to come out of this endeavor is an analogy comparing the transfer of information and the spread of ideas to genetic code. Unlike the "nature" of the inherited gene, the “meme*,” or idea, is acquired by nurture—by exposure to the thoughts and beliefs of others. The transfer of ideas has little to do with truth or reality or benefit, but with how well the ideas survive in the given environment. Which ideas “stick” depends on how easily understandable and accepted they are by the receiver. Memes also cluster, manifesting as such things as a worldview, a political leaning, a religion, or devotion to a particular sport.

The “virus of the mind” is an off-shoot of the meme concept used by evolutionary psychologists to represent particularly dangerous ideas. Unlike a meme (or a gene), a virus is not an inherent part of the original organism. It is a foreign object which invades, uses the organism’s innate features to replicate, and spreads, causing harm wherever it goes. It then infects others while continuing to inflict considerable damage, or even death, on its host. In the minds of the most adamant, oppositional atheists, belief in God and participation in any religion is such a virus. People who believe in God are “infected” and coerced by the virus to spread the infection to others. Because of the malleability of a developing brain, children are the most susceptible to being influenced by memes; that is, they are likely to believe what their parents tell them. Which, considering the atheistic rejection of God, is considered to be child abuse. The virus also alters the believers’ minds so they are unable to think clearly about life. Atheists, who claim to have no preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and rely solely on science, are seen as the only hope for humanity.

The argument is interesting and creative, but academic. And very emotional. The language is threatening and frightening—characteristics of the “fittest” memes [see: any political debate]. The idea of the meme itself, developed by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, is a metaphor, a useful illustration, but not a reflection of truth. Claiming that religion and belief in God are “viruses,” an assertion developed by Dawkins in his essay “Viruses of the Mind” and expounded upon in Darrel W. Ray’s The God Virus, is emotional manipulation.

Why the vitriol? Ironically, for similar reasons adamant atheists give for the propagation of religion. Claiming believers are infected with a metaphysical virus provides comfort for those who don’t believe in God, especially those who have been hurt by religion. It “explains” that believers are ill, that their normal thinking skills have been taken over by a malevolent force. And it provides a unifying political cause—if religion is designed to spread easily, it must be kept out of schools, science, and, as far as possible, all human interactions.

Religious adherents will readily concede some of the “proofs” atheists give of the invalidity of religion. Belief in one faith system does tend to discourage belief in others. That is not proof that religion is invalid, however. It is a sign that believers believe their particular faith. Faith systems do tend to make training their children a priority (Proverbs 22:6), not because a virus incites them to, but because parents are designed to share their particular worldview with their kids. And faith systems do emphasize certain habits designed to encourage belief in an individual. It could be continual exposure to the teachings of that faith (Psalm 1:2), consistently meeting together (Hebrews 10:25), or eating together (Acts 2:46). But these are deliberately chosen practices, not unwitting influences of an invasive pathogen. Finally, most religions do encourage evangelism (Matthew 28:19–20). In its most sincere form, evangelism is driven by the adherents’ belief that their faith is true and should be shared. Some motivations are more malicious; some religious leaders want more people to manipulate, abuse, and take advantage of. But, whatever the reason, evangelism is not because an anthropomorphized cluster of ideas is fighting for propagation.

Those are a few of the minor discussions, and they don’t really resolve anything. Adamant atheists have other standard arguments they use to attempt to illustrate the idea of the God virus. One is that religion was developed by fearful, ignorant people who merely wanted comfort in a dangerous world. The Bible says that God is a comfort in a dangerous world (Psalm 23; 119:76; Isaiah 51:12; 61:1–2; Matthew 5:4; 2 Corinthians 1:3–4). Many evolutionary scientists believe God doesn’t exist because their model of the creation of the universe proves He doesn’t have to exist. But even if their models were complete and accurate, proof of un-necessity isn’t proof of non-existence—or there would be no Starbucks. The Bible provides its own scientific model: God created the world (Genesis 1). And, despite their existence, He didn’t need scientists to do it.

One of the most common arguments that belief in God is a mind virus is also one of the most emotionally charged: religion encourages people to do bad things, and atheistic humanism encourages people to do good things. The ongoing conversation between believers and atheists covers such ground as the Crusades vs. Stalin, medicine vs. orphanages, Jihad vs. the A-bomb. But, as “proof,” atheists tend to point out the most malicious, least godly examples of religion-affiliated incidents. And God is perfectly clear about how He views abusive religious leaders (Ezekiel 34), opportunistic religious practices (2 Peter 2:2–3), and even those undiscerning enough to follow (2 Timothy 4:3).

But this argument should catch the believers’ attention for one simple reason: sometimes it’s true. Religious leaders are occasionally caught in sex scandals—and others often look the other way. Unbiblical views of God and the church have been used as justification for war. And sometimes, out of fatigue, frustration, or misunderstanding of God’s grace, believers are unkind or even abusive. The Bible teaches that, if we are persecuted for no reason, then we follow the example of Christ (John 15:18). But, if we live in a manner that misrepresents the gospel, we get what we deserve (1 Peter 2:19–20).

Calling belief in God a “virus” is a pseudo-scientific metaphor, powered by hate of God and deep-seated wounds born of the misunderstanding of the gospel—of both perpetrators and victims. Religion as a virus is not science; it is emotional rhetoric. For believers, the Bible explains what our response should be: know what we believe and why (1 Peter 3:15), be kind (1 Corinthians 13), examine our own behavior (2 Corinthians 13:5; James 1:22–25), and remember that the “enemy” is not the angry, hurt, or rebellious people who spend their lives rejecting God (Ephesians 6:12). The battle is spiritual, and our greatest weapon is the prayer that the Holy Spirit would soften the hearts of those who are hardened against Him (1 John 4:4).

*Note: Meme is being used as the biological term indicating non-genetic trait-sharing, not the various internet phenomenon that borrowed the term.

Recommended Resource: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
What are the dangers of postmodernism?
dangers of postmodernism
audio
Question: "What are the dangers of postmodernism?"

Answer:
Simply put, postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, postmodernism’s viewpoint is exemplified in the statement “that may be true for you, but not for me.” While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of opinion with matters of truth.

The term “postmodernism” literally means “after modernism” and is used to philosophically describe the current era which came after the age of modernism. Postmodernism is a reaction (or perhaps more appropriately, a disillusioned response) to modernism’s failed promise of using human reason alone to better mankind and make the world a better place. Because one of modernism’s beliefs was that absolutes did indeed exist, postmodernism seeks to “correct” things by first eliminating absolute truth and making everything (including the empirical sciences and religion) relative to an individual’s beliefs and desires.

The dangers of postmodernism can be viewed as a downward spiral that begins with the rejection of absolute truth, which then leads to a loss of distinctions in matters of religion and faith, and culminates in a philosophy of religious pluralism that says no faith or religion is objectively true and therefore no one can claim his or her religion is true and another is false.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #1 – Relative Truth

Postmodernism’s stance of relative truth is the outworking of many generations of philosophical thought. From Augustine to the Reformation, the intellectual aspects of Western civilization and the concept of truth were dominated by theologians. But, beginning with the Renaissance the 14th – 17th centuries, thinkers began to elevate humankind to the center of reality. If one were to look at periods of history like a family tree, the Renaissance would be modernism’s grandmother and the Enlightenment would be its mother. Rene Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” personified the beginning of this era. God was not the center of truth any longer – man was.

The Enlightenment was, in a way, the complete imposition of the scientific model of rationality upon all aspects of truth. It claimed that only scientific data could be objectively understood, defined, and defended. Truth as it pertained to religion was discarded. The philosopher who contributed to the idea of relative truth was the Prussian Immanuel Kant and his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which appeared in 1781. Kant argued that true knowledge about God was impossible, so he created a divide of knowledge between “facts” and “faith.” According to Kant, “Facts have nothing to do with religion.” The result was that spiritual matters were assigned to the realm of opinion, and only the empirical sciences were allowed to speak of truth. While modernism believed in absolutes in science, God’s special revelation (the Bible) was evicted from the realm of truth and certainty.

From modernism came postmodernism and the ideas of Frederick Nietzsche. As the patron saint of postmodernist philosophy, Nietzsche held to “perspectivism,” which says that all knowledge (including science) is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many other philosophers have built upon Nietzsche’s work (for example, Foucault, Rorty, and Lyotard) and have shared his rejection of God and religion in general. They also rejected any hint of absolute truth, or as Lyotard put it, a rejection of a metanarrative (a truth that transcends all peoples and cultures).

This philosophical war against objective truth has resulted in postmodernism being completely averse to any claim to absolutes. Such a mindset naturally rejects anything that declares to be inerrant truth, such as the Bible.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #2 – Loss of Discernment

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas said, “It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions.” What Aquinas meant is that truth is dependent upon the ability to discern – the capability to distinguish “this” from “that” in the realm of knowledge. However, if objective and absolute truth does not exist, then everything becomes a matter of personal interpretation. To the postmodern thinker, the author of a book does not possess the correct interpretation of his work; it is the reader who actually determines what the book means – a process called deconstruction. And given that there are multiple readers (vs. one author), there are naturally multiple valid interpretations.

Such a chaotic situation makes it impossible to make meaningful or lasting distinctions between interpretations because there is no standard that can be used. This especially applies to matters of faith and religion. Attempting to make proper and meaningful distinctions in the area of religion is no more meaningful than arguing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. Postmodernism says that it is impossible to objectively adjudicate between competing truth claims.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #3 – Pluralism

If absolute truth does not exist, and if there is no way to make meaningful, right/wrong distinctions between different faiths and religions, then the natural conclusion is that all beliefs must be considered equally valid. The proper term for this practical outworking in postmodernism is “philosophical pluralism.” With pluralism, no religion has the right to pronounce itself true and the other competing faiths false, or even inferior. For those who espouse philosophical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. D. A. Carson underscores conservative evangelicalism’s concerns about what it sees as the danger of pluralism: “In my most somber moods I sometimes wonder if the ugly face of what I refer to as philosophical pluralism is the most dangerous threat to the gospel since the rise of the Gnostic heresy in the second century.”

