Toxic Masculinity?

"We take a young man and kick his father out of his life, send him to school where he has mostly women teachers, barrage him with negative messages about masculinity, then turn him loose at college where we treat him like a guilty-until-proven-innocent rapist, and after all that, we blame "masculinity" when he goes off the rails despite the fact that he spent a lifetime bathed in femininity. Unsurprisingly, the more women try to change masculinity, the more negative and toxic it actually becomes."

John Hawkins, “The More Young Men Are Bathed in Femininity, the More 'Toxic Masculinity' You Will See”

If We Truly Love God, Then We Will Also Love Our Neighbors As Ourselves

          "If anyone says, 'I love God', but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother." (1 John 4:20-21)

 

          We cannot claim to love God while possessing contempt and ill will in our hearts for other people. It is not possible for us to obey Him while holding animosity toward other people. We have even been admonished by the Apostle Paul to not let the sun set on our anger. Remaining in such a spiritual condition can have ominous consequences (Ephesians 4:26). Jesus Christ Himself associated hatred with murder (Matthew 5:22-26).

          Hatred is incompatible with the self-sacrificial love demonstrated by Jesus Christ in making atonement for our sins. It is out of touch with Christian charity in entirety. Thus, people who claim to be serving God faithfully who at the same time are constantly holding resentment for or bearing ill will for others in their hearts are liars. They are not acting according to God's revealed will for us. They are not acting consistently with their profession of faith.

          Love of God and love of neighbor fulfills the Law. Love of God and love of neighbor is the foundation for morality. We cannot grow in our relationship with Him if we do not love our neighbors. We are called to hate that which is evil. If we do not love other people as we love ourselves (that is the natural disposition of man in regard to himself), then we do not really understand what love is. If we do not love others, then we cannot have fellowship with God because He is love. Hatred is destructive to who we are as people.

Romans 10:9 Proves Jesus Is God Almighty

          "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:9-10)

          The Greek term kurious (in English, it means "lord") does not always refer to deity. It is used in reference to God, but can certainly be used as a formal way in addressing a person. In the case of Romans 10:9-10, it can be argued that the Apostle Paul calls Jesus Christ God.

          The reference to confession found in verse nine alludes to Deuteronomy 30:14. Confession with the mouth signifies openly acknowledging our allegiance to Jesus Christ. He is our Lord and our Savior. The fullness of our being rightfully belongs to Him. Christ is the second Person of the Triune God. The outward expression "Jesus is Lord" is a parallel to the Jewish Shema prayer (Deuteronomy 6:4). The New American Bible has this excerpt on Romans 10:9-11:

          "To confess Jesus as Lord was frequently quite hazardous in the first century (cf. Mt 10:18; 1 Thes 2:2; 1 Pt 2:18–21; 3:14). For a Jew it could mean disruption of normal familial and other social relationships, including great economic sacrifice. In the face of penalties imposed by the secular world, Christians are assured that no one who believes in Jesus will be put to shame (Rom 10:11)."

          Christians who resided in Rome were at higher risk of persecution because citizens were expected to confess Caesar as Lord. The divinity of Jesus Christ was a direct challenge to the lordship of the Roman emperor. So, understanding the historical context in which Paul was writing sheds more light on how Romans 10:9 points to Jesus being God.

          In Romans 10:6-10, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30:11-14. Providing some background on this passage from the Old Testament makes plain the apostle's rationale for using it. In listing off to the Israelites the conditions which God required of them upon inheriting land, Moses stated his message was simple to grasp. His audience, therefore, would be without excuse. God's commandments were in their hearts and in their mouths. The blessings of the covenant were inseparable from, but not based on, the faithfulness of the Jews to God.

          In Romans, the Apostle Paul utilizes terminology from Deuteronomy and expounds in a New Testament context. He points us to Christ, who took on human flesh and rose bodily from the grave. These events have been fulfilled. In the Old Testament, people experienced Christ and His Gospel through faith. They longed for the coming Redeemer. Paul speaks of the righteousness that comes by faith (Romans 10:6). It is with the heart that one believes and is justified (Romans 10:9-10). Man proclaims Christ with his mouth.

          Romans 10:13 is a quotation of Joel 2:32. Paul believed Jesus to be his Lord in the same sense as God the Father was his Lord. Christ is called Yahweh in verse nine. This is undoubtedly a problem for groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. In their New World Translation, the word "Lord" ("kurios" in Greek) is oftentimes rendered as Jehovah. However, that term was not used by biblical writers (nor has any support from known Greek manuscripts). Moreover, the Greek term is not translated as Jehovah in texts such as Romans 10:9-10, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, 1 Peter 3:15, and Revelation 22:21.

That point highlights inconsistency in the New World Translation. The Watchtower Society's emphasis on "Jehovah" as the divine name is misguided. If the Greek word kurios was translated in a consistent fashion, then Jesus Christ would also be called Jehovah.

