Tag Archives: Jew

Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

I was getting lots of links to this piece from a couple years ago so I thought I’d re-post it.  The moral schizophrenia of our society knows no bounds, as evidenced by the circumcisions are barbaric but abortions are fine positions of these folks on the Left.

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

For Jewish people only

As a Christian I seek to share the Good News of Jesus with anyone, including Jewish people.  I realize that many things have been done to Jews that go against the teachings of Jesus, so it can be a sensitive subject.  And I know that Satan has done a great job of making Jews think the New Testament is an antisemitic manifesto (it is anything but).

However, from an apologetic standpoint I would love to have them read the New Testament and ask themselves if the types of Jews they see represented there are similar to the Jews shown in the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament).

Here’s what I mean: Yes, there were some good Jews in the OT (and the NT).  But if you actually read the entire OT you can’t miss the non-stop cycles of rebellion from beginning to end — even though God had chosen them, set them apart and given them special revelation.  Scan the book of Judges.  Scan the history of the kings.  Scan the prophets.  It couldn’t be more clear.

So historically speaking, if the Jewish leaders had such a spectacularly awful track record, would it be surprising that the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time would reject their Messiah and persecute his followers?

Please note that I’m not committing the error of thinking that I would have done any better.  It is human nature to look at the bad guys of history and think we would have done the right thing.  Sure.  Sans the Holy Spirit, I’m sure I would have been yelling, “Crucify him!” and “Release to us Barrabas!”  I would have denied Jesus more than 3 times.  And so on.

But I do challenge Jewish folks — and anyone else, for that matter — to read the entire Bible carefully. It isn’t anti-Jewish.  It is pro-Good News for lost sinners of any kind.  Please don’t reject your Messiah.  Eternity is a mighty long time.

Should Christians seek to share the Gospel with Jewish people?

Of course they should, right?  What could be more obvious to believers?

Apparently it isn’t obvious to false teachers who write things like Can We Stop Trying To Evangelize Jews Now? (And make no mistake, most theological Liberals rationalize that we shouldn’t share the Good News with Jews.)

“I would argue that it inappropriate and deeply offensive for Christians to attempt to convert Jews or to misuse the Hebrew Scriptures and claim them as Christian writings.

– Rev. Chuck Currie

That’s odd, because Jesus tried to convert Jews, as did all the early Christians, including Paul. Should we listen to Chuck or to the early church and the Bible?

Does the apostate UCC and UMC, both served by Chuck, not include the Old Testament in their Bible? That’s what Chuck appears to be saying, but it is news to me. And I’ve seen Chuck (mis)quote the OT many times. I’m not sure why he is abandoning it now.

Paul was even willing to sacrifice his own salvation if it would save all the Jews:

Romans 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ–I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit– 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Romans 10: 1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Chuck and other false teachers go wrong when they let fallacious illustrations like this trump the Bible:

Could you honestly tell a Jewish child being forced into the fires of a concentration camp that they are doomed to the fires of hell because they don’t accept Jesus as their savior?

They stack the deck by using the vague term child.  If we take that out so that we don’t muddy the waters with age-of-accountability questions, the answer is simple: Yes, I could honestly tell a Jew that they are doomed to Hell if they don’t repent and believe.  What was so hard about that? That is what the Bible teaches over and over, such as John 8:24 (“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”).  I realize that Chuck and the other false teachers sit in judgment of God and don’t like that truth, but it is still the truth.  Just because you die a tragic and unjust death doesn’t mean you weren’t a sinner in need of a Savior.  Only a non-believer could think that (allegedly) sparing someone a little angst about Hell right before they go there for eternity is some kind of good deed.

It is only in the perverse, God-hating world of theological Liberals that it is unkind to tell people how to avoid an eternity in Hell.

It is only the truly hateful, self-loving false teachers who would consciously deny the truth to people who desperately need it — Jews included.

Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

Does God love unconditionally? Sort of.

Our last church, which we left over 15 years ago for reasons like this, had a billboard and a weekly sermon theme that “God loves you unconditionally.”  Alternate versions used by other churches go something like, “God loves you just as you are.”

Guess how your average non-believer will interpret that, with plenty of help from Satan?  “Yes, God loves you unconditionally, just as you are, so no need for any change or to repent!   And you definitely don’t need Jesus!”

In the agape term for love, which is having someone’s long-term best interests at heart, God does love unconditionally.  But He doesn’t provide salvation unconditionally.  You must repent and believe.  Those who only teach part of the Gospel don’t teach the Gospel at all.  They demonstrate that they are ashamed of the real Gospel.

Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Greg Koukl likes to point out that, “God catches his fish and then He cleans them.”  I think it is important to remember that when sharing the Gospel.  If someone had come to you or me and said, “As soon as you stop being greedy, lustful, idolatrous, selfish, etc. I will share some great news with you!” I don’t think we’d have been interested in hearing more.  According to the Bible, we can’t have power over sin until we are saved.

God does love us: Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

But a response is required: Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Run, don’t walk, from churches that are ashamed of the real Gospel.  If they teach that you can be saved without Jesus or that your good deeds will earn your salvation, or that God doesn’t require you to repent and believe, then get out and find a real church.

