Does God condone immoral actions?

 God's Morality

I am certainly not capable of truly contemplating God's Morality, however many people do and they do it in the form of questions which in many cases are the foundation of their unbelief. Some of the

Questions look like this. 

If God is Good, then why does he allow bad things to Happen?

If God is good why does Evil exist?

If God is so loving then why did he command people to be killed?

If God is Merciful, then  why did he kill everyone on the planet with a flood?

If God is Good why does he condone slavery?

If God is good then why do his laws seem immoral?

These are just a few questions that I have personally heard, some have personally been asked of me and have prompted me to want to attempt to answer these questions. I have said in some of my previous writings that of course I have presuppositions when providing my research, however I attempt to always provide accepted application of exegetical and hermeneutical concepts to my answers and interpretation of scriptures, and Biblical writings. 

I am not going to try to answer each of these Questions individually because most relate to the concept that God allows Evil and his actions and laws support that concept. I take the opposite stance and will provide my scriptural evidence to support my stance. 

During a recent outreach ministry with our church, I ran into an individual who really wanted to speak about things and professed immediately that he didn't believe. I asked him why and his answer was ( I am paraphrasing in quotes.) "I find it hard to believe that God would command someone to cutoff a women's hand just for touching a man's genitals, especially if it was in defense of her husband." Our conversation proceeded and he touched on many subjects, like war, and evolutionary probability and a few other elements and he professed that he was a recovering Alcoholic and that his Girlfriend's name was Iliana (which meant God's Answer), that he was in multiple car accidents, etc... His Girlfriend had told him that God was watching over him and protecting him but he wasn't having any of it. We left him and told him that Saul was an educated individual and still didn't believe but at some point in his life God will show him his truth and he will come to know the Lord. 

This interaction spurred me to write this post. Does God Condone Immoral Actions? I looked up the verse he was referencing and it is Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - "11 If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her."  This is one of the laws that are written in the Bible and come in a series of laws that come before and after the verse. This would be one of the things to help determine the context and meaning of this specific verse. 

Context is a helpful way to determine meaning and support interpretation. In context the beginning of the previous law starts around Deuteronomy 25:5 - "“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her." The other verses after this 6-10 relate to the different elements of this law which could be considered factors that assist in furthering defining the base element of the law. 

I want to step outside of interpretation to point out how laws were handled during this timeframe which would included the ancient Hebrews and their interaction with judges and judgement. Some of this reference is from a Tulane Law School writing from May. 2017 which considered "Law in the Ancient World" which indicates a typical law basis concept of "...previous cases and judicial opinions determine how new cases are resolved". The significance of this is that laws were written, perhaps initially without a specific case identified, but written as scenarios, which when reviewed would allow the judicial body to make comparative decisions and judgements based on what the similarities were in the actual offense and the offense as described in the written law. This then would be the basis for judgement and would begin building additional "previous" cases which could then be used to determine future offenses in similar fashion. This type of Law administration was practiced across Mesopotamia, Ancient Rome, Greece and China. 

Now if we go back to the verse and context you can start to see that we have two laws and if they are simplified to say what the law the first in general is about a Man dying with no heir and the wife is to be married to the next brother in the family in order to carry on the family name. The second is that a Woman who is a wife, should not grab another man's genitals in order to defend her husband, since this would potentially damage the carrying on of the family name. In context these two laws relate to the lineage and propagation of the family and the ancestral family name. Now lets look at the verse following these. 

The next law or verse is Deuteronomy 25:13 - "“You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light." This law is an indication of fairness and to have proper, accurate weights and measures. The typical interpretation is that when dealing with transactions things should be done honestly or fairly. Does this relate to the above? It could be considered such, in the thought that someone who is already fighting someone now has another assailant, that is now, however justified it might be to protect her husband, the manner in which it is accomplished is not necessarily fair fighting. The idea then would be this based on context. 

1. There is a fight happening.

2. There is a wife who decides to act on behalf of her husband.

3. There is a potential unfair action by the wife. 

All of these combined seem to make it that there is an issue against a family lineage, and an unfair action in the fight which has two implications. One, the action by the wife could impact the mans potential to bear children and causes an impact to the mans lineage. Two, the action is done in an unfair manner. 

Therefore we now fall into the level of punishment. Is the punishment just? To answer this we need to look at how punishment was handled in the Bible and in general in the Ancient world. Two concepts come to light. 

