Prophecy

Having been in self-imposed excommunication from the church for seven years, my reintroduction was bound to introduce me to various new themes floating around in Christian culture. One of the most prominent themes that I hear thrown around is ‘prophecy’. I have heard a number of people being flippantly referred to as prophets, and even more people claiming to ‘speak words of prophecy’, or having had such prophetic ‘words’ spoken over them. The common use of term ‘prophecy’ in the today’s parlance seems to be conveniently pliant and hopelessly confused and vague.

But just what is prophecy, and what function did the prophet play in history? Like usual, Scripture gives quite clear answers.

The Bible describes the prophet as having a very precise purpose and function, prophets were not people who just predicted the future as is commonly thought. To use a modern analogy, they were basically God’s ‘prosecuting attorneys’, whose specific purpose was to bring God’s lawsuit against both God’s people and the nations that surrounded Israel. So just as a modern prosecuting attorney will represent the government in charging a criminal for an alleged crime, God also sent His prophets to charge His people with a particular crime.

At the start of Ezekiel’s prophetic mission, God enunciated a very clear definition of what prophecy exactly is:

“When I say to a wicked person, “You will surely die,” and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.” Ezekiel 3:18-19.

Here we see four clear attributes of a prophecy: 1) identification of sin, 2) dissuasion from sin/call to repentance, 3) pronouncement of punishment for unrepented sin, 4) accountability of the prophet to his task.

So while a prophet would certainly pronounce a future punishment, this was only a small part of the prophet’s purpose. It is important to note that the prediction of the future was always contingent on repentance. If the offending people did repent of their sin, then God’s punishment would be revoked. We see this in Jonah’s prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh where the prediction of their destruction did not come to pass because the people did heed God’s warning and repented.

So the primary purpose of the prophet was not to warn the people of God’s impending wrath, but rather to persuade them to cease their sinful ways and turn back to God. It is God’s love that motivates the prophecy, not wrath.

1 Corinthians 14:3-4 gives another good general guide to what the effect of prophecy is; “everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort”, and “he who prophesies edifies the church”. These verses should not be misconstrued to mean that the prophecy of the New Testament should be solely positive and feel-good. One only has to look at the prophecy in the book of Revelation where the seven churches are addressed to see that quite a lot of harsh words were said of them. Also, while the Old Testament prophecy contained a lot of harsh rebuke, it also contained much encouragement and comfort too (Hos 11:14, 14, Joel 3:17-21, Amos 9:11-15, Mic 7:8-20). And what would be a more effective way to edify the church than for it’s sins to be made known? Progress can not be made unless one’s stumbling blocks are known.

So we see that prophecy also contains encouragement and comfort in tandem with warnings of God’s wrath. Both are integral parts of prophecy. 

The Bible makes it clear that there are just as many false prophets as true prophets, so we need to be discerning when listening to anybody who claims to be speaking prophecy. The two most effective methods for identifying a true prophet from a false prophet are:   1) to see if the specific prophecy comes true. “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously” Deuteronomy 18:22.               2) “By their fruit you will recognise them.” Matt 2:15,16. The fruit of the spirit is of course a reference to Gal 5:22-23, which is in contrast to the works of the flesh Gal 5:19-21, which would be manifest in the false prophet.

Also prophets are always described as spreading their message on the streets to all the people concerned with total conviction and a desperate vehemence. Prophets do not timidly whisper their message in a church corner.

So in summery we find a number of principles in the Bible for discerning between true and false prophets. These are the characteristics that the Bible describes of a true prophet:

1)      The prophet must be prophesying directly to the people concerned

2)      Specific sins will be identified

3)      The prophet will call the offending people to repent

4)      Specific punishment will be identified for unrepentant sin

5)      Specific blessings with be identified for repentance

6)      The prophecy must identify a path to edification

7)      The prophecy must come true

8)      The fruit of the prophet must be of spirit, not of the flesh

          It is obvious from all this that prophecy isn’t the mere prediction of calamity or blessing- this would be better defined as ‘revelation’- but instead true prophecy will include the above biblical principles. Also it is a quite poignant note that an extremely high responsibility is upon the shoulders of the prophet to do his job properly. This should serve as a dire warning to anybody who wishes to call their words prophecy; it is not a risk-free and glamorous job, and it is also your life that is on the line. So people should be extremely cautious that their compulsion to call their words prophecy is not in anyway a whimsical or self-aggrandizing compulsion. God takes prophecy extremely seriously:

“Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!”, “My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations” Ezekiel 13:3, 9.