These progressive dangers of postmodernism – relative truth, a loss of discernment, and philosophical pluralism – represent imposing threats to Christianity because they collectively dismiss God’s Word as something that has no real authority over mankind and no ability to show itself as true in a world of competing religions. What is Christianity’s response to these challenges?

Response to the Dangers of Postmodernism

Christianity claims to be absolutely true, that meaningful distinctions in matters of right/wrong (as well as spiritual truth and falsehood) exist, and that to be correct in its claims about God any contrary claims from competing religions must be incorrect. Such a stance provokes cries of “arrogance” and “intolerance” from postmodernism. However, truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations of postmodernism quickly crumble, revealing Christianity’s claims to be both plausible and compelling.

First, Christianity claims that absolute truth exists. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He was sent to do one thing: “To testify to the truth” (John 18:37). Postmodernism says that no truth should be affirmed, yet its position is self-defeating – it affirms at least one absolute truth: that no truth should be affirmed. This means that postmodernism does believe in absolute truth. Its philosophers write books stating things they expect their readers to embrace as truth. Putting it simply, one professor has said, “When someone says there is no such thing as truth, they are asking you not to believe them. So don’t.”

Second, Christianity claims that meaningful distinctions exist between the Christian faith and all other beliefs. It should be understood that those who claim meaningful distinctions do not exist are actually making a distinction. They are attempting to showcase a difference in what they believe to be true and the Christian’s truth claims. Postmodernist authors expect their readers to come to the right conclusions about what they have written and will correct those who interpret their work differently from what they have intended. Again, their position and philosophy proves itself to be self-defeating because they eagerly make distinctions between what they believe to be correct and what they see as being false.

Finally, Christianity claims to be universally true in what it says regarding man’s lost condition before God, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of fallen mankind, and the separation between God and anyone who chooses not to accept what God says about sin and the need for repentance. When Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill, he said, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30). Paul’s declaration was not “this is true for me, but may not be true for you”; rather; it was an exclusive and universal command (that is, a metanarrative) from God to everyone. Any postmodernist who says Paul is wrong is committing an error against his own pluralistic philosophy, which says no faith or religion is incorrect. Once again, the postmodernist violates his own view that every religion is equally true.

Just as it is not e pluralism may be desirable in matters of food preferences, it is not helpful in matters of truth. The Christian should present God’s truth in love and simply ask any postmodernist who is angered by the exclusive claims of Christianity, “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

Recommended Resource: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Is faith in God a crutch?
faith God crutch
audio
Question: "Is faith in God a crutch?"

Answer:
Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, once said, “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.” Agreeing with him is pornographer Larry Flynt, who commented, “There’s nothing good I can say about it [religion]. People use it as a crutch.” Ted Turner once simply said, "Christianity is a religion for losers!" Ventura, Flynt, Turner, and others who think like them view Christians as being emotionally feeble and in need of imaginary support to get through life. Their insinuation is that they themselves are strong and in no need of a supposed God to help them with their lives.

Such statements bring a number of questions: Where did such thinking start? Is there any truth to it? And how does the Bible respond to such assertions?

Is faith in God a crutch? - The Impact of Freud
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian neurologist who founded the practice of psychoanalysis, a system espousing the theory that unconscious motives dictate much of human behavior. Though championing atheism, Freud admitted that the truth of religion could not be disproved and that religious faith has provided comfort for untold numbers of people through history. However, Freud thought the concept of God was illusionary. In one of his religious works, The Future of an Illusion, he wrote, “They [believers] give the name of ‘God’ to some vague abstraction which they have created for themselves.”

As to the motivation for creating such illusions, Freud believed two basic things: (1) people of faith create a god because they have strong wishes and hopes within them that act as comfort against the harshness of life; (2) The idea of God comes from the need for an idyllic father figure that eclipses either a non-existent or imperfect real father in the life of a religiously-minded person. Speaking of the supposed wish-fulfillment factor in religion, Freud wrote, “They [religious beliefs] are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. We call belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation and in doing so we disregard its relation to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.”

For Freud, God was nothing more than a psychological projection that served to shield an individual from a reality he does not want to face and cannot cope with on his own. After Freud came other scientists and philosophers who asserted the same thing and said that religion is just an illusion/delusion of the mind. Robert Pirsig, an American writer and philosopher who typifies Freud’s followers, has said, “When one person suffers from a delusion, it’s called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it’s called religion.”

What about the above charges? Is there any truth to the assertions made by Freud and others?

Examining the Claims of the “Crutch Crowd”
When making an honest examination of these claims, the first thing to recognize is what those making the assertions are claiming about themselves. Deriders of religion are saying that Christians are prone to psychological and wish-fulfillment factors that they, the skeptics, are not. But how do they know that? For example, Freud saw the need for a Father God as an outworking of emotionally needy people desiring a father figure, but could it be that Freud himself had an emotional need for no father figure to exist? And perhaps Freud had an outworking of wish-fulfillment that manifested in not wanting a Holy God and judgment in the afterlife to exist, a wish for hell not to be real. Demonstrating the plausibility of such thinking is the writing of Freud himself who once said, “The bad part of it, especially for me, lies in the fact that science of all things seems to demand the existence of a God.”

It would seem reasonable to conclude, as Freud and his followers have argued in their position, that the only way a person could overcome “demanding” black-and-white evidence of something is by creating an illusionary hope that overpowers the verifications of God’s existence, and yet they do not consider this a possibility for them. Some atheists, however, have honestly and openly admitted this likelihood. Serving as one example, atheist Professor/Philosopher Thomas Nagel once said, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope that there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Another consideration to keep in mind is that not all aspects of Christianity are comforting. For example, the doctrine of hell, the recognition of humankind as sinners who are unable to please God on their own, and other similar teachings are not of the warm-and-fuzzy kind. How does Freud explain the creation of these doctrines?

An additional thought that springs from the above question is why, if humankind merely invents the concept of God to make itself feel better, would people fabricate a God who is holy? Such a God would seem to be at odds with people’s natural desires and practices. In fact, such a God would seem to be the last type of god they would come up with. Instead, one would expect people to create a god who agrees with the things they naturally want to do instead of opposing the practices that they themselves (for some reason yet to be explained) label as “sinful.”

One last question is how do the “crutch” claims explain people who initially were hostile to religion and did not want to believe? Such people seemingly had no wish or desire for Christianity to be true, yet after an honest examination of the evidence and an acknowledgement of its “realness,” they became believers. English scholar C. S. Lewis is one such person. Lewis is famous for saying there was no more reluctant convert in all of England than himself, that he was literally dragged kicking and screaming into the faith, which is hardly a statement that one would expect from a person engaged in a wish-fulfillment fantasy.

These issues and questions seem to be at odds with the claims of the “crutch” crowd and are conveniently ignored by them. But what does the Bible have to say about their claims? How does it answer their charges?

Is Faith in God a Crutch? - How Does the Bible Respond?
There are three core responses that the Bible makes to the claim that people have invented the idea of God as a crutch for themselves. First, the Bible says that God created people for Himself and designed humankind to naturally desire a relationship with Him. Of this fact, Augustine wrote, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee.” The Bible says that humankind is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). This being true, isn’t it reasonable to believe that we feel a desire for God because we have been created with this desire? Shouldn’t a divine fingerprint and the possibility of relationship between creature and Creator exist?

Second, the Bible says that people actually act in the reverse way from that which Freud and his followers claim. The Bible states that humankind is in rebellion against God and naturally pushes Him away instead of desiring Him, and that such rejection is the reason the wrath of God comes upon them. The reality is people naturally do everything they can to suppress the truth about God, which is something Paul wrote about: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18–22). The fact that God is clearly evident in creation to all, as stated in Paul’s words, is nicely summed up by C. S. Lewis, who wrote, “We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God. The world is crowded with Him.”

Freud himself admitted that religion was “the enemy,” and this is exactly how God depicts humankind before being spiritually enlightened—as the enemies of God. This is something Paul also acknowledged: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Romans 5:10, emphasis added).

Third, the Bible itself states that life is difficult, hardships are common, and a fear of death is experienced by all. These are truths that are easily seen in the world around us. The Bible also says that God is there to help us get through hard times and assures us that Jesus has overcome the fear of death. Jesus Himself said, “In the world you have tribulation,” which speaks to the fact that difficulties in life exist, but He also said, “Take courage” and said His followers should look to Him for ultimate victory (John 16:33).

The Bible says that God cares for and helps His people and that He commands His followers to help one another as well and bear each other’s burdens (cf. Galatians 6:2). Speaking of God’s concern for people, Peter wrote, “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:6-7, emphasis added). Jesus’ famous statement also speaks to this fact: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28–30).

In addition to daily help, the fear of death has also been overcome by Christ. Through His resurrection, Jesus proved that death has no power over Him, and God’s Word says that Christ’s resurrection was proof of the resurrection and eternal life of all who put their trust in Him (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20). The release from the fear of death is a truth proclaimed by the writer of Hebrews, who said, “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself [Jesus] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives” (Hebrews 2:14–15, emphasis added).

So, indeed, the Bible speaks about God’s care, concern, and help for His creation. Such truth does indeed bring comfort, but it is a comfort that it is grounded in reality and not mere wish-fulfillment desire.

Is faith in God a crutch? - Conclusion
Jesse Ventura was wrong when he said that religion is nothing more than a crutch. Such a statement speaks to the prideful nature of man and epitomizes the type of people rebuked by Jesus in the book of Revelation: “You say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (Revelation 3:17).

The wish-fulfillment claims of Freud, Ventura, and others only act as an indictment against themselves and showcase their desire to reject God and His claim to their lives, which is exactly what the Bible says fallen humankind does. But to these same people, God asks that they recognize their true desires and offers Himself in the place of the false hope of humanism that they cling to.

