A Christian Examination Of The LGBTQ Flag

          Most people are familiar with God's covenantal promise to never again send forth waters from the heavens to cover the land, which was made to Noah afterward. It was used as a means of executing judgment on mankind for continually godless behavior. God used a rainbow as a covenant symbol to convey the promise of never again casting judgment on the human race in the same way (Genesis 6:5-8; 8:20-22; 9:11, 12:9-17). Tragically, however, the LGBTQ community has developed a new method for mocking God's wonderful promise to us through the innovation of a flag that displays only six of the seven colors of the rainbow.

          Having its origin in California by Artist Gilbert Baker, this flag was designed by lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals to represent their own diverse values through the gay pride movement, which has now been popularized throughout the Western world. What is striking about this flag is that its colors mock that of God's covenantal promise, the rainbow, to man to never again judge man by means of a flood. While the rainbow has seven different colors, the LGBTQ flag only has six colors of the rainbow. It is missing the color indigo. The number six is the spiritual number for fallen man. Seven is God's number, meaning completeness or perfection. It takes little effort to interpret this flag as mockery of our divine creator.

          The foundation of the gay pride movement is self-exaltation. This has manifested itself through wild parades, festivals, clownish apparel, and rainbow imagery on public business signs or logos. Furthermore, the most radical members of the LGBTQ community have literally fought to silence all forms of disagreement, even if objections are established on scientific or philosophical grounds. Dissenters are called haters, bigots, and even accused of having phobias. This, ironically, puts on display the name-caller's own hatred and phobia of traditional morality.

          Gay pride is contrary to everything that the Bible states regarding humility and sexuality. God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble (Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; James 4:5-8). People who exalt themselves will be humbled (Matthew 23:12). He absolutely detests pride (Proverbs 8:13). Scripture emphatically condemns homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). God's rainbow was meant to serve as a symbol of remembrance, not as a means of pride. He will not tolerate the celebration of sin. Thus, all faithful Christians have been called to speak out against the LGBTQ flag.

A Christian Response To Transgenderism

          In today's society, much debate and perplexity has emerged over some of the most basic aspects of life. Unfortunately, some people have found themselves unable to answer questions about themselves that are foundational in nature, such as their gender identity. While the Book of Genesis presents us with the age-old framework of there being only the two genders of male and female, liberal educators, psychiatrists, and politicians believe that it is wrong for parents to be labeling their children as being boys or girls at birth. It has been suggested that things are not as they appear to our eyes, which defies basic logic. Thus, these people maintain that our children should be able to choose their own personal gender identities, even receiving surgery on their genitalia that corresponds with such. 

          Gender is a biological reality determined by our DNA. The same elementary scientific principle regarding the determination of gender is equally applicable to our skin and hair color. Furthermore, we know that only two different gender possibilities exist because only two different pairs of genitalia exist. There are only XX (female) and XY (male) genes. If transgenderism is to be accepted as normal and valid, then why not also choose to identify as two or three different persons at once? Can a human being cease to be human? Can we identify as an age other than our date of birth? Can we claim that our weight and height do not actually correspond to what is found on a scale or stadiometer? The only thing that medical procedures can do is change the outer appearance of people.

          Any notion of common sense can exist only in an environment in which there is a common morality accepted. Ever since the existence of objective moral truths has been denied, Western culture has degenerated exponentially. Although any amount of conditioning through physical, psychological, or sexual abuse may cause a person to experience confusion regarding his gender, such struggles can be overcome through sufficient encouragement, discipline, and psychological training. We can assume, imagine, or have a desire to be different from what we are, but having such wishes does nothing to change our internal genetic makeup. Our beliefs do not determine reality. This, an affirmation of transgenderism is an assault on the nature of truth itself.

          In 2016, the Obama Administration ordered public school systems to allow members of the opposite sexes to share restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Since then, other public places such as grocery stores, parks, and universities have adopted the idea of using "transgender" bathrooms. Can anybody not see the inherent moral flaws of this ideology? First of all, any pervert can claim to be any random gender. Secondly, our right to privacy has been violated. Thirdly, the innocence of our children is at an elevated risk of being corrupted. They have no understanding of the real world. And fourthly, it is evil to brainwash people into believing that they can choose to be a different gender only to be enslaved to a lifetime exposure of carcinogenic, toxic hormones. It is wrong to mutilate healthy functioning parts of the body.