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’” Deut 18:20

           The whole modern understanding of ‘prophecy’ seems to be based on a confusion between ‘prophecy’ and ‘revelation’. If someone is only stating what will happen in the future, then this is revelation, NOT prophecy. The two are categorically different things.

Born Again Christian

I was recently filling out a questionnaire which posed the usual question of which religion or denomination I belong to. Ordinarily I perfunctorily check the “Lutheranism” box, or if that is not available then the “Other Christian” option. But this time I was given the option of “Born Again Christian”. I have seen this category a number of times in past surveys, but certainly never considered myself to be of that category….not until now.

I had always looked upon the Born Again Christians with a wee bit of envy. They are always the most effusively joyful people, possessing a prodigious passion and zeal for God that I had rarely, if ever, seen in the Christians who are born into the Faith.

To my rational mind this seemed to indicate that you had to experience the lowest of lows of apostasy to be able to then experience the highest of highs of Christianity. Maybe you had to be in total apostasy and be at such a low point in life -someone like a drug-dealing pimp or heroin-addicted harlot who is in anguish and despair and at the point of suicide- in order to fully appreciate the amazing gifts of forgiveness and agape that Christ offers.

Can the sweetest of sweet tastes only be appreciated by those who have tasted the sourest of sour flavours? This was my fear. I so dearly wanted the effusive relationship with God that these people experienced. The joy in their eyes, the ecstasy on their faces and the enthusiasm in their dance, simply over their love of God; I wanted that!!!

Well those depressing fears have been disabused in the last month. The joy in my heart and the zeal for God in my soul certainly seems commensurate with these previously apostate born-again Christians, not that it’s a competition! But the spiritual high that God is bestowing on me certainly satiates my soul. So much so that I have no doubt that I now belong in the “Born Again Christian” category!

Hallelujah! God is indeed Great!!!

How Should We Pray?

Recently, in the wake of my spiritual revolution, I have been pondering and re-evaluating the purpose and efficacy of prayer. Prayer to me always seemed somewhat awkward, which made me wonder if I was doing it wrong. That got me thinking about what prayer really is and whether the Western concept of prayer that I am familiar with is wrong or unbiblical, as many things in modern Christianity so often are.

Upon introspection on how I personally pray, and reflecting on the group prayers that I have been part of, I found that the vast majority of prayers consisted of little more than ‘gift requests’, as though God is some kind of genie-in-a-bottle.

While there is nothing wrong with petitioning God for divine intervention per se, when this is the main focus of prayer, or even the only purpose of prayer, then it struck me that there may be something fundamentally wrong.

This type of prayer always left me thinking something along these lines; “God knows what He is doing, He doesn’t need me to tell Him what to do!” and “Half the things I pray about are probably contrary to His plan anyway, so why bother praying?”

So it was then after this most recent contemplation that it really became obvious to me that my method of prayer had to be deficient in some way. Surely there was more to prayer than what honestly felt like little more than just an egocentric ‘gift request’?

I spent ages trawling the net looking for answers with no success. It was after this that it hit me; why not try the Bible! (It was one of those face-palm moments, lol. Why didn’t I think of that earlier?) When I started looking at the examples of prayer throughout the Bible I immediately noticed a significant trend; an actual ‘formula’ for proper prayer! It was a surprise to me because I can not remember ever hearing any preacher or scholar mention it or use it. Please note that I am NOT claiming that I am the first to notice this proffered formula.

The formula is present in every example of prayer in the Bible, and always follows the exact sequence which I describe below. What really cemented the reality of the formula in my mind was the fact that the Lords Prayer itself follows this formula. This leaves me with little doubt that God wants us to pray to Him in the manner which is set out below.

What I found was a sequential five tier structure in all the examples of prayer in both the Old and New Testaments. The sequence of the structure never changes, but each prayer does omit one part of the formula, depending on the purpose of the prayer. But the general structure is clear, and I think undeniable.

So have a look and see what you think!

Scriptural Principles of Proper Prayer:

1) Honour God

We are to acknowledge God as the supreme and sovereign Lord of lords

Nehemiah gives a perfect example to start his prayer: “O Lord, God of heaven, the great and awesome God” Nehemiah 1:5, or Solomon: “O Lord, God of Israel there is no God like you in heaven or on earth” 2 Chronicles 6:14.

