Chronological Study (011/365)

Genesis 30:25 – 31:55

---

GETTING CARRIED AWAY

In Genesis 30:25, not long after Rachel gave birth to Joseph, Jacob presents a request to Laban to be released from his servitude so that he can finally return to his own country. This means that Jacob has already completed 14 years of servitude. [Interestingly, Scripture is still silent regarding Rebekah; it’s been 14 years and yet Rebekah has still not sent for Jacob to return, as she said she would do (27:45). So, is Rebekah still alive? Scripture is silent on the matter.] In 30:27, Laban responds to Jacob by saying, “stay with me; I have divined that the Lord has blessed me on your account.” So, not only is Laban selfish, thinking only of himself, but he attempts to use the Lord’s name (YHWH) as leverage for his benefit even though he confesses that he learned this information via divination, which the Lord hates and will later command not to do (Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 18:10). The conversation just started and it already veered off course in the wrong direction.

In Genesis 30:28, Laban says, “Name me your wages, and I will give it.” However, Jacob already named his wage and it was the wage of freedom to build his own life with his own family. In 30:30, Jacob essentially tells Laban that it’s true that the Lord has blessed Laban because of the Lord’s favor on himself, but it’s time to provide for his own family. In 30:31-32, ignoring Jacob’s request to be sent off, Laban asks, “What shall I give you?” Jacob replies by saying, “³¹ You shall not give me anything. If you will do this one thing for me, I will again pasture and keep your flock: ³² let me pass through your entire flock today, removing from there every speckled and spotted sheep and every black one among the lambs and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and such shall be my wages.”

Jacob’s response of “You shall not give me anything” reminds me of 14:23 when Abraham told the king of Sodom, “I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, for fear you would say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ ” Instead, Jacob states that he will continue to stay and serve if he can have all the animals that have blemishes. But why did Jacob change his mind so quickly and make such an odd request? Because Scripture is setting the stage once again. Jacob knows something that we (the readers) don’t yet know.

In 30:34-36, Laban schemes with his young sons and then “he put a distance of three days’ journey between himself and Jacob, and Jacob fed the rest of Laban’s flocks.” And so it seems as if Laban has deceived Jacob yet again, not allowing Jacob to find any blemished animals for him to receive because Laban gave all those animals to his sons. If those animals belong to his sons, then Jacob would not be able to remove them from Laban’s flocks because they no longer belong to him but to his sons. However, what follows in 30:37-43 is a bizarre tactic that leads to unusual breeding of Laban’s animals. And it is at this point in the story that the typical unbelieving critic usually claims that the Bible is either teaching an unscientific view that prenatal influence affects the physical characteristics of the unborn, or that Jacob is using magic. Scripture does state that Jacob placing stripped rods before the animals during mating leads to the newborns having streaks, specks, or spots; however, Scripture does not assert that the action Jacob performed is the cause of the animals having blemishes. In fact, Jacob later reveals to Rachel and Leah in 31:9-12 that GOD showed him to do this, that GOD saw all the wrong Laban had done to Jacob, and so GOD decided to take away from Laban and give to Jacob. Therefore, the bizarre action was not the scientific cause for the newborns having blemishes; rather, Jacob’s faith led him to take action (as bizarre as it was), and then GOD produced the results because of Jacob’s faithful obedience. Later on, we will see another similar example of this in John 9:6-7 when Jesus will spit on the ground, form some clay, rub it in a man’s eyes, instructs him to go wash in some water, and then the man becomes healed and can see, no longer blind. Neither the action of rubbing clay in eyes nor washing with water are scientific causes of the man being healed of blindness; rather, the man’s faith led him to take action, and then GOD produced results because of that man’s faithful obedience.

As time went on, Laban’s sons complained that Jacob was stealing all of their father’s wealth (Genesis 31:1), even though they had been guilty of stealing all the blemished animals from Jacob. Jacob then discerned that Laban’s attitude toward him had changed, becoming unfriendly (31:2). “Then the Lord said to Jacob, ‘Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you’ ” (31:3).

In 31:4-16, Jacob explains to Rachel and Leah that Laban’s attitude is now hostile; moreover, Laban has changed his wages along the way and has cheated him ten times over. He then explains how the Lord has decided to take away from Laban and chose to bless him with all that the Lord took away from Laban. This outcome showcases fulfillment of what Isaac prophesied over Jacob in 27:29 when he said, “Cursed be those who curse you, And blessed be those who bless you.” And ultimately, this fulfillment comes from the promise GOD gave to Abraham in 12:3. Indeed, Laban admitted that he had been blessed because of Jacob (30:27), but now he is under a curse due to the wickedness of his actions against Jacob. And finally, Jacob explained how the Lord told him to leave and return to the land of his birth. In response, Rachel and Leah said that they have no inheritance, their own father has considered them to be as foreigners, and they’re still hurt by the fact that he sold them to Jacob yet kept and used all wealth of the bride price for himself. The bride price paid by the groom was often transferred to the bride as an indirect dowry. As such, it became part of a financial reserve for the woman that served as an insurance policy of sorts. This claim suggests that Rachel and Leah had neither direct nor indirect dowry (their share of the inheritance); therefore, no financial security would have been assigned to their present or future holdings. Laban alone profited from Jacob’s labor, meaning that he had, in effect, simply sold his daughters for profit as if they were slaves and not his daughters. And so Rachel and Leah conclude by saying, “Surely all the wealth which God has taken away from our father belongs to us and our children; now then, do whatever God has said to you.” And of course, this only confirms Laban’s greed, which was first seen in 24:30-31 when he set his greedy eyes on the valuables Eliezer brought with him.

In 31:13, the Lord said to Jacob, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me.” But why did the Lord have to say that to Jacob? Well, in 31:4, while talking to Rachel and Leah, Jacob described the Lord as “the God of my father”. Thus, it is evident that Jacob has still not made a permanent commitment for the Lord to be his GOD. If you remember, in 28:15, the Lord told Jacob He would be with him, protect him, and bring him back to his own country. And in 28:20-21, Jacob said YHWH would be his GOD if he returns to his father’s house safely. Further, the Lord was making it known to Jacob that He is not a limited god confined to one location, but He is in all places. Interestingly, the One who said “I am the God of Bethel” is described as “the angel of God” in 31:11. But how could GOD be viewed as an angel of GOD? That had been discussed in Part 006/365 of our chronological journey in our discussion about Theophany.

In 31:18, it is written that Jacob set out “to go to the land of Canaan to his father Isaac.” And so yet again, Rebekah is omitted from Scripture. [It now seems likely that Rebekah might already be dead at this point in the story.]

In 31:19, it is written that Rachel stole her father’s “household idols”, which is the Hebrew word תְּרָפִים [H8655] terāp̄îm (ter-aw-feem’), which comes from the root word רָפָא [H7495] rāp̄ā’ (raw-faw’), which describes the action of being healed or to be healthy. And because Laban identifies these idols as his “gods” in 31:30, these “household idols” were most likely small figurines positioned throughout the home that were supposed to provide good health for the people who lived in that home. Not only does stealing these idols reveal bad character for Rachel, but it also reinforces the fact that Laban is certainly unfaithful to the Lord and is an idolater as well as someone who practices divination (30:27). But why did Rachel steal her father’s idols? What was her motive and reasoning behind the theft? It’s possible she could have done it out from spite, hoping to hurt her father, but it’s also possible that she could have considered their monetary value and had plans to sell them later. However, it is also possible that she had been an idolater herself, unfaithful to the Lord, and had been attached to false gods with the hope of them bringing her good fortune and/or health benefits. As we will later see, her entire family was polytheistic (35:2; Joshua 24:2). Regardless, in Genesis 31:20-21, Jacob and his entire family flee in secret, without telling Laban they were leaving. But why wouldn’t they tell Laban? Because they all knew Laban’s character by that point. Wisdom tells us that a fool does not delight in understanding, but is only interested in speaking his/her own mind; there’s no reason to speak to a fool, for that person will despise words of wisdom, and so a wise person should leave the presence of a fool (Proverbs 14:7-8; 18:2; 23:9). Laban’s character was so poor, in fact, that he didn’t even notice they were all missing until three days later! It is written in Genesis 31:22 that Jacob had distanced himself a three-day journey before Laban discovered that he left. This is poetic payback from when Laban had distanced the blemished animals from Jacob by a three-day journey (30:36). However, by the time Laban caught up with Jacob, he traveled a total of seven days (31:23); therefore, a total of ten days passed between Jacob’s departure and Laban confronting Jacob. But prior to Laban confronting Jacob, GOD spoke to Laban in a dream the night before and told him, “Be careful that you do not speak to Jacob either good or bad” (31:24). Yet again, GOD’s timing is precise, speaking to Laban only hours before the confrontation. However, even though GOD warned Laban not to speak to Jacob, he still chose to confront Jacob and speak to him, directly disobeying the Lord’s command.

Examine Laban’s words in 31:26-30: “²⁶ Then Laban said to Jacob, ‘What have you done by deceiving me and carrying away my daughters like captives of the sword? ²⁷ Why did you flee secretly and deceive me, and did not tell me so that I might have sent you away with joy and with songs, with timbrel and with lyre; ²⁸ and did not allow me to kiss my sons and my daughters? Now you have done foolishly. ²⁹ It is in my power to do you harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last night, saying, “Be careful not to speak either good or bad to Jacob.” ³⁰ Now you have indeed gone away because you longed greatly for your father’s house; but why did you steal my gods?’ ”

Ten times Laban placed the focus on himself. [And if you remember, this is the same pride we witnessed from Cain and Lamech in 4:9-15,23-24. i.e., me, me me, I, I, I – priiiiiide.] This explains why Jacob said Laban had cheated him ten times (31:7). And it took ten days for Laban to confront Jacob, only to place the focus on himself ten times. And the fact that Laban claims to have other gods explains why he didn’t completely obey the Lord’s command not to speak with Jacob. In Biblical numerology, the number 10 is sometimes viewed as a complete and perfect numeral (as is 3, 7 and 12). The number 10 is made up of 4, which represents the physical creation, and 6, which symbolizes man. As such, the meaning of 10 is one of testimony, law, responsibility and the completeness of order. And because the number 10 is used to describe Laban placing the focus on himself, cheating Jacob, and pursuing Jacob, Scripture seems to inform us that Laban was completely out of order, rebelling against GOD’s will.

When Laban claimed that Jacob carried away his daughters as if taking them captive by force, he is ignorant to the fact that his daughters felt as if he were the slave owner and they were his captives because they had no inheritance, he treated them like foreigners, and he sold them as if they were slaves (31:14-16). When Laban expressed anger about being deceived or outwitted, this is also poetic payback and a great reversal in yet another wrestling match. Laban had outwitted Jacob in the beginning, but then in a reversal, Jacob ended up outwitting Laban, taking his daughters and great wealth from his flocks. Laban claimed that Jacob didn’t tell him that he wanted to leave and that if he had, he would have sent him away with a joyful celebration, yet Jacob had told Laban his desire to leave in 30:25-26,30-31, yet Laban ignored his request due to his greed. And for that reason, GOD saw Laban’s wickedness (31:12) and decided to take from Laban and give to Jacob (31:9). Laban claimed that Jacob acted foolishly, yet Jacob did exactly what GOD commanded him to do – to leave (31:3,13) – whereas Laban disobeyed GOD’s command not to speak to Jacob (31:24). Laban claimed that it was in his power to harm Jacob, yet Scripture states that GOD prevented Laban from causing any harm to Jacob (31:7,24). And finally, Laban’s prideful rant ends with a confession of idolatry in that he claims multiple gods. In fact, if we are to believe the testimonies of Rachel and Leah along with the inspired words in Scripture regarding Laban’s character, Laban’s concern about his idols might have been the true motive for pursuing Jacob. Jacob was the only reason Laban had been blessed, but then Jacob departed; in addition, Laban also discovered that his idols were missing. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to believe that Laban wasn’t concerned about his daughters or grandchildren; rather, I believe Laban had only been concerned about his own blessings.

