Dear Victorious
I read your blog about Jews and how you think they are headed straight to hell. I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian and hate Jews like you do. Aren't Christians supposed to be loving and accepting? Doesn't that make you one colossal hypocrite?
Offended Jew
Dear Offended,
I'm sorry if you take offense at what I said. Too bad you didn't stop to consider its merits before you slapped an antisemitic label on me. No, I don't hate Jews. In fact, I have some very dear friends who are Jewish. Some of them believe that Jesus is who He said He is - and some of them don't. I love them just the same. But I believe some of them are wrong.
Jesus said the only way to heaven is through Him. Traditionally Jews have rejected Jesus' claim to be the Messiah. So if the only way to heaven is through Jesus - and you reject Him - then you are not headed to heaven. I only know of one other place you can then go - and it is hell. It's not judgmental on my part. I'm just stating the obvious here. Christians believe that Jesus is who He said He is. Moreover, we believe that anyone who doesn't is headed straight for hell. It makes no difference whether you're a Jew, an atheist, a Muslim, a Hindu or whatever else you want to be. We believe Jesus is the only way to heaven - to eternity with the one true God.
And by the way, antiSemite's believe that Jew's are an inferior race. I've never even suggested such a preposterous notion. After all, Jesus was a Jew!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Viagra
Dear Victorious,
Is it okay for Christians to take Viagra? What if the doctor recommends it?
Just Wondering
Dear Wondering,
I find nothing unbiblical about Viagra. God has blessed us with many wonderful medications to address the maladies of our humanity. Put Viagra in the same context as anti-depression, high blood pressure, heart, diabetes or any other types of medication. These medications are intended to treat health problems that threaten our basic health and/or our quality of life. They only become sinful when they are abused or taken for inappropriate reasons. (An example might be an athlete who takes steroids to enhance physical endurance.) If you have health issues that can be successfully addressed with Viagra (or one of its competitors), and you can safely take it, and you can obtain it legally - then there is nothing about it that would be wrong for a Christ-follower.
Is it okay for Christians to take Viagra? What if the doctor recommends it?
Just Wondering
Dear Wondering,
I find nothing unbiblical about Viagra. God has blessed us with many wonderful medications to address the maladies of our humanity. Put Viagra in the same context as anti-depression, high blood pressure, heart, diabetes or any other types of medication. These medications are intended to treat health problems that threaten our basic health and/or our quality of life. They only become sinful when they are abused or taken for inappropriate reasons. (An example might be an athlete who takes steroids to enhance physical endurance.) If you have health issues that can be successfully addressed with Viagra (or one of its competitors), and you can safely take it, and you can obtain it legally - then there is nothing about it that would be wrong for a Christ-follower.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Correct Atheism?
Dear Victorious,
I read your discussion recently about atheists. Many of these are not ignorant people. Some atheists are highly educated, very intelligent people. They don't come to an atheistic conclusion lightly. In fact, I think most of them come to the atheistic conclusion (that there is no god) after much study and soul searching. Don't you suppose there is the chance that you are wrong and they could be right?
Mitchell D. - Rockford, IL
Dear Mitchell,
No. The evidence is overwhelming. Those who can sincerely conclude that there is no god are sincerely wrong.
I read your discussion recently about atheists. Many of these are not ignorant people. Some atheists are highly educated, very intelligent people. They don't come to an atheistic conclusion lightly. In fact, I think most of them come to the atheistic conclusion (that there is no god) after much study and soul searching. Don't you suppose there is the chance that you are wrong and they could be right?
Mitchell D. - Rockford, IL
Dear Mitchell,
No. The evidence is overwhelming. Those who can sincerely conclude that there is no god are sincerely wrong.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Bush's Decisions
Recently, a reader of my blog (and a dear friend) questioned me about the decisions I thought George Bush had made as president which didn't line up with the character and nature of God. (He didn't write in to Dear Victorious, because he is a personal friend and knows my personal e-mail.) At any rate, I thought I'd publish the answer here - for posterity's sake.