    One, which is Biblical which is an Eye for an Eye. Exodus 21:23-25 "23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." The Biblical support for like punishment is set in the earliest understanding of law and punishment in the Bible. 

    Two, is Talion, or in Latin "Lex Talionis" which is an early Babylonian concept which is also found in ancient Roman Law. Typically identified by the Latin representation and defined as, criminals should receive as punishment precisely those injuries and damages they had inflicted upon their victims. What this typically would require was, a person who caused injury, the punishment would be imposed upon the offending appendage. Meaning if the Hand caused the injury then the Hand would receive the punishment.  

Given this understanding, the Law is imposing punishment according to the understanding of how laws and punishment were enacted. The Idea then from those who are questioning the Biblical aspect of Laws and Punishment and then implying that they are now imposing a certain morality that comes from God are implying that God's Morals are in question because he is stating that immoral things should not be done. When in actuality, God and the Bible are stating emphatically that what is Morally wrong should be punished, and this one particular law should not be outside of that concept but should also be included to be reviewed in that manner and as such falls into the resulting punishment which would be immoral actions should receive punishment. 

Therefore from a resulting immoral action individuals should be punished appropriately and as was originally stated, there is the concept of "Eye for an Eye". As one can see the concept of this specific Law is very focused, however, when looked at it from the perspective of how Laws, Punishment, aligned with what God has put forth from a Moral perspective it does not indicate immorality but a standardized moral response. God has Moral Standards and those are what the Laws are based upon. 

If you Look at the above Questions with the Idea that God has Moral Standards you can see that it answers many of these. 

If God is so loving then why did he command people to be killed? (God did not command this he commanded adherence to Moral Standards)

If God is Merciful, then  why did he kill everyone on the planet with a flood? (God, punished those that did not adhere to his Moral Standards)

If God is Good why does he condone slavery? (God does not condone Slavery he demands a Moral Standard in how someone who puts themselves into indentured servitude)(This is also another idea that should be fully explored)

If God is good then why do his laws seem immoral? (God's Moral Standards exist and therefore, seemingly may be at odds of modern worldly morals)

There are two Questions that were not answered. 

If God is Good, then why does he allow bad things to Happen?

If God is good why does Evil exist?

These while not specifically addressed in this writing are easily understood within the concepts of Free Will and how man, creates evil through his actions which are not in alignment with God's Moral Standards. Additionally, Bad things happening are not something that God allows to happen, but are part of the aspects of the world and have purpose unto themselves which we may or may not be aware of the purpose. (this also is a topic for further exploration)

The Law of Entropy? from God!

 ENTROPY - The second law of thermodynamics states that

“in all energy exchanges if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.”

“in all energy exchanges if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.”

was developed and formulated by several scientists over time, and its principles evolved as our understanding of thermodynamics advanced. The second law of thermodynamics is primarily associated with three key figures in the history of science:

Sadi Carnot (1796-1832): Sadi Carnot, a French engineer, is often credited with laying the groundwork for the second law of thermodynamics. 

Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888): The German physicist Rudolf Clausius is known for formulating the second law of thermodynamics in the mid-19th century. 

Lord Kelvin (William Thomson, 1824-1907): The British physicist Lord Kelvin made important contributions to the second law of thermodynamics as well. 

The second law of thermodynamics is a fundamental principle in the field of thermodynamics and plays a crucial role in understanding energy transfer, heat engines, and the direction of natural processes. It has been refined and restated by various scientists over the years, but the foundational concepts were developed by the individuals mentioned above.

So what does this mean? in the most basic of terms, It means that there is a natural tendency to move towards decay. If no Energy is added things move to disorder. 

Ok, so what? This means that things do not typically get better unless there is something external applied, some sort of energy or input. This means that is something is developed, in order for it to get better something has to be applied to it, in most cases this is energy. If you apply this concept opposite the theory of Evolution you have conflicting situations. Evolutionary theory, states that as things progress through time they get better. But the contrary Law is that as things progress through time they slowly get worse. Given that there is no external input (the concept that there is no creator), then things will get worse (the second law of Thermodynamics)

But now onto something else, did these above named Scientists create this Law? NO. NO Scientist has ever created a law of Nature. What happened is that these Scientists put together observed elements of scientific study and they brought to light the natural law. 

As we can see from GENESIS 3:19 God, describes the Second Law of Thermocynamics. 

"in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."  

