How Do You Know If Any Particular Act is a Sin?

Luke 10:25-29 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Isn't that so typical of what we do? Once we find out something that we must or must not do, we automatically assume that the imperative is not to be applied universally and want to know the boundaries within which the imperative must be applied.

In the same way, after the discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin or not, there where several new discussion threads concerning whether a particular act is a sin or not.

I finally posted a reply after someone asked if masturbation is really a sin or not and many of the responders replied that it was not a sin.

Here is my reply:

In the original Greek text of the Bible, the word sin is translated from the Greek words hamartano and hamartia.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned (hamartano) and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin (hamartia) is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

These words are not religious word. They are secular terms. They are archery terms.

The definition of these words:

hamartano - to miss the mark hamartia - the act of missing the mark

To sin is to miss the mark.

What is the mark that we are trying to hit. What is God's purpose of creating man?

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness

Our purpuse is to carry the image of God.

When we fail to truly carry the image of God, we miss the mark.

Romans 3:23 says that we fall short of the glory of God.

Whatever we do that cause us to fall short of the glory of God is sin.

Does masturbation reflect the glory of God or does the act cause us to fall short of the glory of God?

If one wonders if any particular act is a sin or not just ask that question:

Does this act reflect the glory of God or does the act cause one to fall short of the glory of God?

p.s., Shortly after I posted my answer, someone posted the following:

I wish I knew the verse, but there is a verse that says, "If you sin with your eyes cut them out, if you sin with your right hand, cut it off."  Masturbation is indeed adultery, adultery is sin.

To which I replied:

Take your pick:

Matthew 5:28-30

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8-9

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Mark 9:43-48

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

That's an interesting take on masturbation that I've never considered.

Now that you mentioned it, I have to agree with you (with a qualification).

Adultery is sex with someone who is not one's spouse if one is married and fornication is any sex if one is single.

So, masturbation would be either adultery or fornication, i.e., a sin.

Also, masturbation would require some form of lusting in one's heart.

The Law, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant.

It has been a while since my last blog entry because I have been involved in a discussion thread on a Christian forum discussing a very important topic. The main topic of the thread concerns homosexuality in Christianity. I am not really that interested in discussing the topic of homosexuality. (See my blog entry entitled "Obsessing over Homosexuality and Other Hot Button Issues", posted on July 2, 2007) However, the way the Bible was being interpreted, in that post, has greater ramifications than the mere topic of homosexuality.

Here is the initial post in the thread:

1. Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." Pretty clear huh? Well what about the rest of the Jewish Holiness Code in Leviticus which also:

* permits polygamy

* prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,

* bans tattoos

* prohibits eating rare meat

* bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles

* prohibits cross-breeding livestock

* bans sowing a field with mixed seed

* prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood

* requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

I am a huge sinner then... I thought this code was totally obsolete? Hebrews 8:13 "In that He says 'a new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

2. Where's the law against lesbian sex? Doesn't exist... hmmm...

3. Jesus never talked about homosexuality? Was it really not that important? Was it even a sin?

The original post was arguing that we are no longer under the Old Covenant (Hebrew 8:13) so we should no longer be obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies that it is an offense against God. As evidence, he listed Old Testament regulations, in the first item of the original post, that are mostly ignored today.

Then, the author, of the original post, made two observations.

The first observation is that the Old Testament regulations explicitly forbid a man from laying with another man like a man would with a woman (Leviticus 18:22) however, they do not explictly forbid a woman from laying with another woman like a man would with a women. It would seem that lesbian sex is not forbidden.

The second observation is that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. If we carry the argument that we are no longer obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies it, then homosexuality must then be no longer an offense.

I could have stop the discussion by posting a New Testament reference that forbids homosexuality. However, to do so would allow the broader problem of how the Bible was interpreted to continue to propagate.

The first problem is the interpretation of what IS the Old Covenant that Hebrew 8:13 is talking about. It is a problem because the interpretation of this verse does not conform to its context.