          God created man in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). He also called creation "good" upon completing it (Genesis 1:31), and our natural bodily design is an integral part of that. The creation narrative affirms that God made male and female. The dichotomy between man and woman is a foundational and unchangeable reality. If that proposition is rejected, then any notion of the fixed categories making up reality becomes illusory. After all, things are not as our senses tell us. Identity is fluid and has no set meaning. Romans 1:22 says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Islam: A Comparative And Critical Survey

Introduction:

The Islamic religion emerged in the seventh century, founded by an Arabian merchant named Muhammad. He claimed that the angel Gabriel visited him repeatedly, delivering divine revelations from God. These messages were documented in the Quran, the sacred Islamic text regarded by Muslims as the word of Allah—the Arabic term for God. Muhammad's efforts to propagate his new ideological system often involved fervent advocacy, conflict, and conquest, leaving a profound impact on the Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

The Quran draws on a variety of sources, including elements of Judeo-Christian traditions, particularly the Old Testament. It references figures such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses, portraying them as prophets of Allah. Many stories and themes found in the Quran parallel biblical narratives, although often with significant reinterpretations. This fusion of Abrahamic traditions reflects the cultural and religious milieu of the Arabian Peninsula during Muhammad's time, where Jewish and Christian communities were influential.

Contrasting the Christian and Muslim Worldviews:

Although Christianity and Islam are both monotheistic faiths, they differ profoundly in their doctrines and interpretations of God. Christianity embraces the biblical concept of the Trinity, teaching that one God exists in three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19–20; John 10:30; Ephesians 4:4–6). Islam, on the other hand, rejects this notion outright. Notably, the Quran inaccurately portrays the Christian Trinity as God the Father, Mary, and Jesus Christ, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian theology.

Christianity asserts that Jesus Christ is God incarnate—co-eternal with the Father, the Son of God, and the risen Savior who was crucified and resurrected (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24; John 2:19–20; 20:26–28; 1 Corinthians 15:1–8). Islam, however, denies these core beliefs, portraying Jesus as a revered prophet, subordinate to Muhammad. These stark theological differences highlight the incompatibility of Christianity and Islam in their conceptions of God.

Furthermore, Christianity holds that the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity, who glorifies and testifies to Jesus Christ (John 14:26). In contrast, Islam identifies the Holy Spirit as the angel Gabriel and refers to Muhammad as the “helper.” Nevertheless, both religions find rare common ground in their affirmation of the virgin birth of Jesus.

When addressing salvation, the divergence becomes even more pronounced. Islam emphasizes good works, prescribing the fulfillment of the Five Pillars of Islam: 1) profession of faith, 2) daily prayers, 3) almsgiving, 4) fasting during Ramadan, and 5) pilgrimage to Mecca. In contrast, Christianity emphasizes salvation by grace alone through faith alone, recognizing humanity's sinful nature and spiritual helplessness (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 3:23; 5:12). This distinction often leaves Muslims uncertain of their salvation, while Christianity provides assurance of eternal life through faith.

The divergent conceptions of paradise offer another striking contrast. For Christians, the kingdom of God represents eternal unity with the Creator, marked by spiritual fulfillment and divine communion. Islamic teachings, however, depict paradise as a realm of material rewards, including sensual pleasures and the promise of seventy virgins. This reflects a fundamentally different view of the afterlife.

Countering the Islamic Claim That the Christian Bible Is Corrupted:

Muslims frequently argue that the Christian Bible has been lost or altered. Yet, the Quran itself affirms the divine inspiration of the Torah (Sura 2:87), the Psalms (Sura 4:163), and the Gospel (Sura 3:3–4; 5:46). Moreover, it declares that Allah’s words cannot be altered (Sura 6:34; 6:115; 10:64).

If the Quran acknowledges the Bible as divinely inspired and unchangeable, the claim that the Bible is corrupted presents a significant contradiction. Interestingly, the Quran does not explicitly state that the Bible has been falsified. This creates a theological inconsistency, as reconciling two conflicting divine revelations poses a logical dilemma for Muslims.

For those alleging biblical corruption, pivotal questions remain unanswered: Who corrupted it? When and where did this occur? Simply dismissing the Bible as altered because it conflicts with the Quran lacks intellectual rigor and coherence.

