Astrology

Astrology

Posted on 

Astrology falls into the category of fortune telling or divination. The core of it is that the movements and alignments of the planets determine how one is to live day to day. 

Horoscopes, also call astrological charts (see more information about the types in the sections taken from Wikipedia at the end of this chapter) drawn up by astrologers, tell you what to do and not do. Here now are horoscopes for July the 16th and the 23rd. 

First is the horoscope from the Marin County newspaper, the Independent Journal, for the July 16, 2022, for Libra (Sept. 23–Oct. 23), no astrologer is named. 

Actions speak louder than words. Be mindful of others and do whatever it takes to make a difference. Setting an example for those around you will discourage people from criticizing or complaining. 

Then from the San Francisco Chronicle, again for July 16 for Libra (Sept 23-Oct. 23). The astrologer is Georgian Nicols. 

The mood of today is completely different, in particular, you want to get better organized and accomplish a lot today. Tonight: Work. 

Here now is a second example: for Leo (July 23–August 22) from the Independent Journal, dated July 22, 2022, no astrologer named. 

You must go it alone if you want to get things done your way. The path of least resistance will tempt you when you know sticking up for yourself is the better choice. Don’t let others limit you. 

The same day, but from the San Francisco Chronical, and the horoscope is by Georgian Nicols, July 22, 2022, and for Leo (July 23–August 22): 

Although you are inclined to work alone or behind the scenes now, today you have strong opinions about banking issues and anything that must be divided. Tonight: Take stock.

Neither set of horoscopes bear any resemblance to each other. And they, the four of them, are so vague, they could be interpreted any number of ways and apply to many kinds of people in many kinds of lifestyles and occasions. And this is the draw, this vagueness—it simply blinds a person to thinking that this whole thing might be phony. 

You will have to take our word for it, but after reading horoscopes in these two papers that come to our house daily, the same disjointedness is repeated over and again. And the concepts are so vague, that if a person committed to following the horoscopes could find ways to say, okay I am paying attention to this sound counsel, they would be blind to the deception. 

Over time, one becomes captive to the daily horoscopes, and a cultic mentality can set in, which is as dangerous as if you joined a Satan-worshiping church. 

Two striking facts 

The first fact is that astrology developed at a time prior to the discovery of Uranus and Pluto. There are nine planets not seven planets, but astrology is built upon seven planets. This is essentially ignored by astrologers and those who read and follow their daily horoscopes. 

Then there is the attempt to say that Jesus Himself endorses astrology. Here is that attempt: (author is unknown) 

Christ himself talked about the importance of astrology when he said in Luke 21:25, “There shall be signs in the sun, moon, and stars.” Jesus even discusses with the disciples the importance of astrology and how it can be used as a sign of his return. 

The passage appealed to is Luke 21:25-26, which reads: 

“And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of that is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” 

This statement from Jesus has to do with His second coming at the end of the age, which ushers in the day of Judgment, one single day. And on that very last day of the existence of the universe, even the stars and the moon will be impacted. But it is readily apparent that this is no testimony by Jesus that there is any truth to astrology. 

Let us now take a look at a few biblical passages that speak to the issue. 

Deuteronomy 18:9–12 “Abominable Practices”: 

[9] “When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. [10] There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer [11] or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, [12] for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. (ESV) 

Acts 16:16–18 “Paul and Silas in Prison”: 

[16] As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling. [17] She followed Paul and us, crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” [18] And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour. (ESV) 

God, who inspired the writing of the above Biblical material, created humans and knows our frailties and tendencies and how prone we are to being captivated by evil. He is warning us to stay away from that which harms us and takes our attention and dependency away from Him. 

Final Thoughts 

Probably, most people who read their horoscopes do not take particular care to apply it to their daily lives. Perhaps it is nothing more than a custom, something fun and interesting to read but not much more than this. 

However, there are those who are committed to it, believe there is some esoteric substance and power behind it, and attempt to apply it to their lives. 