          Why does Paul say that God raised Christ from the dead? Jesus is God incarnate. He took on human flesh. He is both fully human and fully divine. He exercised both human and divine attributes throughout His earthly ministry. Christ was crucified for our transgressions. His divine essence is not what passed away. Rather, a divine Person in His human flesh died. He did not set aside His divinity by taking on human flesh. The Father raised Christ from the grave (Acts 2:32; Galatians 1:1). The Son raised Himself from the grave (John 2:19; 10:17-18). The Holy Spirit raised Him from the grave (Romans 8:11). All three persons of the Trinity brought about the resurrection.

Is The Multiverse Theory Reasonable?

"A true scientific explanation, says Davies, is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally minded ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of "explanation" meaningless. Swinburne is just as strong in his disdain for the multiverse explanation: "It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job."

Antony Flew, There Is a God, pg. 119

Evidence For Intelligent Design Found Throughout Nature

"The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and "tied together." Einstein spoke of them as "reason incarnate."... This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein have asked-and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God." (p. 96)

"...the laws of nature seem to be crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life." (p. 114)

"How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-reproduction capabilities, and coded chemistry?" (p.124)

"Over the centuries, thinkers who have considered the concept of "nothing" have been careful to emphasize that "nothing" is not a kind of "something." Absolute nothingness means no laws, no vacuums, no structures, no physical or mental entities of any kind-and no "symmetries." It has no properties or potentialities. Absolute nothingness cannot produce something given endless time-in fact, there can be no time in absolute nothingness." (p. 170)

Antony Flew, There Is a God

Suggesting That Life Arose By Blind Chance Is Absurd

"Schroeder first referred to an experiment conducted by the British National Council of Arts. A computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys. After one month of hammering away at it (as well as using it as a bathroom!), the monkeys produced fifty typed pages-but not a single word. Schroeder noted that this was the case even though the smallest word in the English language is one letter (a or I). A is a word only if there is a space on either side of it. If we take it that the keyboard has thirty characters (the twenty-six letters and other symbols), then the likelihood of getting a one-lettered word is 30 times 30 times 30, which is 27,000. The likelihood of a getting a one-letter word is one chance out of 27,000.

Schroeder then applied the probabilities to the sonnet analogy. "What's the chance of getting a Shakespearean sonnet?" he asked. He continued:

All the sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in the sonnet. What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in exact sequence as in "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times - or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th.

Now the number of particles in the universe - not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons - is 10 to the 80th . Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 690th.

If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips - forget the monkeys - each one weighing a millionth of a gram and had each computer chip able to spin out 288 trials at, say, a million times a second; if you turn the entire universe into these microcomputer chips and these chips were spinning a million times a second (producing) random letters, the number of trials you would get since the beginning of time would be 10 to the 90th trials. It would be off again by a factor of 10 to the 600th. You will never get a sonnet by chance. The universe would have to be 10 to the 600th time larger. Yet the world just thinks monkeys can do it every time."

Antony Flew, There Is a God, pg. 76-77

Pope Gelasius And Transubstantiation

Was transubstantiation generally believed in the early church? It is interesting to read what Pope Gelasius (492-496 AD) had to say about this matter. But first let’s define the meaning of the doctrine.

Transubstantiation (from Latin trans- across, and substantia substance) is the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearance of bread and wine still remaining. “Substance" means what something is in itself.

The Council of Trent states: “If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, session 13, canon 2).

Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that at consecration the bread and wine no longer remain; they become truly, really and substantially the body and blood of Christ even though the appearance (or “accidents”) remains unchanged. We continue to see bread and wine though they are no longer bread and wine; what we perceive and taste as bread and wine are in fact the body and blood of Jesus.

Now let’s see what Pope Gelasius taught. In a treatise De Duabus Naturis against Eutyches and Nestorius (who taught that in the incarnation the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature), Gelasius wrote:

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

Gelasius taught that the sacramental bread and wine are the “image and the similitude” of the body and blood of Christ; the “substance or nature” of the bread and wine remain unchanged – “it does not cease”. Bread remains bread; wine remains wine. Clearly, Pope Gelasius contradicted the idea of transubstantiation.

How do Catholic apologists react to this? One Catholic writer argues that “Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance [accidents] of bread/wine remain alongside the Real Presence in an attempt to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, since Christ humanity remains alongside His divinity. Some scholars interpret the above passage to refer to the accidents of the bread and wine.” (Kenneth Henderson)

Did Pope Gelasius really mean “appearance” when he wrote about “substance” and “nature”? Was the pope ignorant of the meaning of the very terms used in the Nicene Creed (325AD) and the Definition of Chalcedon (451AD) to describe who Jesus actually is?

There is a very simple reason why Gelasius did not mean “appearance”. Remember he is using the Eucharist as an analogy for the Incarnation, namely that “Christ’s humanity remains alongside His divinity.” Now if by “substance or nature” he meant that only the appearance of bread and wine remains, it follows that Christ merely appeared human but in fact he was not! That is the very heresy he was refuting!

No, rather, Gelasius rightly believed that the distinction of divine and human natures of Christ are “in no way annulled by the union” (Council of Chalcedon). Jesus is truly God and truly man! The Eucharist illustrates this great truth, for, just as the substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature of Christ remained unchanged despite its union with divinity.