Inconsistencies in Muslim Logic:

Surah 29:46 instructs Muslims to affirm, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and we are all Muslims to Him." However, many Muslims contradict this directive by rejecting the Bible as corrupted and denouncing the Christian God. This inconsistency raises a crucial question: If the Quran commands respect for earlier revelations, why do so many Muslims dismiss the Christian Bible?

Can God Contradict Himself?

        If God is capable of contradicting Himself, then it follows that He is imperfect. He would be liable to error. He would not be much different than man himself. If God is not infinitely superior to creation in every way, then why should the pagans abandon their polytheistic worldviews and submit to Him? If God is capable of contradicting Himself, then the Judeo-Christian tradition has been built on a shaky philosophical foundation.

        First of all, it is vital to recognize that Scripture teaches God is immutable (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). His character, will, and promises are unable to be changed. God can act only in a manner that is consistent with His own nature. For example, Scripture tells us that God is unable to lie (Numbers 23:19). Therefore, God is unable to contradict Himself. Does this fact mean that God is somehow not omnipotent and omniscient? Of course not.

        The fact that God cannot contradict Himself is not proof of limitation, but rather, expresses a degree of perfection. This degree of perfection is beyond the human perception of perfection. His qualities far exceed perfection, as He is beyond the scope of all. God has no limitations or boundaries. The human mind cannot fully grasp the character of God because it is finite.

        We are unable to comprehend the fullness of His being and glory. God is perfect. He is the ultimate source of truth and goodness. His ways are righteous. Logical propositions that seem problematic to us are not so in the mind of God. Things that seem incomprehensible to the human mind are not that way to God. He can do anything that accords with His nature.

The Historical Development Of Papal Authority

• Introduction:

          -Primitive Christian churches were governed by pluralities of bishops, not by an individual head, as is the case in the modern Roman Catholic hierarchy. Moreover, the New Testament uses the terms "elder" and "bishop" interchangeably. The New American Bible Revised Edition has this excerpt on Titus 1:5-9 in regard to the meaning of such terms: "This instruction on the selection and appointment of presbyters, substantially identical with that in 1 Tm 3:1–7 on a bishop, was aimed at strengthening the authority of Titus by apostolic mandate; cf. Ti 2:15. In Ti 1:5, 7 and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons." The papal office as such was not established by Jesus Christ in the first century. 

• Early Extra-Biblical Writings Spoke Of Pluralities Of Elders In Churches, Not Them Being Led By A Single Man Over The Rest: 

          -“And so, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved.” (Didache 15.1)

          -“And so, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are worthy of the Lord, gentle men who are not fond of money, who are true and approved.” (1 Clement 42:4)

• The Benefits Of A Church Having Pluralities Of Elders:

          -The plurality of elders and the autonomy of each assembly was cemented doctrine before the end of the apostolic age. The weakness of the flesh always pursues efficiency, organization, and control in any group. God's plan for the government of the local assembly is nothing short of divine brilliance. It diffuses ambition, curtails pride, and distributes authority among the saints, with elders leading (never ruling) by example only.

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Second Century:

          -In A.D. 150, a significant distinction emerged between the roles of elder and bishop within the early Christian communities. This was the period when individual congregations began to be governed by singular bishops, diverging from the previous collegial leadership model. Bishops started to exercise authority over other church leaders, akin to a senior pastor among elders. This shift marked the beginning of a hierarchical structure within the church, where one bishop held preeminent authority.

          -This organizational change was gradual and varied across different regions. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch provide crucial evidence of this development, particularly in Asia Minor. Ignatius' epistles emphasize the importance of a singular bishop’s authority within the local congregation, urging unity and obedience to the bishop as a representative of God. He believed that a centralized episcopal authority would help maintain doctrinal purity and ecclesiastical order amidst the growing Christian communities.

          -"Caird notes that in the latter half of the first century three events occurred that altered the character of the church: (1) the final break between Christianity and Judaism, (2) the beginning of persecution by Rome, and (3) the death of many who had been principal leaders in the early church. The death of the apostles, the crumbling of the old covenant, outbreaks of persecution, and the prevalence of heresy and false prophecy led to the rise of the monarchical bishop. Caird suggests that the vigor with which Ignatius states his case for the bishop’s role implies that this new development had been “vigorously opposed” by many in the churches. In any case, the rise of the monarchical bishop is best understood as the expedient by which the early church asserted its right to condemn divergent views in the absence of the apostles. Cf. Caird, The Apostolic Age, 141–55 (esp. pp. 141, 151-52)." (Understanding the Church, by Joseph M. Vogl and John H. Fish III, p. 21)

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Fourth Century:

          -Archbishops, who presided over a group of churches along with their respective assemblies of worship, emerged from the most prominent cities of their era. These influential figures were initially recognized for their leadership and administrative skills within their local regions. Over time, as the Christian church expanded and its hierarchical structure evolved, these archbishops began to oversee larger ecclesiastical territories known as dioceses.