- Genesis 3:19

God, in His divine design, ordained that when entities come into existence, they will endure for a time and eventually undergo a process of deterioration, returning to a state of dust. Just as God is credited with the creation of the entire universe, He established the second law of thermodynamics as part of the natural order. 

The Word of God is Truth!

 The statement that God's Word is truth is exemplified in the Bible. The Bible being the inspired Word of God, written by his prophets and the men of God who witnessed events and documented historical elements that have been verified in other sources outside of the Bible and through a science of verifying and proving the accuracy and reliability of ancient texts. This science is Textual Criticism and the Bible is probably one of the most scrutinized of the ancient writings and many people have tried to find fault, find contradiction, or find proof of falsified information contained therein. And to date none have been able to successfully do any of these things, there are definitely articles that have been written refuting it, and there have been books, blogs, and other writings, and even many ramblings of an atheist or agnostic, however many of these do not stand up to serious consideration and many are influenced by those who read them and "want" them to be true, but with deep study and research most will be shown to not hold up to any arguments put towards the claims made. 

I am presenting here that there is another book that is outside of the Bible which can be added to the list of sources that verify the truth of the Bible and the contents therein. The Quran. 

I know this is an unlikely source to say look here for proof of the Bible's truth, but there is a Command within the 5th Sura in the Quran, that says. 

[5:46] And in their footsteps We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and conformation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. [5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah has revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. [Emphasis mine.]

What exactly does this say, the good thing is it does not need much interpretation, the Quran is a guide to the followers of Islam of how to live their lives. In this specific source it tells the people of Muslim faith to a "Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein." The two things I will point out in this statement are this. 

1. Allah is God, He is the same God of  both the Jewish and Christian faiths. 

2. "The People of the Gospel", are the people who follow the Gospel, those people are typically called Christians. 

This is amazing, because it gives Muslims the guidance to let Christians follow the Gospel, and in the previous section 5:46 it reaffirms the other elements of the Bible that were contained in the previous writings of the Bible. Additionally, it specifically is stated that it is "guidance and an admonition". 

What is important about this section. It means that as a Christian, I do not need to be concerned about what the Quran says because it says that even the Muslims are not to interfere in what we as Christians believe as presented in the Gospels. The real question for me as a Christian is this.

QUESTION: is the Quran True?

I believe the following explains my answers to this Question. 

If the answer is YES, then that means that the truth in the Quran is that Christians are to be guided by the Gospels and what is written in them, as was revealed by God. 

If the answer is NO, then it is of no concern one way or another. 

However ultimately as a Christian the words of the Quran are irrelevant because of the above answers. 

1. It is Irrelevant because the Quran is true and therefore Christians should follow the Gospels. Which in turn means that the Quran should not be used by Christians to determine the truth of God. 

2. It is Irrelevant because the Quran is NOT true therefore Christians should follow the the Gospel because it is true.

Can you Boast, a Little?

 There are many things in life that are good things, good things that many people have great pride in and have a desire to boast or promote themselves. The issue being that there are some directions given by the Bible that help us to understand when it is appropriate, or if it is appropriate at all. 

"16 I say again, let no one think me a fool. If otherwise, at least receive me as a fool, that I also may boast a little. 17 What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. 19 For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! 20 For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. 21 To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold—I speak foolishly—I am bold also."

- II Corinthians 11:16-21

The grace of God has been given to each of us, it is a gift, freely given and not earned through any works. 

"9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

- Ephesians 2:9-10

These two verses are given to help us to understand two things; 1. Grace is given to us, and we as sinners will boast but we should not boast of any good works that we believed earned us God's Grace. 2. We can be proud of the accomplishments that God has put in front of us and helped us to achieve, which exemplify our struggle to live up to being worthy of the grace given us. All Accomplishments are the result of the skills, knowledge and drive given us by God. 

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 

- II Timothy 2:15

Pride places us in opposition to Jesus, whose flawless character He succinctly described with these words: 

"I am gentle and humble of heart"

- Matthew 11:29 

C. S. Lewis astutely noted, God desires not only that we do good works but that we excel in doing good work. Regrettably, in many churches, we have conflated sinful pride regarding ourselves with godly pride in the work we are called to undertake. This confusion has led many churches to tolerate mediocrity, fearing that the pursuit of excellence might lead to sinful pride.