2) Identification of God’s previous promise/covenant, or the petition for its continuance

The purpose of this is to acknowledge what God has already done for us, and give thanks for previous prayers that have been answered.

This is Solomon’s example; “LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven or on earth—you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way.  You have kept your promise to your servant David my father; with your mouth you have promised and with your hand you have fulfilled it—as it is today.  [….] And now, LORD, the God of Israel, let your word that you promised your servant David come true. ” 2 Chronicles 14-17

3) Confession/identification of sins

We all sin, and we do it all the time. It seems important to me to acknowledge this to God before asking a favour of Him.

This is Daniel’s example on behalf of Israel; “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel [….]are covered with shame, LORD, because we have sinned against you. [….] All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. “Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you” Daniel 9:5-16

4) Supplication for Divine intercession

This is when to petition God to intercede in your life. Notice that it is only after the three steps above that it was considered appropriate in the examples in Scripture to then make requests of God.

5) Praise of God

Praise Him with joyous hallelujah, because He is truly worthy of all praise. Whether or not He answers specific aspects of our prayers, He has our best interests at heart.

 This is the praise that Habakkuk expressed at the end of His prayer; “I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my saviour. The sovereign Lord is my strength, he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights.” Habakkuk 3:18-19

Take note that these steps occur in order of the most important to the least important. The order should not be altered.
While the finer details could be quibbled over and the categories further refined, I think the general five parts of the structure are beyond dispute. But hey, if you disagree then let me know!

	1  Honour God	2 Petition/Identification of God’s Promises	3 Confession/ identification of Sins	4 Supplication for Intercession	5 Praise of God
Hezekiah’s Prayer 2 Kings	19:15		19:16-18	19:19*	19:19*
David’s Prayer 2 Samuel	7:18-23	7:24-25		7:25	7:26-29
Solomon’s Prayer 2 Chronicles	6:14	14-17		6:18-39	6:40-42
Nehemiah’s Prayer Nehemiah	1:5	1:5	1:6-7	1:6** 1:11
Daniel’s Prayer Daniel	9:4	9:4	9:5-16	9:17-19
Habakkuk’s Prayer Habakkuk	3:2	3:2	3:5-17		3:18-19
Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer Luke	11:2		11:4	11:4	Apocryphal addition ***
The Believers Prayer Acts	4:24		4:25-28	4:29-30	4:31

*It should be noted that when a single verse is placed in two of the categories, then the first half of the verse belongs to one category and the second half of the verse belongs to the other category.

**Verses highlighted by italics are verses that seem to be out of the general order of the formula.

***The addition to the Lord’s Prayer that is commonly recited -but not found in the earliest manuscripts- fits this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Prayer#English_versions

I noticed that when I previously changed the way that I interacted with God by including more praise and honour of Him -which this formula uses- then my whole relationship with God changed to be far deeper and more spiritual experience. So when I introduced this formula into my normal prayer, praying turned from being a somewhat perfunctory practice into a dynamic and joyous experience.

Maybe this more scripturally ‘correct’ way of praying/interacting with God is why I am starting to see my ‘gift requests’ in prayer actually now working with powerful results?

A Spiritual Faith

Having gone through some rather painful relationship trauma lately (hence the large hiatus between posts), I’ve tried to be more Bible-centric. I’ve spend quite a bit of time ruminating on Psalms.

The spirituality of old-school JudeoChristanity is blowing my mind! As a consequence of my rigid traditional Lutheran upbringing, I’ve been stuck in a very dry and insipid rationalism my whole life – which has been instrumental in my campaign against atheism- but I’m starting to see everything in a far more rich spiritual light. I was struck by a quote of Athanasius of Alexandria on the spiritual response one should get from Psalms:

“And it seems to me that these words become like a mirror to the persons singing them, so that he might perceive himself and the emotions of his soul, and thus affected, he might recite them. For in fact he who hears the one reading receives the song that is recited as being about him, and either, when he is convicted by his conscience, being pierced, he will repent, or hearing of the hope that resides in God, and of the succour available to believers –how this kind of grace exists for him – he exults and begins to give thanks to God”

Lately whenever I find myself in some sort of emotional bind, I have been turning to the Psalms and have indeed found succour in them.