But it goes further than this; astrology is a door opener to other more dangerous forms of the occult—everything from Reiki, Ancestor medicine, visiting psychics, channelers, mediums, Tarot card reading, and more. They are then vulnerable to being invaded by demonic spirits. In which case, the only hope is to have these evil, demonic spirits cast out of them. And in our day, it is increasingly difficult to find anyone who does this form of ministry. 

Excerpts from Wikipedia 

Wikipedia July 23, 2022 

Some astrologers write personalized horoscopes using a person’s rising and moon sign, while others use the solar house system to make more general readings (these are what usually comprise newspaper columns).137 

How do astrologers predict horoscopes? 

Astrologers print horoscopes in newspapers that are personalized by birth date. These horoscopes make predictions in people’s personal lives, describe their personalities, and give them advice; all according to the position of astronomical bodies. Mar 23, 2013 

Average Salary 

According to the Simply Hired website, astrologists bring home an annual salary of $42,000, as of this publication. Aug 5, 2019 

Where do astrologers get their information? 

Astrology normally takes its data from a chart. This could be the image of the earth and the encompassing heavenly bodies and planets at a predefined time. Apr 16, 2020 

Wikipedia, July 17, 2022 

Astrology is a pseudoscience that claims to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the movements and relative positions of celestial objects. Astrology has been practiced since at least the 2nd millennium BCE and has its roots in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and some—such as the Hindus, Chinese, and the Maya—developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19th–17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient Greece, Rome, the Arab world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems. 

Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine. It was present in political circles and is mentioned in various works of literature, from Dante Alighieri and Geoffrey Chaucer to William Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, and Calderón de la Barca. During the Enlightenment, however, astrology disappeared as an area of legitimate scientific pursuit. Following the end of the 19th century and the wide-scale adoption of the scientific method, researchers have successfully challenged astrology on both theoretical and experimental grounds and have shown it to have no scientific validity or explanatory power. Astrology thus 138 

lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in it has largely declined, until a resurgence starting in the 1960s. 

Ancient 

St. Augustine (354–430) believed that the determinism of astrology conflicted with the Christian doctrines of man’s free will and responsibility, and God not being the cause of evil, but he also grounded his opposition philosophically, citing the failure of astrology to explain twins who behave differently although conceived at the same moment and born at approximately the same time. 

The scientific community rejects astrology as having no explanatory power for describing the universe and considers it a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict basic and well understood aspects of biology and physics. 

From Dr. Christopher S. Baird 

Does the position of astronomical bodies affect a person’s life (beyond basic weather)? 

No. The position and orientation of the sun relative to earth does cause seasons. Anyone who has shoveled snow off his walk in January when he would rather be at the beach can tell you that the astronomical bodies definitely affect our lives. Solar flares cause electromagnetic disturbances on earth that can disrupt satellites and even cause blackouts. The position of the moon causes ocean tides. If you are a fisher, the position of the moon can have a significant effect on your livelihood. The solar wind causes beautiful aurora, and sunlight itself is the main source of energy for our planet. But all of these effects fall under the umbrella of basic weather, not astrology. Astrology purports that astronomical bodies have influence on people’s lives beyond basic weather patterns, depending on their birth date. This claim is scientifically false. Numerous scientific studies have disproven that astronomical bodies affect people’s lives according to their birth date 

Wikipedia, July 16, 2022 

A horoscope (or other commonly used names for the horoscope in English include natal chart, astrological chart, astro-chart, celestial map, sky-map, star-chart, cosmogram, vitasphere, radical chart, radix, chart wheel or simply chart) is an astrological chart or diagram representing the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, astrological aspects and sensitive angles at the time of an event, such as the moment of a person’s birth. The word horoscope is derived from the 139 

Greek words ōra and scopos meaning “time” and “observer” (horoskopos, pl. horoskopoi, or “marker(s) of the hour”). It is used as a method of divination regarding events relating to the point in time it represents, and it forms the basis of the horoscopic traditions of astrology. Horoscope columns are often featured in print and online newspapers. 

