Technical difficulties

Since I started this blog, I've had a number of comments here or there about difficulty making things look as you like. Specifically, a number of you have commented on how to make things show up in italics or bold. More recently, I was asked how to make snazzy little hyperlinks.

If you're not sure how to do these basic html codes, please read on as I try to explain them as simply as I can...

The first thing to know is that codes must be set off in brackets, specifically '<' and '>'. Your internet browser will attempt to read anything you place within those brackets (without the single quote marks, of course) as html code. So, for example:

To make things bold, you use the letter b. (Novel, I know.)

To makes things italicized, you use the letter i.

To underline things, use the letter u.

Precisely, they would look like this:



You are basically turning on the bold (or italics, or whatever) with the first letter enclosed in brackets, then turning it off by using the / with the letter. Make sense?

On most blogs, you can leave comments with these html codes. You'll notice on the comment section of my blog that you are warned that you can only use certain codes. Most blogs are this way.

On to the (only slightly) more complicated process of hyperlinking. Remember, you must enclose everything in brackets. For hyperlinks, you need the following basic format:


In this example, you would replace "website.com" with whatever the precise address of the link is that you wish to create. You would also replace "name" with whatever you want the hyperlink itself to say.

For example, if I wanted to hyperlink to my homepage I could have it say this, or something else, or even something entirely different! (If you hold your mouse over each of these links, you'll notice they all point to my homepage.)

There are plenty of other codes, of course. But generally you can only use the ones I've noted in blog comments. If you're thinking about starting your own blog, you'd do well to google "html codes" and work your way through some of the many tutorials that people far more qualified than I have posted.

Does this help? Any specific questions?

Hatushili

Read More......

"Ask the Pastor" #2 - part 3

Sorry for the lag in answering this last part of Mary's multi-part question from a few weeks ago.

For those of you not following along at home, Mary asked about Mormons, Islam, and Jehovah's Witnesses. I addressed Mormonism here, and Islam here. Today I'll finish the rest of her question: what about JWs?

First and most importantly, Mary - yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are cultists and not Christian.

Second, let me address the very name "Jehovah". One of the distinctives of JWs is their insistence that God's proper name is Jehovah. They get wildly bent out of shape when an English version of the Bible translates the Hebrew YHWH as LORD. Let me explain a bit further.

The closest thing we have to a personal name for God in the Old Testament is, in Hebrew, YHWH. There were no vowels written down in ancient Hebrew, native speakers simply knew how to pronounce the words. Thousands of years later, a group of scribes known as the Masoretes realized that people were forgetting how to pronounce these ancient Hebrew words, and thus set about the task of adding marks to the text to indicate what vowel sounds were used. So the vowels in a Hebrew Bible that you pick up today are not inspired, they were added in the 10th century (AD!) for the sake of preserving what was believed to be standard pronunciation.

But it gets more complicated. Jews from the beginning have tried not to say God's name aloud, so when they would come across it (YHWH) in the Hebrew text, they would say Adonai - "Lord" - out of respect for "the name" (Ha Shem). If they happened upon a Hebrew text that read "Adonai YHWH", they would "Adonai Elohim" (Lord God). To this day, orthodox Jews that speak and read English will routinely write G_d, instead of God.

Still with me? Okay. So the Masoretes, wanting to indicate pronunciation but not wanting to somehow violate the name of God, did what was common practice - they would say "Adonai". But how to indicate this in writing? They didn't want to actually change the text itself - never! They were amazingly faithful scribes. So instead they added the vowels of Adonai to the consonants of YHWH, which - after hundreds of years of the English language - eventually ends up pronounced "Jehovah". How that happened is a whole other story!

My point is this: the name Jehovah is entirely made up. It's an English corruption of a Jewish traditional practice predicated upon the fusion of consonants from one name and vowels from another! And I'm supposed to make use of the name Jehovah one of the guiding factors of my faith?!?

This alone should tell you a fair bit about JWs, frankly. But this does not make them heretics. Loopy, maybe - but not heretics.

What makes them heretics is their denial of the Trinity. They simply do not believe that Jesus is God. Their official website contains this and this article explaining why Jesus is God's Son but not God. It's almost amusing to read these articles and watch them dance around context and other issues. Almost amusing. Really is sad ... and heretical.

They've conceived their own translation of the Bible to cover up the clear evidence of Christ's divinity - the New World Translation. They publish tons of literature denouncing what they call the "pagan belief" that God exists as three-in-one. For them, the Holy Spirit is merely God's "active force", not the personal member of the Trinity we know Him to be.

Aside from this heresy, they deny the fundamental nature of salvation by grace, instead insisting on a works based/earned salvation.