The Bible’s statements regarding the fact and evidence of Christ’s resurrection bring comfort and real hope—hope that does not disappoint—and instruct us to walk in a way that trusts God and recognizes our true “weak” position before Him. Once that is done, we become strong, just as Paul said, “For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Recommended Resource: The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
no-religion-800.jpg
No religion?
People are increasingly describing themselves as having “no religion.” This is especially true among younger generations. Why is this? What is the cause, and what are the implications?

Interestingly, in many polls, when respondents give “no religion” as their response, close to 70% indicate they believe in the existence of God. Further, over 30% describe themselves as “spiritual” instead of “religious.” Why would so many people who claim “no religion” still believe in God? Why would they prefer “spiritual” as a label instead of “religious”?

A generic definition of religion might be “belief in and worship of a God or gods, usually expressed in conduct and ritual.” So, if “belief in God” is not the issue for a significant majority of the “no religion” respondents, the problem must be with “expressed in conduct and ritual.” Essentially what these people may be saying is, “Yes, I believe in God, but I don’t want anyone telling me what my relationship with God or spiritual journey is supposed to be like.”

This is nothing new. The only thing that has changed is that more people are willing to admit it. We human beings are inherently stubborn, arrogant, and self-obsessed. We do not want anyone telling us what we should and should not do—not even God. We acknowledge God's existence, but seek to deny Him any influence in our lives. We avoid the “rituals” He commands in the Bible because they might be inconvenient. We do not want to go to church, study the Bible, minister to the poor, or give financially to God-honoring causes. For those with “no religion,” perhaps they say “no” because religion might actually impact how they live their lives. Belief in God and an active spirituality are core aspects of religion. Most people do not truly have “no religion.” Rather, they are opposed to any “religion” that inconveniences them.

Countless times, I have heard people say something to the effect of “I am very spiritual. I pray. I worship God in nature. I try to be compassionate to people. I don’t need the Bible or church.” But, they have no idea who God really is, what salvation in Jesus Christ is really all about, who the Holy Spirit is, or to whom they are praying. How can they even know what worship is or have the right motivation for being compassionate when they have no one and nothing instructing them on how to relate to the God in whom they claim to believe?

Essentially, to claim to believe in God but have “no religion” is to advocate “fast food religion.” Just as we are used to customizing our food orders exactly the way we want them, we are doing the same thing in our relationship with God. What “no religion” claimants are truly saying is that they want salvation without commitment, spirituality without truth, and relationship without accountability. Essentially, they are ordering a burger with no bun, meat, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, onions, ketchup, mustard, or mayo. Yep, just an empty box.

S. Michael Houdmann
 
Is Catholicism a false religion?
Catholicism false religion, Catholicism cult
audio
Question: "Is Catholicism a false religion? Is Catholicism a cult?"

Answer:
The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.

While salvation by faith is the most crucial issue, in comparing Roman Catholicism with the Word of God, there are many other differences and contradictions as well. The Roman Catholic Church teaches many doctrines that are in disagreement with what the Bible declares. These include apostolic succession, worship of saints or Mary, prayer to saints or Mary, the pope / papacy, infant baptism, transubstantiation, plenary indulgences, the sacramental system, and purgatory. While Catholics claim Scriptural support for these concepts, none of these teachings have any solid foundation in the clear teaching of Scripture. These concepts are based on Catholic tradition, not the Word of God. In fact, they all clearly contradict Biblical principles.

In regards to the question “Are Catholics saved?”, this is a more difficult question to answer. It is impossible to give a universal statement on the salvation of all members of any denomination of Christianity. Not ALL Baptists are saved. Not ALL Presbyterians are saved. Not ALL Lutherans are saved. Salvation is determined by personal faith in Jesus alone for salvation, not by titles or denominational identification. Despite the unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, there are genuine believers who attend Roman Catholic churches. There are many Roman Catholics who have genuinely placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. However, these Catholic Christians are believers despite what the Catholic Church teaches, not because of what it teaches. To varying degrees, the Catholic Church teaches from the Bible and points people to Jesus Christ as the Savior. As a result, people are sometimes saved in Catholic churches. The Bible has an impact whenever it is proclaimed (Isaiah 55:11). Catholic Christians remain in the Catholic Church out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church truly stands for, out of family tradition and peer pressure, or out of a desire to reach other Catholics for Christ.

At the same time, the Catholic Church also leads many people away from a genuine faith relationship with Christ. The unbiblical beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church have often given the enemies of Christ opportunity to blaspheme. The Roman Catholic Church is not the church that Jesus Christ established. It is not a church that is based on the teachings of the Apostles (as described in the Book of Acts and the New Testament epistles). While Jesus’ words in Mark 7:9 were directed towards the Pharisees, they accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”

Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
What is the best way to evangelize someone who is in a cult or false religion?
evangelize cult
audio
Question: "What is the best way to evangelize someone who is in a cult or false religion?"

Answer:
The most important thing we can do for those involved in cults or false religions is pray for them. We need to pray that God would change their hearts and open their eyes to the truth (2 Corinthians 4:4). We need to pray that God would convince them of their need for salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16). Without the power of God and conviction of the Holy Spirit, we will never succeed in convincing anyone of the truth (John 16:7-11).

We also need to be living a godly Christian life, so those trapped in cults and religions can see the change God has made in our own lives (1 Peter 3:1-2). We need to pray for wisdom in how we can minister to them in a powerful way (James 1:5). After all of this, we must be bold in our actual sharing of the gospel. We must proclaim the message of salvation through Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10). We always need to be prepared to defend our faith (1 Peter 3:15), but we must do so with gentleness and respect. We can proclaim the doctrine correctly, win the war of words, and still impede the cause by an attitude of angry superiority.

Ultimately, we must leave the salvation of those to whom we witness up to God. It is God’s power and grace that saves people, not our efforts. While it is good and wise to be prepared to give a vigorous defense and have knowledge of false beliefs, neither of these things will result in the conversion of those trapped in the lies of the cults and false religions. The best we can do is pray for them, witness to them, and live the Christian life in front of them, trusting that the Holy Spirit will do the work of drawing, convincing, and converting.

Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cults, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject by Walter Martin

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Why can’t religions coexist peacefully?
religions coexist
audio
Question: "Why can’t religions coexist peacefully?"

Answer:
It has often been said that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than anything else. While that statement is completely inaccurate, many people still ponder the question, "Why can’t religions coexist peacefully?" The short answer is because the various religions are competing with one another for the hearts and souls of men. The very nature of religious belief is exclusive, because each religion makes claims about truth that are at odds with the claims of other religions.

Every religion addresses these basic questions: Where did man come from, and why is he here? Is there life after death? Is there a God, and how can we know him? These questions help frame one’s worldview, the foundational philosophy of how one deals with life. When two people have different answers to these questions, there is bound to be conflict of some sort. This conflict can range from a friendly disagreement to a life-and-death battle, depending on the people involved. Since there are hundreds of different religions in the world, and millions of people framing their worldview, it is easy to see how things can escalate.

Typically, when the question "why can’t religions coexist" is asked, the focus is on the historic struggles among Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, although other religions are often included. Sometimes, a contrast is drawn between the pacifism of Eastern mysticism and the violence of traditional monotheism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), though violence and extremism can also be found among the mystic religions. A brief look at history will confirm that every religion has its extremists and carries its share of blame for violence. An important question to ask is whether the bloodshed can be attributed to a religion’s essential teachings, or if it comes from a twisted application of those beliefs.

Christianity is often blamed for atrocities committed in the name of Jesus Christ. The Crusades (1096-1272), the Inquisition (1200-1800), and the French Wars of Religion (1562-98) are common examples. All these events were carried out under the auspices of and with the approval of the Roman Catholic Church, yet they were clearly in violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact, both the Inquisition and the French Wars of Religion were attacks by Catholics against Christians who disagreed with the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church. Writing of this history, Noah Webster said, "The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it."

When the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are examined, it is clear that Christians are expected to live lives characterized by peace. Romans 12:14 and 18 say, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. . . . If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Jesus said in Matthew 5:39, "Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Peter wrote, "Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing" (1 Peter 3:9).

Judaism is accused of stirring up violence, yet throughout history, the Jews have been on the receiving end of violence for more than two thousand years. In every country where they have lived, they have been maligned and persecuted, even though they lived peacefully and provided goods and services to others. Some will point to passages in the Old Testament in which the Jews were commanded to exterminate other nations and say this proves the violent undertones of Judaism. Interestingly, even though God commanded the Jews to wipe out the inhabitants of the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 7:1-5) in order to prevent His people from falling into idolatry, He also commanded them not to "mistreat or oppress a foreigner"(Exodus 22:21). And He extended an invitation to everyone, not just Jews, to believe in Him and be saved (Isaiah 45:22; Romans 10:12; 1 Timothy 2:4). God’s intention is to bless all people through the Jews (Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 49:6). Judaism teaches people "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).

Islam has also been accused of violence, and in recent years many have tried to distinguish between Islamic extremism and the "religion of peace," as Islam is sometimes called. There is no doubt that there are many peaceful followers of Islam, but it is also clear that the very foundation of Islam is rooted in violence. Muhammad (570-632), the founder and prophet of Islam, was raised in the city of Mecca and began preaching his revelations at the age of 40. When some tribes opposed him, he led his followers on a brutal campaign to defeat and convert them. Many revelations were given encouraging Muslims to kill those who did not believe (Surah 2:191; 4:74; 8:12), and that is the primary way Islam has spread throughout its history. When the United States was at war with the Barbary pirates, Secretary of State Timothy Pickering said, "Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty, their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful." In contrast to Christian extremists who have clearly twisted Scripture to justify their violence, Muslim extremists can point to the clear teaching and practice of their founder to support their acts. It is the moderates in Islam who have to explain away verses condoning violence.