Jesus: Still the only way to salvation for everyone, including Jewish people

In Mohler to Weiner: Atone Through Jesus, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is too ashamed of the Gospel to acknowledge that Jewish people need to hear it.  He loves himself and the world more than Jewish people, so he instinctively slams Al Mohler simply for claiming what is taught in the Bible over and over: Jesus is the only way to salvation.  If you can’t get that simple fact right, Christianity may not be your forte’.

Here’s the comment I left at the Huffington Post (which, of course, they didn’t post).

If Jewish people can be saved without trusting in Jesus, why did Paul say he wished he could give up his salvation on their behalf?

This isn’t about people being arrogant because they think they are right (that is, unless Chuck and all who agree with him are conceding to being arrogant just because they think they are right).

This is about what the Bible teaches.  And it couldn’t be more clear: There are over 100 passages in the New Testament saying that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  That isn’t what makes it true (Jesus’ rising from the dead does that), but it means that anyone claiming the name of Christ should hold that view.  Any other view is the opposite of what the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches.

If you want to see the kind of people who find Chuck to be religiously enlightening, read the comments that they did post (Logic: They’re doin’ it wrong).  You could do a blog post on almost every comment pointing out their multiple logical fallacies and plain old ignorance.

Here are parts of Chuck’s post:

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a regular on cable television, had a message this weekend for scandal-plagued U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, which he sent, quite naturally, via Twitter, according to USA Today:

“Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective “treatment” for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

Weiner is Jewish.

Eek!  How dare Mohler share the Gospel with someone who is Jewish.  Oh, wait, isn’t that what Paul and all the early Apostles did?  (“first for the Jew, then for the Gentile . . .”)  Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, still always started off in the synagogues.

This isn’t the first time that Mohler has spoken strongly of his belief that Jews need Christ to be saved. He once compared Judaism to a tumor that needed to be removed. EthicsDaily.com reported in 2003:

While Jewish evangelism is controversial today, Mohler said Christians do Jewish people a disservice by failing to confront them with the gospel. He compared it to a person with a potentially deadly tumor, who would rather have a doctor give a truthful diagnosis than say all is well to avoid offending him.In the same way, telling a Jewish person she is in danger of hell “is the ultimate act of Christian love,” Mohler said. …

Notice how false teacher Chuck tries to make it look like Mohler said Judaism was a tumor, when he was merely pointing out that a doctor that won’t tell you what is really killing you isn’t much of a doctor at all — just like people like Chuck are lousy “reverends” and “Christians.”

In addition to his comments about the Jewish religion, Mohler has also described Catholicism as “a false church” teaching “a false gospel.” He says liberal Protestants have abandoned the Christian faith. …

Note to Chuck: The Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them.  If you don’t think the Catholic church is false you should join it.

And liberal Protestants like you have abandoned the faith!  You proudly deny that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

. . .

Mohler’s views are not shared by all Christians.

Correction: His views on the exclusivity of Christ are shared with all real Christians.

In 1987, The United Church of Christ adopted a resolution that stated in part:

We in the United Church of Christ acknowledge that the Christian Church has, throughout most of its history, denied God’s continuing covenantal relationship with the Jewish people expressed in the faith of Judaism. This denial has often led to outright rejection of the Jewish people and to theologically and humanly intolerable violence. The Church’s frequent portrayal of the Jews as blind, recalcitrant, evil, and rejected by God has found expression in much Christian theology, liturgy, and education. Such a negative portrayal of the Jewish people and of Judaism has been a factor in the shaping of anti Jewish attitudes of societies and the policies of governments. The most devastating lethal metastasis of this process occurred in our own country during the Holocaust.Faced with this history from which we as Christians cannot, and must not, disassociate ourselves, we ask for God’s forgiveness through our Lord Jesus Christ. We pray for divine grace that will enable us, more firmly than ever before, to turn from this path of rejection and persecution to affirm that Judaism has not been superseded by Christianity; that Christianity is not to be understood as the successor religion to Judaism; God’s covenant with the Jewish people has never been abrogated. God has not rejected the Jewish people; God is faithful in keeping covenant.

That is how Satan works: The mistaken and unfortunate persecution of Jews is compounded by fake Christians like Chuck deliberately withholding the Gospel from them.

Mohler’s advice to Weiner reminds us that there is still a powerful divide between some Christians and Jews. Christians like Mohler see their faith as superior to the Jewish faith and the Hebrew Scriptures of lesser value and importance than the Christian New Testament.

Well, duh.  Chuck obviously knows so little about the New Testament isn’t even funny.  Has he ever studied Romans?  Hebrews?  Anything besides Matthew 7:1 and Matthew 25, which he can’t even get right?

Mohler’s view of Judaism is obscene.

Then so were the Apostle Paul’s and Jesus’ views.  I know Chuck will dismiss all of Paul, saying he was a bigoted homophobe, but Jesus couldn’t have been more clear that He was the only way and that the Jews would die in their sins if they didn’t believe in him.   In short, Chuck disagrees with God, all the while parading as his representative.

And shame on the Huffington Post for giving space to an apostate “reverend” like Chuck who can’t even find a permanent job (his gig as “acting pastor for the interim pastor” just ended, and yes, that sounds a lot like Dwight Schrute’s “Assistant to the Regional Manager” title — only not as permanent).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like Chuck Currie and denominations like the UCC which employ him.

Jesus is the only way to salvation.  I don’t care how unpopular that message is, it is the truth and I’ll keep sharing it for those who are authentically seeking the truth and desire to be reconciled with God and to live with him forever.