Specifically what decisions did George Bush make that you don't believe line up with the character and nature of God?
Dear _____,
My first thought was torture, but another came to my mind right after that.
The first thing George Bush did that I thought was a clear violation of his own principles was to declare war on Iraq in violation of the United Nations. We are members of the U.N. and agreed to abide its resolutions on foreign matters. The U.N. agreed to go into Afghanistan. It did not believe we had sufficient evidence to go into Iraq. President Bush disagreed and declared war on Iraq anyway - in clear violation of our U.N. agreements.
I don't believe God told George Bush to do this. And it turned out George was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the U.S. has been paying for that mistake for years. We will be paying for that mistake for years. It has been one of the most expensive wars the U.S. has ever fought.
The second thing George Bush did that I thought was a clear violation of his own principles was to consent to - as in not stop wrong imprisonment of suspected war criminals. We captured and held people in prison without charging them of any crime. Many of them have been held for years - without being charged. This is a clear violation of our own U.S. Constitution. It's also immoral.
Finally, George Bush consented to - or at least failed to prohibit - gross torture of suspected war criminals as an interrogation technique. Some of the torture was heinous. There is nothing Biblical about it. In no way could it be constituted as "loving our enemies."
I've not said that George Bush was an bad man or an evil man. But as someone who professed to be a born-again Christian, he has fallen quite short of making decisions that line up with the character and nature of the Christ he professes to be submitted and surrendered to.
Specifically what decisions did George Bush make that you don't believe line up with the character and nature of God?
Dear _____,
My first thought was torture, but another came to my mind right after that.
The first thing George Bush did that I thought was a clear violation of his own principles was to declare war on Iraq in violation of the United Nations. We are members of the U.N. and agreed to abide its resolutions on foreign matters. The U.N. agreed to go into Afghanistan. It did not believe we had sufficient evidence to go into Iraq. President Bush disagreed and declared war on Iraq anyway - in clear violation of our U.N. agreements.
I don't believe God told George Bush to do this. And it turned out George was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And the U.S. has been paying for that mistake for years. We will be paying for that mistake for years. It has been one of the most expensive wars the U.S. has ever fought.
The second thing George Bush did that I thought was a clear violation of his own principles was to consent to - as in not stop wrong imprisonment of suspected war criminals. We captured and held people in prison without charging them of any crime. Many of them have been held for years - without being charged. This is a clear violation of our own U.S. Constitution. It's also immoral.
Finally, George Bush consented to - or at least failed to prohibit - gross torture of suspected war criminals as an interrogation technique. Some of the torture was heinous. There is nothing Biblical about it. In no way could it be constituted as "loving our enemies."
I've not said that George Bush was an bad man or an evil man. But as someone who professed to be a born-again Christian, he has fallen quite short of making decisions that line up with the character and nature of the Christ he professes to be submitted and surrendered to.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Seeker Friendly
Dear Victorious,
What do you think of seeker-oriented churches, with their contemporary music and other attributes?
H.B. Lutz - Albuquerque
Hear Mr. (or Ms.) Lutz,
As far as I know the concept of seeker-sensitive churches was made popular by Willow Creek Church outside of Chicago. It's a highly successful church by any of man's measures - large attendance, large budget, great influence in the world. I suppose the question is whether or not these are God's measures of success.
Not long ago, Willow Creek commissioned a study that concluded it's people weren't maturing or growing in Christ. Largely they were milk-fed babies in real danger of hell. This was despite the church's overwhelming success. And you see, that is the problem.
Churches that adopt and pursue a "seeker-sensitive" model do so to entice people into church who would otherwise be turned off by church. Cappuccino bars, flat-screen TV, contemporary bands, casual dress, children's theaters, gymnasiums and other features are common to these churches. While it is well and good to make church attractive to people - the church has a great responsibility once they get there.