Following the lead of David, I have found that spontaneous and heartfelt hallelujah throughout the day –in addition to prayer- leads to a deeper and more spiritual relationship with God.

Ideologies and Morality

Crimes and atrocities are committed by those of all beliefs. In the great struggle between Christianity and atheism each has blood on it’s hands, though it is clear that atheist inspired ideologies have caused far more causalities in one century than religious conflict has in the whole history of humanity. But this isn’t the topic of this post. Instead I want to discuss the distinction that separates the two.

When a Christian gives alms; cares for the vulnerable; is patient or humble, he is practicing the moral principles that are commanded of him by his ideology. Conversely when he murders; steals from; rapes or slanders somebody, he is violating the clear moral principles of his ideology. There is a transcendental moral code that he believes he is held accountable to.

The atheist on the other hand, has no obligation or responsibility to do either good or bad. When God is eliminated from one’s ideology, morality goes with it too. If an atheist gives alms or cares for the sick, it is of his own personal volition. He may think it is his moral obligation, but this is just his personal opinion. He has no objective reason to do so.

Similarly, his raping of the child next door, is just as much his moral obligation. Both are morally equal actions. He is in perfect harmony with his amoral atheist ideology. He can rape or care; assault or mend; steal or give alms, no particular action by a mere human ‘bag of carbon atoms’ has any more moral significance then the action of a particular cloud of stellar dust. At least a cloud of stellar dust doesn’t have the arrogance and audacity to claim that the actions of his particular arrangement of up-quarks and down-quarks is any more significant than the human atheist’s mix of quarks! He is at least a humble bag of quarks!

Thus when a Christian rapes someone, he is in clear violation of his ideology. But when an atheist does the same, he is in perfect harmony with his own ideology.

Atheism, when taken to it’s logical conclusion, is absurd. As Calvin (in the cartoon above) found out the hard way!

The God Delusion

Having read The God Delusion this second time, I have come to appreciate much of what he says. While there is no doubt that much of the content is intellectual drivel, most of his criticisms of the church hit the nail on the head. The God Delusion to me seemed to act as a very efficient ‘Occam’s’ razor to various religions, and various practices within religions. I really think that if the Christian church implemented this razor to their theology and to their general practices, they would come out much stronger and fitter as a result. Though this is certainly not Dawkins intention!

The thing that shocked me the most was how surprisingly short on scientific evidence it was, while being long on speculation. Page and page went by where Dawkins indulged in fantastic speculation as to the origin and possible Darwinian reason for religion, yet he never substantiated any of his arguments with anything remotely resembling empirical data. It is for this reason alone that religious people can simply ignore this book and it’s claims, because they are nothing more than spectacular speculation.

Most people seem to think that this book is an argument against the existence of a god, specifically the Christian God. This is certainly how it is portrayed. Yet this couldn’t be further from the truth.

The basic argument that Dawkins uses against the existence of God falls in to the trap of the Genetic Fallacy; the denigration of the origin of an idea or the people who believe it, does not disprove it’s existence. For example, if I were to call Dawkins and imbecile, this wouldn’t invalidate his arguments. It may or may not be true, but it has no impact on his actual arguments.

Dawkins quite rightly bemoans the ill that religious people cause, but wrongly assumes that just because some religious people do bad things, that God mustn’t exist.

The second argument that falls into the Genetic Fallacy is Dawkins’ attempt to explain the belief in God as being just a delusion in the human’s brain. But yet again, speculating as to the workings of the human mind doesn’t even begin to address the actual existence of God Himself.

The main bone that I have to pick with Dawkins is his extreme intolerance towards those who disagree with him. He seems to be a hardcore anti-pluralist. He seems totally unwilling to even consider the idea of just living with people who disagree with his own worldview.

In critiquing religion, his chosen method is to throw the baby out with the bath water. He isn’t interested in live alongside even the many religions which shun all forms of violence. Instead he tarnishes all religions with the dirtiest brush that he could find, and proclaims that even the most benignly pacifist religions must be eliminated. This type of dogmatic intolerance sadly reminds me of the oppression techniques of communist China and Russia where everybody who disagreed with the rulership was systematically eradicated. Dawkins rhetoric is shockingly similar to this horrible time in history.

It is disconcerting that this book is in the hands of the pleb. While I recommend it to those who are properly educated in religion (specifically Protestants), ‘The God Delusion’ is a dangerous propaganda tool in the hands of those people whose only real knowledge of religion is from these types of biased books. These people are totally unable to critically evaluate Dawkins claims, and balance them against what the Bible really teaches.