They also deny the existence of Hell, insisting that non-Christians (which for them means strictly non-JWs) simply cease to exist after death - they are annihilated. Of interesting linguistic note: there is basically no way to express the concept of annihilation in either Greek or Hebrew. The words for this kind of thought simply don't exist. To say "annihilation" in ancient Greek would require at least a few sentences of explanation. Funny how no such explanation shows up in the NT, eh?

There are a multitude of other troubling teachings. An excellent resource is found on this page of Hank Hanegraaff's website (otherwise known as the Bible Answer Man).

In short, JWs are not Christian and I'd personally advise you to avoid them at all cost. They have a training program dedicated to teaching their new converts how to cover up the truth and deceive - that's why you never find just one JW on your doorstep. Ask a tricky question and the "elder" JW will step in to answer with their pre-scripted responses. It gets frustrating fast. Just avoid them. Pray for them, but avoid them.

Hatushili

Read More......

"Ask the Pastor" #2 - part 2

In case you missed the first part of this soon-to-be three part post, let me remind you of the question posed:


I am really interested in learning more about the Mormon, Muslim, and Jehovah's witness cults. I would like to know what exactly is wrong with their beliefs. I have some relatives in these cults.

In part one, I addressed Mormonism. I'll now tackle the Muslim faith - Islam.

Islam cannot properly be called a cult, since it's not really directly derived from Christian doctrine. [At least that's how I define a cult; others would disagree.] Nevertheless, Islam is a competitor to Christianity, and a false religion (as I'd not-so-politely call every non-Christian religion).

In a nutshell, Islam follows the history of the Old Testament up until Abraham and Isaac. Islam maintains that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the true heir of Abraham. They trace their history back to him, not Isaac. They believe the Jews distorted this truth and committed their lies to paper in the form of what we would call the Old Testament. Christians, naturally, followed this same supposedly false family tree and are therefore also condemned - sort of. [Some versions of Islam, and some particular followers, extend some love to Christians as "people of the Book" and look upon us with less derision than Jews.]

Islam actually begins with Muhammad, and can therefore be more or less traced back to ca. AD 700. What Muhammad actually taught is highly debatable, as his earlier "writings" often seem to contradict later ones. I say "writings" (in quotation marks) because Muhammad was almost certainly illiterate himself - his teachings were written down many years later by others claiming various levels of authority.

Read what you like from groups like CAIR - Islam is at its core a violent and hateful religion. [Note: I understand many may disagree; defending this particular point is not my primary intent in this post. If you disagree, feel free to say so and perhaps we can discuss it further.] They were established "by the sword" - they literally stormed through northern Africa in the 8th century and took village after village by force, giving the newly conquered the option of "convert or die". Islam teaches that violence must be done to "infidels" - anyone who is not Islamic.

Religiously, Islam is - like all other religions outside of Biblical Christianity - a works-based faith. You do this, don't do that, and perhaps you'll enter into glory when you die. A well-documented "guaranteed ticket" is given to those that die as martyrs (hence all the suicide bombers).

As with the Mormonism post, feel free to download this brief summary document I wrote about Islam.

Hatushili

Read More......

"Ask the Pastor" #2 - part 1 (revision 1)

[Note: I've updated this post since it's original debut the other day, hence "revision 1" in the title. I discovered a factual error on my part and decided to add a link to a pdf file about Mormonism that I wrote some years ago.]

A former student of mine sends along what is now officially our next "Ask the Pastor" question. Incidentally, might I remind everyone that this was your idea, not mine. I'm not entirely comfortable calling myself a pastor, as I'm presently without a flock to shepherd.

Anway, the question:

I am really interested in learning more about the Mormon, Muslim, and Jehovah's witness cults. I would like to know what exactly is wrong with their beliefs. I have some relatives in these cults.

As you can see, this is really three questions in one. In part 1, we'll start with Mormons...

What's wrong with Mormonism?

First, you're right to label this a cult. They have taken Christian language and twisted it to mean something completely different, yet fooled many into thinking they are a different "version" of Christianity. Officially, Mormons represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and as such are sometimes called Latter Day Saints (or simply LDS) rather than Mormon. I've often said that they shouldn't be allowed to use some of these terms. They should be the _____ of _____ of Latter Day _____!

Since this isn't intended to be a huge post, let me highlight a few of the major problems.

1. Mormons don't believe in the same Jesus as Christian do. To Mormons, Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan. [Note: the link provided is an LDS attempt to disprove my point, but read it carefully and you'll find my assertion is correct - and some!]