Jesus told us to "go and make disciples." Many of the people in seeker-sensitive churches are not growing. They are being coddled, milk-fed and lied to about who God is and who they are in Christ. They ignorantly come to church whenever they feel like it, call it their church, don't tithe, aren't committed and pretty much live lives that look like those in the fallen world around them. Jesus said, "Not everyone who cries, 'Lord, Lord' will see the kingdom of heaven." These are the people He was referring to.
I believe the concept of seeker sensitive churches was a good idea. But for the most part, these churches have failed to successfully disciple and grow the people they attract. They have little or no money in their budget for true discipleship - but spend plenty of money on music, drama, facilities, advertising, etc. Jesus never said, "go and serve cappuccino"
What do you think of seeker-oriented churches, with their contemporary music and other attributes?
H.B. Lutz - Albuquerque
Hear Mr. (or Ms.) Lutz,
As far as I know the concept of seeker-sensitive churches was made popular by Willow Creek Church outside of Chicago. It's a highly successful church by any of man's measures - large attendance, large budget, great influence in the world. I suppose the question is whether or not these are God's measures of success.
Not long ago, Willow Creek commissioned a study that concluded it's people weren't maturing or growing in Christ. Largely they were milk-fed babies in real danger of hell. This was despite the church's overwhelming success. And you see, that is the problem.
Churches that adopt and pursue a "seeker-sensitive" model do so to entice people into church who would otherwise be turned off by church. Cappuccino bars, flat-screen TV, contemporary bands, casual dress, children's theaters, gymnasiums and other features are common to these churches. While it is well and good to make church attractive to people - the church has a great responsibility once they get there.
Jesus told us to "go and make disciples." Many of the people in seeker-sensitive churches are not growing. They are being coddled, milk-fed and lied to about who God is and who they are in Christ. They ignorantly come to church whenever they feel like it, call it their church, don't tithe, aren't committed and pretty much live lives that look like those in the fallen world around them. Jesus said, "Not everyone who cries, 'Lord, Lord' will see the kingdom of heaven." These are the people He was referring to.
I believe the concept of seeker sensitive churches was a good idea. But for the most part, these churches have failed to successfully disciple and grow the people they attract. They have little or no money in their budget for true discipleship - but spend plenty of money on music, drama, facilities, advertising, etc. Jesus never said, "go and serve cappuccino"
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Atheism
Dear Victorious,
I heard someone on Christian talk radio this week say that atheists are selfish. He explained that they just rationalize God out of existence so that they can live however they want to. Do you think this could be true?
Helen C. - Dallas, TX
Dear Helen,
I have heard that theory as well. (Perhaps we listen to the same Christian talk radio shows!) However, I doubt very much that it's true. What's true is that we don't really know the heart of the atheist. We don't know the thought processes, the life experiences or whatever else went into their mind that enabled them to conclude that there is no God (not even false gods).
I think saying that they are selfish and that they just rationalize God away so they can live however they want is probably giving their thinking process just too much credit. I've known some atheists. They seemed to just be ignorant of the truth. They were principled people and weren't living hedonistic lifestyles.
Some atheists have searched for truth - but don't think they've found it. Some found it - but the way they experienced Christianity in the world made it hard to believe. Nothing that they saw or experienced lined up with what they were being told was true.
Atheists deserve our love. They deserve our grace. They deserve our patience. Let's not sell them short by demonizing them with nasty, sarcastic labels.
I heard someone on Christian talk radio this week say that atheists are selfish. He explained that they just rationalize God out of existence so that they can live however they want to. Do you think this could be true?
Helen C. - Dallas, TX
Dear Helen,
I have heard that theory as well. (Perhaps we listen to the same Christian talk radio shows!) However, I doubt very much that it's true. What's true is that we don't really know the heart of the atheist. We don't know the thought processes, the life experiences or whatever else went into their mind that enabled them to conclude that there is no God (not even false gods).
I think saying that they are selfish and that they just rationalize God away so they can live however they want is probably giving their thinking process just too much credit. I've known some atheists. They seemed to just be ignorant of the truth. They were principled people and weren't living hedonistic lifestyles.