The proper equilibrium, as demonstrated by our Lord, lies in producing the finest work possible while acknowledging it as a "sign" (as described in John's gospel) of the imminent arrival of God's kingdom. Outstanding work serves as an indicator pointing towards God because it reflects the inherent goodness and abundant excellence of God's kingdom. While Joe Namath's theological acumen may have been lacking when he remarked, "It's not bragging if you can do it," the reality is that it isn't boasting when we attribute the credit to God—not only in public but within the depths of our hearts. Achieving excellence doesn't grant us bragging privileges over other vintners, or in other professions such as teaching, artistry, medicine, or any field where we apply our skills. Instead, we should heed St. Paul's instruction: "let the one who boasts boast in the Lord." We have cause to take pride in our endeavors within the noble calling of our daily work, all while maintaining humility, recognizing that it is God 

"who works in us both to will and to work" 

- Philippians 2:13

I myself give all Glory and Honor to God, his wonderful countenance and blessing that he has put upon my path have been on display and I hope to ensure that my own light is not hidden. 

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." 

- Matthew 5:16

Does Free Will Create Evil

 The concept of Free Will is a centerpiece of the freedom that God created man with in order to allow man to willfully worship him. I have read an explanation of Angels about how when God Created them, He created them to specifically worship Him. Their sole purpose was to worship and praise God. The same story seems to imply that while they were created by God, He made a mistake while creating them and by creating them with the sole purpose to worship and praise Him, they were more servants and while their purpose was to serve Him, this also caused the fall and the rebellion against God. 

The problem I have with this story is that I do not believe there is any scriptural basis to it and I cannot remember where I read it but it brings to light one of the things about mankind. Man is also made to worship and praise God but he is made in the image of God and he has the ability to make decisions using his own "free will"

Free will is the philosophical and theological concept that refers to the capacity of rational agents, typically human beings, to make choices and decisions independently and voluntarily, free from external coercion or deterministic forces. Here are some key aspects of free will:

Autonomy: Free will implies the ability to act based on one's own desires, beliefs, and intentions. It allows individuals to make choices that are not solely determined by external factors, such as physical laws, social pressures, or biological instincts.

Conscious Choice: Free will involves conscious decision-making. It means that individuals can deliberate, weigh options, and make choices that reflect their values and preferences.

Moral Responsibility: The concept of free will is closely tied to moral responsibility. If individuals have the capacity to make choices, they can be held morally accountable for their actions. Moral responsibility implies that individuals can be praised for virtuous choices and blamed or punished for wrongful actions.

Alternative Possibilities: Free will suggests that, in a given situation, an individual has genuine alternatives or options available. They can choose to act in different ways, even if external conditions remain constant.

Compatibilism and Incompatibilism: Philosophers have debated whether free will is compatible with determinism (the belief that every event, including human actions, is causally determined by prior events) or whether it is incompatible with determinism. Compatibilists argue that free will can coexist with determinism, while incompatibilists assert that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive.

Limits and Constraints: While free will allows for autonomy and choice, it does not imply absolute freedom from all constraints. Individuals may face limitations imposed by their physical abilities, social circumstances, or cultural norms. These constraints can influence the range of choices available to them.

Debate and Complexity: Free will is a topic of ongoing philosophical debate. Questions about the nature and scope of free will have implications for ethics, morality, and the understanding of human agency. Different philosophical and religious traditions offer varying interpretations of free will.

It's important to note that the concept of free will has been examined from diverse perspectives and has implications for fields such as philosophy, theology, psychology, and neuroscience. The nature and extent of free will continue to be a subject of deep exploration and discussion in these disciplines

Considering the aspects of free will mentioned earlier, it becomes evident that various factors contribute to the concept of evil. Among these descriptions, terms like "one's desires," "moral responsibility," "external conditions," and "autonomy" all emphasize the role of human decision-making in determining actions. Notably, these references often center on human choices without direct reference to God's guidance.

The question then becomes What role does Free Will play in the existence of evil?

From a Christian perspective, the concept of free will plays a significant role in understanding the existence of evil. Here's how free will is typically understood in relation to the existence of evil:

1. Human Choice: Christian theology often emphasizes that God has granted human beings the gift of free will, allowing them to make choices and decisions independently. This gift of free will is seen as a reflection of God's love for humanity, as it enables genuine moral choices and the capacity for love, virtue, and relationship with God.

2. Moral Responsibility: Free will implies moral responsibility. Individuals are accountable for their choices and actions, whether they choose to do good or evil. This moral responsibility aligns with the idea that humans have the capacity to make choices that affect themselves and others.