Now, when Laban said in 31:26, “What have you done by deceiving me”, the word translated as “deceiving” is from the Hebrew word גָּנַב [H1589] gānaḇ (gaw-nab’), which means to steal and to carry away. Although not immediately obvious from the English translation, this Hebrew idiom connects the dots between Laban stealing seven more years of servitude from Jacob, Laban stealing the blemished animals from Jacob, Rachel stealing Laban’s idols, Jacob stealing Laban’s daughters and wealth, and how Jacob’s blessing was due to the Lord taking from Laban and giving to Jacob. This entire section is centered around everything being carried away, and it will conclude with the Lord carrying Jacob away from Laban to the birth of his country.

In 31:32, Jacob, not knowing that Rachel had stolen Laban’s idols (31:19), boldly states that he did not steal Laban’s idols and that if anyone has them, that person will die. Rachel hides them in her camel’s saddle, sits on it, and then states that she doesn’t want to get up due to experiencing pain from her regular menstrual discharge of blood (31:34-35). And because a woman’s monthly period was considered impure, Laban would have willingly avoided the object Rachel was sitting on. However, by Rachel sitting on the idols, her action shows that she does not revere these idols as real gods. Further, her refusal to confess and return the idols to Laban reveals the disdain she has toward her father, which she already expressed (31:14-16). Thus, I think it is reasonable to believe that Rachel’s true motive for stealing the idols was to hurt her father out of spite. And the fact that Scripture describes Rachel sitting on these idols emphasizes the total impotence of any such false gods. No real God would ever allow a human to dishonor or blaspheme it by permitting that human to sit on it – especially a woman during her menstrual discharge of blood. Therefore, Scripture describes the false gods as being even more impure than a woman’s menstrual discharge.

In 31:36-42, after Laban’s search ends in vain, Jacob then becomes angry and contends that he has remained a hard worker who was faithful for 20 years, bearing every loss unto himself, even though Laban cheated him the entire time, concluding by saying, “⁴² If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the fear of Isaac, had not been for me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the toil of my hands, so He rendered judgment last night.” Thus, as is evident by 28:20-21 and 31:5, Jacob has still not declared YHWH to be his GOD, only the GOD of his father, yet he does recognize that YHWH currently has His hedge of protection around him. Therefore, with this statement, Jacob takes another step closer to claiming a personal relationship with the Lord. Further, this statement is probably a verbal attack against Laban, pointing out that Laban has lost his gods, his gods have left him, but YHWH is with Jacob and is for Jacob, and Laban even experienced that truth for himself in a dream when the Lord warned him.

Examine Laban’s response in 31:43-44: “⁴³ Then Laban replied to Jacob, ‘The daughters are my daughters, and the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks, and all that you see is mine. But what can I do this day to these my daughters or to their children whom they have borne? ⁴⁴ So now come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.”

Five times Laban places the focus on himself. Even though this is half of the pride he showed earlier (31:26-30), his true character is still revealed in that he refuses to admit any guilt or wrongdoing. However, Laban decides to make a covenant/treaty between them. Judging by the descriptions provided within the inspired Word, I think it is reasonable to believe that Laban had been motivated by self-interest, either thinking about his own safety from future retaliation (31:52), or to hopefully appease an angry god who might take away more of his wealth. Regardless, Jacob chooses the wise path of peace and completes the covenant with Laban. Later, Paul will exhort his readers to do the same in Romans 12:18: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.”

In Genesis 31:45-48, Jacob sets up a single stone as a pillar, similar to what he did at Bethel (28:18); however, Laban and his kinsmen pile multiple rocks into a heap. This description is a distinction between the monotheism of Jacob who serves only the one true GOD and the polytheism of the others who serve multiple false gods. Since ancient Near Eastern treaties normally involved gods as witnesses, the treaty between Jacob and Laban also required divine witnesses. Afterwards, they eat a covenant meal together. Laban names the place “the heap of witness” in Aramaic (Jegar-sahadutha) and Jacob names the place “the heap of witness” in Hebrew (Galeed). But in 31:49-50, Laban says, “⁴⁹ May the Lord watch between you and me when we are absent one from the other. ⁵⁰ If you mistreat my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no man is with us, see, God is witness between you and me.” Therefore, the place was also known as Mizpah, which means “the watchtower”. Yet, Laban failed to recognize his own hypocrisy in that moment. Though he warned of the truth that GOD sees wickedness even if no man does, that never stopped him from acting wickedly and the Lord taking notice (31:12). And then in 31:51, Laban pridefully takes credit, claiming that he set the pillar in place even though Scripture specifically states that Jacob is the one who set the pillar in place (31:45).

The phrase “May the Lord watch over you” is a common expression used today, often used in a positive way by ministers to the congregants at the end of a service. This expression is even sometimes inscribed on wedding rings. However, this expression was not used in a positive way in the ancient Near East; this expression conveyed a message of distrust. A paraphrase of the expression might be something like this: “I don’t trust you out of my sight, but since I can no longer personally hold you accountable, may the Lord hold you accountable and bring swift judgment upon you for any wickedness you commit.”

In 31:53, Laban said, “ ‘The God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father, judge between us.’ So Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac.” Now, those statements concern the God of someone else, but not themselves; the God of Abraham, not the God of Jacob; the God of Nahor, not the God of Laban. So, the actions of both Jacob and Laban reveal that they have not declared a personal relationship with YHWH, although Jacob is close to commitment whereas Laban is far away. And then 31:54-55 concludes with a sacrifice, a shared meal, and Laban returning back to his home.

One final note is that 31:55 is numbered as 32:1 in Hebrew text and so 32:1-32 in the Bible are numbered as 32:2-33 in Hebrew text. But why? And does this matter? Well, on one hand, minor discrepancies of chapters and verses do not matter because they do not change the inspired text. In fact, the Old Testament of the Bible has 39 sections whereas the Hebrew text (Tanakh) only has 24 sections, yet they are the same text, merely arranged differently. But on the other hand, however, it does matter if a person desires to cite the source of a specific portion of any given text. For this reason, the chapters and verses which are now standard in our modern Bible became unanimously agreed upon so as to eliminate confusion while citing sources. In short, the original ancient manuscripts did not use punctuation, paragraph divisions, spaces to separate words, chapter numbers, or verse numbers. Simply stated, the ancient manuscripts were written as one would write a letter, with all words connected together so as to convey one continuous message. For this reason, whenever someone within the Bible quotes someone else within the Bible, the quote is often a paraphrase from an ambiguous source. For example, in Hebrews 2:6, the author writes, “But one has testified somewhere, saying, ‘What is man, that You remember him? Or the son of man, that You are concerned about him’ ”. For another example, in John 6:45, John says, “It is written in the prophets”. Another example can be seen in Acts 7:42 when Luke documents Stephen’s last speech against the religious leaders prior to being stoned to death when Stephen said, “as it is written in the book of the prophets”. However, sometimes the author will remember from which scroll the words originated and so a specific prophet will be named. For example, Luke 3:4 says, “as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet”. The important thing to remember is that we cannot hold our modern standard of citing sources to ancient authors who expected their audiences to already know the sources being cited. But as more and more time passed, separating people from the sources being cited, the greater the need for citing those sources became evident.

So, how did the Bible receive chapters and verse numbers? And how did the chapters and verses within the Bible become standardized? The need for chapters and verses became a revelation that arrived in progressive stages. In order to facilitate the reading of manuscripts—especially in public—scribes began to create unnumbered divisions or sections as early as the fourth century. The Hebrew Old Testament was divided into verses by a Jewish rabbi by the name of Nathan in A.D. 1448. However, the chapter/verse numbers in translations of the New Testament used today originate from the beginning of the thirteenth century, when a lecturer at the University of Paris, named Stephen Langton, introduced major divisions into the Latin Bible (Vulgate) in A.D. 1227. The Wycliffe English Bible of A.D. 1382 was the first Bible to use this “chapter” pattern. Verse divisions arrived about three centuries later. In A.D. 1551, a Parisian printer named Robert Stephanus published a Greek and Latin edition of the New Testament in which each chapter was divided into separate verses. These are the verse divisions still in use today. They first appeared in an English translation in the A.D. 1560 Geneva Bible. In conclusion, the minor discrepancies of chapters/verses do not ultimately matter because the text is still the same. However, they do matter now because we use them to cite our sources (as is evident from this very study).

• Throughout all the years of Jacob’s suffering and servitude under Laban’s selfishness, the Lord was with Jacob and was causing all things to work together for his good. Are you currently suffering in a place you don’t want to be? Are you currently suffering in a position under someone you don’t want to serve? Do you believe that GOD is causing all things to work together for your good? Do you believe that the Lord will ultimately take from the wicked and bless you in His perfect timing?
• In Genesis 31:3, the Lord said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you.” Scripture states that the Lord will be with him at that new place. The Lord is on the move. Are you following the Lord? Many “Christians” claim to be followers of Christ, but are they going where He would go? And what about you? Do you claim to be a follower of Christ yet refuse to go where He calls you to go and do what He calls you to do? Are you truly following Christ or are you following your own desires?
• In 31:20-21, Jacob left without telling Laban he was leaving and then Laban got angry. But why did Jacob do that? Because in 31:13, the Lord told Jacob, “leave this land, and return to the land of your birth.” When the Lord tells you to leave, you need to go. So, what about you? If the Lord tells you to do something, are you willing to do it even if other people will get upset because you do it?
• When Laban finally caught up to Jacob and confronted him, Scripture states that Laban acknowledged YHWH (the one true GOD); however, he was upset about his stolen gods. But how could Laban show belief in GOD while at the same time claiming belief and loyalty to other gods? Well, many people acknowledge GOD without living rightly for GOD according to His Word and His will. Is that you? Do you claim GOD while living a life of idolatry? An idol is anything that replaces the One true GOD in priority and position. Idolatry extends beyond the worship of idols and images and false gods. Our modern idols are many and varied. Even for those who do not physically bow before a statue, idolatry is a matter of the heart — pride, self-centeredness, greed, gluttony, a love for possessions and ultimately rebellion against GOD. Are you placing anything or anyone above GOD in priority and/or position? Are you merely acknowledging GOD but not living for GOD?
• In 31:39, Jacob reveals that every time Laban had a loss, Jacob absorbed that loss unto himself. Why? Sacrificial love absorbs the cost! Jacob worked for a total of 20 years under Laban! How long are you willing to work for your blessing? How long are you willing to work and endure? If you’re unwilling to wait, work, endure and suffer, then you’re not acting out from a selfless and sacrificial love. [At the time of writing this, I recently got offered the position as the pastor of Ozello Island Church of Crystal River, Florida. I waited 20 years for this moment! How fitting that I would be writing about Jacob’s 20-year wait! How statistically unlikely that I would complete my 20-year wait and then immediately produce a study about Jacob’s 20-year wait! I know it’s GOD because when I started this chronological study, I had not yet been offered that position. GOD’s timing is precise and is awesome!]
• Although Laban acted wickedly against Jacob, Jacob still chose the wise path of pursuing peace. Is there someone in your life who acts wickedly against you? How can you pursue peace with that person?
• Complete and total peace simply isn’t possible unless both parties agree to keep the peace. The conversation between Jacob and Laban ended with a boundary line being set between them to ensure peace. What boundary lines exist in life that we need to respect? How do we fail to do this? How can we be sure to do this? What boundary line do you need to set in place today? What boundary line exists that someone else has set in place that you need to respect? What boundaries lines have been broken by the enemy that we need to reestablish?
• The essential message of this particular study is the concept of getting carried away. Are you getting carried away by Satan while you continue to do evil or will you allow the Lord to carry you away in His perfect timing while you continue to act according to the Lord’s absolute moral standard?