Some atheists have searched for truth - but don't think they've found it. Some found it - but the way they experienced Christianity in the world made it hard to believe. Nothing that they saw or experienced lined up with what they were being told was true.
Atheists deserve our love. They deserve our grace. They deserve our patience. Let's not sell them short by demonizing them with nasty, sarcastic labels.
Friday, May 1, 2009
First 100 Days
Dear Victorious,
What do you make of Obama's first 100 days? What do you like? What do you dislike?
Balanced Critic
Dear Balanced,
I'm no expert on the U.S. presidency, so my views - like most Americans - are going to look like those of an "arm chair quarterback," to coin a phrase. So far, I have to admit I think more favorably of both Barack and Michelle Obama than I expected to. They've been surprising in some very good ways.
I like most of what Obama has done with foreign affairs. His partnership with Hillary Clinton intrigues me. She seems to be very effective. They seem to work well together. In fact, his partnership with Hillary looks stronger than his partnership with Joe Biden. There's quite a bit more that I like. The "Obama plan" for mortgages may seem frustrating in that it looks to enable the bad behavior of mortgage borrowers. On the other hand, it goes quite far in putting some sense, logic and order to the process of mortgage modifications. If you've read it (and I have), there is a strong component for accountability on the part of average Americans screaming for a mortgage bailout. I like that.
I'm not so sure about the auto industry or the banks. I think I would have been quicker to nationalize GM and Chrysler - putting them both into bankruptcy earlier in the game. It will take bankruptcy to kill off the toxic choke hold that the unions have over the auto industry. I'm also a little disappointed in the lack of humility demonstrated in Obama. Frankly his wife seems to play the humble card better than he does. Obama takes a little more credit than I think he should. It seems he uses "I' more often than "we."
Are you getting my drift here? These are not big things.
I suppose the biggest frustration I have with Obama is his inability to address the national debt and other fiscal issues that threaten our nation's livelihood. Frankly, I consider those to be bigger threats than Iran, North Korea, radical Muslims or the swine flu!
Overall, I think we have a decent president. Perhaps the best thing is that we have a nation and a world that are responding to him in much more positive ways than we were responding to the president we had just a few months ago.
What do you make of Obama's first 100 days? What do you like? What do you dislike?
Balanced Critic
Dear Balanced,
I'm no expert on the U.S. presidency, so my views - like most Americans - are going to look like those of an "arm chair quarterback," to coin a phrase. So far, I have to admit I think more favorably of both Barack and Michelle Obama than I expected to. They've been surprising in some very good ways.
I like most of what Obama has done with foreign affairs. His partnership with Hillary Clinton intrigues me. She seems to be very effective. They seem to work well together. In fact, his partnership with Hillary looks stronger than his partnership with Joe Biden. There's quite a bit more that I like. The "Obama plan" for mortgages may seem frustrating in that it looks to enable the bad behavior of mortgage borrowers. On the other hand, it goes quite far in putting some sense, logic and order to the process of mortgage modifications. If you've read it (and I have), there is a strong component for accountability on the part of average Americans screaming for a mortgage bailout. I like that.
I'm not so sure about the auto industry or the banks. I think I would have been quicker to nationalize GM and Chrysler - putting them both into bankruptcy earlier in the game. It will take bankruptcy to kill off the toxic choke hold that the unions have over the auto industry. I'm also a little disappointed in the lack of humility demonstrated in Obama. Frankly his wife seems to play the humble card better than he does. Obama takes a little more credit than I think he should. It seems he uses "I' more often than "we."
Are you getting my drift here? These are not big things.
I suppose the biggest frustration I have with Obama is his inability to address the national debt and other fiscal issues that threaten our nation's livelihood. Frankly, I consider those to be bigger threats than Iran, North Korea, radical Muslims or the swine flu!
Overall, I think we have a decent president. Perhaps the best thing is that we have a nation and a world that are responding to him in much more positive ways than we were responding to the president we had just a few months ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