One word can sum up the reason why religions cannot coexist peacefully: sin. Because sin affects all men, the tendency to fight can rise up even in religious contexts. While different religions may have similar positive benefits to society, all religions are not equal. Only Christianity addresses the sin problem by changing the heart of man. "If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Was Hitler a Christian?
was Hitler a Christian
Question: "Was Hitler a Christian?"

Answer:
Unfortunately, the provocative claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian keeps making its rounds. The claim, which is really an accusation leveled at all Christians, is fueled entirely by those with an axe to grind against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Objective historical evidence and common sense both indicate that Hitler was not, in any reasonable sense, a Christian.

Adolph Hitler’s family was Catholic, but all available sources indicate that Hitler was uninterested in Catholicism as a child. Once away from his mother’s care, Hitler never again participated in the rites of the Catholic Church. As an adult, Hitler frequently derided religion and those who practiced it. Christianity in particular, with its emphasis on love and peace, was something Hitler despised. In fact, Hitler was more attracted to Islam’s militant expansionism than to the “weakness” of Christianity. Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote that Hitler told him, “The Mohammedan religion . . . would have been much more compatible to us [Germans] than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich (New York: Avon, 1971, p. 734).

U.S. intelligence information obtained during and after WWII shows that Hitler would have preferred to purge Germany of Christianity before the war, but he felt the church was a necessary evil. The Nazi-led German Christian group took control of the German Evangelical Church in 1933 and demanded conformity to Hitler’s political and ideological agenda. In response to Hitler’s takeover of the national church, about one third of the clergy formed the Confessing Church in 1934. The Confessing Church started with the goal of reforming the German Christians and bringing the church back to the basics of the gospel, but members of the Confessing Church soon realized that Hitler’s National Socialist Party was deeply anti-Christian. The suppression of the Confessing Church and the direct persecution of its members are clear examples of Hitler’s stance on faith. Hitler was not a Christian; rather, he viewed the national church as a means of reinforcing his policies.

Hitler was strongly influenced by the anti-Christian philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. This influence shows in Hitler’s private remarks on religion, as related by surviving associates. Hitler described Christianity as an “absurdity,” “an invention of sick brains,” and so forth. It’s interesting to note that Hitler spoke of religion using many of the same terms as modern-day misotheists; yet some of these modern voices attempt to peg Hitler as a Christian.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, Hitler wasn’t any kind of “Christian” at all. A person who hates what Christianity represents, who persecutes the faithful in the church, and who espouses principles totally contrary to Christ’s teachings is clearly not a Christian. Had we no information about Hitler’s personal beliefs, we could still say that Hitler’s acts—such as murdering millions of people—cannot be blamed on Christianity. Hitler was no follower of Christ.

Those who claim Hitler was a Christian are, for the most part, attempting to disparage religion. The primary tactic in such cases is to claim that Hitler never renounced his Catholic faith and that he often made positive references to God, religion, and the church. It is true that, in public speeches and official press releases, Hitler often seemed friendly to Christianity. But we must remember that Hitler was a politician—not just a politician but a propagandist willing to sink to any level of immorality to gain power. To argue meaningfully that Hitler was a Christian, we’d have to begin by assuming that a politician bent on genocide wasn’t being dishonest or manipulative in his campaign speeches.

Hitler considered religion a necessary evil and a tool to be manipulated until after he won the war. He was not a classic atheist as were various Communist dictators, but he was not a Christian. There is no rational reason to connect Hitler to Christianity.

Recommended Resource: Making a Difference: Impacting Culture and Society As a Christian by R.C. Sproul

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Was Hitler a Christian?
was Hitler a Christian
Question: "Was Hitler a Christian?"

Answer:
Unfortunately, the provocative claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian keeps making its rounds. The claim, which is really an accusation leveled at all Christians, is fueled entirely by those with an axe to grind against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Objective historical evidence and common sense both indicate that Hitler was not, in any reasonable sense, a Christian.

Adolph Hitler’s family was Catholic, but all available sources indicate that Hitler was uninterested in Catholicism as a child. Once away from his mother’s care, Hitler never again participated in the rites of the Catholic Church. As an adult, Hitler frequently derided religion and those who practiced it. Christianity in particular, with its emphasis on love and peace, was something Hitler despised. In fact, Hitler was more attracted to Islam’s militant expansionism than to the “weakness” of Christianity. Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote that Hitler told him, “The Mohammedan religion . . . would have been much more compatible to us [Germans] than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich (New York: Avon, 1971, p. 734).

U.S. intelligence information obtained during and after WWII shows that Hitler would have preferred to purge Germany of Christianity before the war, but he felt the church was a necessary evil. The Nazi-led German Christian group took control of the German Evangelical Church in 1933 and demanded conformity to Hitler’s political and ideological agenda. In response to Hitler’s takeover of the national church, about one third of the clergy formed the Confessing Church in 1934. The Confessing Church started with the goal of reforming the German Christians and bringing the church back to the basics of the gospel, but members of the Confessing Church soon realized that Hitler’s National Socialist Party was deeply anti-Christian. The suppression of the Confessing Church and the direct persecution of its members are clear examples of Hitler’s stance on faith. Hitler was not a Christian; rather, he viewed the national church as a means of reinforcing his policies.

Hitler was strongly influenced by the anti-Christian philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. This influence shows in Hitler’s private remarks on religion, as related by surviving associates. Hitler described Christianity as an “absurdity,” “an invention of sick brains,” and so forth. It’s interesting to note that Hitler spoke of religion using many of the same terms as modern-day misotheists; yet some of these modern voices attempt to peg Hitler as a Christian.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, Hitler wasn’t any kind of “Christian” at all. A person who hates what Christianity represents, who persecutes the faithful in the church, and who espouses principles totally contrary to Christ’s teachings is clearly not a Christian. Had we no information about Hitler’s personal beliefs, we could still say that Hitler’s acts—such as murdering millions of people—cannot be blamed on Christianity. Hitler was no follower of Christ.

Those who claim Hitler was a Christian are, for the most part, attempting to disparage religion. The primary tactic in such cases is to claim that Hitler never renounced his Catholic faith and that he often made positive references to God, religion, and the church. It is true that, in public speeches and official press releases, Hitler often seemed friendly to Christianity. But we must remember that Hitler was a politician—not just a politician but a propagandist willing to sink to any level of immorality to gain power. To argue meaningfully that Hitler was a Christian, we’d have to begin by assuming that a politician bent on genocide wasn’t being dishonest or manipulative in his campaign speeches.

Hitler considered religion a necessary evil and a tool to be manipulated until after he won the war. He was not a classic atheist as were various Communist dictators, but he was not a Christian. There is no rational reason to connect Hitler to Christianity.

Recommended Resource: Making a Difference: Impacting Culture and Society As a Christian by R.C. Sproul

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Was Hitler a Christian?
was Hitler a Christian
Question: "Was Hitler a Christian?"

Answer:
Unfortunately, the provocative claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian keeps making its rounds. The claim, which is really an accusation leveled at all Christians, is fueled entirely by those with an axe to grind against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Objective historical evidence and common sense both indicate that Hitler was not, in any reasonable sense, a Christian.

Adolph Hitler’s family was Catholic, but all available sources indicate that Hitler was uninterested in Catholicism as a child. Once away from his mother’s care, Hitler never again participated in the rites of the Catholic Church. As an adult, Hitler frequently derided religion and those who practiced it. Christianity in particular, with its emphasis on love and peace, was something Hitler despised. In fact, Hitler was more attracted to Islam’s militant expansionism than to the “weakness” of Christianity. Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote that Hitler told him, “The Mohammedan religion . . . would have been much more compatible to us [Germans] than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (Speer, Albert. Inside the Third Reich (New York: Avon, 1971, p. 734).

U.S. intelligence information obtained during and after WWII shows that Hitler would have preferred to purge Germany of Christianity before the war, but he felt the church was a necessary evil. The Nazi-led German Christian group took control of the German Evangelical Church in 1933 and demanded conformity to Hitler’s political and ideological agenda. In response to Hitler’s takeover of the national church, about one third of the clergy formed the Confessing Church in 1934. The Confessing Church started with the goal of reforming the German Christians and bringing the church back to the basics of the gospel, but members of the Confessing Church soon realized that Hitler’s National Socialist Party was deeply anti-Christian. The suppression of the Confessing Church and the direct persecution of its members are clear examples of Hitler’s stance on faith. Hitler was not a Christian; rather, he viewed the national church as a means of reinforcing his policies.

Hitler was strongly influenced by the anti-Christian philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. This influence shows in Hitler’s private remarks on religion, as related by surviving associates. Hitler described Christianity as an “absurdity,” “an invention of sick brains,” and so forth. It’s interesting to note that Hitler spoke of religion using many of the same terms as modern-day misotheists; yet some of these modern voices attempt to peg Hitler as a Christian.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, Hitler wasn’t any kind of “Christian” at all. A person who hates what Christianity represents, who persecutes the faithful in the church, and who espouses principles totally contrary to Christ’s teachings is clearly not a Christian. Had we no information about Hitler’s personal beliefs, we could still say that Hitler’s acts—such as murdering millions of people—cannot be blamed on Christianity. Hitler was no follower of Christ.

Those who claim Hitler was a Christian are, for the most part, attempting to disparage religion. The primary tactic in such cases is to claim that Hitler never renounced his Catholic faith and that he often made positive references to God, religion, and the church. It is true that, in public speeches and official press releases, Hitler often seemed friendly to Christianity. But we must remember that Hitler was a politician—not just a politician but a propagandist willing to sink to any level of immorality to gain power. To argue meaningfully that Hitler was a Christian, we’d have to begin by assuming that a politician bent on genocide wasn’t being dishonest or manipulative in his campaign speeches.

Hitler considered religion a necessary evil and a tool to be manipulated until after he won the war. He was not a classic atheist as were various Communist dictators, but he was not a Christian. There is no rational reason to connect Hitler to Christianity.