Superhero: Armor of GOD: Shield of Faith

---

If you would rather read this message, the words are provided below…

---

This is Part 18 of my Superhero series. In the introduction of this series, I provided the argument that heroes are real and then I distinguished between heroes and superheroes. I also provided a list of what defines a superhero. In Part 1, we learned that superheroes recognize the absolute standard of Good and realize that evil is a mere privation of what is good. In Part 2, we learned that superheroes recognize the absolute moral standard and realize that what is wrong can only be known by the standard of what is right. In Part 3, I defined and expounded upon love because all superheroes are full of love and are compelled to act out from love. In Part 4, I explained that superheroes desire to save people from all forms of danger and/or death and this desire comes from love. In Part 5, we learned that superheroes are solution seekers. In Part 6, we saw that solution seekers are willing to sacrifice if necessary. In Part 7, we saw that sacrificial love steps forward and offers service. In Part 8, we saw that superheroes go above and beyond the call of duty. In Part 9, we saw that superheroes never give up! In Part 10, we saw that superheroes don’t need recognition – they are motivated only by love! In Part 11, we saw that relationships matter and teamwork works! In Part 12, we saw that the struggle is real; however, Jesus is the real solution to our real problems. In Part 13, we saw that despite problems, superheroes are more than conquerors! In Part 14, we saw that true superheroes do not have identity crises – they know who they are even if others don’t! In Part 15, we saw that superheroes are always ready to fight evil with the belt of Truth. In Part 16, we saw that superheroes are always ready to resist evil by putting on the breastplate of righteousness. In Part 17, we saw that superheroes are always ready to walk with purpose.

In this message (Part 18), we will see that superheroes are always ready to deflect the enemy’s attacks by holding up the shield of faith.

---

 

Continuing the examination of the whole armor of GOD, we are now instructed to take up the shield of faith (Ephesians 6:16).

Marvel’s superhero, Captain America, has protected himself from the enemy’s blows many times thanks to the covering provided by his shield. As superheroes who sail for the Savior, we also find protection under the covering of the Shield. Just as the shield of a Roman soldier rested on a small clip attached to his loinbelt when it wasn’t in use, our shield of faith is attached to the Belt of Truth. The conclusion is simple but extremely important to understand: your faith is attached to GOD’s Word. And we are instructed to take up the shield of faith. In other words, faith is the shield. But what is faith?

What Is Faith?

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
(Hebrews 11:1) -ESV

GOD’s Word provides the definition of faith while the direction of faith is implied by the context of everything else found within the Bible. Simply put, faith is believing that and trusting in. This definition of faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that the something is true. A bridge can help illustrate this point. Intellectual assent is recognizing that a bridge is a bridge and agreeing that it is designed to support a person who walks across on it. Believing that a bridge is designed to support the weight of a person who walks across on that bridge is the intellectual assent. But actually walking across the bridge is trusting in the bridge that it will actually support your weight and you will not fall through to your death.

Faith In What Or Whom?

It’s not enough to merely have faith. Who or what we have faith in matters. Muslims place their faith in Muhammad and Allah, Hindus place their faith in a multitude of different gods and/or goddesses, and even atheists possess faith. For example, atheists would need to have faith that everything was created by nothing, out of nothing, and for no purpose or that the universe has always eternally existed, yet it exists without reason. They would also need to have faith that everything in nature with a design is without a Designer. Atheists would need to have faith that materials could somehow collaborate in order to generate life which produces emotions, thoughts, and a will to act. They would also need to have faith that mere matter in the shape of a brain is capable of producing thoughts and that those thoughts are somehow material rather than immaterial. Atheists also place their faith in their own bodies, believing that they can fall asleep at night and still wake up breathing the next day. They also possess faith by trusting that the food another person made for him/her isn’t poisoned, that friends or co-workers aren’t engaged in a conspiracy to harm him/her, that the law of gravity won’t suddenly stop working as expected, or even that the sun won’t explode today. Every time an atheist makes plans for the future, they are doing so in faith that tomorrow exists. Many atheists also possess faith that they were created via purposeless evolution yet somehow evolved with the purpose of becoming better and better as time goes on. Oddly enough, some atheists even have faith that life on other planets exist without having any proof of such life in existence. In fact, many atheists have faith that black holes exist even though they have no personal experience that would allow them to believe in such a thing. So, in whom or what should we place our faith? It matters. Should we place our faith in our works? In religion? Well, for Christians, this faith that is our shield is not mere belief that GOD exists; rather, it is the belief that GOD exists and the trust in GOD that He will ultimately bring about what is best and what is right. Our faith is in Jesus.

Believing that Jesus was a historical figure who died from crucifixion is not enough. Even the demons believe that GOD is real and Jesus died on a cross (James 2:19). As I stated in my other article, “What Does It Mean To Be A Christian?“, belief is only the beginning in a Christian’s walk of faith; in fact, faith will launch the Christian into action. A Christian is also to perpetuate a healthy habit of confessing his/her sins, repent from sinning, walk by faith, live righteously, and live out the great commandment of loving GOD and loving others while fulfilling the great commission. Belief is only the first half – trust is the other half! We must personally and fully rely on the death of Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. We must not merely believe that Jesus is the Bridge, but also walk across the Bridge of salvation which Jesus graciously provides to the other side, trusting in the Bridge to support us and save us. This is saving faith. The faith GOD requires of us for salvation is belief in what the Bible says about who Jesus is and what He accomplished and fully trusting in Jesus for that salvation (Acts 16:31). Why is this definition of faith so important? Why must trust of the unseen promise accompany acknowledgment of facts? Because “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6). Without faith, we cannot be saved (John 3:16). Without faith, the Christian life cannot be what GOD intends it to be.

Back in ancient Greece, each Spartan hoplite came together to form a phalanx. Their trust was in each other and each individual man held up his shield with all of the other shields coming together to form one larger shield. A man didn’t just believe that other Spartans were around him, but he believed in those other Spartans to see what he didn’t see and protect him as they fought with him. As Christians, we can also come together to form a faithful phalanx; in fact, GOD’s Word instructs us to do so (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12). However, we must all come together with our trust ultimately in the Lord because it is only through the Lord that we will be saved (Psalm 118:8-9; John 14:6; Ephesians 2:8-9). Faith is the shield; our faith is in Jesus; therefore, Jesus is the Shield. All throughout the Bible, it is written that GOD is our shield (Genesis 15:1; Deuteronomy 33:29; 2Samuel 22:3,31; Psalm 3:3; 5:12; 7:10; 18:2,30,35; 28:7; 33:20; 84:9,11; 91:4; 115:9-11; 119:114; 144:2; Proverbs 2:7; 30:5). Jesus is GOD; therefore, Jesus is the Shield.

Take It Up!

Again, belief is only the beginning in a Christian’s walk of faith; in fact, faith will launch the Christian into action. Is this shield of faith a given? No. We are instructed to “take up” the shield. If you don’t pick the shield up and hold it up, it won’t do you any good. Faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26) because the lack of works reveals an unchanged life or a spiritually dead heart; a truly transformed life of faith is demonstrated by the works we do and is showcased by our fruit (John 15:8). How we live reveals what we believe and whether the faith we profess to have is a living faith.

Big Faith = Big Shield:

An illustration of a gladiator warrior character or sports mascot in a trojan or Spartan style helmet holding a sword and shield

There were typically two kinds of shields used in ancient warfare: one was smaller, carried upon the arm, and which could be moved and used with little effort in order to protect particular parts of the body; the other one was large, planted in front of the soldier and covered the whole person. It is the latter which is referred to in the text, as the word which describes it clearly shows. The word for “shield” is taken from the Greek word thureos, which was used by the Greeks to refer to a door that was wide in width and long in length. Paul paints a picture that the soldier was inaccessible and untouchable because it completely covered the soldier. And that is the kind of shield which Paul instructs us to have. Our shield is not just for small and specific protection for a particular part of the body; rather, our shield is to be a great barrier that covers us completely. So, how do we get this large shield? The greater the faith, the larger the covering of the shield. But what does great faith look like? Believe it or not, it looks like a child. We need faith like that of a child (Matthew 18:1-4; Mark 10:15). The Father wants what is best for you and will provide covering. At the end of it all, Jesus has made us a Home to dwell in for eternity (John 14:2). Seek GOD, rely on Him, and trust in Him. Just as children trust their earthly fathers, we should trust that our “Father who is in heaven [will] give good things to those who ask him” (Matthew 7:7-11). Children don’t typically ever doubt that their parents are going to love them and do what is best and what is right for their sake. Likewise, we don’t ever need to doubt that our Father in Heaven will do what is best and right for our sake (Luke 11:11-13).

Big Shield = Big Responsibility:

In the majority of cases, the Roman soldier’s shield was composed of multiple layers – usually six layers – of thick animal hide that had been tightly woven together. These layers were woven so tight that they became almost as strong as steel. Though strong and durable, the shield needed care. Because the Roman soldier’s shield was made of leather, it was important for the soldier to take good care of it. Being leather, it could eventually become stiff and breakable over a period of time. If dried out, it would form cracks and become unreliable. Consequently, a soldier had to maintain his shield by rubbing oil into the leather to keep it soft, supple, and pliable. Likewise, we need to maintain our faith with fresh anointing of the Holy Spirit. Without daily anointing of the Holy Spirit, your faith will become hard, stiff, brittle, and breakable. A faith-life that is ignored nearly always breaks and leaves a person vulnerable during battle with the enemy. Too many believers make the incredibly tragic mistake of thinking they can stay under constant protective covering and keep moving forward in the walk with GOD on the steam of their past experiences, but no believer can fuel the fire of the faith-furnace on past experiences. Our walk with GOD is an ever-present daily experience. Therefore, make sure you spend time alone with GOD every day in the Word and in prayer. 

Faith Deflects Fiery Darts:

What are the fiery darts? Doubt? Fear? Perhaps a professor launches challenging questions that shake your faith? Maybe you suddenly lose your stable job? Perhaps there is an unexpected death of a loved one? Maybe a natural disaster tears apart your home? Regardless of what these darts are, they are all surprise attacks from Satan, an ambush from the adversary. While under attack, people tend to wonder if GOD is there, aware, or even cares. If these fiery darts are not blocked, they will pierce and penetrate.

Ancient soldiers used the large shield to hide under when archers would launch a barrage of arrows toward them. In the 2006 movie, 300, even the courageous Spartans had been temporarily immobilized while hiding under their shields from arrows that rained down on them from the Persians. But as soon as the arrows stopped, they were able to march forward once again.

Scripture warns us that these arrows launched by Satan from the fiery pits of Hell are themselves fiery. The Greek word used to describe these particular “darts” is a specific and ancient word of warfare. Thucydides, the ancient Greek writer, used the identical Greek expression to depict especially terrible arrows that were equipped to carry fire. All fires start with either a single spark or a flickering flame that fans out. The goal of the arrows of fire is to cease progress of the soldiers and make sure the army doesn’t advance forward. If the soldiers can’t advance forward in the moment, they might just believe that they will never be able to advance forward and then decide to retreat and flee in fear or surrender in submission. If the fiery dart enters you, it would seem that the fire would burn within you and consume you just as the fire of Hell would also consume you. Fire-bearing arrows were used to inflict damage and/or destruction on a fortified place or an encampment. And since your body is the living temple of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 6:19), Satan desires to burn the building down. 

Before a Roman soldier went out to war, he typically placed his shield in water and allowed it to become saturated. The reason for this is because the enemies used arrows that carried fire. But even when those flaming arrows came at the soldier, the saturated surface of the shield would help extinguish the flaming arrow, or at the very least, prevent the flame from transferring from that arrow to him. Likewise, we need to keep our shield of faith completely saturated with “the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:26). Our Word-saturated shields possess the power to extinguish the flaming arrows, or at the very least, prevent us from being consumed by the fire. Think about it: the shield is maintained by oil and water. The oil symbolizes the fresh anointing of the Holy Spirit and the water symbolizes GOD’s Word. Are you maintaining your shield? Preventative maintenance is better than corrective surgery. Do not wait until you see the cracks in your shield before you decide to care for it. All the enemy needs to penetrate the fortified structure of your living temple is one opening. 