There are no scientific studies that have shown support for the accuracy of horoscopes, and the methods used to make interpretations are pseudo-scientific. In modern scientific framework no known interaction exists that could be responsible for the transmission of the alleged influence between a person and the position of stars in the sky at the moment of birth. In all tests completed, keeping strict methods to include a control group and proper blinding between experimenters and subjects, horoscopes have shown no effect beyond pure chance. Furthermore, some psychological tests have shown that it is possible to construct personality descriptions and foretelling generic enough to satisfy most members of a large audience simultaneously, referred to as the Forer or Barnum effect.

Were the Crusaders and Inquisitors Christians? Yes, No, Maybe

Were the Crusaders and Inquisitors Christians?

Yes, No, Maybe

Part One: The Crusaders

“Crusader” is a negative word to many, and maybe deservedly so, but we may have to reconsider that reactive position. Following is a brief summary and examination of the history of the crusades themselves. Perhaps we will be able to determine just how Christian or un-Christian the crusaders actually were.

There were eight crusades in all, from 1095 to 1294. Oddly enough, no Arab tribes played much of a role, if any, in fighting the crusaders. This is not to say that Muslim armies were not involved, but exactly who within Islam actually participated is another issue.

The French, led by Godfrey of Bouillon, initiated the first crusade. The purpose was to wrest control of Jerusalem away from the Muslim Seljuk Turks, who had taken it in 1070. Jerusalem had previously been part of the Fatimid Empire, composed mostly of Shia Berbers from North Africa, and during their control of the Holy City, Christians were allowed to visit their special religious sites. But such was not the case with the Seljuks, who violently persecuted the Christians and desecrated and destroyed churches. After a time, Pope Urban II called for the rescue of the Holy City from the Islamic infidels.

Bouillon, certainly a member of the Roman Catholic Church, managed to murder 70,000 Muslims and even burned down synagogues crowded with Jewish people hoping to escape the violence around them. Despite the slaughter, many of the European soldiers married local Muslim women and perhaps Jewish women, as well; they settled down, and for at least forty years the Christians and Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side.

The second crusade in 1144 was undertaken when a Kurdish army from Mosul (now in the modern state of Iraq) attacked a Christian fortress in Edessa (now in the modern state of Turkey). As a result, Pope Eugenius III called for a crusade. Two Christian armies, one French, the other German, were completely decimated by the Seljuk armies while on their way to join the battle at Edessa. A monk named Bernard of Clairvoux was engaged in this one. Following the crusade nearly forty more years of peace ensued.

The third crusade was dominated by the famous Kurd, Saladin (1137–1193), who became the Sultan of Egypt. His army defeated the crusader army at the Horns of Hittin on July 4, 1187, a site just above the Sea of Galilee. It proved to be the most famous of all the battles during the crusade period. Jerusalem surrendered, and Saladin dealt humanely with the survivors; there was no sacking or murdering, and the city was kept open to Christian pilgrims. But Jerusalem’s fall inspired the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa to call for a third crusade in 1189. He led a French army into Turkey, where he died crossing a creek. The Seljuks quickly destroyed his army.

There was, however, more to the third crusade. King Richard the Third of England (the “Lion Heart”) gathered an army of Norman Knights, set off for the Holy Land, and proceeded to capture Acre and Jaffa on the Mediterranean Coast, even defeating Saladin at the battle of Arsuf.

The two commanders treated each other with respect and signed a peace treaty on September 2, 1192, the terms of which left Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims, while the Christians retained the coastal areas where Acre, Caesarea, and Jaffa were located.

Pope Innocent III in and around 1195 called the fourth crusade. This one had nothing to do with the Holy Land or Muslims, but the goal was to free up Jerusalem. The French crusaders entered Constantinople, home of the Greek Orthodox Church, who resented the presence of the Roman Catholics and rose up against the crusaders. In the battle that resulted, the crusader ‘Western’ Christians did not kill many Greek ‘Eastern’ Christians, but they did completely pillage the city. After a short period, the crusaders made off with their loot and headed for home. Nothing was accomplished.

