“A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.” C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

There is no problem that impinges more directly on the question of the existence of God.  If there is a God, and He is good and wise, why does he allow such suffering?  This is the question we have been dealing with the last couple of weeks.

Most people, unconsciously or otherwise, resist the idea that God is evil and desires to make life miserable for us. It is easier to reject the idea of God altogether.  The Bible declares that God is, that He is good and that He is wise.   It states consistently that he is a personal, intelligent God who created this universe and that he is just, loving and compassionate. So why is there suffering?

To be continued…

Why would anyone ever get upset about someone telling other people they were servants of God who were telling people the way to be saved? Sounds like a compliment to me. But that is exactly what happened with Paul the apostle in Macedonia. A slave girl who had a spirit of divination followed them around saying ”These men are servants of the Most high God who are telling you the way to be saved.” Paul put up with it for a few days but finally turned to the girl and commanded the demon come out of her. At once the demon left her and she no longer could practice the evil craft that brought her masters much money.

Why did Paul respond this way? What she was saying was  true. After all isn’t any witness a good witness? No. While what she was saying may have been true Paul would not want the message of the Gospel associated with an evil spirit. Dong so legitimizes the demonic spirit in the eyes of those who witness the event and clouds the very clear line between the true power of God and the counterfeit power of Satan. Even though what she was saying was true it came from a false witness. Beware the false witnesses, wolves in sheep clothing, even when a part of what they say may be true.

A popular argument from the cynic unbeliever often revolves around the supposed historical inaccuracy of the Bible.  But is this a fair argument, or even one with any basis of fact?

Over the years many have taken to challenging the Bible and its historical inaccuracy.  One such individual was 19th century scholar, Sir william Ramsay.  After physically exploring the actual Bible lands with a Bible in hand this is what he had to say.  “The more I have studied the narrative of the Act, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand.I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here (referring to the Book of Acts; Revraney). You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutinity and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.” Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).

Twentieth Century archaeologist Nelson Glueck says the following, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.  Socres of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”   Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev ;New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy.

For the discerning mind and soul doubting the Bible simply because it seems unbelievable or even worse becasue it is an inconvenient truth is not an acceptable approach.

The story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego gives us an insight into what faith really is.  After building the golden image King Nebuchadnezzar made the decree that when the people heard the music they were to bow down and worship the image.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego defied this order, not becasue they were beligerent or rebels, but becasue their loyalty was to a different King.  When brought before Nebuchadnezzar personally he gave them an opportunity to amend by bowing down and worshipping the image.  This opportunity came with the same threat as before stating that if they didn’t comply they would be thrown into a blazing furnace; the intent being a horrible, painful death.

The response of the three Israelites is where we find a powerful understanding of faith.  King Nebuchadnezzar had mocking ly said to them, “what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused the King’s ‘offer’ and informed him that their God could indeed deliver them from the King’s hand and the blazing furnace.  They were fully aware that this answer would result in their being thrown into the furnace.  They did not, however, know whether they would come out of the furnace as some might suppose.  Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were completely confident that God could deliver them from the blazing furnace alive, but faith is much more than believing in God to do what we would want Him to do.  Faith is not just confidence in what God can do.  Obviously if god can create an entire world, part a sea and allow thousands to pass through unharmed, defeat giants and mighty armies and so many more miracles that these three were aware of He could deliver them out of this furnace. 

Faith is fully trusting whomever the object of your faith.  For these three, faith was fully trusting God, including recognizing that He is the sovereign and not us.  The final part of their response to the king was, “But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”  God may or may not deliver us from this situation, but we are not what matters most – He is. 

Sometimes God intervenes and delivers us out of situations and sometimes He does not.  Neirther one means He loves us any more or any less.  Faith tells us to trust God, not just to deliever us out of our problem but to make Him the focus of all that we love and desire.  Making Him this focus is what we are created for, it is our purpose.  Faith allows us to fulfill our purpose and place God above ourselves.

An oft-asked question and a good question indeed is, “How do I know if God is talking to me?”

If I asked, “How do you know I am talking to you?”  Your response would likely be, “becasue I can see you and hear your voice.” So you trust your physical senses but do not trust your spiritual senses.  Probably because you have and continue to use your physical senses all the time.  Maybe you should use your spiritual senses more often and become familiar with them.

I had a really good question come my way the other day.  In response to the recent case of three girls being held captive for roughly 10 years and being repeatedly abused by a Cleveland man they asked, “how can God answer some prayers and not answer others?  Specifically, how could God have answered others prayers and not these girls?  It is not uncommon for us to respond this way in the face of such evil.  There are any number of horrific events happening all too frequently that could solicit the same question.  We try to make sense out of what is going on in the world around us.  Often when we do we are frustrated by how things don’t fit into our understanding of  God.

