Holy books? Which one are you going to trust?

from here

Which one are you going to trust?

by David Catchpoole

Often objectors to Christianity will say something like:

‘You Christians claim the Bible is holy but that the holy books of other religions are not! But the Hindu Vedas and the Qur’an of Islam, for example, are claimed by Hindus and Muslims to be holy—why should I listen to you and not to them?’

Whenever someone challenges me with this, I usually answer by saying,

‘Good point. What you say is entirely logical and fair. But what does “holy” mean?’

‘Of divine origin.’

‘Right—so each of these religions claims that their “holy book” is true, having come not from man but from some divine being(s)? But they can’t all be true, because they contradict one another. For example, the Bible contains the claim that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life [John 14:6], and that he died for our sins but was raised on the third day [1 Cor. 15:1–4], and that no-one comes to the Father except through believing in Jesus—which contradicts every other “holy book” that I know of. Many people think that “all religions are the same” and/or “there are many paths to God”, but it’s very clear that Christianity is starkly different from all other religions. For one thing, Jesus Christ is a live Saviour—after having been raised from the dead, he appeared to over 500 eyewitnesses [1 Corinthians 15:6]—while the founders of other religions decayed in their tombs.¹ So that is already very strong support for the uniqueness of Christianity/the Bible. Are there any other ways you could test to see which “holy book” is true?’

Most challengers normally appear bewildered at this point, so I continue:

‘While we are here on earth, it’s hard for us to test what each “holy book” says about heavenly things. But where books make claims about earthly things² … aha! Here’s something we can test. Which book best explains the earth’s geology: why we find mountainous layers upon layers of sediments that look like they were pushed up and folded while still wet, and with dead animals and plants buried in them, all over the world? The Bible! Which book best explains biology: why plants and animals reproduce “after their kind”, why we have male and female, why women have pain in childbearing, why we have an ever-increasing number of mutations and genetic disorders—as if the creation is in “bondage to decay” [Romans 8:20–22]? The Bible!

‘And what about the number and distribution of humans around the world—calculating backwards using standard population growth rates gives us a handful of ancestors around 4,500 years ago, somewhere in the Middle East—doesn’t that fit with what the Bible says?³ Doesn’t it explain why scientists now say “race” is biologically meaningless, as if we are of “one blood” [Acts 17:26]?

‘And agriculture: is it just coincidence that many of our crop plants have been traced back to the “Fertile Crescent” between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which just “happens” to be where the Bible says Babel was located?

‘But here’s the linchpin: no other “holy book” that I know of describes death as an “enemy” [1 Cor. 15:26], which is what it clearly is. Just watch mourners grieving over the death of a loved one; it’s obvious that something’s wrong, death is an intruder, just as the Bible describes. And the Bible not only accurately describes the problem, but also the only logical solution.⁴ So, if in things that we can test, the Bible wins hands down, which “holy book” are you going to trust?’

In every case when I have put the comparison to questioners in this manner, they have said something like, ‘Wow. I never thought of it in those terms before … thank you!’ They have then realized that of all the different versions of our origins ‘doing the rounds’—whether atheistic evolution or a creation account in a ‘holy book’—there can be only one true account of history, and that account will outmatch its rivals when tested against the evidence in today’s world.
For those who are truly searching for truth and life, Jesus promised that ‘he who seeks finds’ (Matthew 7:8). Now there’s a promise anyone can put to the test. For the Creator of heaven and earth created from one man every nation of men, determining the times set for them and the exact places where they should live, ‘so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us’ (Acts 17:24–27). Why not reach out for Him, and find Him, today?

Dear son, don’t let Robin Thicke be a lesson to you

from here

Our country dangles on the precipice of starting a third World War. We are on the verge of a completely unnecessary conflict where the United States will fight along side Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This, in another day and age, might earn the crown as the Most Controversial Story of the Week. But we’re in the year 2013, and this is America, so a young pop star’s dance moves on an MTV awards show have predictably overshadowed the prospect of global chaos and bloodshed. I wrote about Cyrusgate myself, simply making the rather obvious point that pornographic sexual degradation and confusion are interwoven into virtually every facet of our society, so it’s a bit absurd to randomly erupt with shock and outrage at one comparatively minor manifestation of our collective cultural rot.
Yet the backlash continues, with most of the commentary — including my own — about, or directed at, Miley Cyrus. But she was joined on stage that fateful evening by another pop star: a grown man by the name of Robin Thicke. While Cyrus twerked against his crotch, he sang his hit song “Blurred Lines.” This little ditty — along with being vapid, stupid, and incredibly grating — is an anthem to fornication and objectification. Check out a few of the poetic lines from this classy number:
OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you’re an animal, baby, it’s in your nature
Just let me liberate you
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
You’re a good girl
Can’t let it get past me
You’re far from plastic
Talk about getting blasted
What do we need steam for
You the hottest bitch in this place
I feel so lucky
Hey, hey, hey
You wanna hug me