Recommended Resource: Making a Difference: Impacting Culture and Society As a Christian by R.C. Sproul

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Are there different religions within the Christian faith?
Christian religions
Question: "Are there different religions within the Christian faith?"

Answer:
With all the various denominations, schisms, associations, divisions, and sects within the Christian faith, some conclude that there are actually different Christian religions. That is not an accurate assessment. There is only one Christian religion. The different branches of the Christian faith are not separate religions, but rather distinct interpretations of what the Christian religion is supposed to be.

For example, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism are very different in their beliefs and practices. At the same time, they all claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, all three of them are commonly considered part of Christendom. Further, despite all of the differences, they actually agree on many important issues, such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ. While the differences in teaching and practice are important, they do not mean one is Christian and the others are not. Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism cannot all be correct interpretations of Christianity, but all three can be considered branches of the Christian religion.

Within Protestantism, there are hundreds of different denominations and associations of churches. These are not different Christian religions, either, but different segments of the Protestant branch of Christianity. While there are important differences among the Protestant denominations, the similarities outweigh the differences. Protestant churches agree on the core doctrines of the Christian faith and the five solas, with their disagreements being over non-essential matters.

The most difficult aspect of this question is whether the “Christian” cults, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, should be considered different religions. These groups and many others are defined as cults since they deny one or more of the core doctrines of the Christian religion. At the same time, these groups claim to be Christian and do follow some of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Are their teachings on the person of Christ and the means of salvation biblically accurate? Definitely not. Does this put them outside of the Christian religion? That depends on how religion is defined.

If a religion is defined as the worship of a God or gods, then the question becomes whether a sect that denies the Trinity is worshiping the same God as Christians do. Are they worshiping an entirely different, non-triune god, or do they simply have a different interpretation of the nature of the God of Christianity? If a sect agrees with Christians that the mediator between God and humanity is Jesus Christ but has a different understanding of the nature of that mediator and how the mediation is accomplished, do they truly believe in the same mediator? If the answer is no, then we must begin to question whether Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism should be considered Christian, considering they have a different view than Protestantism of how Christ’s mediation is accomplished.

Perhaps all of this is getting needlessly complicated. Ultimately, the answer to the question, “Are there different religions within the Christian faith?” depends on how you define the word religion. Whether Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, and all the other Christian sects and cults should all be considered part of the Christian religion is not really the issue. The true issue is whether a particular division of Christianity is following the core truths of historic biblical Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, the true deity and true humanity of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Ultimately, true Christianity is more than a religion; it is a relationship with God the Father, made possible through Jesus Christ, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

Recommended Resource: Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences by Ron Rhodes

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
How does God judge those who were raised in non-Christian cultures?
God judge other religions
audio
Question: "How does God judge those who were raised in non-Christian cultures and have been taught their entire life that their own religion (such as Islam or Hinduism) is correct, and Christianity is wrong?"

Answer:
This question presupposes that the ability to be saved is dependent upon where we are born, how we are raised and what we are taught. The lives of millions of people who have come out of false religions—or no religion at all—through the centuries clearly refute this idea. Heaven is not the eternal dwelling place of those who were fortunate enough to be raised in Christian homes in free nations, but of those who came to Christ from “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). People in all cultures and in every phase of history are saved the same way—by the grace of God given to undeserving sinners, not because of what we know, where we are born or how we have been indoctrinated, but “because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us” (Romans 5:5).

While some may be ignorant of the content of Scripture and the teachings of Christ, they are by no means deprived of any knowledge of what is right and wrong, nor are they deprived of the knowledge of God’s existence. Romans 1:20 tells us, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In reality, it is not that some people have not heard about Christ. Rather, the problem is that they have rejected what they have heard and what is readily seen in nature. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.” This verse teaches an important principle: everyone who truly seeks after Truth will find it. If a person sincerely desires to know the true God, God will make Himself known.

Those in false religions are always subject to the teaching of salvation by works. If they believe they can satisfy a holy and perfect God by the keeping of rules and laws, God will allow them to continue in their efforts at self-justification until He finally judges them rightly. If, however, they respond to the goading of a conscience awakened by God and cry out to Him—as the tax collector in the temple did—“Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” (Luke 18:9-14), God will respond with His truth and grace.

Only in Christ the Savior is a man freed from the liability of guilt, sin, and shame. Our right standing before our Judge is established on one thing only: the finished work of Christ crucified who shed His blood so we could live (John 19:30). We are released from our sins by His blood (Revelation 1:5). He has reconciled us in His earthly body through His death (Colossians 1:22). Jesus bore our sins in His own Body on the cross so that by His wounds we are healed (1 Peter 2:24). We are made holy through the offering up of Jesus’ body as a sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 10:10). Christ appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9:26). God sent His Son to remove the wrath that we ourselves deserved (1 John 4:10). The penalty of sin that is rightly ours is absolved by grace through faith, not by any righteous deeds of our own (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Christ’s final marching orders were that His followers preach this good news to sinners throughout the world and until the end of the world when He will return to judge the living and the dead (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Timothy 4:1). Where there are hearts opened by the Holy Spirit, there will God send His messengers to fill those open hearts with His truth. Even in countries where preaching Christ is forbidden by law, God’s truth still finds its way to those who truly seek it, including through the internet. The stories of thriving house churches in China, conversions to Christ in Iran and other Islamic countries, and the inroads into remote areas of the world all attest to the limitless power of God’s love and mercy.

Recommended Resource: Encountering World Religions by Irving Hexham

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Is the United States a Christian nation?
Christian nation
audio
Question: "Is the United States a Christian nation?"

Answer:
Among issues debated in modern politics, few are more controversial than the role of religion. The United States, in particular, finds this subject provocative. The very question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” can be a source of debate, because the term Christian nation can be taken to mean several different things, causing the answer to vary drastically.

There are three main ways to approach the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” Each requires a different approach and results in a different answer. The first issue is whether or not the U.S. is the product of a Christian worldview; the answer is absolutely “yes.” The second question is whether or not the U.S. currently demonstrates a Christian worldview; the answer is absolutely “no.” The third angle is whether the government of the U.S. is Christian in its structure; the answer is “sort of.”

Is the U.S. the product of a Christian worldview?

One way to interpret the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” is to ask if the U.S. has a Christian heritage. In other words, do the history, culture, language, and lifestyle of the nation reflect Christianity, and to what extent? This is, by far, the least controversial aspect of this issue, since the answer is so obviously and clearly “yes.”

History is unambiguous in showing that the U.S. has been predominantly Christian, in a general sense, for its entire existence. The vast majority of religious expression, terminology, and practice in the U.S. has been Christian or heavily influenced by the Christian worldview. Of course, as a secular nation, the USA has allowed free expression of other faiths, to varying degrees. Yet the primary religious outlook of the American people has long been that of Judeo-Christianity. Historically, the U.S. has been deeply involved in Christian evangelism and charity around the world.

It’s beyond debate, then, that the United States is a historically “Christian” nation, in terms of religious heritage.

Does the U.S. exemplify a Christian worldview?

Another way to examine the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” is to ask if the U.S. currently has a Christian worldview. In other words, do the prevalent outlook, morals, lifestyle, and attitude of the nation reflect biblical, true-to-the-faith Christianity? This answer is occasionally divisive but has become less so over time. Based on current attitudes and trends, the answer is most definitely “no.”

There is a massive difference between a worldview inspired by Christianity or developed from Christianity and one that is actually Christian. Many of the values Western culture finds indispensable, such as charity, altruism, respect, tolerance, mercy, peace, and so forth are historically rooted in a Christian worldview. These virtues were absent from or explicitly opposed to the pagan worldviews that Christianity replaced in the West. Insofar as the modern U.S. follows those ideals, it’s acting in accordance with a biblical worldview.

On the other hand, the modern United States not only tolerates ideas contrary to Christianity, but it openly embraces and celebrates them. Sexual immorality, including pornography, homosexuality, and premarital sex, are widely accepted as normal in the U.S. Vulgarity, drunkenness, drug use, promiscuity, and other abuses of freedom are also celebrated as forms of entertainment. Atrocities such as abortion are rampant, as are instances of violence, greed, and corruption. In fact, the United States has come to the point where some of these sins are not merely accepted but consecrated; those who do not endorse fashionable behaviors are vilified and ostracized (see 1 Peter 4:4).

In terms of literal spirituality, few in the United States have a truly “biblical” worldview. Self-labeled “Christians” in the U.S. tend toward a watered-down, generic, convenience-driven version of the faith. This is not to say they don’t actually believe in God or in the Bible; however, in both theory and practice, most self-professed American believers live in deep conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Even worse, many in the U.S. claim the name of Christ, or even the title of clergy, yet peddle a false, self-created parody of the truth.

Historians can debate at what point the U.S. “crossed the line” with respect to being a Christian nation, in terms of worldview. That being said, it’s abundantly clear that the United States of America, on the whole, does not presently exhibit a Christian worldview.

Does the U.S. have a Christian form of government?

The third way to examine the question “Is the United States a Christian nation?” is to ask if the United States has a Christian government. In other words, are the structure and form of the U.S. government uniquely Christian, dependent on Christianity, or inseparable from Christian principles? Ironically, this particular angle is rarely controversial, only as it is seldom considered. The answer, with careful qualification, is absolutely “yes.” In fact, the Founding Fathers were explicit about the relationship between the structure of the U.S. government and the Judeo-Christian worldview.

It’s crucial to establish that not all religions are the same. It is both ignorant and bigoted to assume all faiths approach ethics and civil discourse the same way or that all religious views lead to the same conclusions. Not every religion is equally compatible with all forms of government.

Gasoline engines are designed to run on gasoline. Diesel engines are designed to run on diesel fuel. These two liquids have many similarities, but are not identical. Where they differ, they do so drastically. Gasoline engines and diesel engines, likewise, are similar but diverge in critical ways. Putting diesel fuel in a gasoline engine renders it inoperative. Running gasoline through a diesel engine can destroy it. There is nothing prejudiced about pointing out the obvious: the design of these engines presumes certain fuels. When fed with something else, they no longer function as intended.