Another thought regarding these fiery darts is that this might be a reference to arrows with poison tips. This is also a good analogy. The poison of fear spreads just as fast as fire, if not faster. For this reason, ancient Israelite soldiers were commanded to go home and not join in the battle if they were full of fear (Deuteronomy 20:8). However, GOD’s Word repeatedly informs us that we are not to fear. In fact, the phrase “do not fear” is found 38 times in the Bible (ESV), the phrase “do not be afraid” is found 33 times, and the phrase “fear not” is found 34 times. Those alone add to 105 times we are told not to fear. But then if we add how many times we have been commanded not to worry, not to be anxious, or that we should rely upon GOD, the picture becomes clear: we are not to fear. In fact, Jesus provides a good reason why we shouldn’t fear finite and fallible humans:

“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
(Matthew 10:28; see also, Luke 12:5) -ESV

From the beginning until the end, GOD has been in control and always will be in control. The first fiery dart Satan ever launched at humanity was aimed at the heart and this is why the heart is the start and we must wear the breastplate of righteousness to protect our hearts. Knowing how much GOD loved Adam and Eve, Satan targeted Adam and Eve. Knowing how much Adam loved Eve, Satan targeted Eve. The first fiery dart was doubt, denial, and deception (Genesis 3:1). The second fiery dart was pride (Genesis 3:5). The ultimate end goal of all fiery darts is to first tear your life apart and then tear you away from GOD. In fact, this is evident in the book of Job; Satan desired to tear Job’s life apart with intentions of ultimately tearing Job away from GOD. And GOD allowed Satan to launch his fiery arrows at Job so that He could prove that He is our Shield by protecting Job from his accuser. GOD’s reversal tactic was also revealed in Jesus. Jesus allowed death to overcome Him (John 10:18) so that He could in turn conquer death (Luke 24:5-7). From the beginning, GOD allowed the temporary separation of humanity from Him so that He can conquer evil and reunite us all with Him under His covering. The complete picture of our story reveals GOD’s power and love as our Shield.

The Shield Is Spiritual:

A common misconception about the shield of faith is that this shield will protect us from all physical follies and mayhem from mismanagement. The shield of faith is, in fact, spiritual. In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego held up their shields of faith while in the fiery furnace. King Nebuchadnezzar threatened to throw them in the fire if they did not fall down and worship the gods and the golden image he set up. The three men of faith essentially responded by proclaiming that GOD could remove them from physical harm if He wanted to do so, but that even if GOD didn’t save them from the physical fire, they knew they would never encounter the spiritual fire of Hell (Daniel 3:17-18). It is important to realize that these men of faith were thrown into the physical fire. Their faith did not prevent them from experiencing the physical fire in the furnace. In this specific story, GOD miraculously intervened and acted as their physical shield. But that’s not always the case. 

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were mentioned in the book of Daniel and so Daniel should also be examined. Daniel also held up his shield of faith in the den with lions (Daniel 6:22). But why? Because he refused to cave into demands to worship the king and was discovered praying to GOD (Daniel 6:11). If society ever gets to that point again, we must know how to respond in faith so that we will honor the Lord rather than people (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29). Remember: Jesus told us that if we refuse to acknowledge Him before people on Earth, He won’t acknowledge us before the Father in Heaven (Matthew 10:32-33).

What fiery darts have you experienced? If you haven’t experienced any fiery darts, I assure you that you most certainly will. Fiery darts look a lot like persecution and/or tribulation. It would be an enormous mistake to assume that the shield of faith completely covers our earthly bodies or physical possessions. The shield of faith is a spiritual shield and covers our soul in eternity. Both apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus warned us in advance that in this life, we will have trouble and experience pain and suffering; however, Jesus also gave us a promise and a reason to trust in Him:

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
(2Timothy 3:12) -ESV

“I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world.”
(John 16:33) -NLT

Is your shield of faith paper thin and easy to tear apart or is it like Captain America’s shield and able to withstand the hardest of blows? Is it oiled and saturated and able to extinguish the flaming arrows? How confident is your trust in the Lord? This shield doesn’t just stop the arrows, but it also extinguishes the fire. It’s easy to have faith when everything seems to be going right, but how is your faith when it all starts to fall apart? When everything seems to be at its worst, do you trust GOD to have your best interest? Consider the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11. What can we learn from the heroes of faith?

GOD declares us righteous when we have faith and trust in Him (Genesis 15:6). What you do cannot be separated from what you believe (Deuteronomy 27:9-10; Matthew 7:21). Jesus said no one’s faith in Israel was greater than the centurion who believed Jesus could accomplish His will by mere command from a distance (Luke 7: 2-10). We need to move from belief that to trust in. Are you willing to walk on the Bridge, even if that bridge appears to be shaky and unreliable? Even if there are gaps between the planks? In China, there exists a bridge that’s about 500 feet high with gaps between the planks. On this bridge, many people challenge themselves to walk by faith:

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.”
(Proverbs 3:5-7) -ESV

Understand this: GOD doesn’t promise us explanations for everything, but He does promise us an escape for whatever may come our way (1Corinthians 10:13). If the escape happens to be death, then life still awaits us:

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
(John 11:25-26) -ESV

It all boils down to trust in GOD. We know that all things are possible with GOD (Matthew 19:26; Luke 1:37). In fact, greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world (1John 4:4)!

The one being protected by the shield is unable to fight. Getting behind the shield is a purely defensive position and all trust is placed in the shield. Sometimes we just need to wait until the fiery arrows stop falling. Not all superheroes are witnessed flying in action; not all boxers are seen swinging. Boxers sometimes need to take up their gloves and block the opponent’s attacks. While behind the Shield, we simply need to be still and know that GOD is GOD (Psalm 37:5-7; 46:10).

We may have pain and suffering in this lifetime, but the final outcome is that we are more than conquerors in Christ (Romans 8:37) and we win in the end. Jesus will wipe away every tear and we will live in eternal joy (Isaiah 25:8; Revelation 7:17; 21:4). Our faith is in Jesus and His promise of our eternal joy. The shield of faith is constructed by our belief and is held together by every word of GOD. But do you know GOD’s Word? What’s holding your belief together? What transforms your belief into trust?

And because the shield of faith is so important, it is written that above all, or in all circumstances, we are to take up the shield of faith. The phrase Paul used is taken from the Greek phrase epi pasin. The word epi means over. The word pasin means all or everything. Rather than referring to being more important than the other pieces of armor, the phrase epi pain describes position over the other pieces of armor. Therefore, it means that this shield is out in front as a covering. Faith is meant to be out in front! Faith was never meant to be held next to your side or to be timidly held behind your back. Faith is our covering. Are you covered? For a soldier in GOD’s army (or any army), the shield is not optional – it’s a requirement. Paul wrote to Timothy and emphasized the importance of this shield: “wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith” (1Timothy 1:18-19). In other words, by ignoring or neglecting the maintaining of their faith, some brothers and sisters in the Lord freely chose to travel down the wrong path that eventually led them to being vulnerable to the enemy’s attack. Again, remember that preventative maintenance on a ship is better than an emergency evacuation plan due to the ship sinking out of neglect from proper inspection and correction. 

So, does the Shield of Faith work? In the words of Peggy Carter from the 2011 movie, Captain America: The First Avenger, after firing a gun at Steve Rogers while he was holding the shield in front of him, I will also say, “Yes, I think it works.”

 

Sikhism

[ To read the previous post of the Quest for Truth, CLICK HERE! ]

---

The name Sikhism comes from the Punjabi word Sikh, which means a “disciple;” thus, a Sikh is literally a disciple of Guru Nanak, the founder of the religion, who lived from AD 1469-1538. Guru means a dispeller of ignorance or darkness (gu) and bringer of enlightenment (ru).

Sikhism has two unique symbols: khanda and Ekankar. The most prevalent symbol is the khanda, which represents the Sikh faith to the outside world. At the center is the actual khanda, which means “double-edged sword.” Together with the circular throwing weapon, the chakkar, it stands for the unity of God and his all-pervasive presence. On each side are the two ceremonial swords, kirpans, that refer to the spiritual and political dimensions of the Sikh community. Within the Sikh community – for example, in a Sikh temple – one often sees the second symbol. It refers to the unity of God. The little symbol to the left that looks like the Western numeral 9 is actually the numeral 1, and the other part means “the only one.” So this symbol means that God is the “one and only one.” In Punjabi, it is “Ekankar.”

Sikhism began as an attempt to heal the division between Muslims and Hindus that was causing problems in India during the sixteenth century AD. Thus, to understand Sikhism, you must first understand Islam and Hinduism. Most of India was ruled by the Moguls, who had conquered India and brought Islam with them. Guru Nanak had a Hindu father and a Muslim mother. Nanak was born into the kshatriya caste that was under Muslim domination. It is said that at around age 30, Nanak mysteriously disappeared for three days. When he emerged three days later, he taught that there is no Hindu and there is no Muslim.

Guru Nanak sought to combine important elements of both Hinduism and Islam. From Hinduism, he maintained the belief of reincarnation from the law of karma. From Islam, he maintained the belief that God is one and is not to be represented with idols; consequently, Hindu avatars are rejected. His message was that by living a life in keeping with divine virtues a person would eventually become one with God and escape the cycle of reincarnation. Nanak was adamant that our thoughts of God should not be limited by what just one religion teaches. God is not just Allah and not just Krishna, but that God is a reality greater than any human words or concepts could encompass. In this present day, when Sikhs talk about God, they typically use the term “one and only one,” or “Ekankar” in the Punjabi language. Sikhism also teaches that physical self-denial encourages a false piety, which may impress others but does not contribute to one’s spiritual development. Consequently, it forbids fasting as a spiritual exercise and frowns on any other way of using the deprivation of food in the name of religion. World renunciation does not figure in this faith. The Sikhs have no tradition of renunciation, asceticism, celibacy, or mendicancy.

There were ten gurus of Sikhism. Guru Nanak was the first. The fifth guru, Guru Arjan Dev (A.K.A., Arjun Mal), collected the hymns and chants written by all the gurus, including himself, as well as the works of some of the writers who had influenced Nanak, and issued this “exalted book,” the Granth Sahib, which has been the holy book for Sikhism ever after. This exalted book is also known as Adi Granth, meaning the true Granth. There are a few names for this exalted book because granth literally means “book;” therefore, it needs to be distinguished from other books.

The tenth and final guru, Gobind Rai (Gobind Singh) declared that he was the last of the human gurus and that from that point on only the holy book, the Adi Granth, would be the guru for Sikhs. The Adi Granth, like all the human gurus before, became the embodiment of God. Consequently, Sikhs find themselves worshipping this exalted book. The Adi Granth’s most important significance is not so much in its content as in its presence. As the divine guru, it is the focus of worship and veneration as an object, apart from its message. A typical Sikh temple has a copy of the Adi Granth (the original is in Amritsar), and during the day it is displayed on an altar, where people bow before it. In the evening it is literally laid to rest in a bed, complete with sheets and bed curtains, and in the morning it is awakened and placed on the altar again – both times with special ceremonies.

As for worship practices, they seem to be centered on community and gathering for meals. The “common kitchen,” or langar, may be the most distinctive aspect of Sikh community gatherings. All people, regardless of social or economic standing, sit side by side on the floor, eating the same food together. Thus, Sikhism continues to extol the equality of all human beings and to repudiate the caste system.

However, over 200 years following Guru Nanak, a number of developments took place. There was increased conflict between the Muslim rulers and the Sikhs, culminating in armed combat. As a result, Sikhism changed from being a community intended to bring peace and unity to becoming a virtual army, ready to defend itself at a moment’s notice. But that is bound to happen if someone attempts to claim one Truth while combining or uniting the pantheistic, polytheistic, and pluralistic beliefs of Hinduism with the monotheistic religion of Islam.

When Guru Gobind Singh established the order of the khalsa, a part of its requirements were certain unmistakable items of apparel. They are commonly referred to as the five K’s, based on the words for them in the Punjabi language:

1. Long, uncut hair and beard, covered with a turban (kesh).
2. A wooden comb, inserted into the hair (kanga). Together with the comb, uncut hair (gathered in a turban) shielded the skull while tying in with the yogic belief that uncut hair conserves vitality and draws it upward. The comb symbolized cleanliness and good order.
3. An iron bracelet (kara). This provided a small shield while at the same time “shackling” its wearer to God as a reminder that hands should always be in God’s service.
4. Shorts (kachara). The shorts replaced the Indian dhoti and symbolized that one was always dressed for action.
5. A sword or dagger (kirpan). Now largely symbolic, it was originally needed for self-defense.