Seriously, only morons listen to garbage like this. Really.
In any case, this gives you an idea of the full scene: A 36 year old married man and father, grinding against an intoxicated 20 year old while singing about how she’s an “animal” and the “hottest bitch in this place.” And what happens the next day? We’re all boycotting the 20 year old. The grown man gets a pass.
Now I’m beginning to understand why that judge in Montana gave a teacher a 30 day jail sentence after he was convicted of raping a 14 year old girl, who later killed herself because of the psychological trauma caused by being sexually victimized by a 50 year old man. The esteemed judge actually justified giving a child rapist a punishment usually handed down to serial parking ticket violators, by saying the young child was “older than her chronological age,” and it wasn’t so bad because it wasn’t “forcible beat-up rape.”

This guy must be a Robin Thicke fan.

I’m no feminist. Miley Cyrus is an adult and should be held responsible for her actions. But where are the men in all of this? Have we so completely given up on chivalry that we don’t even see what’s troubling about a GROWN ASS MARRIED DUDE singing a song about sexual domination while dry humping a young woman on national TV? Men in this culture need to stand up and be leaders. I don’t want to talk about the Miley Cyruses of the world. Enough is said about them. I want to talk about the legions of cowardly, amoral adult men who graduate college and still carry on like frat boys well into their 60′s. The girls that behave like Miley Cyrus do so because they want to attract men.

And it works.

It shouldn’t.

A few days ago a mom blogger wrote a letter to her daughter entitled “Dear daughter, let Miley Cyrus be a lesson to you.” Well, I have a daughter, and I echo this woman’s sentiments. But I also have a son, and I don’t want the boys to get off the hook here. My little man isn’t old enough to read yet, but one day he will be, and one day I’ll give him this letter. I don’t know if he’ll get the Robin Thicke reference at that point, but the message, I suspect, will still be urgent and relevant:

Dear son,
Don’t let Robin Thicke be a lesson to you.
Don’t let any of these pigs and perverts you see on TV be a lesson to you. They treat women like garbage; they possess no chivalry, no self control; they are disloyal and dishonest; they spend all day pursuing pleasure at the expense of others, and they encourage you to do the same. You might be tempted to follow suit. In fact, you WILL be tempted. These male pop stars and celebrities, look at them, you’ll think. They take advantage of emotionally broken, self loathing, confused young women, and they are rewarded handsomely for it. Look at their nice clothes and their nice cars. Look how they are admired and loved. Look, they treat women like trash and other women fawn all over them because of it. This must be how real men behave, you’ll think.
And you’ll be wrong. You’ll be wrong about a lot of things in life — this is what it means to be human — but never will you be more wrong than when you feel the temptation to buy the lies that pop culture sells about the nature of true masculinity. Son, there is nothing glamorous or fun about being a man of low character and no integrity. What you see on TV is a facade. It’s a sales pitch. It’s poison. You see the bright lights and the sexy women, but you don’t see what happens when the cameras are off and these pop culture gods return to their lives as mere mortals. You don’t see them in their big, empty, lonely houses. You don’t see the emptiness in the pit of their souls. You don’t see all the alcohol and drugs they have to use to dull the pain of living a life devoid of real, committed relationships. You don’t see the hatred they have for themselves and for humanity. You don’t see the jealousy they have towards normal, decent men.
Your dad is no celebrity. He’s just an average, boring guy. But he’s got something that every famous and non-famous womanizer envies: He’s got the love and commitment of ONE beautiful, smart, faithful woman. He’s got your mom, and he’ll only have your mom until the day he dies. He ought to be waking up every day shouting praises to the Lord because of that.
Listen, son, don’t let the world tell you how to be a man. They don’t know anything about the subject.
Men are loyal. Men are honest. Men respect and honor women. A man goes out and finds one woman, and he vows to protect and love her for the rest of his life. A man would never betray that vow. Even the weakest and most cowardly man — if he is a man at all — would die for the woman he loves. Your dad is no hero, but let someone try to hurt your mom and watch him suddenly turn into Superman (or Batman, whichever you prefer).
See, son, you don’t have to be big and strong to be a man, although I think you will be one day. You don’t have to be “cool” or athletic. You don’t have to play guitar or fix cars. These are all fine things, but they don’t define a man. A man is defined by how he treats women, by how he keeps his promises, and by how he protects and serves the ones he loves. That’s what makes a man a man. My dad taught me that, he taught it by example. I pray I can do the same for you.
Oh, and by the way, if I ever catch you disrespecting women, I will sit you down and talk to you about it. But first I’ll kick your butt up and down the street. That’s a promise.
Love,
Your old man

The Blurred Lines Of Real Manhood (Robin Thicke, I’m Looking In Your Direction)

from here

Ever since the VMA debacle a few days ago, there’s been one filthy word that’s been on everyone’s lips, blog posts, and cubicle commentary:
Miley.

