My dad is a pastor, and my mom is a seminarian who ran a Christian youth center. Needless to say I was raised in an extremely religious environment, and was basically indoctrinated into Christianity. I hate to say that but it really is the truth. From as young as I can remember religious "education" was constant. At 38 years old I am still processing the trauma of being taught and earnestly believing that I (like everyone else) am so inherently evil that my sins had a hand in crucifying Christ, and that I deserve (like everyone else) to burn in eternal hellfire save for the miraculous grace of God should I follow the right religious pathway, and that most of humanity will end up in said hellfire.
But the thing is: my parents really are decent people. They're just victims of toxic religion too, they just can't see it. But any time I try to share doubts about Christianity I am hit with well intentioned but thoughtless responses such as "But the Bible says you have to believe!" (This is an exact quote from my mom). I have raised academic points such as textual criticisms of the New Testament, including Bart Ehrman's work, to which the response is "Oh we have some books at the church that will show he's wrong" without even considering that their religious views could be less than the absolute gospel truth. My parents lack critical thinking skills - or at least a willingness to use them - in this area, but they really aren't bad people. And I know that their worry about the fate of my soul comes from a good place.
But the problem is, my kids are 3 and 6 and my parents are now worrying about the fact that we don't go to church, and aren't super religious and it's starting to become a problem. They don't really know that I'm truly deconstructing, they just think I have "doubts" that I need to "get past" and then I can "get my family back into church where they belong." My mom is looking for excuses to try and bring my kids to their church on Sundays, often as an offer of babysitting but it's really about "your kids need to be in church".
I am no atheist, and I definitely believe in a spiritual reality. But I think it's much broader than what I was taught, including that evidence from near-death accounts, mediumship, and deep hypnosis in my view points to a broader spiritual reality.
I obviously don't want to teach my kids something that I don't think is true, nor do I want to indoctrinate them. I certainly don't want them to believe themselves to be inherently evil, or "fallen!" If anything I want them to explore different ideas themselves, and examine the evidence themselves.
My parents are involved in my kids lives and I want that - they really are good grandparents. But now that my oldest is approaching the age where he "should" get baptized soon, according to their church, I worry about how to navigate this. I'm probably just a few years away from hearing things such as "[your oldest son] will go to hell if he dies today without being saved/being baptized/"accepting" Jesus etc." They used to hit me with that all the time as a kid: "If you died today do you know for sure you would go to heaven not hell" and it terrified me, which is honestly why I got baptized as a kid, out of pure terror of going to hell. I would rather not put my kids through that...
Anyone have a similar situation? Any suggestions?

Things were done to me, things I wouldn't wish even on my worst enemy (I dont have any but you get the point) Things these Muslim did which I would rather not say here but I definitly realized one thing.
Islam is nothing more then a license to kill people, assault, rape people
It literally says in quran multiple times to kill the non belivers or to release them if they pay zakat and go to the 'right path'
Some very intressting quote from the 'peaceful religion's book'
Surah 47 Verse 7
So when you meet the disbelievers ˹in battle˺, strike ˹their˺ necks
Surah 4 Verse 89
They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers,
Surah 5 Verse 33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land.

These are just some of alot of such disgusting & brutal quotes from a ' peaceful religious book', this Religion is nothing more then a joke, filled with lies to just kill & torture people who raise questions and instead of answering their question, they get their necks choppd of
necks being choppd off reminded me of my older posts and how I got some Muslim boys angry that literally gave me death threats... These people just use Islam to kill, let it be animals at eid ul adha or humans that dont share the same believes as them, Islam is just a reason to kill & hurt others.
Nothing but Terrorists

How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!

Salam alaikum, I know all maraji3 allow tattoos (with the exception of Sadiq Shirazi forbidding it when they are religious) and I wondered why since all the ahadith I saw on it explicitly state it is haram both for men and women. I've read that these ahadith are generally considered dha’if ‘ala mashhour (weak according to the majority) but it still seems quite "thin" for it to be allowed by "consensus", so i wondered whether or not we had ahadith allowing tattoos or something similar?

I was wondering if anyone could recommend a YouTube channel or a book to further inform me about atheism especially when arguing points to someone who's not atheist. I have a neighbor across the street who's very religious quotes the Bible all the time and I'd like to be more informed and more well spoken when we debate this. He's a great guy and we're friends except for this point. We talk openly about it but I'd like to be more informed as I have little religious upbringing and don't plan on reading the Bible.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Providing a list of 50 alleged falsehoods or contentious points from the Book of Mormon is a complex task and might be perceived as disrespectful to those who hold it as a sacred text. However, I can list some common points of debate that critics often discuss. If you're looking for more detailed scholarly critique, there are many sources available from historians and religious scholars.