Pope Honorius III, Innocent’s successor, who could not accept the results of the fourth crusade and called for a fifth, fomented the fifth crusade. This time mainly Germans and Hungarians marched off to Jerusalem by way of Egypt in 1217. The army spent three years in skirmishes with the Kurdish Ayyubids in Egypt. They failed to make headway and finally called it quits and sailed home.

The sixth crusade’s outstanding personality was the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II who was the grandson of the famous Barbarossa. Now Jerusalem was ruled by John of Brienne, whose daughter was married to Frederick II, and thinking that marriage gave him authority over Jerusalem, he called for the sixth crusade in 1225. Due to the knowledge and negotiating skills of the remarkable Frederick, the crusade was peacefully conducted without one battle or casualty.

Frederick had studied a great deal about Islamic literature, science, and philosophy, which gave him a solid platform for interaction with the leader of the Islamic army, Malik al-Kamil, who was the nephew of the great Saladin. The two leaders resolved the confrontation by signing a ten-year treaty in 1229. (Ten years was the maximum time allowed for a treaty according to Sharia Law.) Christians and Muslims alike welcomed the terms of the treaty. Unhappily, the new pope, Pope Gregory IX, hated Frederick and refused to ratify the treaty, denouncing it vigorously.

Things went from bad to worse after Sultan Kamil’s death in 1238, when a maverick Turk from Russia named Baibars led a Mameluk (Muslim) army against Jerusalem, sacking it and slaughtering the citizens in 1244.

King Louis IX of France called the seventh crusade. In 1250 he brought an army to Egypt and sailed up the Nile to Cairo, where Baibars demolished his army. Baibars warred against everyone, Christian and Muslim alike, in an effort to establish his power and authority. His hate and murderous anger was mostly directed toward Christians, and he attacked one city after the other along the Mediterranean coast—Caesarea, Safad, Jaffa, and Antioch. He killed and enslaved thousands of Christians. Jerusalem was now firmly in the hands of Muslims, and the seventh crusade came to an end.

The eight crusade flowed out of the outrage perpetrated against Christians in the seventh crusade. Louis IX demanded a new crusade in the year 1270. His plan was to come through Tunis on the way to Egypt, but a few days after landing in Tunis he died of dysentery.

Baibars had not conquered one target, Acre, the site of a truly strong fortress. He died in 1277 (these crusades could last years), and his successor, Sultan Khalil, managed to finally defeat the crusaders at Acre in 1291, killing or enslaving some 60,000 Christians there.

Impact of the Crusades

 The crusades deepened the divide between the Eastern and Western wings of the Catholic Church, a rift that was already underway.

Related to that, the crusades greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire, which succeeded the Holy Roman Empire.

The crusades also permanently embittered relations between Christians and Muslims, and they are used to this day to rationalize a continuing hatred that often erupts into violence. The fact that both Christians and Muslims committed horrible atrocities is often forgotten or conveniently submerged. Muslims have cited Christian crusader actions as justification for their own brutality. This is not a surmise, but openly declared by contemporary Islamic jihadists, whose portfolio of rallying cries includes something close to, “Remember the crusades.” They legitimize their call for revenge by pointing to what the Christians did in the crusades. This is completely disingenuous, of course, but nevertheless effective.

Promotion of religion by force of arms demonstrates weakness of ideals, ethics, and message. To spread the faith by means of intimidation is the worst possible program, one that no one can really respect. Not only the Muslims but also Christians have been guilty here. (This topic will be explored in greater detail in the second section of this essay, the Inquisitors.)

As early as the fifth century, and many say long before, becoming a Christian required baptism by an ordained priest of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. Faith and grace now abandoned, the Church became a power structure and fell into the same tactics employed by any other secular institutions. Some use the word “Christendom” to describe the Church as empire combining religion with the state.

The crusades marked a departure from the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel to all nations. By picking up the sword, it was giving in to the barbaric culture of that day. The Church was intertwined with the state, the state using the Church and the Church using the state to advance goals and consolidate power.