The social media universe has been bombarded with all sorts of passionate takes and slants:
The Disgrace of Miley.
A Letter To Miley.
My Daughter Is Miley.
I’m Praying For Miley.
Miley, Miley, Miley.
I’m a little sick of it, to be honest.
Sure, Cyrus’ sad degeneration from fresh-faced, bright-eyed child star, to flesh-flashing, attention-grabbing party girl is well documented, and it’s certainly warranted to question her emotional state or her career choices lately.
However, the last time I checked, it takes two to tango, (or whatever it was that Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus were doing onstage last Sunday). Yet once again, the culpability, the disdain, the moral outrage, has been reserved only for the woman, while the man involved remains unscathed; a teflon participant in a dirty deed, who emerges sparkling clean.
Nevermind that Thicke is 16 years older than Miley, and should have a greater self-awareness or sense of dignity, or that he basically once again, (see the Blurred Lines Video), used the flesh of young women to promote his brand and peddle his product.
Apparently none of that matters very much to us.
Apparently we’re fairly OK with it.
The question I have is: Why is Robin Thicke exempt from national disgust?
Where are the sad laments over the way he is letting down young men?
Where are the crass jokes and the humiliating photos of him filling our newfeeds?
Where is the call for him to get his act together, or change his ways, or apologize to America?
Four words: Boys Will Be Boys.
Sadly, I don’t think Thicke will get any real criticism or take any kind of PR hit following the VMA’s, because that’s simply what we do with sex and scandal today at every level; we blame it all on the woman.
When young women are sexually assaulted, we question their pasts and critique their clothing choices, yet rarely ask their attackers to simply be accountable for having no self-control, and no respect for the humanity of the girls they’ve violated.
When middle school girls post half–naked photos of themselves on Instagram, we vilify and ostracize them as cheap and easy, while ignoring the dozens of young men who mindlessly vote their approval each time, who feed the insecurity, and who perpetuate each degrading act with the click of a mouse.
When high school girls get jobs at chain restaurants, which require them to expose their body parts to strangers over trays of nachos, we bemoan their lack of humility and class, yet never question the thousands of men who fill these eateries every day; many with daughters the same age as the ones they ogle.
When women embarrassingly writhe on poles for a few sweaty dollar bills, in dimly lit bars ironically called “Gentlemen’s Clubs”, we heap insults and judgement on them, yet let the many married men who pay both the dancers and the mortgage each month, come and go without blemish or critique.
Sooner or later, we need to stop letting boys be boys, and we need to challenge them to be men.
Sooner or later, we need to pull them out of their perpetual adolescence and into adulthood, and ask them to evenly carry the weight of sexual standards.
Sooner or later, we need to show our young men that the they can actually raise the moral temperature in sexual situations, not reflect them.
As someone who has spent the last 16 years trying to help teenage boys discover the meaning of true manhood, Robin Thicke’s tactics, and the lack of public concern for them worry me. More accurately, they make me sick to my stomach, because they remind me how low we’ve set the bar for them.
Unfortunately, Robin Thicke may actually be looked at after all of this with more street cred, as a “man’s man”; a cool, sophisticated, smooth operator, but I know better.
The truth is, he is a boy’s boy, (appealing to a sea of them), unable to restrain himself, unwilling to draw a line in the sand, and uninterested in saying no to using a woman as currency.
Guys, it’s time that we un-blur the lines of real manhood, and become true gentlemen.