As a Protestant young earth creationist, I found that virtually no criticism of Dawkins was applicable to my worldview. I could almost feel the bullets rapidly bounding off of me!

Virtually all of his attacks were directed against various Catholic doctrines and practices which clearly don’t apply to Protestants.

His other major point of attack was against the various inconsistencies that arise by trying to amalgamate belief in God with the theory of evolution- and again, none of this applies to the YEC worldview.

For me, I came out the other end of this book smiling. Dawkins razor was only ever directed at the dross that prevents Christianity being a credible alternative to atheism. If you eliminate all that Dawkins recommends, you get YEC; a worldview tempered in the crucible of Dawkins vociferous attacks; a worldview, by virtue of Dawkins tempering, that is immune to all weapons that he has in his arsenal.

The Bible like a Jigsaw Puzzle

The Bible like a Jigsaw Puzzle

Christians are constantly bombarded with challenges from critics who claim that the Christian religion is nothing more than a delusion. They say that there are many inconsistencies, contradictions and faux pas which are consistent with Christianity being a manmade phenomenon.

Making sense of such a manmade religion would be like trying to piece together a puzzle that is made up of pieces that are from many different puzzles; they just won’t form a coherent whole.

But I have found that these criticisms are merely superficial challenges, and when you set your mind to investigating them, all the alleged incongruent pieces tend to eventually fall quite neatly into place.

The cynical atheist when he looks at the Bible, sees a huge pile of puzzle pieces jumbled together. He nonchalantly picks up a few random pieces but can’t make them fit together. He does this a few more times then just gives up. The cynic, being overawed by the complexity and the fact that he has never done a puzzle before, simply throws his hands in the air and claims that the pieces simply can’t be put together.

But the Christian has faith that the Bible is true and does make sense, he knows that you just have to work a bit harder at it, just like a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The complexity of the puzzle means that it is not just going to fit together easily in a short amount of time, you have to have patience and dedication in sitting down to analyse and try different combinations of pieces. But eventually the whole puzzle starts to come together, piece by piece, cluster by cluster, into an intricate and complex, but stunningly beautiful and rewarding apogee.  

And this is certainly true of the Bible and Christianity, the more that I have been challenged by often abusive critics, and the more that I have researched and pondered the problems, the better the alleged inconsistencies fit together. Things like the alleged contradictions between Old Testament Law and the New, or the faux pas cruelties of the Old Testament; you just have to look a bit deeper and try a bit harder.

In the end, when you have studied the Bible and all the criticisms charged against it, you see that it is entirely consistent, not just within itself, but with the world around us. It is no wonder why Christianity has been such a powerful force for so long; it just makes so much sense!

Revolutionary Christianity

I am halfway through ‘Atheist Delusions’ by D. B. Hart, and WOW! I love his writing style, those I think most people would find it a little verbose. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve had to reach for my dictionary!



It is a superb refutation of the fabricated history that so many atheist authors feel forced to employ to find something to criticise Christianity with.



But on another level, it is quite good for illuminating the reader about just how radical and emancipatory Christianity was to the ancient world. We in the modern world have largely become blind to just how great Christianity is. Modern critics take the New Testament and nitpick grievances from it and claim that it is an inferior form of ethics compared to the modern Western ethics. But they err by forgetting that the modern Western society that they so cherish is a direct product of that same Christian ethic!!!



The Christian ethic of equality, freedom and rights for all humans was so revolutionary that it basically turned the old pagan order and it’s ethic on it’s head.

We tend to think that the Christian ethic is not particularly special in light of our society’s current ethic. But what Christianity’s critics, and Christians themselves, forget is that the Christian ethic that was taught by Christ is actually the most radical ethic ever invented, and the fact that this revolutionary ethic was born in a pagan society that was so directly contrasted to it goes to show it's Devine originality in my opinion.





For me, the fact that it is only societies which have been built upon Christianity which produce ideals such as liberty, freedom of speech and egalitarianism, is proof enough of the superiority of the Christian worldview.

Communism, Islam, Atheism, Christianity and

When it comes to proselytising, Christianity sets itself apart from these other three in one very important way.



The first three of these belief systems all use subjugation, ridicule and peer-pressure to gain and maintain acceptance.