Pope Gelasius did not try to prove that the bread and wine remain unchanged. He could take it for granted that his readers at the close of the fifth century believed that the substance of the eucharistic elements do not cease. The novel idea of transubstantiation was developed and adopted much later in the history of the Catholic church.

© Copyright Dr Joseph Mizzi | Duplication and free distribution is encouraged | www.justforcatholics.org

The Evolution Of Charismatic "Tongues Speaking"

"...Every biblical example of angelic encounters with humans of any nationality shows the angel speaking in speaking in the language of of the person/people he was sent to (cf. Gen. 16:9; 22:11; Num. 22:32; Judg. 13:3). Revelation 14:6 speaks of an angel flying in the mid-heavens proclaiming the everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, and tongue. The only tangential referent is found in the pseudepigraphic book titled "Testament of Job" which mentions Job's three daughters chanting in the "dialect of cherubim."29 Some date this book around the time of the writing of First Corinthians and Paul never gives credence to this novel writing and in fact warns against getting caught up in Jewish fables in Titus 1:14. For anyone to claim that they speak with the "tongues of angels" is simply without any biblical support and must be regarded as spurious. Naturally, this brings into question the alleged ability to translate an angelic tongue. How would anyone know if the translation is correct? We have no angelic lexicons, grammars, or dictionaries. For someone to claim they have the supernatural gift to translate angelic tongues is equally spurious.

Furthermore, the manifestation not only changed from an unknown language to an angelic language but the reason for the gift changed. Initially, Pentecostalism saw the restoration of this gift as a means to evangelize the world supernaturally and quickly. Due to the various well-publicized failures on the missionary field, the manifestation shifted from missionary work to the individual's personal prayer life. After WWII America experienced a "Healing Revival" with various Pentecostal tent-revivalists.30 This revival marks the explosion of Pentecostal practices (primarily tongues, prophecy, healing, and deliverance from demons) into non-Pentecostal denominations referred to as the "Charismatic Renewal" movement.31

The use of the gift changed from a supernatural missionary tool into a private (me and Jesus) language. It changed from being seen as a missionary gift for ministers to something that all believers can posses and should practice. Tongues went from having to be translated in public ministry today where entire groups of people all speak in tongues at the same time with no translation expected.

The only "restoration" of these gifts back into the Church is through outright heretical teachers (Montanus and his disciples) and later questionable fringe sects (Camisards, Shaking Quakers, Holiness groups) or other non-Christian cult groups.37 The Shakers were America's first non-Christian Pentecostals and since their advent other non-Christian Bible-based cults practice speaking in tongues as part of their piety including the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Unification Church of the Holy Spirit (Moonies), the Way International, snake handling groups to cite a few."

Rev. R. Liichow, Comparing and Contrasting the Various Concepts of "Tongues" Historically, p. 8-10

The Fatal Flaw Of The Charismatic Movement And Speaking In Tongues

• Discussion:

          - Consider this excerpt from a pamphlet titled "Comparing and Contrasting the Various Concepts of "Tongues" Historically" by Rev. R. Liichow, page 2:

         "The ability to manifest ecstatic speech is not limited to the Christian Church or even the early church. Anthropologists have found many examples of religious groups who practice "tongues". The East Greenland Eskimo use a spirit language through their shamans. The Quillacinga and Pasto Indians also express "unintelligible words" in their services.5 We have possibly the earliest account of ecstatic speech approximately 1,100 years before the Day of Pentecost in Egypt.6 Dr. Wayne House has shown a historical practice of speaking in tongues in Phrygia by followers of the Cybele-Attis cult as well as the cult of Apollo prior to the birth of the church.7 Biblical scholar Gerald Hovenden demonstrates that "the existence of glossolalia in pagan world in ancient time itself cannot be denied."8 He shows that glossolalia phenomenon appeared prior to the New Testament period in the Mari Document (around 2000-1500 BCE), Wen Amon (1100 BCE), the Homeric to Delian Apollo (700 BCE), Cassandra, and etc."

          The speaking in tongues that we are witnessing today in the Charismatic Movement is not from God. The tongues spoken of in the New Testament were simply human languages that the speaker acquired by supernatural means. They were actually intelligible or understandable to other people. To attribute the human experiences oftentimes found within the Charismatic Movement to the Holy Spirit is nothing short of blasphemy. 

           The various sign gifts utilized by the church in the first century were to be used in serving God, not self-gratification. Speaking in tongues was a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22). We no longer need sign gifts because we now have the New Testament. The gospel has sufficient power to bring about the conversion of souls (John 20:30-31; Romans 1:16).

Socialism Has Never Worked

"Contrary to popular belief, communism and socialism are virtually identical. Karl Marx defined socialism as abolishing private property with everything owned by an all powerful state on behalf of the people. Sounds very similar to communism, right?

While proponents claim that socialism is for the better of the people, they overlook a major obstacle. A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also strong enough to take away everything you have. A government that is this powerful rarely stays that generous.

Socialism works against human nature and personal motivation. History tells the devastating results of socialism combined with unchanging human nature. The rich become poor and the poor become poorer. Don't fall for the lies that say otherwise. Help protect our freedoms and a system that rewards good works."

Mathew Staver