1. No evidence of large-scale civilizations: Critics argue that there is no archaeological evidence for the large-scale civilizations described in the Book of Mormon.
2. Anachronistic animals: The text mentions animals like horses and elephants, which were not present in the Americas during the time periods described.
3. Wheeled vehicles: References to wheeled vehicles, which were not used by pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas.
4. Old World plants: Mentions of wheat and barley, which were not found in the Americas during the time periods described.
5. Steel and iron: The use of steel and iron in the Book of Mormon does not match the known metallurgical history of pre-Columbian America.
6. Silk: References to silk, which was not produced in the pre-Columbian Americas.
7. DNA evidence: Genetic studies have not shown a link between Native Americans and the ancient Israelites as suggested by the Book of Mormon.
8. Hebrew and Egyptian languages: The Book of Mormon claims it was written in Reformed Egyptian, a language for which there is no evidence.
9. Nephite and Lamanite cultures: Lack of archaeological evidence for the Nephite and Lamanite cultures described in the text.
10. Coinage: References to coinage, which was not used by ancient American civilizations.
11. Glass: Mention of glass, which was not produced by ancient American civilizations.
12. Chariots: References to chariots, which were not used in the Americas.
13. Cattle and sheep: Domesticated cattle and sheep were not present in the Americas during the time periods described.
14. Agricultural practices: Some agricultural practices described do not match those of ancient American civilizations.
15. New World geography: Some geographic descriptions do not match known locations in the Americas.
16. Fortifications: Descriptions of extensive fortifications that have not been found archaeologically.
17. Weapons and armor: Types of weapons and armor described that do not match those used by ancient American civilizations.
18. Metal plates: The use of metal plates for writing, which was not a known practice in the ancient Americas.
19. Christian theology: Some theological concepts in the Book of Mormon are similar to those of 19th-century American Christianity.
20. Biblical passages: Direct quotes from the King James Bible, including translation errors specific to that version.
21. Advanced technology: References to advanced technology not known to ancient American civilizations.
22. Complex writing systems: Claims of complex writing systems not supported by archaeological findings.
23. Rivers and seas: Descriptions of rivers and seas that do not match known geography.
24. Linguistic anachronisms: Use of words and phrases that are anachronistic to the time periods described.
25. Population sizes: Descriptions of population sizes that seem implausible given known demographic data.
26. Ethnic and racial origins: Claims about the origins of Native American peoples that conflict with current anthropological understanding.
27. Technological capabilities: Descriptions of technological capabilities that do not match those of ancient American civilizations.
28. Historical timelines: Timelines that do not align with known historical events in the Americas.
29. Ancient prophets: Descriptions of ancient prophets and their activities that lack corroborating evidence.
30. Zoological anachronisms: Mention of animals like goats and swine, which were not present in the Americas during the time periods described.
31. Swords and scimitars: References to swords and scimitars not consistent with known ancient American weaponry.
32. Natural disasters: Descriptions of natural disasters that have no supporting geological evidence.
33. Migration patterns: Migration patterns described that conflict with known historical and anthropological data.
34. Cultural practices: Cultural practices described that do not match those of known ancient American civilizations.
35. Economic systems: Economic systems described that do not align with those of ancient American civilizations.
36. Religious practices: Religious practices described that are more consistent with 19th-century American religious practices than ancient American ones.
37. Prophecies: Prophecies in the Book of Mormon that critics claim were written after the events they describe.
38. Christian themes: Presence of Christian themes and narratives in a pre-Christian context.
39. New World animals: Mention of animals like the curelom and cumom, which have no known equivalents in the ancient Americas.
40. Shipbuilding: Descriptions of shipbuilding and transoceanic travel that are not supported by archaeological evidence.
41. Military strategies: Military strategies and tactics described that do not match those of ancient American civilizations.
42. Government structures: Government structures described that do not align with those of ancient American civilizations.
43. Genealogical records: Genealogical records described that have no supporting evidence.
44. Metalwork: Descriptions of advanced metalwork not supported by archaeological evidence.
45. Textual consistency: Critics argue there are inconsistencies within the text itself.
46. Chronological inconsistencies: Timelines and events that seem inconsistent or contradictory within the text.
47. Lack of external corroboration: Lack of corroboration from other ancient texts or records.
48. Scientific knowledge: Some descriptions of natural phenomena that do not align with scientific understanding.
49. Societal structures: Descriptions of societal structures that are not supported by anthropological evidence.
50. Historical accuracy: General concerns about the historical accuracy of events and figures described in the Book of Mormon.