In much the same way, governments are designed with certain assumptions about the worldview of the population. Attempting to manage a nation using a government incompatible with a particular culture is like putting gasoline in the diesel engine or diesel fuel in the gas engine. Not all combinations of government and religion will work.

The point is not that the Constitution of the United States requires citizens or elected officials to be Christian. Nor is it that the government must be an extension of the church. Logic and common sense, however, say the United States was structured to govern a particular worldview. One of the Founding Fathers, John Adams, explained this in 1798 (emphasis added):

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

As a parallel, college classrooms often allow students to choose their own seats and to enter and leave as they wish. Given that such students are appropriately self-controlled, that structure enhances education. Applying the same structure to a classroom of kindergarteners, however, would be a disaster; there are other systems of classroom seating and control better suited to young students. Vice versa, classroom rules that allow kindergartners to thrive would be toxic for college students.

In other words, governments “contend” with differing worldviews through different methods and divergent designs. As compared to the U.S., most governments impose drastically stricter control over the people. The constitutional republic of the United States, with an overt emphasis on personal freedom, is simply not “adequate” to govern a people who are “unbridled,” as Adams would say, by the ethics and morality of Judeo-Christianity.

In the same vein, George Washington wrote this prayer in a letter from 1783:

“That [God] would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.”

Even the Declaration of Independence speaks of this reliance on a Judeo-Christian worldview. Though not a formal part of the Constitution, Jefferson’s epic work explicitly grounds rights such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the reality of a Creator. This same worldview is reflected in other concepts fundamental to the U.S. Constitution. Ideas such as personal responsibility, rule of law, protection of the innocent, personal property, and so forth are deeply ingrained in the Judeo-Christian worldview. At the very least, the U.S. Constitution reflects a heavy influence of biblical thinking, whether or not any part of that system is explicitly drawn from Scripture.

The term happiness itself is more closely tied to religion than many people realize. The word happiness is derived from the idea of outcomes and occurrences. The same idea is present in words such as perhaps, mayhap, happening, happenstance, and so forth. In Jefferson’s era, the term happiness carried a sense of divine blessing; the pursuit of happiness, then, was understood at that time to mean something more like “the pursuit of blessedness” than “the pursuit of good feelings.” The freedom being sought was very much the right to pursue a godly and moral life as each person saw fit.

In contrast, religious worldviews such as Islam, Hinduism, and atheism reject, directly or indirectly, principles that the U.S. Constitution takes for granted. The fundamental ideas on which the U.S. Constitution operates are either contradictory to or absent from the central ideas of other faith systems. For instance, Islam patently rejects individual rights with respect to religion; there are mandatory consequences for Muslims who apostatize from Islam and for Christians and Jews who do not “submit.” Hinduism is rooted in the idea of karma and linked to the caste system, both of which reject the idea of persons being “created equal.” Atheism, of course, provides no basis for universal human rights, equality, or fair treatment at all.

That in no way implies that Muslims, Hindus, and atheists cannot be productive and integrated citizens in the U.S. Yet the fact remains that their worldview inherently conflicts with some of the Constitution’s ideals.

There is no question that the government of the United States is structured to allow great personal freedom in matters of ethics, morality, and religion. It is especially designed to prevent government from interfering with individual rights to participate—or not to participate—according to personal religious faith. At the same time, there is no question that the entire function of the U.S. Constitution presumes a citizenry guided, as Adams noted, by morality and religion. History, once again, is unequivocal: the dominant worldview of the nascent United States and its founders was Judeo-Christianity.

From a “design” standpoint, the United States is not explicitly Christian in that it does not require any person or politician to be a believer. Nor does it insist that the government always be run in accordance with overtly biblical ideas. The Christian religion is not the formal basis of the U.S. Constitution. However, just as a gasoline engine is designed to process gasoline, not diesel fuel, the United States Constitution was designed to govern a predominantly Judeo-Christian people. The more the USA drifts away from this worldview, the less capable the government will be to properly function—a symptom that current events prove is the case.

What does Christian nation mean?

To give an appropriate answer to this question, it’s necessary to clarify what a person means when he speaks about the United States being a “Christian” nation. Various angles require different examinations and give a different conclusion.

Historically, the U.S. is most certainly “Christian.”

Culturally, the U.S. is absolutely not “Christian” in terms of current attitudes and behaviors.

Constitutionally, the U.S. government was designed to guide a population operating under a predominantly Judeo-Christian worldview, and it shows clear evidence of influence from that faith tradition.

The United States is under no obligation to keep a particular worldview. Nor is it guaranteed to maintain any sort of connection with its Christian heritage. History cannot be changed, but the decision of whether or not the U.S. will exhibit a Christian worldview will greatly impact the continuation of its particular form of government. Whether the U.S.’s constitutional republic survives, experiences drastic change, or fails entirely depends on the morality of its people.

Recommended Resource: What if America Were a Christian Nation Again? by D. James Kennedy

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
How to get to heaven - what are the ideas from the different religions?
how to get to heaven
audio
Question: "How to get to heaven - what are the ideas from the different religions?"

Answer:
There appear to be five major categories regarding how to get to heaven in the world’s religions. Most believe that hard work and wisdom will lead to ultimate fulfillment, whether that is unity with god (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Baha’i) or freedom and independence (Scientology, Jainism). Others, like Unitarianism and Wicca, teach the afterlife is whatever you want it to be, and salvation is a non-issue because the sin nature doesn’t exist. A few believe either the afterlife doesn’t exist or it’s too unknowable to consider.

Derivatives of the worship of the Christian-Judeo God generally hold that faith in God and/or Jesus and the accomplishment of various deeds, including baptism or door-to-door evangelism, will ensure the worshiper will go to heaven. Only Christianity teaches that salvation is a free gift of God through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9), and no amount of work or effort is necessary or possible to get to heaven.

Atheism: Most atheists believe there is no heaven—no afterlife at all. Upon death, people simply cease to exist. Others attempt to define the afterlife using quantum mechanics and other scientific methods.

Baha’i: Like many other religions, Baha’i doesn’t teach that man was born with a sin nature or that man needs saving from evil. Man simply needs saving from his erroneous beliefs of how the world works and how he is to interact with the world. God sent messengers to explain to people how to come to this knowledge: Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and Baha’u’llah. These prophets progressively revealed the nature of god to the world. Upon death, a person’s soul continues its spiritual journey, perhaps through the states known as heaven and hell, until it comes to a final resting point, united with god.

Buddhism: Buddhism also believes that heaven, or “Nirvana,” is to be rejoined in spirit with god. Reaching Nirvana, a transcendental, blissful, spiritual state, requires following the Eightfold Path. This includes understanding the universe, and acting, speaking, and living in the right manner and with the right intentions. Mastering these and the other of the eight paths will return a worshiper’s spirit to god.

Chinese Religion: Chinese Religion is not an organized church, but an amalgamation of different religions and beliefs including Taoism and Buddhism. Upon death, worshipers are judged. The good are sent either to a Buddhist paradise or a Tao dwelling place. The bad are sent to hell for a period of time and then reincarnated.

Christianity: Christianity is the only religion that teaches man can do nothing to earn or pay his way into heaven. Man, a slave to the sin nature he was born with, must completely rely on the grace of God in applying Jesus Christ’s sacrifice to the sins of the believer. People are saved by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Upon death, the spirits of Christians go to heaven, while the spirits of unbelievers go to a temporary holding place called hell. At the final judgment, unbelievers are separated from God for eternity in the lake of fire.

Confucianism: Confucianism concentrates on appropriate behavior in life, not a future heaven. The afterlife is unknowable, so all effort should be made to make this life the best it can be, to honor ancestors, and to respect elders.

Eastern Orthodox: Orthodoxy is a Christian-Judeo derivative that reinterprets key Scripture verses in such a way that works become essential to reach heaven. Orthodoxy teaches that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, but where Christianity teaches that becoming more Christlike is the result of Christ’s influence in a believer’s life, Orthodoxy teaches that it is a part of the salvation process. If that process (called theosis) is not performed appropriately, a worshiper can lose his/her salvation. After death, the devout live in an intermediate state where this theosis can be completed. Those who have belief but did not accomplish sufficient progress in theosis are sent to a temporary “direful condition” and will go to hell unless the living devout pray and complete acts of mercy on their behalf. After final judgment, the devout are sent to heaven and the others to hell. Heaven and hell are not locations, but reactions to being in the presence of God, as there is nowhere that He is not present. For Christ-followers, God’s presence is paradise, but for the unsaved, being with God is eternal torment.

Hinduism: Hinduism is similar to Buddhism in some ways. Salvation (or moksha) is reached when the worshiper is freed from the cycle of reincarnation, and his spirit becomes one with god. One becomes free by ridding oneself of bad karma—the effect of evil action or evil intent. This can be done in three different ways: through selfless devotion to and service of a particular god, through understanding the nature of the universe, or by mastering the actions needed to fully appease the gods.

In Hinduism, with over a million different gods, there are differences of opinion regarding the nature of salvation. The Advaita school teaches salvation occurs when one can strip away the false self and make the soul indistinguishable from that of god. The dualist insists that one’s soul always retains its own identity even as it is joined with god.

Islam: Islam is a take-off on the Christian/Judeo God. Muslims believe salvation comes to those who obey Allah sufficiently that good deeds outweigh the bad. Muslims hope that repeating what Muhammad did and said will be enough to get to heaven, but they also recite extra prayers, fast, go on pilgrimages, and perform good works in hope of tipping the scales. Martyrdom in service to Allah is the only work guaranteed to send a worshiper to paradise.

Jainism: Jainism came to be in India about the same time as Hinduism and is very similar. One must hold the right belief, have the right knowledge, and act in the right manner. Only then can a soul be cleansed of karma. But in Jainism, there is no creator. There is no higher god to reach or lend aid. Salvation is man as master of his own destiny, liberated and perfect, filled with infinite perception, knowledge, bliss, and power.