Compromising Christians Don’t Like “Evolution vs. God” Film

from here:

Evolution vs. God movie:

At the Answers in Genesis Mega Conference last month in Sevierville, Tennessee, Ray Comfort held the  public premiere of his  film, Evolution vs. God. At around the same time, many atheists spoke out against the film (as I reported in a previous blog post).
Atheist reviews included:

  “I can’t believe I watched the whole thing.” Professor PZ Myers
“Worst documentary ever.” Aaron Whitman
“Your movie was horrible … sad and pathetic.” April Brumett
“How about not including idiots in your video.” Philip Ware

The criticism from atheists was almost immediate, for Comfort’s well-publicized film powerfully challenged their entire worldview. But now we’re hearing from professing Christians about the film—and they don’t like how effectively Evolution vs. God challenges evolutionists and their ideas.
The first Christian organization I am aware of to speak out against Evolution vs. God was Reasons to Believe. Dr. Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, is the president and founder of RTB. For years, Dr. Ross has been compromising the book of Genesis with millions of years and other evolutionary ideas. (Though he does not believe in biological evolution, Dr. Ross accepts cosmological evolution, like a very old universe, the big bang, etc.).  He has misled so many people in the church and he will one day have to give an account regarding his compromising stand on God’s Word.
One of his staff members wrote a review of Evolution vs. God, discouraging Christians from viewing the film. In his critique, he says he’s concerned that Comfort didn’t actually debunk evolutionary ideas—and that the film hurts evangelism:

Although the video contains some valid content, its questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution. Bluntly, I see this video as counter to our evangelistic mission. I cannot think of one biblical example where Jesus ridiculed nonbelievers who held erroneous views—although he harshly rebuked the religious leaders who were supposed to guide people toward Him. (www.reasons.org/articles/a-review-of-evolution-vs-god)

Now, I’ve viewed Evolution vs. God a few times, and I don’t remember Comfort “ridiculing” unbelievers. What he did was ask them question after question about evolutionary ideas and their own spiritual state—and he shared the gospel with each of them. How does encouraging critical thinking and sharing the gospel hurt evangelism?
During the interviews, Ray asked students and professors for evidence of one kind of creature changing into another (i.e., molecules-to-man evolution). The Reasons to Believe reviewer claims, “Comfort dismisses any reply that fails to meet his contrived criteria.” But the criteria Comfort relied on certainly weren’t “contrived”! The criteria came straight from the pages of Scripture. In Genesis 1, during Creation Week, God continually refers to the animals (on land, in the air, or in the sea) as being created “according to its kind.” And in Genesis 6:20, God refers to the representative land-dwelling animals and birds as having “kinds.”   In the film, students and professors  speak for themselves and give the same old examples of speciation/changes within the one kind—as supposed evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
When Comfort asks for specific evidence of this type of molecules-to-man change necessary for evolution, none of the answers he’s given demonstrate a change from one kind to another—plain and simple. What’s surprising about Reasons to Believe’s position on this film is that progressive creationists typically deny the validity of biological evolutionary ideas—although they kind of accept the evolutionary progression biologically and say God created the different species, etc.  Personally, some of RTB’s views are not that much different from theistic evolution. They believe that over millions of years, God created life forms “progressively” that would die off, and then He would create more, and they would die off (and so on) until we arrive at present-day humans and animals. Of course, this idea relies just as much on long ages as evolution does—and it contradicts the Bible’s account of creation and human history.
Another organization to speak out against Evolution vs. God is BioLogos, headed by Dr. Deborah Haarsma (previously a professor at Calvin College). BioLogos, an evolution-promoting group, actually posted and promoted the Reasons to Believe review (biologos.org/blog/a-review-of-evolution-vs.-god-from-reasons-to-believe). The BioLogos writers noted, “at BioLogos we hold the position of evolutionary creation, that God acted to create all life using the process of biological evolution. Other Christian organizations disagree; they question the evidence for evolution or reject it completely, preferring views where God acts directly and miraculously to create life.” Actually, that last view is the one the Bible teaches—the creation of the universe was the first recorded miracle and happened just as God’s Word in Genesis records!
The BioLogos writer goes on to call Evolution vs. God “hostile” and indicates that it lacks humility and respect for others. These  bold claims, however, certainly aren’t reflected in Evolution vs. God. Watch this powerful new film for yourself and decide. It’s available through the AiG webstore. Furthermore, our current web campaign on AnswersInGenesis.org centers on the battle between evolutionary ideas and the Bible’s account of creation. I encourage you to read our feature article for more.
Congratulations to Ray Comfort of Living Waters for producing such a powerful movie.  The fact that compromising Christians and the atheists don’t like it means it has really hit a nerve!
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Is it Necessary to Believe in a Literal Adam and a Literal Fall?

from here

Recently, I saw a headline that caught my eye. The secular journal Nature published an article titled “Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time.” Now, secularists (and even some Christians) propose the idea that there was “Y-chromosome Adam” and “mitochondrial Eve”—basically the supposed ancestors of human beings.
According to the article in Nature, secular scientists have redated when they believe these two ancestors existed. But you know, these evolutionary scientists have the entirely wrong starting point on this issue, which the opening line of the article makes clear:

The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo—the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced—were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart.