Those who lived in a Communist State had to forever be looking over their shoulder in a perpetual state of suspicion that their neighbours and even their own children may denounce them to the State authorities as ‘counter-revolutionaries’. Severe beatings and even death was a constant fear.



Similarly Islamic States use cruel punishment techniques for those who dare to question the status-quo. Women are kept on a horrifyingly short leash, being cudgelled by their husbands, brothers or fathers at the slightest whim. All this is not just condoned, but promoted by Islamic scripture.



Atheism fits right in with these two, only differing in the degree of chastisement. The primary tool in use by atheism to gain and sustain social and intellectual prominence is ridicule and scorn. Even the slightest mention of secular dissent is immediately countered with a pillory of public humiliation and castigation.









And this is where Christianity differs markedly. Christianity seeks to convince and cajole rather than use the atheist tactic of criticism and castigation. Christianity does not wish for domination and subjugation like Communism, Islam and Atheism. But instead endeavours to show the love and compassion shown to us by Christ.

We let our actions do the talking. Rather than force people to outwardly conform, we would much rather it to come from their hearts in an honest and willing display of acceptance.



I’m sure many people would object and point to various Christianised governments and institutions in the past who didn’t act this way, but rather adopted the methods of the other three worldviews.

Yes it is true that medieval rulers used Christianity to subjugate and even terrorize their peoples. And yes it is true that even this previous century saw Christianised governments enforce Christianity on the population through things such as Christian prayer in State run institutions, and the prohibition of teaching evolution in schools. But my point is that this is not what the teachings of Christ teach us as I will demonstrate.



Christ led the way, giving us an example of how we are to approach the heathen world around us.

A prime example is found in John 8:2-11. After answering the Pharisees in their challenge over a women caught in the act of adultery, He did not chastise and condemn the woman. He did not arrogantly pronounce the law that she must adhere to. And He did not ridicule and shame her into submission:

Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”



No, instead He showed her complete love and compassion, with only a gentle reminder of what she new to be wrong anyway.



A firm hand only serves to harden the heart against your rules, and guarantees hostile rebellion.

Conversely, a gentle and loving hand cajoles and convinces, and ensures honest devotion.

Should Christians Follow the Old Testament Law?

Mathew 5:17 “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.”



A superficial reading of this passage seems to say that Jesus is affirming the validity of the Old Testament Law which would make them still binding for Christ’s followers.



But what did Jesus truly mean by this statement? One point is certainly true, Christ did not come to totally eliminate all the Old Testament laws and start from a blank canvass, we can certainly rule this out.

In this quote Jesus was really stressing the point that His mission wasn’t to invalidate all of God’s prior teachings and render them obsolete and defunct. He was making the point that the Law and prophecies of old were setting the stage for Christ’s arrival to fulfil them! God’s interactions with the Israelites of the Old Testament were only ‘Part 1’ of God’s ultimate plan. Jesus was explaining that He was here to instigate ‘Part 2’; the salvation.



So having pointed out that Jesus wasn’t going to scrap the Old Law, what then was his plan for the Old Law? Well, we know that Jesus did abolish many aspects of the old Law. For instance Mathew 5:38-39 states:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

Here Jesus is quoting Exodus 21:23-24 which says ”But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

So we can see that Jesus is definitely abolishing at least parts of the Old Law. So this begs the question as to what He really meant when He said that he did not come to abolish the Old Law.







The second part of Mathew 5:17 explains what He did come to do; fulfil the Law and the Prophets.

The whole of the Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Messiah’s coming and what He was to achieve. This would make sense if we look at the Old Testament as being a prelude, or setting the stage, for Christ’s arrival.

Jesus further fulfilled the Old Testament by taking the Ten Commandments and further refining them:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.” Mathew 5:21-22

Also:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Mathew 5:27-28

So knowing what we now know, we see that when Jesus said “I have not come to abolish“, He meant that He had no intention of totally wiping away the Old Law and starting fresh, but instead He used it as the foundation of the God’s new Covenant, and built upon it. The Old Law served as a vital basis for Jesus’ new message. He verified parts, trimmed parts and embellished other parts.

So to answer the original question; “Should Christians Follow the Old Testament Law?”

No. We are not to follow the Old Law, but we are to follow Christ’s fulfilment of it. We are to follow Jesus’ new teachings over the superseded Old Law:

Gay Marriage

The issue of gay marriage has recently been given significant attention in the parliament and media by the radical Green party in Australia.