3. The Fall: Many Christian traditions teach that the existence of evil can be traced back to the Fall of humanity. In the story of Adam and Eve, the first humans exercised their free will to disobey God's command, leading to a fallen and broken world where evil entered. This disobedience is seen as an abuse of free will.

4. Suffering and Redemption: The existence of evil and suffering in the world is viewed as a consequence of human misuse of free will. However, Christian theology also emphasizes the redemptive aspect of God's plan. Through Jesus Christ, Christians believe that God offers the possibility of salvation and the transformation of individuals and the world. Free will plays a role in accepting or rejecting this offer.

5. Spiritual Growth: Some Christian perspectives hold that challenges, trials, and even encounters with evil can lead to spiritual growth and moral development. Adversity can provide opportunities for individuals to choose righteousness, demonstrate love, and grow in faith.

6. God's Sovereignty: While free will allows for human choices, Christian theology also acknowledges God's sovereignty. God remains in control over all things and can ultimately work His purposes, even in the presence of evil. Christians believe that God can bring good out of evil circumstances.

In summary, from a Christian perspective, free will is a foundational concept that helps explain the existence of evil in the world. It emphasizes human choice and moral responsibility, tracing the origin of evil to the misuse of free will. However, it also underscores the potential for redemption, spiritual growth, and the ultimate sovereignty of God in the face of evil.

Jesus died and was Resurrected

 I see a question asked many times and it sparked my interest because I was myself unclear of what the right answer is. I felt I needed to explore this and find all the information I could. I am very much unconvinced that Jesus died and went to hell for 3 days. But I have seen arguments that lean in this direction as an answer to the question. 

What did Jesus do for 3 days between his death and resurrection?

Jesus Christ is God, he allowed himself to be crucified, he died and then rose again as was his plan to gain salvation for all of mankind through his acceptance of man's sin onto him as the spotless lamb. In order to understand this more I had to capture all of the verses that may help explain the answer to the question. 

Luke 23:42-43 - "42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” 43  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.""

1 Peter 3:18-20 - "18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."

Ephesians 4:8-10 - "Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.” 9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?"

These three verses give some reference to Jesus dying and ascending to heaven. There can be applied some theistic interpretive assessment to attempt to determine the meaning of these verses and there have already been some scholarly interpretations that have put forth their assessment for each. 

Luke 23:42-43 is about the clearest of all of the verses as to the event, and timing directly from Jesus himself. Jesus saying that he would see the thief, who professed his belief in Jesus, that day in paradise. I believe that this is a very clear and believable position that indicates that Jesus was going to Heaven (His kingdom) and he would see the thief there as well. 

1 Peter 3:18-20 explains that Jesus died and was made alive in the Spirit and it seems to indicate that he went and preached to the "spirits" in prison. It would seem that this may indicate that Jesus went somewhere other than Heaven, and it is described as "prison". Some would say that this could be a word used in a similar manner to Sheol (Ancient Hebrew word for Hell), or Hades (Ancient Greek word for Hell). However there is an additional piece to this which may add some context to the entire verse which says "when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared..." Which seems to give pose that the preaching of Noah about the salvation of the ark and the preaching of Jesus about the salvation He offered from the cross. While it may not be clearly stated that Jesus went to Hell to preach to spirits that existed there it does seem to compare the preaching Jesus did to a similar situation that Noah experienced in which very few souls were saved. 

Ephesians 4:8-10 says that prior to ascending Jesus descended into the lower parts of the Earth. While this has been viewed by other scholars to mean that the lower parts of Earth might be considered Hell. This coincides with an Ancient Greek belief that Hell was  either at the edges of the limits of the oceans, or that it existed under the Earth. Given the times that the Bible was written and the original languages of Hebrew and Greek as the primary authorship medium then it is logical to consider that perhaps "lower parts of the Earth" may be interpreted as Hades. 

There is another element that is important to consider and that is the Catholic Apostles Creed. This creed  

The creed was as indicated by the history of the Catholic Church was written around 341AD. It was found in a letter that Marcellus of Ancyra wrote in Greek to Julius, the bishop of Rome. The wording of which indicates that "Jesus descended into Hell, and then rose from the dead and then ascended into Heaven. 

“The Apostles’ Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles’ faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is ‘the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith'” (CCC 194)"

The verses cited, the Apostles' Creed, and the interpretations all lend to give credibility to many different potential answers to the question posed, however in my opinion I believe that it comes down to two potential happenings. 