Did you catch that—the “geneticists’ version of the duo”? From the outset, Nature’s report shows that these scientists have lifted man’s fallible ideas above God’s Word. Similarly the article later concludes that the Bible’s reference to “one man . . . is a bit of a misnomer because this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time.”
Scripture tells us that Adam and Even were historical figures. In fact, together they were the progenitors of the entire human race. Genesis 2 recounts the special creation of Adam from the dust of the earth:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

Eve was later formed from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21–22). God completed both of these creative works on Day Six of Creation Week (Genesis 1:27, 31). So Adam and Eve were the first couple, according to the Word of the One who was there. The entire human race is related to them in some way (Genesis 3:20), just as we’re all related to Noah in some way, as he and his family repopulated the earth following the global Flood:

Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated. (Genesis 9:18–19).

Sadly, it isn’t just secularists who reject this biblical history—many professing Christians do, too! When I began my teaching ministry over 35 years ago, I said then that if compromise on Genesis continued to spread in the church, then the church would eventually give up an historical Adam. Well, today we’re seeing more and more Bible scholars and church leaders denying a literal Adam and Eve as they attempt to mix evolutionary ideas with Scripture. In fact, the topic of their historicity is such a major one in the church today that it made the cover of a 2011 Christianity Today magazine:

So, why is it so important that the account of Adam and Eve be true? Because their existence is foundational to the gospel! Now, I want to make very clear that belief in a historical Adam and Eve is not a salvation issue per se, but it is a biblical authority issue and a gospel issue. When we deny the existence of Adam and Eve, then how do we explain the origin of sin and death in the world? And if we cannot explain how sin and death came into the world, or if we believe that it was always here, then what was the purpose of Christ’s death and Resurrection? Why was the atonement even necessary?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. . . . For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:12, 17)

The problem with mixing evolution with Scripture is that it undermines the very foundation of the gospel. Can a person still be a Christian even while denying the existence of a literal Adam and Eve? Thank God, salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ:

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Rejecting a literal Adam and a literal Fall makes Genesis chapters 1–3 untrustworthy. In other words, it’s an authority issue—it undermines the authority of the Word of God.  And from there, it’s a slippery slope to making even the gospel message untrustworthy.  Personally, I just don’t see how someone truly and fully understands what it means to be saved if they don’t believe in a historic Adam and a historic Fall!
Of course, I do not want to have a person think that I question the legitimacy of their faith if they reject a literal Fall. But I do need to point out the inherent contradiction in such a compromise as it relates to the gospel message. Again, salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:8–9). But, to deny a literal Adam and a literal Fall is to deny the origin of sin, isn’t it? So for such a person who denies the literal historicity of Adam and the Fall, what does Romans 10:9 mean to them anyway? Only God knows our hearts and the nature of our faith.
We can trust God’s Word when He tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
For more information on mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam, as well as many other genetics questions, I encourage you to visit our genetics topics webpage.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Steve Golden assisted in the writing of this blog post.

What about the Crusades?! And the Inquisition?! And Etc.?!

from here

A favorite updated for your reading pleasure.
When people try to dismiss Christianity or belief in God by asking, “What about the Crusades?!” (or some other bad thing), this is my first reaction:

1. You don’t judge an ideology by those who violate its tenets.
2. I make it a habit not to apologize for things that a) happened 1,000 years ago and b) I didn’t do.
3. If there is no God then there is no moral grounding to criticize the Crusades or anything else.
4. None of those things disprove the central claims of Christianity, such as the physical resurrection of Jesus, his divinity, etc.

Many critics try to use issues such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or just run of the mill hypocrisy as trump cards against Christianity. If people did the opposite of what the Bible teaches then at worst they were not Christians and at best they were, at least temporarily, bad ambassadors for Christ.  Those issues are serious, of course, but they have zero impact on whether the Bible is true and whether Jesus is the the only way to forgiveness of your sins, reconciliation with God and to eternal life.
The same goes for other religions and worldviews: We need to understand what they really teach to judge them properly.
Another possible response is to say that you’ll take responsibility for the thousands of people killed by “Christians” provided that the atheists take responsibility for the one-hundred million plus killed by Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot and others.  The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people.  The Inquisition killed about 2,000.  That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao. And keep in mind that the Crusades were not what you see in the pro-Muslim politically correct version you hear about today.  They were largely a defensive maneuver.  Here are 4 myths about them:

• Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.
• Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.
• Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.
• Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Also, if someone wants to claim that Christianity isn’t true because of bad things done in Jesus’ name, then they would need to concede that the vast number of good things done in his name would be evidence for Christianity.
Of course, that doesn’t mean we should gloss over bad things done in Jesus’ name.  Those are serious issues and an embarrassment to Christianity.  We can respond to them and use them to express Biblical truths.
Was the Inquisition wrong?  Of course!  It is completely un-Biblical to think you can or should force someone to believe something.  When the rich young ruler walked away sadly after being told he must give up everything to follow Jesus (Matthew 19), Jesus didn’t run and tackle him.  He didn’t even offer to negotiate and take half.   The text says that Jesus loved the young man, but He didn’t force him to believe.  You come to him on his terms or not at all.
Mainline Christian denominations have caved on important Biblical concepts regarding sexuality – easy divorce, promiscuity, abortion and various perversions.  These false teachers abandoned essentials of the faith such as the deity, exclusivity and sufficiency of Christ as well.  They have grossly misinterpreted the Bible, but that doesn’t mean Christianity isn’t true.  It means people have drifted from or abandoned Biblical teachings.  Ideally, people wouldn’t judge Christianity based on what those people do and say.
Some ”Christians” abused scriptures to justify slavery (maybe they were really Christians, and maybe not . . . that was between them and God).  But what critics typically forget is that Christians who properly interpreted scriptures, such as heroes like William Wilberforce, were the ones who helped end that type of slavery.
Yes, self-proclaimed Christians have done many bad things.  But what is the answer – that Christianity is false?  Of course not.  The answer is more Christianity, or more specifically, more authentic Christianity.
Biblical illiteracy is part of the problem.  The more people know about what the Bible really says, the more quickly they can stop heretical movements.
Are bad actions done in the name of Christ a problem for Christianity even if the perpetrators may not have been true Christians and the acts were un-Biblical?  In a moral sense, no.  Again, you don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.
But in a practical sense it is a problem for Christianity, because these issues can be a stumbling block for non-believers.  We need to be sensitive to those who were wounded by Christians (real and fake) and be prepared to explain the truth in love.

Now Let's Talk about Mother Theresa

from here:

. . . because taking on Gandhi last week wasn’t enough.
First, I must say that I appreciated her anti-abortion efforts.  I love how she got in the faces of Clinton et al on the topic.  Good for her.
But theologically speaking, I have some sizable issues with her.  These articles explained them well:
First, The Myth of Other Teresa:

She was revered around the world as an example of Christian love and charity and as someone who dedicated her life to the noble cause of advancing the gospel to the poor and needy of the world while caring for their physical needs. Her legacy will doubtless be as one of history’s great humanitarians.
Upon examination, though, the Mother Teresa portrayed by the media and popularized in our culture is glorified (soon to be beatified) and almost deified. A close examination of her beliefs and the work she did shows that her legacy may be little more than fiction. . . . We also see her belief that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a mediator between God and ourselves (see Catholic Catechism, paragraph #969, #1172 and #494) and as such, plays a role in our salvation. . . .Through the entire book there is never a hint that she relies on Christ alone for her salvation. Rather we read things like, “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic” . . . “I love all religions. … If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there.” Or in another place, “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”

Her soteriology (he doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ) was a train-wreck:

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”
. . . Time and again we see her expounding such universalist beliefs. In an interview with Christian News a nun who worked with Mother Teresa was asked the following in regards to the Hindus they worked with, “These people are waiting to die. What are you telling them to prepare them for death and eternity?” She replied candidly, “We tell them to pray to their Bhagwan, to their gods.”

Huh?!  But the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation!  You can’t miss it.
And she chose to let people suffer:

Contradictions in her beliefs, then, are apparent. We see similar contradictions in her humanitarian work. The common belief is that Mother Teresa worked with the sick and destitute to lovingly return them to health. An examination of her missions will show that this is far from the case. Mother Teresa believed that there is spiritual value in suffering. Once, when tending to a patient dying of cancer, she said “You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.” (Christoper Hitchens - The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, p. 41). For this reason she would not prescribe pain killers in her clinics, choosing instead to allow her patients to experience the suffering that she believed would bring them closer to Christ. Despite the tens of millions of dollars donated to her charity each year, her missions were rudimentary and offered no real health care. Her missions mainly catered to the critically ill and simply afforded them a place to go to die. It is interesting to note that when Mother Teresa became ill she would travel to the finest health care facilities to receive treatment. . . .
What, then, is the importance of debunking the myth of Mother Teresa? The answer is this. Pastors of Protestant churches around the world continue to speak of Mother Teresa in saintly terms. They hold her up as the ultimate example of self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel. From the pulpits they discuss how she responded to Christ’s Great Commission to spread the gospel to all lands. The reality, though, is that if she preached at all, she preached a false religion. In so doing she provides us with an example not of a Christian responding to God’s call, but an example of deeds of charity and compassion completely separated from the Truth.