Hebrew 8:3

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The covenant to which Hebrew 8:13 is referring is not the entirety of the Old Testament laws, it is referring to just the system of giving sacrifice found in the Old Testament. This system is no longer needed since Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice to save all who believe; Jesus' sacrifice is the basis of the New Covenant.

This chapter of Hebrew is not about abolishing the Law. More particularly, Jesus said the following:

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the context of the homosexuality discussion, I added:

Just because Jesus did not explicitly mentioned homosexuality, does not mean that He thinks it's ok. He came to fulfill every aspect of the Law. By upholding every aspect of the Law, he implicitly upholds the prohibition on homosexuality.

The author, of the original post, wrote back with the following:

So, let's make sure we preach against sex with unclean women, eating unclean meat, wearing certain types of clothing, tattoos, work on the Sabbath... If this justification is correct, why have we then selectively chosen what to follow and what not to follow? Did we feel it was not culturally relevant? I think you (and most Christian doctrine) may be drawing some dangerous conclusions here.

I think you are taking this out of context. Jesus spoke on His most hated sins (adultery, murder, divorce, truthfulness. He spoke much about piety, helping the downtrodden, and love for one's enemies during the entire Sermon. Are you saying by default then that "he really meant" to speak against homosexuality? Matt 5:17-20 is the catch all for all laws then? I think that explanation is devoid of true logic.

With this post, the author, of the original post, added another assumption. The post referred to some sins as more hated by God than others.

God/Jesus hates all sin; one is no more hated by God than another (maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

Jesus spoke about different sins to illustrate that we are all sinners. The ones that He pointed out were the ones that some people of that time were committing but weren't willing to admit that they have a problem these sins.

It's not about one sin being worst than another.

James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

It doesn't matter which sin we commit. Any sin condemns us to death.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's not in keeping the Law that we can be righteous since none of us are able to keep the law.

It is only through the acceptance of Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross in which we can become righteous.

That's the Gospel.

Someone else who was following the discussion asks for clarification with the following:

If all sins are equally wrong then why did you say that homosexuals cannot be Christians? What makes homosexuality any worse than the daily sins we all commit?

I wrote back the following:

To be a Christian, one has to repent: one has to recognize that he/she is a sinner and strives towards not sinning. Of course, all of us continue to sin because we are not perfected until the return of Jesus.

However, if someone refuses to accept the fact that they are sinning, then they did not repent and they are not saved. It does not matter if the sin is lying or adultery or homosexual activities. If one is not willing to recognize their sin as wrong, they did not repent and therefore not saved.

So, if a gay or lesbian says that there is nothing wrong with being gay and he/she continues to sin, they are not saved.

However, if a gay or lesbian says that it is wrong to participate in gay/lesbian activities and is trying to stop sinning, then that person has repented. If that person, then, accepts Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross, then that person is saved.

Frustrated with my answer, the author, of the original post wrote the following:

I'm straight and I ate pork, have had sex with my wife on her period, have a few tattoos, have worked on the Sabbath, and wear some pretty ridiculous clothes. And I don't think I've sinned... I guess I'm damned to hell? That my personal relationship with Christ is nothing but a farce?

To which I replied:

Leviticus 11:4-8

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

The dietary laws are about keeping clean. Whether it is for ceremonial cleanliness or health reasons, it doesn't matter. If for ceremonial cleanliness, since Jesus' death paid for all our sins and we no longer participate in sacrifice ceremonies. If for health reasons, our food processing methods clean those food. (Not to mention Acts 10:13-15)

Same with laws concerning having sex during a woman's period.

Leviticus 15:19

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Notice that the person remain unclean only until the evening?

Leviticus 19:26-28

Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

The law against tattoos is about practicing divination or sorcery. If your tattoo isn't related to practicing divination or sorcery, it's not a sin.