Well there’s quite a lot that can be said here.  First on a simplistic level do we know anyone prayed in this case (or more specifically prayed to the true God)?  More importantly however are our ideas regarding God and prayer.  This question, one  most of us often ask, reveals that we view God as something that exists to give us what we want.  For example, I pray and God gives it to me. When He doesn’t give it to me there must be some ‘reason’ He didn’t.  For example,  I didn’t have enough faith or I did something wrong etc. The most common thing is to rationalize the whole thing by coming up with the saying “God doesn’t give us what we want but what we need”.  The problem here is we think only in terms of ‘things’ we need to survive.  What exactly is it that we need?  Well that’s actually quite simple.  God is what we need.  Throughout history righteous people have suffered and God did not intercede.  The Apostle Paul even said that he rejoices in his sufferings. Instead of God giving us what we need think about it as God IS what we need – not just here and now but for all eternity.

Now that’s kind of a round about way to address the original question but we need to change our view regarding how we  relate to God.  He does not exist to give us things (even freedom from suffering)  His desire is to ultimately make us all like Jesus Christ.  Answering our prayers does not lead to giving us what we ask but to making us like Christ because ultimately that is the only thing that will really make us happy.

The final point I would like to share is that we live in a corrupt world.  One of the great ironies is that the root of this corruption is actually found in the greatness of how God created us.  He created us with free will.  This free will is what enables us to do great things including acts of kindness,compassion and selflessness.  But it is this very same free will that enables us to do terrible things, self-centered things. God does not always interfere with the events of life because to always do so would require the removal of our free will.  Without the free will we could never enjoy Him, enjoy life or be like Him.

God does not merely give us what we need.  He is what we need.

The latest social issue to take the news by storm, gay marriage, is yet another example of the progressives attempt to manipulate a discussion to get a favorable result. This is the common tactic of progressives. Frame the discussion so that the populace will sympathize with their view. The uneducated populace who so many lack the ability of critical thinking are easily duped.

The argument from the progressives are that gays should be allowed to marry; simply put, they already are. Those who identify themselves as gay can get married. It is not illegal for them to do so. If two people of the same sex stand before someone and say some form of vows and that person or persons proclaim them to be married, no one is going to arrest them coming out of the building. A protester interviewed stated that he had come here from Iran where he and his partner were not allowed to get married. He was horrified that in America they too were telling him what he could and could not do. But the truth is, they are not telling him what he can and cannot do. If he wants to marry another man, go ahead. There is literally no one stopping him from doing so. It is already legal for people of the same sex to get married.

So then why do we hear in the news that the battle is to make it legal for people of the same sex to get married? Because the progressives want to make it a matter of persecution. If they can present themselves as the persecuted, then America will sympathize with them. We always feel for the persecuted. But they are not being persecuted.

The real argument is not about whether people of the same sex can get married. It is about whether they will get benefits awarded or regulated by the government that are related to married couples – hardly a matter of persecution. Tell the Christians in Sudan this is what you call persecution and see what they say. The proponents of this argument and their allies, the progressives want the government, and ultimately society to validate their marriage. “Well what gives the government the right to say marriage is one thing and not another?” A typical progressive approach to a debate. If we in America still had the ability to think critically and logically we would see right through this statement on two levels. First, by definition, since the government is an organization they have to define things. That is what organizations do. They define things that are relevant to their existence. Government defines things all the time. If you are below a certain level of income you are defined as being in poverty – and you receive certain benefits. Ironically enough this is a definition the progressives fight for ferociously. Try saying we are no longer going to define certain people as poor for the purpose of awarding benefits and see what happens. So the government defines what marriage is because by definition they define things that are effected by policies. Secondly, since by definition the government (or any organization) must define things that relate to policies, there has to be some criteria. Could the government define marriage to include people of the same sex? Absolutely; and they could also define it as one man and sixteen women, or one woman and sixteen men. They could also define it as a man and a child or a woman and a child; pretty much any combination is possible. But a definition has to have a limit, a set criteria or else it is not a definition. Because it is related to policies the government is forced to define marriage.

So the real argument from the progressives is that they disagree with government’s definition of marriage and they want it changed to meet their criteria. But they cannot present the argument to the public in this way because the masses would not see them as persecuted or victims and they would not have their sympathy. They must say that gays ar not allowed to get married because the government says so. This is simply not true; it is an intentional lie. Government has decided to define marriage as one man and one woman because they believe this is what is best for society (in reality many politicians go along with this out of political expediency; nevertheless, it is politically expedient because the majority of society, their voting constituents believe this way). Government does this all the time. For example, people who have a mortgage get to deduct that from their income tax because government believes owning a home is a good thing for the economy.

Homosexuals already can get married. They are pressing, not for the right to get married, but to have that marriage added to the government’s definition of marriage. They will ultimately win that argument. We are not going to stop it. Those of us who oppose such things, specifically on the grounds of morality need to stop depending on the government to do our job. When the government recognizes same sex marriage as legitimate, we don’t have to. We can speak against such things, as we should. We should speak against all manner of destructive sin – not just homosexuality. We must speak the message of freedom, of deliverance from sin, all sin. We have been far too timid and compliant. Our goal is not simply to offend nor to defend our position. But we recognize the destructive nature of sin. To remain silent is to allow people to die in their sin whilst we remain complacent in our self righteousness.