Also see Mother Teresa in her own words:

In an interview with her biographer, the following exchange was recorded:
Biographer Naveen Chawla: “Do you convert?” Mother Teresa: “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him.”

That doesn’t sound very Christian.
Finally, see French study claims Mother Teresa not so saintly:

She was “anything but a saint,” the Canadian study authors found, as Newser reports. In fact, she found beauty in watching people suffer, the authors say.
The study is based on accounts of doctors who visited Mother Teresa’s so-called “homes for the dying.” The found terrible conditions, Newser reported — poor hygiene among patients, hunger, lacking medical supplies. Some patients were even denied necessary medical care, doctors said. Even Mother Teresa didn’t get care there — she went to an American hospital, Newser reported.
And the reported conditions weren’t for lack of money. Teresa’s Order of the Missionaries of Charity had hundreds of millions in donations, Newser reported.
The authors of the study allege the Vatican purposely ignored the truth of Mother Teresa’s charity. Rather, church officials helped to set the stage for her image as a saint, and even pushed through her beatification to avoid scrutiny.

Did she do some good?  I suppose so.  But it is unfortunate that she is held up as such an icon when her theology was false and her good deeds rather suspect.

More About Gandhi

from here

If you want to see people get spun up, ask if Gandhi is in Heaven or Hell.  You don’t even have to pick a side.  The point of that link was that our ultimate destination depends on whether we accepted God’s terms and conditions — that is, did we repent and trust in Jesus, or not?  People rarely realize that it is just as judgmental to say he is in Heaven as it is to say he is in Hell.
Here are some other things to consider when people treat Gandhi as some sort of Junior Jesus.  Did you of know these things noted in Was Mahatma Gandhi really a good person?

• Although credited with leading India to independence from Britain, Gandhi actually undermined this effort. Between 1900 and 1922, he ­suspended his civil disobedience at least three times, even though more than 15,000 supporters were in jail for the cause. (When Britain finally did withdraw from India, it was largely motivated by their anti-imperialist Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and the fact that Britain was nearly bankrupt from the war.)
• Gandhi was dangerously politically incompetent. He ­advised the Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, and wrote a letter to ­Hitler starting with the words “My friend”. He also advised the Jews of Palestine to “rely on the goodwill of the Arabs”. Fortunately for their existence, the Jews ignored him.
• As well as calling Hitler his friend, Gandhi and Mussolini got on well when they met in December 1931. Gandhi praised Mussolini’s “service to the poor, his opposition to super-urbanization, his efforts to bring about a coordination between Capital and ­Labour, his passionate love for his people.”
• Gandhi was outstandingly racist, describing “the raw Kaffir” as someone “whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a number of cattle to buy a wife, and then pass his life in indolence and ­nakedness,” and saying of white Afrikaaners, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do.”
• He was also a hypocrite on many levels. He prevented his son marrying a Muslim despite publicly promoting Muslim-Hindu unity. He denounced lawyers, railways and parliamentary politics, yet he was a professional lawyer who constantly used railways to get to meetings to argue that India ­deserved its own parliament. And although he is known for his hunger strikes, his official position was that these were “the worst form of coercion, which militates against the fundamental principles of non-violence” (in which he believed).
• His views on nakedness and sexual chastity were also belied by his depraved behavior: when he was in his 70s he encouraged his ­17-year-old great-niece, Manu, to be naked during her “nightly cuddles” with him. After sacking several long-standing and loyal members of his 100-strong ­personal entourage who might disapprove of this part of his ‘spiritual quest’, he began sleeping naked with Manu and other young women also.
• Despite being thought of as a peaceful man, he was vicious and callous. “There will be no tears but only joy if tomorrow I get the news that all three of you were killed,” he once told some of his workers. To a Hindu he once said, “I do not mind if each and every one of the 500 families in your area is done to death.” And he forced Manu, his niece (remember the “nightly cuddles”), to walk through a jungle known for harboring rapists—just so she could retrieve a pumice stone he liked to use on his feet. When she returned in tears, he “cackled” with laughter and said: “If some ruffian had carried you off and you had met your death courageously, my heart would have danced with joy.”
• In 1908 he left his wife for a German man named Hermann Kallenbach. “Your portrait (the only one) stands on my mantelpiece in my bedroom,” he wrote to Kallenbach. “The mantelpiece is opposite to the bed.” Gandhi nicknamed himself “Upper House” and Kallenbach “Lower House.” The two pledged “more love, and yet more love—such love as they hope the world has not yet seen.”