My point is that the Old Testament law concerns three types of regulations:

1) Regulations for maintaining physical health

2) Regulations for maintaining spiritual health (acts that condemn us to hell)

3) Regulations for sacrifices to be made to atone for the violation of the second type of regulations

The first type does not concern eternal issues that send us to hell and does not require atonement. Before modern technology and modern medical practices, these regulations were very important. But now, we are free from the problems that they solved.

The second type, however, does concern eternal issues that can send us to hell and requires atonement. No modern technology or modern medical practices can save us from the penalty required to pay for sin. These regulations are very much in play today as they were when the Law was given.

The third type is the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the Christian Gospel:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

p.s., Homosexuality is also explicitly forbidden in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9

(NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

(KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"abusers of themselves with mankind" was translated from the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means sodomite.

p.p.s., I addressed the lesbian question with the following:

All sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. If single having sex, it's fornication. If married having sex with someone who is not one's spouse, it's adultery.

Since marriage is defined from the start to be between a man and a woman, then two woman can not be married to each other. Thus, if two woman are a sexual relationship, they are either committing fornication or adultery.

To which he replied:

Understood, what about two women that marry in the church? Say in Vermont? They are not having sex outside marriage. What then?

My answer:

A Christian Church must abide by Christian Doctrine. Otherwise it is not a Christian Church. Since Christian Doctrine defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, a church that sanctions the union of two woman does not abide by Christian Doctrine.

The Invisible Man

James 3:3-12

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

I know an invisible man. He's usually sitting at the bus stop bench on Washington Boulevard, the one on the block between Martin Luther King, Jr, Boulevard and Barre Street, right in front of the Farm Fresh Super Market. If you've ever bought a Big Mac meal at that McDonald's, you've seen him.

He wears an old black derby hat and a thick brown corduroy waist coat. He's usually sitting slumped down with the rim of his hat tilted down to cover his face.

He's invisible because no one wants to see him. As people approach the bench, their eyes turn away to avoid seeing him. People waiting for the bus, will sit on one of the other benches. They would either stare across the street to avoid eye contact or glance impatiently down the street hoping the bus would arrive soon.

He's not invisible to all people. Sometimes, little children see him as the walk by with their parents. If a child stares too long, the parent would yank the child's arm to turn him or her away. In a hush voice, the parent would tell the child, "It's not nice to stare at people."

William isn't really physically invisible, of course. But, he might as well be. William is homeless.

William hasn't always been homeless. For years, he had worked on the loading docks in one of the big warehouses at the harbor. He lost his job when the warehouses were replaced by the swank Inner Harbor shopping pavilions. Afterward, he drifted from job to job. Eventually, age took its toll and William lost his ability to lift heavy objects. Virtually, illiterate, William's job prospects dwindled to none and he found himself on the streets.

One bright sunny Sunday, I ran across William on the bus stop bench. I had just come out of the McDonald's with my Big Mac Meal. It was such a gorgeous day and I didn't want to eat my lunch inside. Evidently, everyone else had the same idea. The only outside seat left was the bus bench where William was sitting. William was sitting there by himself. No one wanted to sit next to him.

Redundantly, I sat next to William. He looked so hungry. I immediately turned away, hoping to erase the image of the hungry man from my mind. It wouldn't go away. As I opened my paper bag, I took another glance at William. He looked so hungry. My internal guilt engine sprang into overdrive.

"Hey, would you like something to eat? Here, you can have this and I can get another."

William nods and accepted my Big Mac Meal.

When I came back with another Big Mac Meal, we ate in silence.

I tried to initiate a conversation but William wouldn't say a word. He responded by shaking his head for no and nodding his head for yes. He wouldn't respond to questions which require answers beyond Yes and No.

When we finished and I started to get up to go, William grabbed my arm. Slowly, he searched for the word in his memory. Then, William softly said, "Thanks." And let my arm loose.

The following week, I came back to check on William and again we had lunch together in silence. After several weeks of Sunday lunches, we finally exchanged names.

Slowly, William regained his ability to carry on a conversation. There were weeks in which he initiated the conversation. William was invisible no more.

One Sunday, William and I went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch. Our conversation was especially lively because William was hired, that week, to do janitorial work.