My Final Thoughts:

Sikhs are forbidden to worship idols yet they worship the Guru Granth Sahib (a book). This religion was formed very late in our history thereby making it one of the youngest world religions. Because Sikhism is one of the youngest religions, it would need to possess a uniqueness about its core beliefs in order for it to stand apart from all others that have already been in existence for centuries. Unfortunately, Guru Nanak’s disappearance and reappearance after three days is all too similar to Jesus of the Christian faith. But that is to be expected because Islam branched off from Christianity. Furthermore, Sikhism was formed in an attempt to unite two contradicting religions in order to create peace. This religion compromises and settles for relativism rather than demanding absolute Truth.

Conclusion:

Though Sikhism rejected polytheism, it found itself in pantheism due to its keeping of the law of karma and the belief that a life lived with divine virtues would eventually lead the believer to become one with God and escape the cycle of reincarnation. Pantheism has already been rejected. However, Sikhism also attempts to claim monotheism by asserting that there is only one God. But the monotheistic God of Islam and the pantheism of Hinduism contradict each other and cannot combine. It is quite obvious that this religion was produced by human effort in order to put an end to the violence that had been experienced at that time.  And because Guru Nanak had a Hindu father and a Muslim mother, it seems as if Nanak invented an irrational religion in order to justify the contradiction between his parents and make sense of his own life. Sikhism is nothing more than a plea for peace without regard for maintaining integrity of Truth. Sikhism must be rejected as Truth and eliminated as a choice.

[ Continue the Quest: Islam ]

Hinduism

Hinduism is a word created by Westerners to encompass the dominant religious and social system of India. Traditionally, those we call Hindus refer to their religion as the dharma, which means “the way” or “the religion.”

Symbols play an important role in Hinduism, but if we were to take just one as standing for the entire religion, it would have to be the graphic representation of the sacred symbol, Om. Om is a sound that has no literal meaning but that is supposed to represent the totality of the spiritual universe. Also, the swastika can be seen in many places where Hinduism is practiced (see: Buddhism).

There are approximately 900 million Hindus in the world; however, the total number of Hindus in India is subject to controversy because it includes up to 300 million “untouchables” (dalits), who are officially counted as a part of the Hindu social structure but who are prevented from fully participating in their religion.

Hinduism began as the religion of a group of people migrating into the Indian subcontinent from Central Asia. These people were called the Aryans, but one should not confuse them with the figments of racist ideologies in the West. When the Aryans entered India around 1500 B.C., they worshipped a number of gods with animal sacrifices. The prerogative to perform the rituals belonged to the priests, called Brahmins, who recorded their prayers and sacrificial formulas in books called Vedas.

The religion of the Aryans underwent some drastic changes. One direction of change was an increase in rules and regulations propagated by the Brahmins. Eventually, a caste system developed and belief in reincarnation became an integral part of Hinduism. This early form of Hinduism is sometimes referred to as “the way of works” because it emphasized the rules and rituals demanded by the Brahmins.

Around sixth century B.C., a reaction against the all-pervasive rituals demanded by the priests led to the formation of the religions of Buddhism and Jainism, but it also led to a new understanding of Hinduism called “the way of knowledge.” The point of the religion was not to amass as many works as possible but instead to find God deep within oneself. The way of works and the way of knowledge continued to exist side by side and influenced each other.

By the eighth century A.D., a third way of practicing Hinduism came about: “the way of devotion.” The distinctive feature of this form of Hinduism is that a person focuses on one particular god or goddess, and this deity provides for the needs of the person, whether it be salvation or worldly needs. The way of devotion blended into the other two ways, and modern Hinduism combines all three.

Way of Works (Brahmanism or Vedic): Based on sacrifices and rituals

Way of Knowledge (Vedantic): Based on finding God within oneself

Way of Devotion (Bhakti): Based on a person’s relationship with a single deity

Hinduism has a large and complex set of writings that are traditionally organized into two main categories: the shruti and the smriti. The shruti are those that were ‘heard’ from the gods by holy men, called rishis, a long time ago and recorded by them. These are supposed to be the main scriptures. The smriti are supposedly of lesser importance since they are only ‘received,’ which is to say, handed down by tradition. However, because the smriti [for the most part] contains stories, they receive the greater amount of attention from most Hindus, whereas knowledge of the shruti tends to be confined to priests and scholars. Nowadays, many scholars believe that Hindu scriptures were not written down until a few hundred years ago.

The shruti contains the writings of:

• Vedas: four major works, containing hymns and sacrificial formulas
• Brahmanas: instructions for priests
• Sutras: instructions for all people
• Law of Manu: specific instructions for all Hindus
• Upanishads: philosophical meditations and mystical interpretations of the Vedas

The smriti contains the writings of:

• Mahabharata: epic describing the war between two sets of cousins
• Bhagavad-Gita: one section of the Mahabharata; a discourse by the god Krishna
• Ramayana: epic describing the efforts by the god Rama to liberate his wife Sita from an evil demon
• Puranas: stories concerning the lives and exploits of various gods

Most Hindus agree on certain concepts; however, Hinduism has no mandatory set of beliefs. I’m going to list what most Hindus agree on; however, in theory, one could be considered a good Hindu and not believe any of the following points. What people initially want is pleasure and worldly success (Path of Desire), but ultimately they will desire to travel down the Path of Renunciation and what they want then is being, knowledge, joy, and [finally] liberation (moksha) – release from the finitude that restricts us from the limitless being, consciousness, and bliss our hearts desire. Most Hindus would agree that life is hard and full of suffering and, what’s worse, when someone is done with one life of suffering, that person will have another one and another one, etc. As soon as someone is done with one life, that person is reincarnated into the next life. It does not necessarily have to be a human life either. One could come back as a bird or a worm or an insect. As a doctrine, karma means the moral law of cause and effect. The law of karma states that what you did in your previous lives has brought you to where you are in your present life; furthermore, what you do in your present life will determine your next life. Thus, Hinduism in all its forms attempts to find a way out of the seemingly never-ending cycle of reincarnation and to break the bondage of karma.

Vedantic Hinduism: The way of knowledge asserts that all human beings are living in an unreal world. There is only one true reality, which is Brahman, the spiritual being that is ultimately beyond our understanding or descriptive ability. As long as we treat the world of our experience (maya) as though it were real, we will remain hung up in this illusory cosmos and continue through the cycle of reincarnations. However, if we come to the point of realizing that deep within ourselves, deeper than our feelings and our thoughts, there is Self (atman) that is identical with Brahman, we are on our way to escaping from the bondage of the world once and for all.

Bhakti Hinduism: The way of devotion has led many Hindus to commit themselves in a special way to one particular god or goddess. Some Hindus believe that all gods are manifestations of the impersonal, ultimate Brahman, while others consider their personal god or goddess to be the supreme being. For the devotee of a specific god, the goal is to do all you can to honor and worship the god in the hopes that this deity will reciprocate with blessings. It is said that there are an estimated 300 million gods in Hinduism, but not all gods are considered to be of equal importance. The traditional three main gods of Hinduism are the following: Brahma (creator of the universe), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer). Each of the gods has a female counterpart, his shakti, who brings out his power. Vishnu is important because from time to time he incarnates himself in the world in order to restore order. His most prominent past incarnations (avatars) include Krishna and Rama.

It is Hinduism’s general conviction that the various major religions are merely alternate paths to the same goal. Many say that it is possible to climb life’s mountain from any side, but when the top is reached the trails converge. Ramakrishna said all that follows: God has made different religions. One Everlasting-Intelligent-Bliss is invoked by some as God, by some as Allah, by some as Jehovah, and by others as Brahman. Whenever there is a decline of religion in any part of the world, God sends his Saviour there. It is one and the same Saviour that, having plunged into the ocean of life, rises up in one place and is known as Krishna, and diving down again rises in another place and is known as Christ. All gods and goddesses are but various aspects of the one Absolute Brahman.

Although there is the potential for endless varieties of subgroups, there are three main schools of devotion: those who follow Vishnu as their highest god, those who are devoted to Shiva, and those whose highest deity is a goddess (A.K.A. Shaktites).

Another important means of grouping within Hinduism is the caste system. On no other score is Hinduism better known or more roundly denounced by the outside world. Primarily a set of social divisions, it also has a profound impact on the religion and is in fact enjoined by Hindu scriptures. It is said that unless unequals are separated in some way, the weak would be forced to compete against the strong across the board and would stand no chance of winning anywhere. The reasoning behind the castes is that within each caste the individual’s right are considered safer than if he/she is forced to compete against the strong. There is said to be four main castes, with some believing that there are five. The following are the four main castes along with the additional fifth caste (that is often disputed):

1. Brahmins = priests, religious leaders, teachers
2. Kshatriyas = warriors, rulers, administrators
3. Vaishyas = merchants, landowners
4. Shudras = workers, followers, unskilled laborers
5. Dalits = outcastes, untouchables

A Hindu who lives in India once explained it to me in this way: “Humans by nature are inclined (favor) to one of the four tendencies, The first is desire for knowledge that makes us become scientists, professors, researchers, etc. Such humans are called brahman. The second nature is protective, those sattvic are always ready to fight to save others like police and army, etc. They are kshatriya. The third is materialistic or business minded, that is merchants, etc. It also includes farmers. They are the vaisya. The fourth have a talent for music, plays, dance, etc. They are the one most loved by the holy father because they are most devoted to him and carry the human society forward. They are the shudras. This is the caste system and no human is outside it. Everything else you have heard of is either British lies or the mixing of class and caste, there are no dalits in this system. They are an outcome of something else and now have equal rights in society in fact more rights than others under the constitution.”

Hinduism’s specific directions for actualizing the human potential come under the heading of yoga. The word yoga derives from the same root as does the English word yoke, and yoke carries a double connotation: to unite (yoke together), and to place under disciplined training (to bring under the yoke). Both connotations are present in the Sanskrit word. Defined generally, then, yoga is a method of training designed to lead to integration, to unite the human spirit with the God who lies concealed in its deepest recesses. What is distinctive in Hinduism is the amount of attention it has devoted to identifying basic spiritual personality types and the disciplines that are most likely to work for each individual. The result is a recognition, pervading the entire religion, that there are multiple paths to God, each calling for its distinctive mode of travel. There are four basic spirituality types:

• Jnana yoga – the way through knowledge
• Bhakti yoga – the way through love
• Karma yoga – the way through work
• Raja yoga – the way through psychophysical exercises

Jnana yoga is said to be the shortest path to divine realization yet also the steepest. Because it requires a rare combination of rationality and spirituality, it is for a select few. Essential being is Being itself. The Atman (God within) must change from concept to realization. A person needs to drive a wedge between his/her skin-encapsulated ego and his/her Atman, and an aid in doing so is to think of the former in the third person.

Bhakti yoga is the most popular of the four basic paths. By and large, life is powered more by emotion and less by reason. This path seems to be opposite and contradictory to Jnana yoga’s way of knowledge. Because healthy love is out-going, the bhakta will reject all suggestions that the God one loves is oneself, even one’s deepest Self, and insist on God’s otherness. The goal is not to strive to identify with God, but to adore God with every element of his/her being.

Karma yoga is the way to God through works. You can find God in the world of everyday affairs as readily as anywhere. Throw yourself into your work with everything you have. According to Hindu doctrine, every action performed upon the external world reacts on the doer. Everything a person does for him/her private wellbeing adds another layer to the ego, only thickening and insulating that person more from God. Selfish works create callousness to the divine. The Bhagavad-Gita says, “Do without attachment the work you have to do. Surrendering all action to Me, freeing yourself from longing and selfishness, fight – unperturbed by grief.”