The most common word that is heard alongside the term ‘gay ‘marriage’, is ‘progressive’, a term which is also used to justify it. But what is never defined is what ‘progressive’ actually is. The word is just crudely swung around in an attempt to cudgel those ‘backward’ traditionalists who dare to hold tight to old fashioned religious values.



But the real question is if gay marriage is progressive, then what about polygamy? What about incestuous relationships? Why would these not be progressive ideals too?

The only criteria that these self-proclaimed ‘progressives’ are advocating for defining ‘marriage’, is ‘love’, that’s it! So if reciprocal love is the only defining criteria, then on what basis do they reject brothers and sisters from demanding the same rights to marriage? What basis do they then have for rejecting the claims of discrimination against those who want to wed into polygamous marriage? None.



As soon as you redefine marriage away from the obviously harmonious match between one man and one woman into a cohabitation of only ‘love’, then you open the flood gates to any and all variations of cohabitation. If rejecting gay marriage is discrimination, then so isn’t rejecting all other forms such as polygamy, incest, bigamy, bestiality, objectophilia? What is stopping a landslide of subsequent marriage redefinitions to encompass all these different forms of cohabitations? Nothing, in fact according to the logic of the gay marriage advocates, discriminating against all the above forms of relationships who wish to marry is just as bad as discriminating against gay marriage.





Even if marriage is only redefined to include gay unions, then this has a significant impact on those people who don’t want their own marriage vows to be diluted to include gay unions. There are many people who don’t want the marriage bond that holds them together to be some motley hotchpotch union that lacks any form of coherent meaning or significance. They certainly don’t want to be married under a form of union that they find offensive!



This raises the obvious solution of having a totally separate form of union distinct from heterosexual ‘marriage’. It is certainly feasible to have a separate form of union that the ostensibly named ‘progressives’ find comfortable. This would seem to me to be a win-win scenario. It would keep the traditionalists happy as well as those advocating gay marriage.



But what I really don’t get is why those advocating gay marriage, who would almost exclusively be secular atheists, would want to adopt the Christian tradition of marriage anyway? The institution of marriage in the West has always been a Christian tradition, one deeply rooted in Christian ethics, morality and tradition.

Why would those advocates of gay marriage want to hijack this explicitly Christian institution when they openly ridicule every aspect of Christianity? They routinely mock the conservative values of Christianity and even more severely mock the people who hold them. It is for this reason that I simply do not see any sense in them adopting marriage in the first place.



The most diplomatic and practical solution seems to me to create another distinctly separate form of union that encompasses gay unions, heterosexual unions if they wish and every other form of union that they deem progressive.

They would obviously have the same rights as traditional religious marriage, but would have a legal union that they find far more appropriate to their ideas of ‘social progression’. This would certainly keep the vast majority of the religious population happy, giving them the important distinction between hetero and homosexual unions.

Atheism-The Social Parasite

Atheism and society in general can be accurately portrayed metaphorically as the symbiotic relationship between a parasite and its host.



Atheism thinks of itself as being a fully functioning, self sustainable, belief system that should be the sole worldview in society, a society that has rid itself of religion. As a metaphor, this is akin to a parasite believing that it could survive, and be better off, without its host.



But we all know that a parasite can’t live without it’s host, because by definition, for a parasite to propagate and survive on its own, it needs various things from its host that it is utterly incapable of providing by itself. A parasite who espoused such beliefs would be said to be in a state of megalomaniacal delusion.



The same can be said to be the case for atheism. For any belief system or worldview to propagate and survive on its own, it must possess certain qualities that fulfil the human psychology and thus nurtures a functioning society. It must offer secure moral and ethical foundations to prevent nihilism from wrecking society. Foundational aspects such as sound reasoning for adhering to rules and laws; treating others with respect; liberty to allow basic human freedoms; etc. Without these basic aspects of a functioning society, society and civilization would quickly breakdown.

But In fact, atheism provides none of these things! Atheism only provides a subjective existence. You do what you want, when you want, why you want, how you want. If there is no god to set and enforce the rules, then the rules are made by the strongest.



This is thoroughly demonstrated when you look to societies from history that have replaced religion as the their social compass with atheism and science. Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao ZeDong’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia all eliminated their native religions as their moral and ethical compasses and instead followed their self fulfilling subjective doctrine of atheist driven Communism. We all know what horrors ensued thence.