          -The rise of these high-ranking bishops was closely tied to the status of the cities they served. Prominent urban centers such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and later Constantinople, played pivotal roles in the early Christian world. The archbishops of these key cities were not only spiritual leaders but also wielded significant political and social influence. Their prominence led them to be acknowledged as patriarchs, a title denoting their preeminent authority and seniority within the church hierarchy.

          -Patriarchs were entrusted with the oversight of vast ecclesiastical provinces, often encompassing multiple regions and cultures. They played a crucial role in shaping doctrinal orthodoxy, addressing heresies, and maintaining the unity of the church. Councils and synods, where patriarchs convened to deliberate on theological and administrative matters, became central to the governance of the church.

          -This excerpt from Canon Six of the Council Of Nicaea shows that the Roman bishop had jurisdiction only over Rome at this point in time: "The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them." (cited by Philip Schaff)

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Mid Fifth To Late Sixth Centuries:

          -We see the five patriarchs, which were Jerusalem (officially recognized as such in the fifth century), Antioch (officially recognized as such in the first century), Rome (officially recognized as such in the first century), Constantinople (officially recognized as such in the fourth century), and Alexandria (officially recognized as such in the first century). Each patriarch governed itself. Though Rome and Constantinople were perceived as having equal authority, the Church of Rome was viewed in highest regard. Constantinople was the leading patriarch of the East. But neither of the two competing patriarchs at the time possessed universal authority over the rest of Christendom.

• Surveying The Development Of The Episcopacy In The Late Sixth Into The Early Seventh Centuries:

          -There was a final struggle between Rome and Constantinople for the title of universal bishop. The two most powerful patriarchs fought for jurisdiction over the entire Christian church. Although Constantinople was first to appoint its head as being the universal bishop of Christianity, the Roman bishop Gregory condemned the usage of that title as being characteristic of an anti-Christ. He declared that no man, not even himself, was worthy of possessing such an title! In the end, the Church of Rome prevailed in this battle for supreme authority. Gregory's successor Boniface III reserved it for himself. Thus, we see the historic origin of the papal office in its current organizational structure.

Sin And Temptation

        Our consciences have been designed by God to sense the dangers of presently existing temptations. They are unavoidable in this life. He has inscribed His moral precepts into our hearts (Romans 2:14-15). God has programmed our minds to recognize the difference between good and evil. Thus, our conscience is the underlying reason we instinctively feel as if temptation, by definition, is wrong. That assumes one's conscience has not been desensitized by evil. 

         Everybody experiences temptations to different degrees. Moreover, it is important for us to recognize the differences between sin and temptation. For instance, forgiveness is required for debts and trespasses. Temptation requires deliverance (Matthew 6:12-13). Jesus Christ was tempted in the same manner as we are, yet remained unblemished from the stains of sin (Hebrews 4:14-16). That is how He can sympathize with our weaknesses and failures. He was tested and shown to be faithful.

        Temptation can originate from one of three sources: Satan (Ephesians 6:11; 1 Peter 5:8), our surroundings (1 John 2:15), and our own flesh (Romans 7:18). Man has an inherent desire to entertain sinful ideas. While Satan is the ultimate source of all evil, our sinful nature works alongside him to ensnare our souls. The process of spiritual temptation begins with desire, blossoms into temptation which leads to sin, and can then lead up to spiritual death (James 1:14-15). 

         Temptation itself is not sin. After all, even Christ experienced it (Matthew 4:1-11).We know that He lived a sinless live. Temptation becomes sin when we choose to act in accordance to our sinful desires. It makes no difference whether they take place in our minds where such desires are not made manifest to others. They are not hidden from God. Christ was tempted externally, but not internally inclined to act sinfully. He does not have a sin nature.

        Worldly thoughts would include characteristics such as pride, lust, greed, and covetousness. They stem forth from our hearts and defile us (Matthew 15:11). We need to flee from temptation. That is the best thing we can do in such contexts. Temptation revolves around sin. Evil thoughts are sin. Temptation makes us want to act contrary to the commandments of God. What both sin and temptation have in common is that they can ruin our souls.