Raja yoga has been known in India as “the royal (raj) road to reintegration” because of the dazzling heights to which it leads. The purpose is to reach the beyond that is within. One by one, meditation will eliminate the intrusions of cravings, a troubled conscience, body, breath, and even the senses. The goal is accomplished when the subject and the object are completely merged so that the self-consciousness of the individual subject has disappeared altogether. The final climactic state occurs when samadhi is achieved. Samadhi names the state in which the human mind is completely absorbed in God. The distinctive feature of samadhi is that all of the object’s forms fall away. For forms are limiting boundaries; to be one form others must be excluded, and what is to be known in raja yoga’s final stage is without limits.

The central act of worship in Hinduism is service performed for the statues of deities both at home and in the temple. Hindus believe that the god or goddess lives inside the statue so long as it is properly cared for. This means that it has to be washed and clothed regularly and be given proper worship (puja). Also, marks on the face or the forehead can be of great significance. For one thing, frequently after a person has participated in puja at a temple, some of the crushed flower petals and ashes used in the ceremony are applied to the forehead in disk shape. Many times a devotee of a particular deity will mark his/her forehead with ashes, using the sign specific for that god. For example, devotees of Shiva mark their foreheads with three horizontal stripes, while devotees of Vishnu make two vertical lines that converge on the bridge of the nose. The common red dot seen on the forehead of female Hindus is called the bindi, which means “little drop.” Even though it can carry multiple connotations in different regions of India, most of the time the bindi tells the world, “I am Hindu, and I am a married woman.” However, for unmarried girls, the dot is black most of the time and it is intended to protect against the “evil eye.”

A Hindu temple is usually a highly decorated building dedicated to one particular deity. Regardless of who the main deity may be, many larger temples have a statue of the elephant-headed Ganesha, the “remover of obstacles,” to the right of the main deity (your left side if facing the statues). Every puja will begin by worshipping Ganesha first.

My Final Thoughts:

One thing I can certainly commend Hinduism for is that it is peaceful and nonviolent. However, Hinduism represents a broad category of religious beliefs. Hinduism is sharply separated into three schools: pantheism, polytheism, and pluralism. Some Hindus believe they need to meditate their way into total absorption with God, some Hindus believe in multiple different gods yet devote themselves to only one particular deity, and some Hindus believe that all beliefs lead to the same goal.

Pantheism is found in the last section of the Vedas, the Hindu scriptures. This final section is called the Upanishads. Because the Upanishads came at the end of each of the four Vedas, the Upanishads came to be spoken of as the Vedanta, meaning end or goal of the Vedas. The Upanishads, along with the Bhagavad-Gita, laid the foundation for Vedanta Hinduism, which is a classic example of pantheism.

There is said to be four basic paths to God in the four different ways of yoga; however, examination of the four yoga types boils the four down to only two: knowledge and love. Jnana yoga and raja yoga ultimately join together in a desire to become God whereas bhakti yoga and karma yoga ultimately join together in a desire to love others while realizing that we are not God.

Why worship Krishna or Rama if they are just avatars of Vishnu? Why not just worship Vishnu? Why worship Vishnu if he is only a preserver and not the creator? Why not just worship Brahma if he is the creator? Ganesha is the son of Shiva. So why not just worship Shiva? Why worship Ganesha at all? But if you are going to choose any one god, why wouldn’t you worship the Ultimate from which all other gods originated? The many gods worshipped is a classic example of polytheism. And because Hinduism encourages the worship of many gods, it veers them into a position where all gods would then need to be accepted. This is pluralism.

Karma plays a major role in Hinduism and therefore must be investigated thoroughly. One of the biggest reasons that people hold the belief of karma is because they believe it is just. To many people, the idea of having more than one chance at life seems to be the most equitable solution. Suffering in this life can be justified if it is really an outworking of karma from past lives. This explanation eliminates the need to make God responsible for suffering. All suffering can be explained as the just outworking of bad deeds done in former incarnations. Clearly, the most attractive aspect of reincarnation is that everyone would eventually get saved due to the many chances to live life the right way.

Reincarnation, however, is not justice. No – not at all. The innocent are not really innocent because the karma of their past lives is causing the suffering. Reincarnation doesn’t deal with justice, it simply dismisses the injustice. There is no need to take personal responsibility because one would always have another chance. But what good is another chance if one doesn’t even realize that it is another chance? Why don’t we remember any of our past mistakes if we are supposed to correct them? Is it really fair for God to punish people for the sins they don’t even remember committing?

Karma is not a moral prescription. It is a system of retribution only; it has no content to tell us what to do. It is an impersonal, amoral law of act-consequence relations. Unless something is absolutely right, nothing can be actually right; and if nothing is right (or wrong), then karma has no business punishing anyone for it. And in a pantheistic, polytheistic, and pluralistic religion such as Hinduism, there cannot be absolute Truth nor can there exist an absolute moral standard. So why punish people for some wrong if there is no moral standard of right and wrong?

Reincarnation is ultimately anti-humanitarian. Philanthropy ends up contradicting the purpose of karma. According to traditional Hindu belief, anyone who helps those who suffer is not increasing the karma of those being helped – it only increases the karma of the people who are doing the act of helping. People suffer to work off their karmic debt, and if you help them, then they will have to come back again and suffer even more to work off that debt.

Also, if reincarnation were correct, society should be improving; however, there is no evidence that such moral progress is being made. All we have improved is the means by which we can manifest hate, cruelty, racism, and barbarism toward other human beings. Reincarnation has failed as a solution to the problem of evil.

Conclusion:

Hinduism is pantheistic and lacks an objective moral standard. Hinduism is polytheistic and it does not account for either ultimate causality or ultimate unity, which is needed to explain a diverse, changing universe. Hinduism is pluralistic and allows multiple contradictory beliefs in order to obtain its truth. Pantheism, polytheism, and pluralism have all been rejected and eliminated; therefore, it simply follows that Hinduism must be rejected as Truth and eliminated as a choice.

However, in my investigation, I have concluded Christianity to be Truth. Click here to see why: Why I Am A Christian.

Mastering Logical Fallacies?

Mastering Logical Fallacies: by Michael Withey;
Book review: by Trenton Gill

This is my book review of Mastering Logical Fallacies, by Dr. Michael Withey. I’ll provide a short summary and then expound upon it. Though the author made quite a few good arguments throughout the book, the book as a whole was disappointing and left me dissatisfied. This book is supposed to be about mastering logic; however, the author possesses a clear and alarming bias that leans left and he presents an anti-God agenda sprinkled throughout the entire book. Consequently, much of his “logic” comes from his own opinionated worldview. Found within the pages of this book is not education but indoctrination. Further, all of Dr. Michael Withey’s students would do well to recognize the fallacy that appeals to authority and practice rejecting the lies that Dr. Michael Withey teaches. I do not recommend this book to anyone.

The book starts off well and without bias, but by page 22 the author promotes a positive view of Barak Obama; in stark contrast, the author pushes a negative view of Donald Trump on page 40. A few times throughout the book, the author uses references to The Simpsons. At first glance, the use of The Simpsons might not seem like a big deal; however, there is a theme that obviously runs throughout this book and that theme is anti-God. The Simpsons are known for mocking Christianity. On page 29, the author uses Homer Simpson as a “real life example” to prove his point. Though Homer Simpson might be on a television show found in our normal real life experiences, Homer Simpson himself is not a real life example. The author should have chosen a better “real life example,” perhaps anything or anyone from history or current events.

By page 43, the author singles out Christianity and attempts to discredit the Bible by claiming that Isaiah 40:22 proclaims the world to be flat. The author intentionally cherry-picked the very end of that Scripture and omitted what was actually written: “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth…” Page 43 is discussing the fallacy of appealing to authority. However, a few pages earlier (page 38), the author wrote, “So, if I say, ‘Black holes emit radiation,’ I can justify this by appealing to the authority of Stephen Hawking.” But can a finite and fallible being be an infallible expert? Have scientists ever been wrong? Of course they have been wrong. While the author attempts to discredit the Christian faith, the author fails to notice that he too possesses faith. The author possesses faith that other humans are correct in all their estimates; therefore, the author believes [by faith] that black holes exist and that they emit radiation. Meanwhile, back on page 44 where the author attempted to dismantle and discredit Christianity, the author wrote, “An expert’s opinion may not represent the consensus of other experts…. other experts may treat him as a crank…. the expert may have a vested interest in getting people to accept his opinions…. take such expert pronouncements with a grain of salt. After all, a group of ‘experts’ won’t necessarily achieve an absolute consensus about a topic; experts aren’t necessarily impartial.” So, who then is an expert? What makes someone an expert? Isn’t an ‘expert’ a mere human being who was simply dedicated to obtaining documentation from what could have been a biased educational institute? Would, then, an ‘expert’ be defined as someone who was committed to a cause for a specified amount of time? But should a commitment to a cause determine the ‘expert’ title? Can you think of anyone who had been committed to a cause, earned a title of ‘expert,’ yet did evil deeds? What about Dr. Josef Mengele? And that’s why it’s important not to fall for the fallacy of appealing to authority. Titles are earned when someone puts in enough time and dedication to acquiring such titles; however, possessing a title doesn’t make that person an expert on Truth — the person would merely be more knowledgeable of the desired topic to which that person was dedicated. This is also why Dr. Michael Withey’s teachings should not be accepted without first being examined critically. Michael Withey possesses a title of “Dr.”, but does that mean he speaks Truth?

On page 42, the author wrote, “should your opponent try to whip up hatred against a certain group, respond in kind by stressing the need for tolerance and understanding (good luck with that).” First off, does luck exist? Should the person who desires to teach logic use the word “luck”? And second, the author demands tolerance yet attacks Christianity on the very next page. But even if the message of tolerance is to be taken seriously, what is to be tolerated? We must remember that a tolerance to lies is an intolerance to Truth. See my argument about Truth:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/what-is-truth/

On page 58, the author discusses the appeal to desperation fallacy while putting a negative spin on the republican party. The author chose to use Medicare to illustrate the fallacy. Instead, let’s use the pro-choice argument that appeals to desperation:

P1. Unwanted pregnancy demands a serious response.

P2. Abortion sounds like a serious response.

:.  Abort.

Using the author’s own words, let’s examine the evidence: “Alternatively, even if the proposed solution would resolve the problem at hand, it doesn’t mean it should be implemented; there may be other, possibly better ways of resolving the problem. Moreover, the proposed solution may be worse than the original problem.”

So, if I had an unwanted pregnancy, one solution would be to abort the baby. However, this doesn’t mean I should abort my baby — I could, for instance, give the baby up for adoption; or I might opt to just accept responsibility for the life now within me.

On page 51, the author’s “comeback” leads to the author stating that people who use marijuana should not go to jail and that “there are better ways of dealing with this problem (e.g. drug education, harm-reduction programs).”

Is the best solution the greatest prevention? So, what’s the best solution to the abortion debate? Read my logical argument against abortion here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/abortion/

And as for the drug debate, advocating drug education implies the need for drug prevention. The need for drug prevention implies that drugs are bad/wrong. The need for harm-reduction implies that harm is bad/wrong. A claim of “better” appeals to the best. A claim of “bad” or “wrong” appeals to the absolute moral standard of right and what is best. By whose standards do we live? Without an absolute moral standard, all morals would be relative and relativism is absolutely absurd. Read my argument against moral relativism here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/moral-relativism/

On page 53, the author discusses the fallacy of appealing to emotion. The author attempts to use Proposition 8 to flip the argument in favor of same-sex marriage by asserting that those who are against same-sex marriage appeal to emotion and use the argument, “What sort of monster are you?!” In fact, this is the tactic used against those who oppose same-sex marriage. This is evident in the multiple cases where defenders of marriage are called hateful, intolerant, or even bigots. Using the author’s own words yet again, I’ll make my own case: “The mistake arises when the appeal to emotion is used in lieu of an argument…. they are still the facts, regardless of how one feels.” This is true. We must separate facts from feelings. Biology and anthropology argue in favor of heterosexual relationships and traditional view of marriage. Read my argument, “Defending Marriage” here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/defending-marriage/

On page 56, while discussing the fallacy of appealing to faith, the author wrote, “many people lack faith altogether.” But is that true? All people possess faith. Have you ever eaten something in faith believing that it wasn’t poisoned? In fact, the author already revealed his faith when he appealed to the authority of Stephen Hawking — he revealed that he possessed faith that black holes not only exist, but that they also emit radiation. The author then goes on to use the book of Leviticus to argue his anti-God worldview that Leviticus also prescribes that one shouldn’t wear mixed fibers and we do that today; therefore, when Leviticus opposes homosexuality, it should be acceptable today. But is that true? No. The author reveals his ignorance of Scripture. Mosaic ceremonial law passed away, but homosexuality is still listed as being wrong in the New Testament. The author attempts to argue the need for tolerance and love by asking, “Shouldn’t that encourage us to accept homosexuality?” Again, it is important to know what we would be tolerating. A tolerance to lies is an intolerance to Truth. And is it really true that “love is love?” As I have addressed in my argument, “Defending Marriage,” the “love is love” mantra is inaccurate and invalid. Logic proves that pluralism is a false doctrine; logic does not prove that no belief should be established, but that Truth is absolute and there exists one worldview that is true.

