Why I Can't Attack Evolution & Islam & Etc

I've learned recently, or may have just forgotten in complacency, that if one has guts enough to believe in something, he or she can't be thin-skinned about it.

Among the words of Jesus I remember and cherish the most are those recorded in Matthew 10:16 - "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

I've long touted the claim that I hope to keep my mind as narrow as "the narrow way" preached by our Lord. If I leave it open to any doctrine, teaching, theory, philosophy or creed, I become a random mess of miscellany. My mind and heart must test what is spoken to me before I believe it. And if I believe the words of the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit to be the absolute truth, then to those words I have a duty, to preach, to encourage, to defend. But I've recently come to realize that the verse on which the practice of 'Christian apologetics,' i.e. the defense of our belief, should be based is Matthew 5:39, when Jesus said, "whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
Actions speak louder than words. If I'm criticized for my faith, I do no good, I win no souls for Christ, I warm no hearts, by retaliating with endless strife and arguing. Sure, I may have once owned Richard Dawkins in a debate at Oxford Lecture Hall, and made him hold my jacket while doing so - but who did I feed? Who did I bless, to whom did I minister?
Nobody.
God's words through the apostle Paul are "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies," and "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal."

I would have done far more good to have kept silent, left the lecture hall, and went to whom the Lord led me to bless, rather than keying "LOSER" on Mr. Dawkins' car and going to the Manchester United after-game party at a local pub.
Jesus' silence during His interrogation was among His greatest works - He knew the men questioning and striking Him would have accepted no answer He could have given; the Pharisees were only determined to see Him crucified, Herod Antipas wanted only a miracle for his own amusement, and Pontius Pilate only wanted desperately to be rid of the whole matter. Jesus' actions spoke louder than any response He could have given - He gave Himself on the cross as a ransom for the souls of you and me, and rose again from the dead.
As Isaiah prophesied six hundred or so years before Jesus' birth, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth" (Isaiah 53:7).

I convince no one of the truth of the Gospel by arguing about it; I have a much better chance abiding by it.

So, what does this have to do with my defense of the Gospel and of my Lord, and my newfound refusal to directly attack any other doctrine?

I don't know if the Koran teaches or endorses violence against non-Muslims; as far as religion goes, it's really irrelevant to me, because what I do know is that Islam does not profess Jesus Christ as "the way, the truth and the life," as the only Lord and Savior. Rather, Islam teaches that Jesus was only a prophet or "helper" of God, and further denies His death on the cross and Resurrection from the dead. This is all I need to know about Islam, or any religion, creed, or doctrine of spiritual substance, before I give it any attention. It doesn't matter if Scientology truly teaches men to eat placentas or not - it does matter that Scientology denies Jesus as the Christ. It doesn't matter if Mormonism teaches its members to wear special underwear or not - it does matter that Mormonism was founded when false gospels were added to the truth of Jesus, which the Word of God strictly forbids.
Do I desire for Muslims or Scientologists to come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior? Do I desire for Mormons to abandon the false teachings they follow? Absolutely. But I cannot lead them to Him with venom in my words.

As for the evolutionary and Big Bang theories, at least in the way they've been so widely accepted, there are many Christians who subscribe to them. I've found that science and the Bible are in harmony - but when a theory or claim, scientific or not, denies what was authored by God through prophets and parchment, I can't accept it. For the the Big Bang or human evolution to work, the Biblical account of Creation must be denied. This comes from the Scripture I believe to be holy and sovereign, from God's mouth to man's hand, a Book He would not let become faulty or flawed. I don't have to attack the ins and outs of evolution or other theories to defend what I believe.

I'm too stupid for lots of things - mathematics, algebra, women, and science among them. The most profound scientific thing in my argumentative canon, and even this is probably theoretically flawed somehow, is that if Louis Pasteur disproved the myth of spontaneous generation, why is the Big Bang Theory still being taught? Again, I'm sure someone from the scientific field would correct me or explain this, but remember: I know little to nothing about those things. So if you're a scientist, you probably would find it frivolous to correct an idiot like me, admittedly unlearned, on my claim.

And, again, being uneducated on matters of evolution, Big Bangs and et cetera, I've no business attacking them. I do however have every right to dismiss them as they pertain to the Word I believe to be flawless and holy. Much like I would not want someone with little or no knowledge of the Bible to attack it, if I were an evolutionist, I'd have no time for someone like me, whose last scientific studies came from watching Beakman's World, criticizing their claims.