As a result, the core doctrine of conversion was severely compromised. To coerce a person into leaving one faith for another is absolutely unbiblical. Requiring a choice of whether to convert, die, or pay the tax is not exactly proper evangelism, but the Church was guilty of this just as were the Muslims, and contemporary Muslims still employ these means. It cannot be said today that the Christian Church advances by means of force and fear.[1]

The same crusader mentality that was seen in the crusades also resulted in the persecution of whom we today call evangelical Christians, especially those who reject infant baptism, transubstantiation (Jesus being actually present in the Bread and the Cup), and the necessity of receiving other sacraments in order to go to heaven—in other words, those who adhere to salvation by grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone.

The story of two ancestors of mine might be of interest now. The first is about Sir John Philpott.

John Philpott was a “Salter and Pepperer” (a grocer) who lived in the latter part of the fourteenth century in London, England, while the One Hundred Years War with France was underway. He relied on his merchant fleet to bring foodstuffs into England from the Continent, but with a combination of a weak English king and an aggressive French king, Philpott’s business was faltering. He was able, however, to convince the English king to allow him to outfit his ships into a navy and be crewed by convicts from London’s prisons, of which there were plenty. The result was a series of victories by Philpott’s navy, and on the strength of that he was elected Lord Mayor of London in 1388 and 1389. He was a faithful Christian, and in his will he left 100 pounds to the poor of London at Christmas time. In the old city of London there is still Philpott Lane where a plaque commemorating this faithful Catholic and Christian man has been installed.

Then there was another Englishman, again named John Philpott, this time living in the sixteenth century. He was a Puritan, meaning he hoped that the newly founded Church of England that broke away from the Roman Church, precipitated by King Henry VIII, would be purified, that is, would conform more closely to what we see of church in the New Testament. Philpott was forced into the Court of the Inquisitors and found guilty. Refusing to recant, he was burned at the stake in 1555. (Burning at the stake was used, because it was thought that would make a bodily resurrection impossible.)

Part Two: The Inquisition

 Although the story of the development of the Church in the centuries leading up to the “Dark Ages” (stretching from approximately 500 to 1500 A.D.) is not so easy to uncover, there is evidence that the faith of Jesus and the early disciples was not extinguished. That it was diverted, perverted, and undermined, especially toward the ending of the third century, is fairly plain history, at least as evangelicals read it.

During that dark time, the vibrant faith we see in the New Testament gradually shifted to a more formalized, mechanical, ritualistic, even magical understanding of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus. Especially after the so-called conversion of Constantine in the early fourth century, people became members of the Church and counted among the faithful despite their never hearing the real Gospel message nor knowing much of anything about the core doctrines of Scripture.

The power of the Church over salvation, the only really important issue in life, was under the control of an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Those who rebelled against this were the targets of the Inquisition, the first Court of which was formed around the year A.D. 1231 and continued for some three or four centuries. From the Church’s point of view, the Inquisition was necessary, because many good Catholics were turning away from the doctrines of the Church, especially after publication of the Bible in common languages, which allowed people to see what the Bible actually said and taught. For nearly a thousand years it had been hidden in a dark covering of non-intelligible Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.

Reacting against the common person’s new biblical understanding and its effect of causing questions about the Church’s doctrines, the Church then considered ‘heresy’ to be the most heinous of all crimes.[2] There is evidence that many of the Church leaders were troubled by the means selected to keep the Church pure. Often the Church would plea with the secular authorities that sentences to be carried out mercifully. However, we know that the Cathari (or Albigenses) and the Waldenses were persecuted, sometimes to death, during the 1220s by the order of Pope Gregory IX.

Fringe Christian groups were not the only ones to find their way into the court of the Inquisition, a court with judge and prosecutors. As with John Philpott in 1555, the point at the center of the trials had to do with the elements of the Mass, otherwise known as Communion, Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper. Along with the Reformers (i.e., Martin Luther and John Calvin), Philpott believed the bread of the Eucharist was just bread and the juice in the cup just juice. But the Church had developed the concept that the bread was transformed by an act of the priest into the actual body, the flesh, of Jesus. Likewise, the juice invisibly became the actual blood of Jesus.