On page 58, the author attacks GOD yet again while discussing the fallacy of appealing to fear. The author also appeals to emotion by stating that Donald Trump proposes to ban Muslims. In light of the recent news stories covering the “travel ban,” it is important to know the truth in the matter. The purpose of a temporary travel ban is to prevent unnecessary terrorist attacks. It’s not a ban on Muslims. It just so happens that the areas prone to terrorists harbor a vast majority of Muslims. Do we purify our water before drinking it? What about dross from gold? Chaff from grain? Would you want mold in your house? In life, filtering systems are necessary and good. Please read my immigration argument here:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/mold-myth-or-monster/

The author states that people believe in GOD because they are afraid of Hell; in fact, Hell is merely a fallacy that appeals to fear. But is that true? Yet again, I will use the author’s own words against him: “The trick here is to show that there’s nothing to be frightened of, or that your opponent is exaggerating.” It is true that the author is exaggerating the claim that Hell is merely an appeal to fear. The author’s “comeback” is to ask, “So, if I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in hell anyway; so why worry?” Well, Truth exists whether you believe in it or not. But should we worry? Should we fear?

“So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.”

(1John 4: 16-19)-ESV

GOD is a message of hope, salvation, restoration, and celebration. The gospel means the “good news.” John 3:16-17 makes the message a mission of love. Hell is merely mentioned as a promise; it’s not a threat. Rebellion against government law produces promised consequences of prison. Do citizens live life in fear of breaking the law or do they live in the joy of freedom to live life in alignment with love? If criminals end up in prison, is that not what we call justice? If criminals find themselves in prison, was it not their choices that led them there? Is it wrong that citizens don’t want criminals in society? Is it wrong to separate sinners from saints in Hell and Heaven? If GOD is perfect love (1John 4:8) and desires for all people to be saved (1Timothy 2:4; 2Peter 3:9), is it not intellectually dishonest to claim that GOD threatens people with Hell? If GOD has commanded us to make right decisions and granted us the gift of free will to make decisions, who is to blame if we make wrong decisions? So, what is at question is not the justice of Hell, but the existence of Hell. The atheist says he/she doesn’t believe in GOD; therefore, Hell does not exist and there is not a reason to worry about facing promised judgment for immoral choices. Many criminals did not believe they would face judgment only to face judgment at a later time. Truth exists whether one believes Truth exists or not. Many people choose not to believe in GOD because they reject GOD’s absolute moral standard. But if humans are to claim anything to be right or wrong, there must be an absolute moral standard by which the wrong may be compared. To know what is crooked we must first know what is straight. See my arguments about evil and Hell:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/evil/

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/28/hell/

On page 62, the author argues yet again against GOD. Read my arguments as to why GOD is the most reasonable belief:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/does-a-creator-god-exist/

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/intelligent-design-1/

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/intelligent-design-2/

From pages 67-72, the author argues yet again to promote homosexuality, but this time with a faulty premise that nothing can be assumed to be natural or normal. But we know what is natural and normal and that is how we are able to identify abnormalities such as cancer or birth defects. How can something be called a defect unless we know what is normally there that would be lacking?

On page 82, the author again argues on behalf of homosexuality by stating that “society may traditionally have thought homosexuality was sinful, but this was an injury to homosexuals” But is that true? Again, we must separate feelings from facts. We must not mistake the acknowledgment of wrong action for being an attack on a person. Do we injure pedophiles by acknowledging their actions as sinful? Who is to say that pedophilia is wrong if “love is love” like the argument for gay marriage suggests? Or if the argument for gay marriage is to insinuate it as being acceptable due to adult consent, why would incest or polygamy be wrong? This is nothing more than an appeal to pity or emotion. Are hurt feelings true injuries? Would it hurt the feelings of an obese person to point out wrongful eating habits? The bottom line is that marriage matters and sex matters. I highly recommend Jonathan McKee’s book, Sex Matters:

https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Matters-Jonathan-McKee/dp/0764222139/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489459678&sr=1-1&keywords=mckee+sex+matters

Also, see my book review for his book. In my review, I ask dozens of important thought-provoking questions to prompt further examination:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/03/13/sex-matters-book-review/

On page 88, the author essentially argues against GOD yet again, but this time directs his argument against prayer and miracles. But if “a false positive is much more likely than an accurate result,” what does that say about the evidence accepted? The real argument is whether miracles are possible or not. The real argument is whether GOD exists or not. If GOD exists, miracles are possible. Read my argument for the possibility of miracles:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/miracles-or-myths/

On page 93, the author again uses GOD as an example.

On page 96, the author chose to discuss the fallacy of blind authority by using cult members. Although what is discussed is true of mindless  members of a cult, there seems to be an underlying effort to discredit GOD yet again.

On page 99, the author discusses the fallacy of cherry picking and uses the National Rifle Association, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the right to bear arms in an attempt to argue in favor of what seems to be an obvious liberally left aligned agenda. Again — and ironically so — I will use the author’s own words against him: “We all subconsciously seek out evidence that corroborates our beliefs, and tend to ignore evidence that contradicts them — this is a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. So we’d be well advised to be on guard against sloppiness in our own thinking as much as our opponents.” In fact, taken as a whole, this entire book is bias to the author’s liberal and anti-God worldview. Either the author is not aware of his own inclination to cherry pick arguments or he had an agenda to attack GOD and conservatism. So, the author is either an educated fool or diabolical and deceitful.

On page 119, the author discusses the fallacy of false analogy and somehow ends up promoting e-cigarettes by stating “e-cigarettes lack the harmful properties that normal cigarettes have…. they are not harmful (or, at least, there is no evidence yet for their being so).” While I agree that e-cigarettes can be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, I believe it is irresponsible for the author to have promoted e-cigarettes as not being harmful. Does the smoker inhale? Is that which is inhaled healthy to inhale? Does the substance being inhaled belong in the lungs? Do e-cigarettes deliver nicotine? Is nicotine addictive? Should anything addictive be advocated or promoted? Is it good to provide the addictive substance without restrictions? Isn’t it possible for the e-cigarette to be a gateway drug and lead to something else more harmful? And though I concede that my last point may be considered the fallacy of a slippery slope, I believe it is more important that the author considers the ramifications of his actions. Because the author possesses the ability to influence others’ decisions and guide their beliefs, he should have invested more time into finding a different example for his argument or explained the negative and harmful aspects of e-cigarettes.

Between pages 128-130, the author reveals his true identity by not only attempting to discredit GOD [again], but also essentially rejecting the Declaration of Independence by stating that the text itself “refuses to provide” an “argument by which [the authors could] establish [the] substantive conclusion” we are endowed by our Creator (GOD). Disregarding or discarding the Declaration would be to create an unacceptable new world order established by moral relativism, which is untenable. In regards to the Declaration of Independence, the authors’ argument was established by the existence of GOD. So, the real argument regarding the Declaration of Independence is whether GOD exists or not. Again, I will use Dr. Michael Withey’s own words against himself: “Don’t let your opponent bully you into silence.”

There are three basic positions one can hold:

1. GOD/gods exists.
2. I don’t know.
3. GOD/gods does not exist.

First, we must recognize that Truth is absolute and never relative. Then, we must realize that it is possible we do not know everything. Test yourself. Can you answer my questions?

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/questions/

Next, we need to admit that we do not know everything. Claiming to lack knowledge is an honest position to hold. Understand agnosticism:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/agnosticism/

And finally, a logical argument can be made that atheism is intellectually dishonest. Where’s there’s atheism, there’s moral relativism; moral relativism is self-refuting and untenable.

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/atheism/

On page 130, the author wrote, “God commands the good; but does He command it because it is good, or is it good because He commands it?” Withey goes on to state, “morality rests on a ‘just because:’ what is good is ultimately arbitrary, the result of God’s contingent will.” However, this is a false dilemma. GOD commands the good for both reasons — it is good and it is good because GOD is good. We do not have to decide one or the other. It is both. Without GOD’s absolute moral standard, all morals would be relative. However, relativism is self-refuting. Remind yourself of the Truth of this if you need to do so:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/moral-relativism/

On page 133, the author discusses the ludic fallacy and goes on to state that “real life isn’t a game — there aren’t any rules that prohibit certain outcomes from coming to pass.” This is easy enough to refute by simply examining the law of gravity; however, I decided to expound on this argument. Please dig deeper:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/18/mirage/

On pages 139 & 167, the author makes his naturalistic bias known by defending Darwinism. Again, I’ll use the author’s own words against him: “The reduction to the absurd only gives rise to a fallacy when the absurdity it exposes is predicated on misrepresentations of your opponent’s position.” Withey has misrepresented the Creator and thus misrepresented himself (the creation). Attempting to reduce mind, morality, and meaning to mere materialism and naturalism is absurd. What about immaterial consciousness? What is a thought? If it is mere matter in motion, what does it matter? All morals would be relative. Evolution demands that only the strongest survive. If that is accepted, then rape cannot be determined to be wrong since it is the strongest male ensuring the continuation of his line. Also, how could it be determined to be wrong for a homeless person to murder a rich citizen? If only the strongest survive, the homeless person is doing right to ensure the necessity of his surviving and thriving. Also, life’s meaning and purpose would ultimately be relative and even nihilistic. If your child determined that the meaning of his life was to be the best burglar or most famous serial killer, you would have no right to force your own relative morals on him. The position is clearly untenable. The author wrote, “go back far enough and you will find a common ancestor that both we and they descend from.” The problem is that there is a big difference between micro and macro evolution. The evidence for human evolution is insufficient:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/evolution/

On pages 142-143, the author discusses the fallacy of moving the goalposts. The author’s entire argument seems to be based on the work of Lawrence Krauss in order to reject the existence of GOD [yet again]. The problem with Lawrence Krauss’s work is that he actually used something and called it nothing in order to prove that something can come from nothing. But that is merely stealing from GOD and is a failure at hitting the mark. True nothing is absolutely nothing and something never comes from nothing unless a transcendent Someone provides that something. In response to Krauss being told he essentially cheated by calling something nothing, Krauss had said, “I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that.” Krauss’s argument is revealing. We simply cannot call something nothing because we desire it to be nothing. I highly recommend you read Frank Turek’s book, Stealing From GOD:

https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-God-Atheists-Need-Their/dp/1612917011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489579129&sr=8-1&keywords=stealing+from+god

On page 143, the author, promoting an “effective comeback” wrote, “Feel free to call your opponent a jerk, an SOB, or a villain, depending on your mood.” Does this sound like someone who has mastered logic? Mr. Withey, your failure to meet the absolute standard does not warrant name calling. Is it ever acceptable to call your opponent names? Should everyone resort to some sort of ad hominem fallacious argument? Should any logical decision be dependent upon your mood? Or should we always separate feelings from facts? Shame on you. Because you are in a position to influence others’ beliefs and direction in life, you should desire to make a conscious effort to critically examine everything you write before you publish it. And by the way, in the last sentence of the first paragraph of ‘the comeback’ section on page 18, the word should be “by” and not “be.” In addition, the first word of the second sentence of ‘the mistake’ section on page 79 should be “your” and not “you.” Isn’t it ironic that you made a mistake in the section that apparently calls out the mistake?