        What we need to do is replace the works of the flesh with the works of the Spirit. Despite the fact that overcoming temptation can refine our character, we need to do our best to avoid situations that will place us into a state of temptation (Romans 13:13-14). We need to distract ourselves from the sources of temptation by focusing on the promises of God. Only through Him can we have true and lasting joy, hope, peace, and fulfillment.

A Discussion On The Human Soul

• Introduction:

          -The concept of the soul has long captivated humanity, serving as the "life-principle" that formulates our understanding of existence. Often referred to as the immaterial essence that animates the physical body, the soul represents the source of all consciousness and self-awareness. This non-physical entity dictates our thoughts, aspirations, and actions — essentially shaping our character and individuality. It is within the intricate tapestry of the soul that the essence of our being is woven: our hopes, dreams, fears, and desires are manifestations of this profound, non-material core.
          -Distinguishing ourselves from the plant and animal kingdom, we recognize that the soul is what lends humanity its unique qualities: intellect, emotion, and will. These attributes not only allow for an enriched experience of life but also endow us with the capacity for critical reflection and moral judgment. The soul encapsulates the essence of our personalities, functioning as an independent entity that transcends the physical boundaries of our physical existence. It is our capacity to make choices on our own rather than reacting on the basis of stimuli. It is these factors which distinguish man from the plant and animal kingdom. They cannot be said to have a soul in the sense that we do.

• On The Origin And Nature Of The Soul:

          -The origin of the soul, as illustrated in religious texts and philosophical musings, holds that human souls are imparted directly by a divine entity, echoing the biblical narrative from Genesis 2:8 where God breathes life into humanity. This act of divine infusion not only bestows existence but crafts our spiritual identity — our very essence. While our physical bodies are composed of earthly elements—molecules and atoms derived from the natural world—our souls arise from divine craftsmanship, thus creating a duality: a physical vessel intertwined with an eternal spirit.
          -The soul's immaterial nature poses profound implications, particularly regarding scientific exploration. Traditional methods of inquiry — grounded in empirical observation and physical existence — are limited when faced with the enigmatic realm of the soul. The soul eludes scientific quantification; it exists beyond the methodologies of physical science, calling into question the very nature of reality and existence. In Hebrew thought, the term "pneuma" refers to this immaterial aspect of humanity, highlighting the intricacies of the soul as it navigates the balance between the tangible and the ethereal.
          -With its immaterial essence, the soul possesses qualities that assert its immortality. Contrary to the transient nature of physical forms, the soul is believed to transcend death, allowing for the potential continuation of consciousness beyond corporeal existence. This enduring nature evokes questions of purpose, morality, and the afterlife, with theological frameworks asserting that the soul is subject to divine trust and judgment. Luke 16:19-31 suggests an active engagement of souls beyond physical death, indicating that our journeys do not culminate with our last breath but rather evolve into an intricate interplay of spiritual continuance.

• On The Immateriality Of The Soul:

          -Central to understanding the immateriality of the soul is the human capacity for abstract thought. Unlike lower forms of consciousness, humans possess an extraordinary ability to think beyond the immediately visible world. The mind's ability to categorize and theorize illustrates that our reasoning capabilities extend into realms that cannot be tangibly touched or observed. This notion compels us to acknowledge that human cognition transcends physical constraints, fostering an affinity for philosophical inquiry, mathematical abstraction, and artistic creativity.
          -Fundamental to this discourse is the assertion of free will. Distinctive of human experience, our freedom to choose and be influenced showcases the responsiveness of our souls. Such volition denotes an agency rooted in the immaterial, as choices arise from deep introspection and emotional engagement. The process of intention — the act of deciding to take a particular course of action — offers testimony to the soul's vibrant and active presence, despite the absence of empirical validation. This unquantifiable essence underscores philosophical debates that have persisted for centuries, inviting exploration into the deeper meanings of existence, morality, and the universe's mysteries.

          -"...if life were nothing more than materials, then we'd be able to take all the materials of life-which are the same materials found in dirt-and make a living being. We cannot. There's clearly something beyond materials in life. What materialist can explain why one body is dead and another body is not dead? Both contain the same chemicals. Why is a body alive one minute and dead the next?" (Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, p. 129)