As we entered the fast food restaurant, the manager of the restaurant stepped in front of William.

"If you are panhandling, you'll have to stay outside. You can do that out there in the parking lot, but not in here."

I quickly stepped in and explained that William was with me. But it was too late.

William ate in silence that day. William is once again the invisible man.

Change the Picture Discussion Continues

After I posted my response to the initial post calling for the young teenager, who started the discussion group, to changed her default photo with her in a bikini bathing suit, I watched the discussion thread quickly grew with comments protesting the request to change the photo. Most of the posts argued that the photo was not lewd since the bathing suit was not any more revealing than any other that are commonly worn at the beach or swimming pool; thus, she has every right to post the photo if she wants.

As the discussion progressed, it became apparent that there are, indeed, men, in the discussion group, who have to deal with lust when they see the photo. But their pleads were met with replies insisting that those with the problem need to deal with the problem and not force the young teenager to change her default photo.

So I posted the following response.

1 Corinthians 8:9-13

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

As you can see from my previous post, I don't find the photo of this discussion group's moderator to be one which would cause me to have problem with lust. However, it seems that there are others in this group that would have to deal with the problem of lust due to this photo. If that's the case, then I must agree with those who are calling for the moderator to change her default photo.

We must remember the purpose of "The Church". (I'm not talking about a building or an organization; I'm talking about the Body of Christ.) It's not about asserting our rights. It's about helping each other as the entire Body moves forward.

Consider the Israelites as they travel through wilderness towards the promised land. If someone's grandma was having trouble keeping up, do you think they would tell the grandma to pick up the pace or she'll be left behind? Of course not, they'd find some way of accommodating her weakness.

In the same way, if a brother is struggling with lust from the picture of the moderator, are we to say, suck it up and stop lusting? Of course not! We need to accommodate this brother's weakness while he is still working on his lust issues.

I'm not saying that moderator does not have the rights to post a perfectly legitimate photo of herself in a bathing suit. Yes, she has the rights. I'm only asking that she, as a member of this Body, be considerate of other members who are weak when dealing with the issue of lust.

Change the Picture

Romans 14:19-21 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

One of the Christian Discussion Group in which I participate was started by a young teenager. On the web page that hosts the electronic forum is a picture of her. It is the default picture from her profile page. She periodically changes the default picture on her profile page. Recently, she changed it to a picture of herself in a bikini bathing suit. She wasn't posing in a lewd way. She was just standing there in front of a mirror in her bathing suit taking a picture of herself.

One of the discussion group participants found the picture inappropriate and tried to contact her to ask her to change it. Without any response from her, he started a discussion thread with the following post:

Change the Picture

I tried to message you privately, but was unable to do so.

The current picture is unacceptable. You fail to realize that it (and others like it that you have posted) may cause others to stumble. Please read the Bible where it talks about causing others to stumble.

Again, I would have rather messaged you privately, but was unable to do that.

(*said in love)

cd

I thought about it for a long time.

As I thought it over, others chimed-in in support of this post.

soon, it started to look like the electronic version of a lynch mob.

So, I posted the following in response to the initial post.

I must confess that I didn't notice the photo as a problem until you pointed it out. I'm constantly getting bombarded with and deleting the e-mail messages and "requests to be friend" from barely dressed girls who wants to show me their nude photos; so, I'm a bit anesthized to photos of barely dressed girls.

Here's my dilemma. On one hand, I do agree that one should not cause others to stumble. On the other hand, I can not support the Taliban's position of requiring all women to wear the burqa. (I'm not accusing you of being a member of the Taliban; I'm just establishing two points of extremes.)

This issue is not limited to just this particular photo. We all go to the beach and to swimming pools in which girls and women are dressed in bikinis.

I wonder if the problem is in the eye of the beholder? Where do we draw the boundary between where the responsibility rests on the subject being observed and where the responsibility rests on the observer?

Because most of the posts have been for changing the photo, I'd like to explore the other side of the argument a little.