On page 150, the author discusses the naturalistic fallacy and makes a claim that goodness is a non-natural property, but he provides no evidence for the claim. He then goes on to state, “a homophobe’s declaration that homosexuality is wrong, because it is unnatural…”. I’ve already refuted this fallacy in my argument, “Defending Marriage,” but the author’s incessant demand that homosexuality is natural, normal, or right goes against the very fallacies he ascribes himself as being able to teach to others. The author is inconsistent and simply wrong. Is it truly a phobia? Is someone a homophobe because he/she simply states a biological fact that is also evident in anthropology throughout history? What exactly is Mr. Withey appealing to in his argument? In ‘the mistake’ section on page 152, the author wrote, “how can any of [the homosexual’s] activities be unnatural?” Again, it is ironic that I will have to point out his mistake in the section he attempted to point out another’s mistake. Unnatural cannot be known unless the natural is known. If a human is naturally able to invent or create, this implies creation; creation implies a creator. If human is creation, who or what created the human? Are we truly to believe that the universe and all life simply came from nothing as Lawrence Krauss would have us believe? Did life originate from non-life? If humans are so evidently superior in their natural abilities, can the origin of humanism honestly appeal to naturalism or materialism? The claim that no human activity is unnatural is to say that all human activities are natural. Is a human living and breathing under water natural? Is it natural for a human to eat his/her own feces? Likewise, wrong cannot be known unless right is known. Not all human activities are right. The author bases his arguments from relativism yet appeals to the absolute standard.

In ‘the comeback’ section of page 152, the author wrote, “So, it’s hard to argue that homosexuality is unnatural, if animals also engage in it…. What’s natural isn’t ipso facto good.” First, the author makes a claim that animals engage in homosexual activity without providing any evidence for the claim. Second, even if some homosexual activity has been observed in the wild animal kingdom, was it consensual? Also, is it common? Even if it is common, that doesn’t mean it is normal. Cancer is common, but it is not normal; it’s not the Design. Birth defects are common, but not normal; it’s not the Design. In addition, should humans be compared to wild animals? Should animals be held to the absolute moral standard to which humans are held? Should humans be held to a higher standard than wild animals? Why or why not? Moreover, the argument of “what’s natural” presupposes the existence of something being natural. The author would either need to prove homosexual activity to be normal or prove why the unnatural act is to be considered right.

On page 154, the author discusses the nirvana fallacy and argues the need for contraceptives. While it is true that contraceptives have a high success rate at preventing unwanted pregnancy, abstinence is still the best answer. (re-read discussion for page 82). Sex matters. Contraceptives is to sex as Moses and divorce is to marriage (Matthew 19: 3-9). Divorce was only permitted due to hardness of hearts and rebellion to the Design. Contraceptives are only permitted due to people refusing the Design. Can contraceptives prevent emotional investments or protect purity? Is a condom a barrier that blocks broken hearts? The author wrote, “If you aim at perfection, you will frequently fail to do anything good at all.” That is false. You might fail to be perfect, but you’ll most likely accomplish something good. Examine the author’s claim for his book: “The definitive guide to flawless rhetoric and bulletproof logic.” The author aimed at perfection and failed. But did he accomplish some good? Though I reject his agenda, I would say that the author has at least accomplished some good. In his “comeback” section on page 155, the author wrote, “You need only point out that your aim was never to make things perfect, only to improve things a bit (unless you did promise perfection, in which case you asked for it!).” That statement is the reason for this lengthy review — the author claimed perfection; consequently, he asked for this.

Still on page 155, I’ll use the author’s own words against him [yet again]: “If the opponent’s proposal not only solves the problems that yours does, but also solves some problems that yours doesn’t, then his solution should be preferred.” The author should then admit that my proposal should be preferred. Abstinence has 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy and protecting purity. Abstinence also prevents abortions and protects people from emotional entanglements. In regards to abstinence, the author seems to think that “the bar is set too high: unless the proposal can bring about heaven on earth, it should be rejected.” The bar is not to be considered “too high” simply because someone desires to set sin as the standard. The proposal of living in alignment with the absolute moral standard can literally bring about Heaven-like quality of life here on Earth.

On page 159, the author discusses the fallacy of proving non-existence and makes it his goal [yet again] to discredit the existence of GOD. Refer to the discussion from pages 128-130.

There are three basic positions one can hold:

1. GOD/gods exists.
2. I don’t know.
3. GOD/gods does not exist.

The agnostic claims to be without knowledge; the agnostic has nothing to prove. The theist claims that GOD exists; the theist must present the available evidence to prove that GOD is the most reasonable belief. The atheist claims that GOD/gods does not exist; the atheist must prove non-existence and would seemingly have to do so with lack of evidence.

On page 161, the author wrote, “If your opponent offers no evidence supporting the belief that his favored entity exists, and instead challenges you to show that it doesn’t exist, then you can challenge him back.” This is a false dilemma. Both beliefs are required to provide evidence for their claim. To believe (possess a belief) that something does not exist simply because you lack knowledge of its existence is a premature conclusion of a closed-minded individual. To say that GOD does not exist due to lack of knowledge is to admit to a premature belief. It’s intellectually dishonest. The author also wrote, “It’s generally the job of the believer to give reasons to believe that something exists. Of course, if he can do so, he has legitimately shifted the burden of proof: we should believe that P exists as he asserts, unless we can prove otherwise.” Mr. Withey is correct is what he wrote. And the fact is that evidence for GOD has been provided in multiple areas with the following arguments:

• Cosmological
• Teleological
• Moral
• Axiological
• Ontological
• Anthropological
• Miracles

There is more than enough reason to believe that an intelligent Creator GOD exists. The best someone can do is to admit to being without knowledge and remain an agnostic in the first sense that the existence of GOD or gods is unknown. But to ever hold the position of an atheist who claims GOD does not exist is intellectually dishonest and refuses to heed the overwhelming evidence that lends credibility to the possibility of GOD.

On page 173, the author discusses the fallacy of shoehorning and uses Jesus as an example:

“Let me tell you about my views on Jesus. Jesus is my personal savior…”

“But we were discussing farming!”

On page 174, the author wrote, “He may dearly love to discuss Jesus with you, but since your topic is farming, his contribution is quite beside the point.” The author is claiming that Jesus is irrelevant to the discussion of farming; however, this presupposes either that Jesus didn’t exist or wasn’t who He said He was. So, without being intellectually dishonest and closed-minded, one should should ask why Jesus is relevant and allow an explanation. Furthermore, Jesus is actually relevant when discussing farming due to the entire 13th chapter of the book of Matthew. The parables of the sower, wheat and the weeds, and the mustard seed and the yeast are all relevant to farming and thus relevant in the discussion about farming. If you believe yourself to be a farmer, you should know what you’re truly harvesting. You will reap what you sow. It is important to know what you are sowing and where you are sowing. Do you know what you are sowing or where you are sowing? Also, are you aware of what has been sown that you yourself did not sow but are able to reap? Where are the seeds? Along the path to get snatched? On rocky ground and without roots? In the thorns to get choked out? What will you harvest? Are you a weed or a seed? Will you grow roots and grow tall or wither to nothing at all? A lack of understanding as to why Jesus would be relevant doesn’t mean Jesus is not relevant. It simply means you don’t understand why Jesus is relevant. I assure you — Jesus is always relevant.

On page 174, the author concludes his discussion of the shoehorning fallacy by stating the following about those who talk about Jesus: “Such people are best avoided, as they tend to be bores.” Understanding the author’s agenda that runs throughout his entire book, it seems likely that the author is truly saying something like this: “Avoid Christians; they talk about an irrelevant Jesus; they are boring. Avoiding Christians is justifiable because they are shoehorners and I am logical. I am better than the illogical fantasy-filled fools who believe fallacies. I do not need to associate with such people.” But to the author, I would like to give a word of warning: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)-ESV

On page 177, the author discusses the slippery slope fallacy by advocating for homosexuality and gay marriage by calling such decisions “innocuous.” Where is the proof that such decisions are harmless? In fact, the opposite can be proven.

The author wrote, “For example, if he argues that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing incestuous or inter-species marriage, you might respond that it doesn’t have to: even if gay marriage is legalized, these further expansions of marriage would be ruled out, because of the prohibitions on incest and beastiality.” However, to that my response is to say that gay marriage didn’t “have to” be, but it did in fact become. Gay marriage was prohibited; now it’s legal. If “love is love,” prohibiting two consenting adults from marriage would be an act of discrimination — even if the consenting adults are related. It can be comparable to Fair Housing laws. If we do for one, we must do for all. The issue is deep and deserves to be dealt with in depth. Again, see my argument for “Defending Marriage” for an in-depth explanation:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/defending-marriage/

Also, see my argument, “Subtle” for an in-depth explanation as to why the slippery slope argument is valid and not fallacious:

https://pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/subtle/

The author wrote, “In reality, we can usually stop the chain of consequences at any juncture…. why, when we take the first step, can we not simply stop there?” While it is true that the chain of consequences can be stopped (that’s called repentance), it is untrue that humans have done so. In reality, have we stopped? An examination of history reveals that humans have not stopped; in fact, humans have continued to push the line between right and wrong, altering Truth to accommodate sin. In reality, a junkie says he/she can stop at any time. But has he/she? The fact that it can be stopped does not warrant that it should continue, let alone begin. Do you need to take the first step at all? Show me evidence in human history where we have stopped after the first step. So-called “progressives” need to advance in order for “progress” to be claimed. So yet again, I shall use the author’s own words against him: “Once you’re at the top of a slippery slope, it’s very hard not to slide down, all the way to the bottom; the best thing, then, is not to get on the slope at all.” The author also recommend that his opponent should “spell out exactly how the first step will lead to all the others.” And I have done so in both my arguments “Defending Marriage” and “Subtle.”

On page 180, the author actually makes good points while discussing the fallacy of special pleading. As I am accustomed of doing, I shall again use the author’s own words against him. The author wrote, “What you cannot do, however, is accept the law in general and yet refuse to apply it to a particular case. To do so is essentially self-contradictory. Worse, once you go down that route, there’s no reason why other people shouldn’t also be allowed to make ad hoc exceptions.”

Male and female exist and are not one and the same. Chromosomes reveal Truth. XY = male; XX = female. Abnormalities are simply that — abnormal; they are the exception and not the rule. People who claim that gender identity can be chosen are either ignorant to the rule or are special pleading an exception. Biology is reality, not bigotry. A male cannot be a female simply because he feels like a female. To proclaim gender identity as a choice is to reject biology and absolute Truth. And in regards to gay marriage, once gay marriage is allowed because “love is love” between consenting adults, “love” and consent would qualify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny and even incest.

The author wrote, “You need to impress on your opponent the virtue of consistency. If your opponent is committed to a rule, he must be committed to it without exceptions. If he believes there are exceptions, he’s not committed to the rule…. This is an instance where invoking the Slippery Slope (see p. 175) becomes a legitimate countermove.”

From pages 186-188, the author discusses the fallacy of sunk cost and again makes good points: “Past losses are therefore irrelevant to the decision at hand: the only relevant consideration is whether it would be worth investing any additional capital in the venture…. This fallacy isn’t so much a problem of logic, as of psychology and economics…. This sometimes comes about because we are scared of losing face: to cut your losses and run would be to admit that you’ve made a mistake. But such misguided pride has grave consequences…. in order to not give up fighting an unwinnable war.”

Misguided pride does have grave consequences; in fact, it is pride that fuels the fire of desire to wage the “unwinnable war” against GOD. Questioning the evidence against a belief is one thing, but when this reluctance to admit to making a bad investment into a belief rises to the level of denying or refusing to heed the evidence, then what we have is not critical thinking but wishful thinking. Many people are reluctant to release lies and false beliefs because of the amount of time and energy they invested into those lies and false beliefs. For if GOD is true, pride must be broken. For if GOD is real, you are not a god and all your actions will be held accountable according to the absolute standard as defined by GOD. The bad and unprofitable investment is pride itself.