It's enough for a person to defend his or her own beliefs without directly attacking another's; if the defense is done so in love, he or she makes a case, whether he can prove it or not, even if there are others who believe the same thing though they may not behave as they should. In the eyes of the world, my claim of Jesus' divinity may be dismissed as superstition, but I open the door to many more ears if I stick to what I know, and who I love, rather than what I don't know and those whose love I could drive away from accepting the Gospel.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Things To Know Before Cursing President Obama

I'll not deny that Christianity is dogmatic - any world view, be it social, spiritual, or otherwise, is dogmatic, if one holds it to be true. But I do assert that the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ have freed me from the dogmas of American politics - the strict rules of "conservative values" (whatever those are) or "liberal progress" (whatever that is). If I follow Christ and not Reagan or Roosevelt, neither of whom died on a cross for us and rose again, I find my views on various social and political subjects not limited to one side of the fence.
Having said that, I should elaborate my Presidential voting history - in 2004, the year I turned eighteen, I voted for George W. Bush, and would not change that vote if I could. In both 2008 and 2012, I voted for Barack Obama. And though I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with his job in office, I believe it to be un-Christlike to curse him rather than pray for him. It's sort of like John Wayne said when John F. Kennedy was elected - "I didn't vote for him, but he's still my President and I hope he does a good job."

'Merica!

Now, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, some of whom serve an idol without knowing it - that is, "conservative values," even if they clash with Christ - take much joy in slandering and reviling the President. Well, that's an American tradition, but my Lord teaches me to rebuke slander and lies, such as blatantly fake "foreign student" ID cards from Columbia University, and other Facebook posts and chain e-mails with inaccurate information. So, addressing some of the most common things being said on the web about Obama, here are some things you should know:

1. Concerning the claim that Obama is the Antichrist - this cannot be, according to Scripture. Many prophecies concerning the coming Antichrist, specifically two key passages - 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5 and Daniel 11:36 - describe that the "man of perdition" will exalt himself above any other god that has ever been worshiped. President Obama, however, is a Christian. And yes, many of you may say "How can he call himself a Christian when he..." (insert complaint here). But the point is, he still calls himself a Christian and therefore does not exalt himself above any other god, nor most importantly, the only true God.
The true Antichrist is very serious and will be a very real threat, and the more we as Christians call this politician or that "the Antichrist" because we don't like him, we cause others to ignore the very real danger the real "man of sin" will bring. Further, when we use the Bible to curse and revile, rather than what we are truly instructed to do with God's word, we drive so many away from Christ. (see 2 Timothy 3:13-17)

2. The assertion that Obama is a Muslim is ridiculous because, again, he has identified himself as a Christian and has said "I'm a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." (Source: "Christianity Today") Islam, however, denies that Jesus is the Son of God, and denies that He died and rose again.
"Yeah well, maybe he's an undercover Muslim!"
Yeah, that's not how it works. Muslims would consider that blasphemy against their religion. If Barack Obama were a white man named Rick Johnson, this paranoia would simply not exist.
...what? It wouldn't.

3. When you say President Obama's "turban is too tight" when he makes a blunder, let's remember two things: he's not a Muslim, and second, the turban is not a strictly Muslim piece of attire. The Levite priests wore turbans in the days of Moses, and turbans are mentioned many other places in the Old Testament, as they were common pieces of headwear centuries and centuries before Islam was founded.

4. For those of you calling for the impeachment of Obama - you keep using that word "impeach"...I do not think it means what you think it means. To impeach does not mean to remove from office. Rather, impeachment is actually a formal accusation or bringing of charges against an elected official. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only two Presidents to be impeached, yet neither were removed from office, and both finished their terms. Also, I'd suspect that you'd be concerned about a trial costing taxpayers money - the Clinton investigation alone cost almost sixty million dollars.

The Bible's definition of a saint is not a flawless person, nor is it a person chosen by Rome; rather, the Bible alludes to saints as anyone who believes in and calls on Jesus Christ. Being in a job where everyone wants to shoot you, I believe President Obama calls on Jesus quite often. I may disagree vehemently with decisions he's made, but he is a brother in Christ, he is a fellow saint, one far above the likes of myself, or of the apostle Paul, who described himself as "less than the least among saints."

To revile a brother in Christ in such a position, rather than pray earnestly for him, is blatant, un-Christlike behavior.

May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.