Jehovah’s Witnesses: The teachings of the Watchtower Society lead us to categorize the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult of Christianity that misinterprets the book of Revelation. Similar to Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses teach different levels of heaven. The anointed are 144,000 who receive salvation by the blood of Christ and will rule with Him in paradise. They are the bride of Christ. For all others, Jesus’ sacrifice only freed them from Adam’s curse of original sin, and “faith” is merely the opportunity to earn their way to heaven. They must learn about Kingdom history, keep the laws of Jehovah, and be loyal to “God’s government”—the 144,000 leaders, 9,000 of whom are currently on the earth. They must also spread the news about the Kingdom, including door-to-door proselytizing. Upon death, they will be resurrected during the millennial kingdom where they must continue a devout life. Only afterwards are they given the opportunity to formally accept Christ and live for eternity under the rule of the 144,000.

Judaism: Jews believe that, as individuals and as a nation, they can be reconciled to God. Through sin (individually or collectively) they can lose their salvation, but they can also earn it back through repentance, good deeds, and a life of devotion.

Mormonism: Mormons believe their religion to be a derivative of Judeo/Christianity, but their reliance on extra-grace works belies this. They also have a different view of heaven. To reach the second heaven under “general salvation,” one must accept Christ (either in this life or the next) and be baptized or be baptized by proxy through a living relative. To reach the highest heaven, one must believe in God and Jesus, repent of sins, be baptized in the church, be a member of the LDS church, receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, obey the Mormon “Word of Wisdom” and all God’s commandments, and complete certain temple rituals including marriage. This “individual salvation” leads to the worshiper and his/her spouse becoming gods and giving birth to spirit children who return to Earth as the souls of the living.

Roman Catholicism: Roman Catholics originally believed only those in the Roman Catholic Church could be saved. Joining the church was a long process of classes, rituals, and baptism. People who had already been baptized but were not members of the Roman Catholic Church had different requirements and may even already be considered Christians. Baptism is “normatively” required for salvation, but this can include “baptism of blood” (i.e.: martyrdom) or “baptism of desire” (wanting to be baptized really badly). From the catechism: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized.” Despite the changes through the years, baptism (or the desire for baptism) is still required for salvation.

According to Catholicism, upon death, the souls of those who rejected Christ are sent to hell. The souls of those who accepted Christ and performed sufficient acts to be purified of sin go to heaven. Those who died in faith but did not complete the steps to be purified are sent to purgatory where they undergo temporary, painful punishment until their souls are cleansed. Purification by torment may be lessened by suffering during life and the offerings and prayers of others on the sinner’s behalf. Once purification is complete, the soul may go to heaven.

Scientology: Scientology is similar to Eastern religions in that salvation is achieved through knowledge of self and the universe. The “thetan” (Scientology’s answer to the soul) travels through several different lifetimes, attempting to expel painful and traumatic images that cause a person to act fearfully and irrationally. Once a Scientologist is “cleared” of these harmful images and becomes an “operating thetan,” he/she is able to control thought, life, matter, energy, space, and time.

Shinto: The afterlife in Shinto was originally a dire, Hades-like realm. Matters of the afterlife have now been transferred to Buddhism. This salvation is dependent on penance and avoiding impurity or pollution of the soul. Then one’s soul can join those of its ancestors.

Sikhism: Sikhism was created in reaction to the conflict between Hinduism and Islam, and carries on many of Hinduism’s influences—although Sikhs are monotheistic. “Evil” is merely human selfishness. Salvation is attained by living an honest life and meditating on god. If good works are performed sufficiently, the worshiper is released from the cycle of reincarnation and becomes one with god.

Taoism: Like several other Eastern religions (Shinto, Chinese folk religions, Sikhism), Taoism adopted many of its afterlife principles from Buddhism. Initially, Taoists didn’t concern themselves with worries of the afterlife and, instead, concentrated on creating a utopian society. Salvation was reached by aligning with the cosmos and receiving aid from supernatural immortals who resided on mountains, islands, and other places on Earth. The result was immortality. Eventually, Taoists abandoned the quest for immortality and took on the afterlife teachings of Buddhism.

Unitarian-Universalism: Unitarians are allowed to and encouraged to believe anything they like about the afterlife and how to get there. Although, in general, they believe people should seek enlightenment in this life and not worry too much about the afterlife.

Wicca: Wiccans believe many different things about the afterlife, but most seem to agree that there is no need for salvation. People either live in harmony with the goddess by caring for her physical manifestation—the earth—or they don’t, and their bad karma is returned to them three-fold. Some believe souls are reincarnated until they learn all their life lessons and become one with the goddess. Some are so committed to following one’s individual path that they believe individuals determine what will happen when they die; if worshipers think they’re going to be reincarnated or sent to hell or joined with the goddess, they will be. Others refuse to contemplate the afterlife at all. Either way, they don’t believe in sin or anything they need saving from.

Zoroastrianism: Zoroastrianism may be the first religion that stated that the afterlife was dependent upon one’s actions in life. There is no reincarnation, just a simple judgment four days after death. After a sufficient amount of time in hell, however, even the condemned can go to heaven. To be judged righteous, one can use knowledge or devotion, but the most effective way is through action.

Want to learn the truth about going to heaven?

Recommended Resource: Handbook of World Religions by Len Woods

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Is faith in God religulous?
religulous
audio
Question: "Is faith in God religulous?"

Answer:
In his 2008 film “Religulous,” Bill Maher makes the argument that belief in God is ridiculous. The term “religulous” is a combination of the words “religion” and “ridiculous.” Maher’s main goal with the film seems to be to convince people that religion is responsible for most of the evil in the world, and that we would all be better off if religion was eradicated. The “Religulous” film begins with Maher in Israel, near the Valley of Megiddo, the location where the end-times Battle of Armageddon is prophesied in the Bible. Maher’s point is that religion, if it is not destroyed, will cause the destruction of the world.

In his assault on religion, Maher attacks Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism. His main target, though, is Christianity. Nearly half of the documentary is dedicated to attacking Christianity. Maher argues that there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed and that the main beliefs of Christianity are simply Christianized versions of other religious beliefs. Maher, of course, presents very one-sided views on these issues. Since these attacks have already been well-answered many times, we will only respond to them briefly. First, there is overwhelming historical evidence that a man named Jesus lived in Israel in the early 1st century A.D. There is more attestation to Jesus’ existence than nearly any other historical figure of that time period.

Second, all of the beliefs that Maher claims Christianity borrowed from other religions are, in fact, evidence of the opposite. There are no historical or religious documents which pre-date Christianity that contain beliefs that are identical, or even closely similar, to the beliefs of Christianity. All of the documents from these religions that contain beliefs that are similar to Christianity are dated to centuries after Christianity began. Maher, in “Religulous,” makes the illogical assumption that the post-spread-of-Christianity beliefs of these religions are the same as the pre-spread-of-Christianity beliefs of these religions. History records that Christianity spread rapidly in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. The other religions of that time copied Christian beliefs, attributing Christ-like characteristics to their own messiahs / founders, in an attempt to stop the spread of Christianity. Again, there is not a single ancient document that pre-dates the spread of Christianity which presents explicit Christian-like beliefs in other religions.

In addition to reusing these weak and invalid arguments, “Religulous” spends a great deal of time showing Maher making religious people look ridiculous. Whether it is an actor who plays Jesus at a Holy Land theme park, or a South American cult leader who claims to be Jesus, or tourists of biblical sites in Israel, Maher asks loaded questions, and the responses are clearly edited to make the person look as foolish as possible. “Religulous” gives very little time to anyone who can intelligently argue for God’s existence or defend the beliefs of Christianity. Instead, Maher interviews only individuals whom even most Christians would consider to be ridiculous.

Perhaps the only redeeming quality of Maher’s “Religulous” is the expose on Islam. Maher correctly notes how dangerous radical Islam is. The problem is that Maher seemingly attributes this same danger to anyone who believes in God. Maher’s goal was not to produce an honest and informative documentary on the dangers of religion. Rather, Maher’s goal was to make any and every religion appear to be ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.

Maher claims to be an agnostic. He claims to not know whether God exists or if there is life after death. However, for someone who claims not to know, Maher dogmatically argues against any belief in God. Maher clearly believes that God does not exist. The core message of “Religulous” is that anyone with a brain should be able to come to the conclusion that God does not exist. Maher’s arrogance, disdain for people of faith, and condescension to anyone who does not agree with him is clearly seen throughout the film. Maher reveals himself to be precisely what he is attacking, a closed-minded bigot who thinks he has all the answers.

Psalm 14:1 declares, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” The word “fool” in this verse does not refer to intelligence. It is the Hebrew word that refers to a person without morals. Psalm 14:1 is saying that an immoral person denies the existence of God to remove any responsibility for the immoral and evil actions the person commits. Maher is an intelligent man. Morally speaking, though, Maher is a fool. In “Religulous,” Maher himself says that he rejects God because God has rules that interfere with his sex life. In the end, that is all that “Religulous” is, a sad attempt to attack religion in order to escape from God’s moral commands. Bill Maher clearly demonstrates the truth of Psalm 14:1, “The [immoral] fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
Recommended Resource: The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
What is Santeria?
Santeria
audio
Question: "What is Santeria?"

Answer:
Santeria (translated as “the way of the saints”) is a religion that began in West Africa and the Caribbean. The basis of Santeria lies in a merging of Yoruba beliefs and practices with elements from Roman Catholic traditions. Santeria emerged as African slaves were brought west and their belief system was made illegal by the colonialists who enslaved them. Forming Santeria was the slaves’ way of reconciling their now-criminalized belief system with the religion they were forced to embrace. Santeria is also recognized under the names of La Religion, Regla de Ocha, La Regla Lucumi, Lukumi, and the Rule of Osha.