There are parts of the world where it is still acceptable for women to walk around without anything covering their breast and the display does not invoke male sexual arousal in that society. If there is a Christian Church there, would the display of women's bare breasts be unacceptable? What if the only men that the display causes to stumble are the missionaries that brought the Gospel? Should the women now be required to cover up?

If we are to say that the bikini is inappropriate, what would we say is appropriate? A one piece? If we are to object to both, then what should a Christian woman wear at the beach or at the pool? What if the young woman in question had posted a picture of herself in a bikini on the beach? Would that be more appropriate than the current one?

The young woman in question is part of the MTV generation in which dressing in a bikini is not a big deal. So, if the calls, for her to change the photo, cause her to view the Christian community with distain, wouldn't that be considered "causing her to stumble"? Especially when this discussion thread is starting to look like a lynch mob.

I wonder: How many of us are actually being caused to stumbled by the photo?

I suspect that "causing others to stumble" is really not the issue here.

I suspect that it has more to do with being appalled with an young teenager showing so much skin.

If that's the case, shouldn't the issue really be about the mental and spiritual health of this young woman? Why does she feel the need to post a picture of herself showing so much skin? Does she truly believe that she is focused on being conformed to the image of Christ instead of focusing on conforming to the world?

Islam: a Religion of Peace?

Someone posted something against the Muslim faith that really burns me up! This is what was posted:

This is from the Koran

Religion of Peace?

* Surah II: 98 – "Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers."

* Surah II: 191-193 – "Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them….Fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah."

* Surah II: 216 – "Fighting is enjoined on you..."

* Surah III: 19 – "Surely the true religion with Allah is Islam…and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning."

* Surah V: 51 – "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whosoever among you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

* Surah VIII: 12 – "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

* Surah VIII: 15-17 – "O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, turn not your backs to them. Whoever shall turn his back to them on that day – unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company – then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell… So you did not slay them, but it was Allah who slew them…that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing."

* Surah IX: 29 – "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth… until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

* Surah IX:33 – "[Allah] it is who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though polytheists may be averse."

* Surah IX: 73 – "O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination."

* Surah IX: 123 – "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in your hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)."

Here's my reply:

I looked up verses 2.190 - 2.193

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

Verse 2.191 was NOT referring to ALL unbelievers!!!!! If you look at its context in verse 2.190, you'd see that it was referring to "those who fight with you"

In fact this whole section is about fighting fairly: "do not exceed the limits"

Your quote of verse 2.191 also omitted an important part of the verse: "drive them out from whence they drove you out", referring to getting back the land that was taken from them.

I also looked up verse 8.12

[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Your quote of verse 8.12 omitted the beginning of the verse!!! The verse is about God telling angels to strike down those who don't believe. God was NOT telling Muslims to strike down unbelievers!!!

The way these verses are quoted is simply a misrepresentation of the actual text.

Please, stop propagating this falsehood!!!! It reflects badly on Christians.

As for accusing Islam of being a religion of violence, Muslims can just as well post verses from the Bible that would make our faith look very violent. Remember, the Israelite's march to the promised land? How many people groups were trampled on that march? How about the wars of Saul, David and the Judges? Even in the New Testament, we have God striking down Ananias and Sapphira.

Most importantly, they could point out the violence of "Christians" against Muslims like the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land, the Spanish Inquisition, British Colonialism, Russian conquest of Central Asia, etc.

Let's not antagonize the Muslim. They are just lost, like we were before we were saved.

Then, someone else posted a reply to the orignal post that quoted the Old Testament story of Ishmael, connecting the Arab people to Abraham and the chosen race. I'm not reposting it in this blog entry because it's quite drawn out and very incoherent.

Anyway, I replied to it with the following:

PLEASE DO NOT equate Arabs with Muslim!!!!!!!

I would like to remind you that MOST Christians in the Middle East ARE Arabs: Lebanese Maronite Christians, Jordanian Orthodox Christians, Palestinian Melkite Greek Catholic Christians, Egyptian Coptic Christians, etc.