Two Latin words were actually pronounced by the priest before the Mass began—“hocus pocus”—and when the words were pronounced, the magical power inherited from Peter and passed down through the priesthood transformed the substances, shazam!

How this came to be is not possible to describe here, but there is an actual history to it. The short version is this: The Church had become far too Western in its understanding of the Middle-Eastern document we call the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. And when Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:53-55), the Roman Church took these words literally.

To take Jesus’ words literally, however, would have been impossible for a Jewish person in that era, the previous era, and the following era. And the early history of the Church clearly reveals that the passage was taken metaphorically, after all the Church was mostly made up of Jews for about a generation. The point was that the disciples were to trust in and believe in Jesus as the Savior and that His death on the cross, with His broken body and shed blood, was the once-forever sacrifice for sin. Therefore, long after the ‘Eastern’ sense of things was lost, the ‘Western’ mindset misunderstood much of the nature of and means of redemption or salvation.

The Inquisition was aimed at Christians, but Muslims and Jews were also tried, and many were executed. It is only natural that Muslims and Jews would have a negative reaction to this, and it is certainly possible that it yet lingers as something else horrible that ‘Christendom’ did.

During the period of the Inquisition there were undoubtedly thousands of bishops, priests, and regular members of the Church who sincerely thought they were being faithful Christians on both sides of the Inquisitors’ charges, those targeted and those hurling them. Undoubtedly, there were thousands of Christians who were horrified at what was being done. And during the period of history when the church and state were wed, significant resistance was virtually out of the question. Such resistance did come, in 1517, under the inspiration of a Catholic monk named Martin Luther.

PART THREE: YES, NO, MAYBE

Were those who conducted the Inquisition real Christians?

Were the crusaders real Christians?

Were the Muslims who fought against the crusaders real Muslims? Or, to put it another way, are those Muslims who engage in violent jihad the real Muslims?

To these questions the answer is, Yes, No, and Maybe.

Looking at Christians

It must be said that no one could possibly know for sure whether real and actual born again Christians committed atrocities against Muslims and Jews, in that day or in this. Even had a group of careful observers watched the murder of Muslims and Jews at the hand of people known as Christians during the crusades and at other times, would it have been clear which was the right conclusion? The proper answer would have to be No!

Why is this so? The core of the answer lies in the mystery of conversion. Sure, one can be baptized, join a church, and reform his or her life, but this is far from genuine Christian conversion. Being a part of a church does not mean one is a Christian. Conversion means that the Holy Spirit indwells the one believing in Jesus, the one who has had all sin removed and forgiven. It is a profound spiritual experience, not an intellectual or emotional one. It is something God does completely apart from anything an individual can do. It is miracle and mystery. Every pastor who has ministered to a congregation for ten or more years knows that in that congregation are those who have truly been born again and those who have not.

Not that every real Christian does right and lives right. A Christian is growing up into the fullness of Christ, little by little, first as an infant, then a toddler, young child, older child, adolescent, teen ager, young adult, adult, older adult, and senior. Still after a lifetime of maturing, the Christian is not anywhere perfect until in heaven and in the presence of our holy God.

Is it possible that a Christian could be deceived into thinking that killing and persecuting others because they believed differently is justified? Yes, it is possible.

Might Christians commit horrific acts because they were told to do so by powerful religious authorities? Yes, it is possible.

Would a biblically literate Christian believe they were serving God by persecuting or even killing “infidels”? No, unless there was some unknown source of intimidation going on behind the scenes, and/or such Christian had his or her mind bent to the point that they became merely tools of evil.

Perhaps the right answer for all of these questions is, maybe!

Would persecuting or killing a non-Christian win approval with God? Would it ensure a place in heaven? To both of these, the answer is an unequivocal, No!