• Jesus either went to Heaven and the was resurrected
• Jesus went to Hell and then Heaven and then was resurrected 

The ultimate answer resides within the knowledge of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To seek a personal understanding of this question, I find it essential to engage in prayer, hoping for enlightenment in my interpretation.

Considering all the research, my familiarity with the Bible, and the information presented, my response draws significantly from the Bible's teachings and the words of Jesus Christ. In my view, Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven as promised, remaining there to fulfill both his own prophesied death and the scriptural prophecies, only to rise again three days later. I regard the other verses as having a comparative and symbolic nature.

It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would be in Hell, for it contradicts his nature and serves no meaningful purpose, as it would not attract followers nor align with God's overarching goal of strengthening humanity's faith and devotion to Him.

5 Things Jesus Never Said

 Here are 5 things Jesus never said but many people in today's world would believe he did if someone told them. 

- Follow your Heart! Jesus never said this. What he did say is "FOLLOW ME". 

Jermiah 17:9 - "“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"

- Be true to yourself! Jesus never said this. What he did say is "DENY YOURSELF"

Matthew 16:24 - "Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

- Believe in yourself! Jesus never said this. What he did say is "BELIEVE IN ME"

John 14:6 - "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

- Live your truth! Jesus never said this. What he did say is "GOD'S WORD IS TRUTH"

John 17:17 - "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. "

- Make yourself Happy, because that is all that matters! Jesus never said this. What he did say is "IF BEING HAPPY COSTS YOUR SOUL WHAT WILL IT PROFIT YOU"

Mark 8-36 - "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"

When worldly pursuits take precedence over God in an individual's life, human inclinations tend to lead the way. God's love is characterized by His respect for free will, refraining from imposing His will upon us. Instead, He extends His guidance, illuminates the path, and provides all the knowledge required to embark on a fulfilling life with Him in the present and throughout eternity.

I.H.R.S. - In His Royal Service. 

Apologetic Argument?

Should an Apologist argue with people in an attempt to persuade them to believe?

One crucial principle shapes how an Apologist should approach their defense of the faith:

1 Peter 3:15 - "but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

This verse from 1 Peter provides essential guidance for Apologists:

1. Be Ready: Always be prepared to respond when questioned.

2. Give an Answer Offer answers to inquiries.

3. Be Meek and Fearful: When responding, maintain humility and exercise caution to avoid 

4. coming across as arrogant.

The concept of engaging in dialogue and providing answers is inherent in the role of an Apologist, especially when addressing the doubts and questions of non-believers that may serve as barriers to their acceptance of the good news of Jesus Christ.

    As apologetics revolves around engaging in conversational exchanges, presenting your viewpoint is an inherent aspect of persuasion. In a manner reminiscent of Paul's use of argument and reasoning when sharing the gospel (Acts 19:8-9; 25:8), we employ similar means to convince individuals of Christianity's truthfulness. However, it's important to emphasize that these arguments are conducted with gentleness and respect, as encouraged in 1 Peter 3:15-16.

An important verse that also sets the stage for an Apologetic Argument is in the very first verse of Acts. 

Acts 1:1 - "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,"

The key word here being "treatise" which by definition from Merriam-Webster is. "a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached.". From the very outset you can see that Paul was making his arguments for the truth of Jesus Christ. 

At the core of every Apologist's argument lies a fundamental principle: success is not solely measured by the immediate conversion of the non-believer. Instead, it hinges on the capacity to dismantle the barriers that hinder belief. Even if the individual does not immediately embrace faith, this process serves as the planting of a seed. It is the Holy Spirit's divine work, fueled by conviction, that ultimately leads the believer to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Bibliography

 This is a Blog that I use to capture my Apologetic research and other information that I may research or question. 

My name is Lawrence Trevor Sok. I hold a Theological Doctorate in Christian Apologetics from Northwestern Regional Theological Seminar. I am a Christian and hold to a Theological Doctrine that is aligned to the Salvation that is provided by the Belief in Jesus Christ, His Death on the Cross, His Resurrection, and the atonement of sin which He accomplished during His life and ministry. I am Saved, I have been Baptized in the Jordan river in Israel. I have made two Pilgrimages to Israel and am an avid learner that always is searching for more. 

I wish to learn, to grow in Christ and help others to answer questions that they may have that hinder them from belief in Jesus Christ. 

God sets His path before me and I profess that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and I will follow Him and His purpose for my life.