2. Mormons don't believe in the Trinity. They believe that God the Father is a seperate entity with actual spiritual children (two of whom happen to be Jesus and Satan - see above link), and that the Spirit of God is nothing more than the Father's "active force" (a trait they share with Jehovah's Witnesses, as we shall see in part 3).

3. Mormons beleive that the ultimate goal of their faith is to become a god. Hence the term "god-makers" is sometimes applied to them. The famous Mormon quote is "As Man is, God once was; as God is, man may become". Yep - God was once a fleshly creature like you and I but because he obeyed all the natural laws of the universe, he got to become He. And you and I can do the same! How exciting! How novel!

How blasphemous.

[Note: after re-studying my notes, I discovered I had the order of importance of Mormon holy books wrong. This revised version of my post has the correct order.]

4. Mormons believe the Bible is not as important as their own goofy book. You know, if I hadn't read it I might not have said "goofy". According to most LDS folk, there are four really important spiritual books in the world. In order of importance (least to greatest): the New Testament, The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and The Old Testament. So the most authoritative book in the world on spiritual matters is the OT, followed closely by Doctrines and Covenants. If I had my copy in front of me right now, I'd quote the page numbers where we read that "because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did none other than that which was commanded of them, they have received their reward and become not as angels, but gods".

Summary: Mormonism is officially not a Christian denomination, nor are Mormons Christians. This a cult and heresy that lies well outside of the "pale of orthodoxy" (as Hank Hanegraaff calls it).

Incidentally, Hank's site (linked above) is a great resource for these sorts of questions, as is his radio show "The Bible Answer Man".

Until part 2,

Hatushili

Incidentally, if you'd like more details, click here to download a .pdf file I wrote about Mormonism. It's brief, but more detailed than this post.

Read More......

"Ask the Pastor" #1

Hey, look! Our first question from the "Ask the Pastor" link:

You mentioned in a post on the blog...somewhere...(albeit indirectly) that your views on drinking alcohol have changed somewhat over time. What (if I'm actually interpreting correctly) changes in your view of this issue have you experienced and what was the motivation/reason for those changes. What did you feel previously and what do you feel currently is the Biblical view of drinking (alcohol, that is)?

This one came to us from one of my best friends of all time (which is code for: he and I have been friends since I was about 10).

Anyway, my thoughts...

First of all, yes - my view on consumption of alcohol has changed some since my earlier days. I was taught in the "drinking alcohol at all is sin" model. I was schooled in all the reasons why "wine" doesn't really mean "wine" in the NT. Total abstinence was the only way to be sin-free.

My views now are different on the theological level, but not the practical. Theologically, I do not believe that the Bible speaks with sufficient clarity on the issue so as to say that 'all drinking is sin, period'. As a result, I have learned to allow people the freedom in Christ to hold a different opinion than I was taught.

On the practical level, though, I've not changed. I don't drink at all. Period. Unless you count NyQuil! My reasons for this are threefold:

1. The Bible is clear that "Wine is a mocker and strong drink is a brawler; whoever goes astray by them is not wise" Prov 20:1. Why would I voluntarily choose to associate myself with a mocker or brawler? While being in their company is not sinful of itself [though clearly being drunk is], surely wisdom would have me avoid them altogether.

2. I've come to believe that the best way to give my kids the best shot of not having an issue with alcohol down the road is to be sure that it never crosses my lips. A survey done some years ago concluded this: the only way you have any chance of your children abstaining from alcohol [which, as I've said, seem wisest to me] is to never drink alcohol yourself. Am I guaranteeing that none of my children will ever struggle in this area? Of course not; I'm just trying to set them up for success and not failure.

3. I have a family member that's an alcoholic. I've seen what it does to relationships. I want no part of it.

Rubber meets the road: if your church uses real wine for communion, that's fine with me. If real wine were presented to me during a communion service, I'm sure I'd drink it. If I come to your house and you offer me a beer, I'll politely say 'no' but have no problem with you drinking one - unless my children are with me. I prefer, for the reasons discussed above - to keep them away from that until they're old enough to talk through the issue.

Picture it this way, if you will. Imagine that the front yard of your house represents non-sinful living. The road out front represents sin. If you choose to spend significant portions of time playing on the curb, you are not in sin but are probably acting without wisdom. I'm not telling you to stay on the front porch, nor am I the final arbiter of who is and who isn't playing on the curb, nor would I tell you to get off the curb if I happen to see you their now and again. If I observe a lifestyle of what looks to me like curb-playing and I'm your friend, I'd likely talk to you about it.

Make sense? Think I'm crazy or off-base in some way?

Hatushili

Read More......