Santeria does not follow a central creed, code, or book, but it is founded on rituals and ceremonies that have been passed down by oral traditions. Religious practices take place in a temple known as a casa de santos (“house of the saints”). Besides providing space for worship, these temples are usually inhabited by priests or priestesses.

Members of the Santeria religion worship orishas, which are powerful but mortal spirits associated with Catholic saints. Orishas are dependent on humans, requiring their worship in order to survive. Followers of Santeria strive for a mutually beneficial relationship with orishas. They believe that if they worship the departed spirits and perform the right rituals, these spirits will thrive, providing energy and help to achieve the destiny of the living.

Worship in Santeria includes dancing to rhythmic drums; the use of charms, herbs, symbols, and potions; and initiation rituals. Occasionally, animal sacrifice, usually of chickens, is employed to gain favor with the orishas and to bring good fortune and forgiveness of sin.

The religious leaders, Santeros (male) and Santeras (female), serve as earthly representatives or extensions of orishas. These men and women train for many years to gain their status in the faith as they learn the dances, songs, divination, and healing methods of Santeria.

It is a challenge to try to determine how many people practice the Santeria religion because there is no central organization that keeps track of membership. It is mostly a closed, private religion. A person must be initiated into Santeria in order to gain more information. However, some estimate as many as one hundred million Santeria followers around the world.

The Santeria religion is a cult that Christians would be wise to avoid. Santeria followers believe in none of the fundamental biblical truths of the Christian faith. They rely on rituals and animal sacrifices to gain favor and help from their spirits, rather than on the sacrifice of Christ and the saving grace of the One True God.

If you know someone who is practicing Santeria, the most powerful thing you can do is pray for him or her. Then, when given an opportunity, relay the message of salvation through Jesus (Romans 10:9–10). Finally, live your life in a God-honoring way so that all can see how you are different because of Christ (1 Peter 3:15). Trust that the Holy Spirit will do the work of drawing, convincing, and converting the heart.

Recommended Resource: Neighboring Faiths by Winfried Corduan

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
How should a Christian view the separation of church and state?
separation church state
audio
Question: "How should a Christian view the separation of church and state?"

Answer:
The issue of the separation of church and state has prompted much debate. In spite of the rhetoric common to revisionist historians, America’s Founding Fathers did not seek to eradicate religion. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence counted themselves as religious men. It may come as a surprise to learn that nowhere in the Constitution do the words separation of church and state appear. The idea of church/state separation came from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson. Again, contrary to the propaganda from the revisionists, Jefferson’s cause was to protect religious liberties from an intrusive government! In no way did Jefferson or any of the other framers of the U.S. Constitution seek to restrict Americans’ religious activities.

Americans live in a constitutional republic rather than a theocracy—and for good reason. State-sanctioned churches have historically become puppets of the government. In countries with state churches, the edicts of fallible man take precedence over the inspired teachings of Scripture. When the state is the head of the church, the integrity of the gospel is all too easily compromised.

Christians are glad for the separation of church and state, as the separation is designed to protect religious liberty. The first of the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That wording is the result of lessons learned from the dictatorial Holy Roman Empire and King Henry VIII’s power grab in the 1534 Act of Supremacy. The point of the First Amendment was not to rid the country of religion but to ensure that the federal government did not select a religion and give it exclusive support. Americans are free to worship as they please.

Another popular misconception is that men and women of faith have no business being involved in politics. But it is hardly a secret that George Washington was an active member of Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. In the early days of the republic, a church met within the Capitol Building —a church attended, of all people, by Thomas Jefferson. “Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. . . . Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers” (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic: Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2,” www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html, accessed 4/13/20).

A Christian should view the separation of church and state as a good thing. Those who wish to combine church and state usually do so thinking that Christianity can help stamp out evil, if the church is in charge. But history shows that the melding of church and state gives rise to corruption, totalitarianism, and oppression. Christians can and should be involved in the political process, just as anyone else. But Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), and Christians understand that enforcing Christianity through a national church is not the answer to the world’s problems. The limits imposed on the government in the U.S. Constitution are wise and designed to preserve the religious freedom of individuals.

Recommended Resource: The Quest Study Bible

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
What is the insider movement?
insider movement
audio
Question: "What is the insider movement?"

Answer:
The insider movement is an attempt to follow Jesus and rely on Him for salvation within the language and customs of one’s native culture. Romans 1:16-17 is given as validation that salvation is a matter of faith, not of a particular culture. The idea actually began with Paul, who fought against the assumption that Gentile Christians would have to meet Judaic requirements, and was validated by the early church when they decided Greek believers did not have to be circumcised (Acts 21:17-25). Later, the philosophy was realized when the Bible was interpreted into languages other than Greek and Latin. Modern missionaries to countries that are not Christian-friendly often rely on the insider movement. They feel it allows people to come to saving faith in Christ while maintaining their ability to witness to friends and family as well as safeguarding their lives. In this modern form, as in the old, it comes down to three issues: culture, religion, and theology.

The Insider Movement - Culture
There are very few Western Christians who would insist that a person from another culture sing only English-language hymns. Or only pray sitting in a chair, hands in lap. Or hold a church service with songs, announcements, and a 45-minute sermon every Sunday morning with coffee and cookies beforehand. But Jesus-followers in non-Western parts of the world maintain some cultural practices that are not so acceptable to Westerners. In many countries, parents arrange the marriages of their children. In others, it is disrespectful for a woman to not cover her hair or for a man to not have a beard. In some areas, it is inappropriate for a local believer to refer to himself as "Christian." Christian does not mean someone who follows Jesus and tries to live according to His teaching. In Eastern countries, Christian means someone from Europe or North America who lives a greedy, immoral lifestyle as seen on TV. To many, Christianity is not a religion or a faith system. It is a label for the Western culture.

Should culture be an issue? Can a person follow Christ within his or her own culture? As much as Westerners can follow Christ within theirs. There are parts of every culture that do not align with the Bible. If a certain practice within a culture does not agree with the Bible, that practice should be abandoned by believers within that culture. But if the Bible doesn’t mention a certain practice one way or the other, it shouldn’t be an issue. And, scripturally, there is nothing wrong with a group of believers coming up with their own word for "little Christ." No one is required to use a Greek word from 2,000 years ago. God looks at the heart, not the label.

The Insider Movement - Religion
The expression of religion is the point where Western Christians have the greatest problem with the insider movement. First, a little background. The "insider movement" concept is most common among missionaries to Muslim nations. The integration of a church into a culture can be designated by the labels C1 to C6. At one extreme is C1, which refers to a completely non-integrated, Westernized church with traditional hymns and English speakers in the midst of a native culture. At the other is C6, which refers to a small group of believers who keep their faith secret for fear of persecution. C1 through C5 are differentiated by increasing acceptance of cultural norms, such as language, dress, and worship style, with the gradual addition of religious practices, such as dietary laws and the use of native religious terms, such as Allah. C5 is the most controversial level, as worshipers still identify themselves culturally and even religiously by their national religion, although they claim their salvation is through Jesus. Advantages include the potential to witness to friends and family in a non-threatening way and a limited change in lifestyle.

Can a person be a Christ-follower and still call himself Muslim? Is it appropriate for Christ-followers to observe Ramadan, pray in the mosque, and study the Qu'ran? At what point does the culture of Islam cross over to the spirituality of Islam? It’s a slippery slope, and one that "Muslim-Christians" might respond to with another question: why do Western churches so often embrace the crass commercialism and love of entertainment found in Western culture? Whereas proponents of the insider movement equate a C5 believer with a Jewish convert in the early church, this is not an even analogy. The Jewish convert was transitioning from a legitimate, God-given religion to a more complete fulfillment of that religion. There was nothing unbiblical about Judaism! Conversely, C5 believers also compare their situation with the early Gentile converts who were not required to leave their culture to follow the “new religion” of Christianity. This is inaccurate as well. Nowhere does the New Testament say that new Gentile converts continued to sacrifice to Greek gods. In fact, it was their very rejection of emperor worship that led to the martyrdom of so many.

The Insider Movement - Theology
Seldom do insider movement arguments bring up theology. And since there is no standard for the movement, perhaps there is no standard to argue. Aside from the wrong theology of accepting Muhammad as a prophet and the Qu'ran as inspired scripture, there’s the matter of the person of Jesus. The Qu'ran speaks highly of Jesus. He is identified as a holy prophet and a teacher worth listening to. But, according to the Qu'ran and Islam, Jesus is not the Son of God. He is not God; He is not divine. Muslim-sensitive Bibles replace "Son of God" with "Word of God" or even the "spiritual Son of God" so as to be more palatable. When the sacrifice of Jesus is mentioned in C5 evangelism, it is as a traditional sin offering, not as God come to earth to save mankind.

The wording is understandable, if unfortunate. Muslims are monotheists with no acceptance of the Trinity. Jesus as God is heresy to the Muslim faith. Allah alone is to be worshiped and adored. Worshiping Jesus as "Lord" is heresy. A religious environment that does not teach that Jesus is God cannot be conducive to spiritual growth. Missionaries who approve of the insider movement claim that the realization of the deity of Christ comes later, after careful study of the Bible, sometimes years after the person has decided to follow Jesus’ teachings.

Is the insider movement an appropriate evangelical tool? To a point. It is certainly acceptable to worship God within one’s cultural framework—as Christian rock bands and praise-hula teams can attest. Jesus-followers of all cultures should be able to express their devotion in ways that have personal significance. Theologically, however, the insider movement is precarious. We are not to be of this world (John 17:16), even if it means the world hates us (John 15:18-19). It does take time to really understand Jesus, who He is and what He means, and it’s natural for new converts to feel they have their feet in both worlds for a time. But continuing one’s native religious practices and following its spiritual teachings—whether in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or other—is not what the life of a Christ-follower should look like. Not every Christ-follower has to take the name "Christian" and sing ”Amazing Grace,” but he does need to worship Jesus, the Son of God, as his Lord and Savior.

Recommended Resource: Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norm Geisler

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Back
Top