Would defending the cause of Christianity, the Church, a Christian leader, or anything else in all creation through harming others merit the favor of God? Certainly not! Would dying in defense of the God of Scripture assure a place in paradise? In no way!

This is my solemn opinion as a follower of Jesus.

Looking at Muslims

 It is understood by a growing number of Christians and non-Christians alike that what is observed in the Islamic State (IS), and all those who practice violent jihad, does not represent true Islam. However, this is debatable.

Muhammad did force non-Muslims into submission and made them pay a tax to stay alive. Muhammad did behead captured enemies, or at least ordered such and then observed the process. He did cut off the hands of thieves. He did arrange that captured women and children be sold as slaves. He did permit captured women to be taken as concubines; in fact, his last wife was a beauty he had rescued from a Jewish tribe that the Muslim army had defeated. Muhammad authorized lying if and when the cause of Islam was being defended or advanced. He did practice forced conversions. Whatever Muhammad did in his lifetime, as spelled out in the Qur’an, found in the Hadiths or in the biography of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq, are being imitated by the Islamic State now. And this the Caliphate does not deny but proudly embraces.

Not only not deny, but IS would view non-compliance to be at minimum weakness, if not downright apostasy. This is the present state of affairs. Muhammad taught that Islam would be global and the entire world would then be at peace, and it was the task of Muslims to bring this about. Anything less than is un-Islamic.

Then there is Salafism. This term describes Muslims who practice a conservative, even radical form of their faith. They attempt to imitate Muhammad and hope to live under Sharia Law. It is just that they cannot do so except in a place where it is politically and culturally possible. “Most Salafis are not jihadists, and most adhere to sects that reject the Islamic State” writes Graeme Wood in his March, 2015, article in Atlantic entitled, “What ISIS Really Wants.” They might, however, if given the chance, be every bit as strict as violent jihadists. Wood states that Salafis might implement “monstrous practices such as slavery and amputation – but at some future point.” The Salafis’ stated agenda is to purify their personal lives, including personal hygiene, and to be faithful in prayer and observance of all standard forms of the main rituals of Islam.

Are all those who promote and are part with violent jihadists real Muslims? If the answer is No, then it must be asked, “How could this be?”

There are many reasons why one would turn to violent jihad other than wanting to live like Muhammad. Is it possible that young men and women living in very poor circumstances, without much of a future, could be recruited into something they would later regret? Perhaps peer pressure overcomes them. Perhaps boredom, hopelessness, or a strong sense of inferiority might trigger the desire for a radical change in living. By means of the Internet, which jihadists use but detest at the same time, they recruit these vulnerable youth.

The Internet also shows clearly what is available in the western world, and could envy be an instigating element that plays on the Muslim mind? Or, might a motivator be a chance for a quick ticket to paradise and seventy-two virgins, which may appear to be about the only way to get love?[3] Might young men and women be driven to distraction, to a cultic or toxic state of mind and made willing to do about anything to lift themselves out of depression and despair?

Since Islam is both religion and state, which predominates? Or is there such a blending that there is no religion or state, just Islam? Islam is yet very much tribally oriented, one tribe against another, which is plain to see in daily news stories. Is the Muslim fighting for Muhammad, the imam, the umma (Muslim community), the political boundary, or just what? This question might receive a hundred different answers, and silence as an answer could be expected.

Are all fighters with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the various Shia and Sunni militias, even with ISIS, true Muslims? Yes, No, and Maybe! Only God knows.

Kent Philpott

February 25, 2015

[1] Instances of wrongly motivated attempts to convert so-called “primitive” people groups were occurring well into the nineteenth century, e.g., forcing of Western/Christian culture and religion on native Americans on reservations and similar activities by Britain in India. Broadening the argument to include these examples or others is not possible in the space allowed, but we acknowledge needing to discuss this elsewhere.

[2] One is reminded of the mindset of extreme fundamentalist Muslims today, i.e., ISIS.