Conversely, Muslims are not only Arabs. The most populous Muslim country is Indonesia. Muslims also include the various people groups who inhabits Central Asia, Africa, as well as the Iranians who are Persians. In fact, the fastest growing religion within the African-American community IS Islam.

Obsessing over Homosexuality and Other Hot Button Issues

Lately, I've been seeing many posts concerning homosexuality on Christian discussion forums. Many concerned House Bill 1592 and Senate Bill 1105 which add "GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY" to the list of those protected under the Hate Crime Act. Others expressed general disgust for homosexual acts. After a while, I felt compelled to protest this singling out of homosexuality as the sin on which to focus.

So, I posted the following in response to the posting of a sermon against homosexuality.

While I agree that homosexuality is a sin, I find that the American church spends way too much time obsessing with this issue. The Bible contains more verses on adultery, yet, American Christians are more ready to tolerate adulterer than gays and lesbians. What about liars and thieves?

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Matthew 5:28

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

1 John 3:15

Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Perhaps we, as the Body of Christ, would be more effective if we preach the whole gospel; we are all sinners condemned to death and can only be saved by the grace of God through Jesus' atonement of our sin by his death on the cross.

My complaint isn't just about the church focusing on homosexuality. It's more about we focusing on hot button topics: abortion, drugs, alcohol abuse, etc.

It tends to categorize people into little niches; and when we do that, they become very defensive and less opened to listen to the gospel message.

However, if we are willing to view each person as a fallen individual who needs the gospel just as we all do, they are more likely to open their heart to the call of Jesus Christ.

Someone objected to my post and responded with the following:

So is the *church* focusing on those topics? or are they RESPONDING to whatever issues/problems are hot button in the secular community?

Here is my reply to the response:

Why should the church let the secular community set our agenda?

We receive our marching order from our Lord: that is to advance the gospel. Let's do what would advance the gospel more effectively and not waste our time focusing on fad issues.

Some one else responded with the following:

This is great, Adventurer. But this does only apply to the unsaved world... how would you approach a brother who is caught in habitual sin and unrepentant? I believe this sermon is actually directed at those within the church that have no problem with sexually immoral lifestyles- it could also apply to the weekend binge-drinker, the drug abuser, the foulmouthed rageaholic etc. all the hot button topics you pointed out.

My understanding is the way we treat unsaved people (what you said above) and the way we are to deal with brothers who live this way is totally different.

I replied with the following.

How we deal with a sinner has more to do with how the sinner effect the spiritual health of the Body than with whether the sinner is a believer or not.

It is my impression that the Bible teaches us, as a general rule, to deal with sinners with gentleness, irregardless of whether they are believers or not.

Galatians 6:1

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

Luke 17:3-4

So watch yourselves.

"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent, ' forgive him."

James 5:19-20

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

While Luke 17:3-4 and James 5:19-20 explicitly identified the sinner as "your brother", Galatians 6:1 can be applied to a believer or non-believer who sin. Either way, we are to deal with all of them gently with our first priority being bringing the sinner back to God.

But if the sinner's action could tear apart the Body of Christ. We need to cut him off.

Titus 3:9-11

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Leaders must be those who can set a good example.

Titus 1:6-8

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.

If they set a bad example, he must be rebuked publicly so that others do not follow them into sin.

1 Timothy 5:19-21

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Why did God take six days to create the universe?

Someone posted the following in one of the Christian discussion forums:

Hi, everyone. I'm new to this group. Hopefully someone can help me explain something. I've been talking to someone who doesn't really believe in God. He asked if God is all powerful why did he take six days to create the universe instead of just creating it instantly?

Here's my response:

God purposely "worked" six days and rested on the seventh to set up a model for us to follow.

God didn't create us to sit around and vegetate all day, every day; He wants us to be creative, productive, and nurturing beings like Himself.

However, He also did not create us to be a beasts of burden, working all the time. So he set the example for us to work six days and rest on the seventh.