Also see Reasons to stop quoting Gandhi:

Gandhi spoke and lived out a wealth of worthy truth; I would never suggest we should ignore all of it. God is the God of truth, so we should be confident enough to claim it wherever it springs from. For clarification: my main issue is the ad nauseam use of one particular Gandhi quote, provided almost exclusively by Christians as a rebuke to other Christians. It goes:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

. . .

Imagine a Christian leader standing up before the media masses and saying to the modern world,

“I like your Gandhi, but I do not like your Hindus”

or

“I like your Muhammad, but I do not like your Muslims.”

Doesn’t sound as cute and enlightened, eh?

That quote, which many Christians use as a sort of self-flagellation, demonstrates Gandhi’s pride.  He thought he was better than Christians and didn’t need Jesus.  He was wrong.

Where's Gandhi? (heaven or hell?)

from here

I don’t mean that title in the “Where’s Waldo?” sense, rather in the “What are the criteria for the location of Gandhi’s eternal soul?” sense.
Another blogger asked Christians, “Did Gandhi go to Hell because he did not believe in Jesus?” and Rob Bell used an accusation of Gandhi being in Hell as a foundation for his book opposing the doctrine of Hell.
I think the question was slightly misworded.  It isn’t the sin of not believing in Jesus that sends us to Hell.  It is all the other sins against God that send us there.  The only way out is through faith in Jesus.  If we ignore that pardon we are on our own.
Gandhi sinned against a perfect and holy God many times and those sins must be paid for. Good deeds do not wipe out sins in God’s economy.  Gandhi either repented and believed in Jesus or he didn’t . If he did, then Gandhi’s sins were transferred to Jesus’ account and Jesus’ perfect righteousness was transferred to Gandhi’s. Gandhi would be in Heaven.
If Gandhi did not repent and believe in Jesus then he would be in Hell as punishment for his own sins.
Yes, some people will people cry, “Not fair!,” but they don’t understand fairness. Fairness would be if we all got what we deserved and no one received grace.  Grace, by definition, is not fair.  Grace is what distinguishes Christianity from all other belief systems.
What was disappointing but not surprising about the comment thread were the responses of others, including those who claimed to be Christians.  They provide opinions about what God should do and ignore or misinterpret scripture.  It is like, “Uh, that’s nice, but what does the Bible say?”

I’m a Cristian (well actually an Episcapalien) and I don’t believe in hell.

Jesus believed that Hell was real and spoke of it more often than He spoke of Heaven.  I wonder where this Episcopalian draws his conclusions about Jesus?
Then there was this straw man argument:

If we as Christians focus more on who is going to Hell rather than how to do God’s will, then we do not share Jesus’ views at all.

That assumes that teaching the doctrine of Hell means you are doing it at the expense of the rest of God’s will or that teaching it would not be God’s will.  Was Jesus violating the Father’s will when He taught of Hell?

I am certain that God would not turn his back on this remarkable man just because he happened to have been born and raised in a predominantly Hindu culture.

That is a teaching foreign to the Bible.

If Gandhi is in hell, I don’t want to go to heaven.

That is a common misconception.  Hell is not a party of unrepentent sinners.  So many people go to incredible lengths to optimize every little bit of our tempory comforts in this life yet blithely dismiss an eternity in Hell.

If you think that people go to heaven just because they say they believe in Jesus, then YOU’ve missed the point of the Bible, Neil.

My response: Not to nitpick, but people go to Heaven because they do believe in Jesus, not because they say they do.  The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Are you claiming that Gandhi never sinned?  Do you realize how judgmental you are being? Insisting that someone is in Heaven requires just as much judging as saying someone is not in Heaven. Please re-read the comments carefully and note that I never claimed I knew where Gandhi is. I merely noted what the Bible teaches. You are playing God and insisting that you know where Gandhi is, and implying that if he is not in Heaven that the real God is somehow unfair.
I want to emphasize what so many universalists and people like the commenter in question don’t seem to notice: Insisting that someone is in Heaven requires just as much judging as saying someone is not in Heaven.
Then the commenter said how I was being self-righteous, to which I replied, “But considering that my theme has been that we need Jesus’ righteousness to be saved and can’t be righteous enough on our own, I find it odd that you would say I’m being self-righteous.”
So where’s Gandhi?  It depends on where his faith was placed.