[3] Have you ever wondered at how confused Muslim sexuality must be, in places dominated by the imams at the mosques for sure, what with honor killings, female circumcision, arranged marriages, veiled females, often from head to toe, polygamy, no dating, no public canoodling, no nothing really, and everything associated with love and sex declared to be sin and worthy of lashes and other forms of mistreatment.

Gay is now good?

Gay is now good?

After the publication of two of my books, The Third Sex? and The Gay Theology in the mid-1970s, I was invited to participate in debates about homosexuality at Presbyterian Church, USA events. I represented the conservative or biblical point of view.

During this process, I inadvertently heard a number of discussions among pro-gay church leaders who were seeking to advance the gay agenda, which was to normalize and win acceptance for homosexuality. The religious contingent of the pro-gay lobby was particularly concerned that their sexual practices be considered as normal as heterosexuality. This was the goal, and to reach that, they knew that two things were necessary: one, denominational leadership must endorse homosexuality; and two, children must be educated to accept homosexuality. During these discussions, it was clearly understood that the two-pronged process would take decades and that it would be important to work incrementally, little by little, until homosexuality was affirmed as good and normal.

The program as then outlined was to change and/or influence the leadership of Christian denominations and of both Christian and secular educational institutions. The themes of “fairness” and “equality” were slated as the primary concept tools to be used in these public and private institutions, but there was something else on the agenda, something more subtle and far more compelling. Everyone must get to know an actual homosexual. The idea was that it is one thing to debate principles and legal issues, but it is another to reject and judge another individual human being. To make homosexuals known in a personal way to the entire culture, entertainment media was the perfect vehicle. So, in film, television, drama, novels, and so on, gay and lesbian people would be shown as normal, healthy, talented, and lovable. The real issue would then be masked.

That was nearly forty years ago. Now we see more clearly how the goals of the pro-gay folks are being achieved.

During the 1970s I wrestled with two issues. First, I understood that those practicing homosexuality would resent being looked down upon as being deviant. Because the power of guilt and shame is so strong, they would have to work fiercely and spare nothing in their efforts to normalize a gay lifestyle. Second, I feared that I would have to fight the whole pro-gay battle long into the future.

Though the law of the land is tending to equalize homosexuality and heterosexuality, all the way to sanctioning same-sex marriage and beyond, this will not necessarily satisfy homosexuals. As long as there are people out there like me who have not changed their opinions and continue to say so publically, then their victory is not complete. No, the dissenters and the conscientious objectors must be dealt with somehow. I assume that, along with a whole host of other Christians and fellow travelers, I will be challenged with the goal of being silenced.

There will be varying forms of intimidation, including supposed violation of hate crimes and civil rights laws, removal of non-profit status, disqualification for state and federal grants, and exclusion from other desirable programs such as helping the hungry and housing the homeless. It will no doubt prove to be a complex and expensive nightmare.

One good thing, however, is that there will be a shaking of the Christian tree, and the dead leaves and branches will fall. The result will be a purified Church. Already a number of denominations have capitulated, and more will follow, including some that historically stood up for the authority of Scripture. In the hearts and minds of Christians, a decision will have to be made. And for those who have homosexual friends and loved ones, the problem is far from academic or political in nature. Indeed, it will be emotional, familial, and personal, and it will leave many confused and divided in their loyalties.

The pro-gay lobby has won certain victories, and they will boast of more goals reached in the future. The activists I encountered in the 1970s had it right; they knew what they were doing. The recent triumphs in the courts will not, however, reach so deep into the heart and conscience of those who glory in their homosexuality as to bring deep abiding peace. There will remain a certain uncomfortable sense that things are still not right. All the powers that be will not be able to hush the voice of the Creator that is hard-wired into every creature made in His image.

The political battles presently being waged and won will only be celebrated in the here and now and not in the forever, which is where we are all headed. None of us will get out of this alive, and then, as the Scripture says, “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). To temporarily have guilt assuaged, shame suppressed, and a measure of acceptance achieved, is all merely a part of a larger deception perpetrated by the prince of the great lie.