The fact is that they disavowed the existence of a higher power, thus they saw fit to do whatever their power over the population allowed.



The nature of atheism is such that it does not provide any form of moral or ethical basis. It is at heart ‘amoral’. This means that by itself, atheism could never survive. The only reason that atheism is as prevalent as it is in society today, is because it is benefiting from 'sucking the moral blood' of the religious society; It is incapable of providing the sustenance of morality that Christianity, and religion in general, DOES inherently have at its core.

Atheists claim to be self fulfilled only because it crudely copies Christian morality, whereas atheism alone actually provides NO grounds for any morality or ethics; atheism is only seen to be 'intellectually fulfilling' because it hijacks, and hides behind, the good name of science. It is only when you look closely that you see that science offers no support to the atheist faith what so ever.

Does Consensus Determine Truth?

Quite often in life we will have our beliefs challenged by others. A Christian may hear an atheist justify his belief with the statement that ‘the majority of scientists believe ……’.




While the truth of something can certainly be indicated by the opinions of the majority of scholars, it is often the case that the majority of scholars are wrong, history is certainly replete with examples of such examples. (1)



So what does constitute ‘truth’? Well, we can be sure of one thing; that the popular opinion of learned men at any one time does not determine the true state of something. I will explain:

All scientists believe that the earth is spherical. Now does the shape of the earth actually depend on what the majority of scientists believe? Of course not. If it did, then 500 years ago, before the Copernican revolution, the earth would have actually been flat, because this is what all the scholars believed at that time.



The true shape of the earth cares nothing for the opinion of human scholars. The opinions of scientists and scholars only form an explanatory thought as to the truth of something. They may be right, they may be wrong, but the truth of any particular thing is not determined but the opinions of men!



So the next time somebody tries to prove their position by stating that the majority of scientists believe this, or that, then humbly remind them that the scientific consensus have got things wrong many times before, and major revolutions in science take place all the time. The fact that science textbooks are rewritten every couple of years is ample proof of this.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

BC/AD vs BCE/CE

http://www.kman.me/bc-ad-bce-ce

Dates of history have always been measured with regards to the BC/AD (Before Christ/After Christ) demarcation point.

But since the modern rise of secularism, atheists have sought to eliminate all evidence of the West’s Christian heritage, and as such they are advocating the elimination of the religious reference in BC/AD by changing it to BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era).

This is just another in the long line of secular driven 'sanitizations' of what culture is left of the Western world.

But why bother changing BC/AD to BCE/CE for the ostensible ‘secular reason’ when the religious event of the birth of Christ is still kept as the arbiter between BCE and CE anyway?



The traditional BC/AD 'system' is at worst just a nostalgic cultural tradition that still functions perfectly well. I do not see any reason to replace it. In fact, I think it would be a damn shame to see it fade into disuse simply because of the arrogant intolerance of a small atheist minority.

The traditional dating labels are a beautiful remnant of our undeniable Christian heritage.



Of course in isolation this is a trivial point. But this habit of capitulating to aggressive secularism is becoming far too common and extensive. Christianity has given far too much ground to the secularists.

It seems as though they want to cleanse the Western world of all things religious for no apparent reason. They would probably replace the 24-hour time system too if it was found to be rooted in religion!



The loss of the BC/AD label would be just as mournful as the loss of any building or monument of our heritage.



The thing that makes the Western world so interesting is these remnants of it’s past. Things like the BC/AD labels and the Latin roots of our language. How boring would this world be if it is force to conform to some bland and mundane style of clinical secularism? Quite boring I would think.



It seems to be nothing more than a pitiful ploy to deny our own Christian heritage.

This type of juvenile behaviour is reminiscent of the insecure machinations of teenagers who, when reaching the start of adolescence, go through a final stage of immaturity of rejecting their family as embarrassing and even shameful.

In disavowing their origins, many teenagers try desperately to forge a new, separate and unique identity, purging all that is familiar. Only to find that in the years to follow, that their family, while certainly containing objectionable aspects, really isn’t that bad, and is actually something to be quite proud of.



The same is true of the Christian origins of Western culture. While there are certainly aspects that we are to be ashamed of, by and large this Christian heritage is a beautiful and rich period of our past. And once the societies in the Western world mature past its current stage of cultural adolescence, we will certainly look back at our religious roots and acknowledge the rich role that Christianity has played in the formation of who we are.