Hey all,
Working on my mind like everyone else here. I listened with deep, deep interest to Dr. K's YT stream "Dr. K explores Sh*t Life Syndrome" both out of compassion for others and a struggle with my own traumas.
I'm unpacking a lot from the talk - and going through the trauma module - but wanted to zero in on Dr. K's view of Karma.
The concept of Mental Karma makes a lot of sense - you reap what you sow in your mind and problems start in the mind. Asking yourself Dr. K's question, "What is the action you take in your mind and what is the consequence?" makes sense and his rundown of the game addiction scenario really drilled into me a belief in this kind of karma. It drilled into me the idea that 'thoughts are the snowflakes of the avalanche' and doing internal work really does help.
What I am still contemplating, however, is his response to his own example for Karma. ~1.5hrs into the video he says that senseless violence - sexual assault - could not be the result of karma. (Thanks for clearing that up Dr. K GG.). Then he quoted a teacher that said "People are given the tools to manage the badness." and said "this is Darwin's theory of evolution". So, collectively we will survive, but, like natural law, some will die, or, in his example, some will get raped. It's natural.
I really struggle with this religious view of things and believe that viewing the world scientifically is better - and in Dr. K's own words -scientifically correct. His response to viewing things scientifically and solving circumstances on the basis of that science, as you recall, is "dicy". This sounds like a classically conservative position to me.
Apart from his conservatism, I'm wondering if Dr. K elaborates elsewhere on karma and his views. I'm also wondering if its actually necessary to believe in karma to benefit from this religious side of things.
-GG get rekt n00b

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The recent beef had made me obsessed with Kendrick's songs again and understanding why the songs were made and what he wanted to communicate. When it came to Auntie Diaries, I was wondering why he went through dead naming, using the wrong pronouns and even dropping F bombs, but one line stood out to make that point pretty simple:
"Kendrick ain't no room for contradiction, to truly understand love, switch position"
The central theme of the song is empathy, and the story is about how Kendrick learns to empathise. He may have been initially supportive of transgender people around him, but he never truly understood what things they have been going through.
This is why the intro says: "Heart plays in ways the mind can't figure out".
Middle schoolers have no filter and to them it is just a word. However, it still affects queer people like me despite it being a word. People may just make jokes, but to queer people it can be seen as an attack. To Kendrick, he was taught that words were "nothin more than a sound" if the intentions weren't there. However, the heart understands that it represents a normalisation of marginalising queer people. Kendrick, just like most of the other non queer people in this story, were ignorant of that reality.
It all comes to a climax at near the end when Kendrick stand up against the Church, and with the experience of the white girl on stage.
Kendrick questions if we should "love thy neighbour" because the preacher man is contradicting that by attacking his uncle and Mary Ann.
He chose humanity over religion despite quoting the Bible, as a minor critique of modern religious practices (especially in Christianity) being more exclusionary. It became more representative of the ignorance that plagues human virtues, misconstruing the word of God to spread animosity and biases.
Kendrick's message is this: Our humanity is getting contradicted by the biases that come from ignorance. By learning empathy and understanding people, you can alleviate the contradictions and choose humanity over ignorance.

New Flash everyone: the guy who hangs out with Daniel Greene(a pro-fairy rights socialist), is loved by redditors, and got a Hugo award is… woke. Who would have ever seen that coming? But, thanks to Jon Del Arroz making a video about it on May 18th, I am here to repeat the news back to you so there is an easily accessible source as to HOW he’s woke. Everything was revealed back in January 2023, but I want people to understand the implications and narrative that he’s presenting when he says his concerns about fairy rights. By the end of this, you will realize that people calling themselves Christian does not cause them to be immune to wokeness.
In fact, with how Christianity has influenced wokeness into existence, it’s likely a lot of "Christians" are what we can call “first wave wokeness”.
For context, Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon, part of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormonism is almost exclusively a US issue, and I’ve also noticed that there are a lot of youtubers who tend to be Mormon women(probably because they have other women in the house to do the chores). These people are great with money, big in business, and their church is anti-fairy. A lot of problems the fairy-rights activists have are with Mormon churches, which is strange for Europeans to witness with how open a lot of their churches are, outside of the US. Protestant, evangelical, unitarian, the national church of Denmark, it’s a big list.
But in 2008, Brandon wrote an essay about his Mormon beliefs on how Dumbledore from Harry Potter liked to have wands stirred around in his brown cauldron. His quote:

How does this relate to Dumbledore? I'm not trying to present him as an antagonist or a villain. All I'm saying is that if you believe in the truth of your message, then you shouldn't care if someone decent, respected, and intelligent is depicted as believing differently from yourself. Decent, respected, and intelligent people can be wrong--and you can still respect them. It's okay. That doesn't threaten our points, since we (theoretically) believe that they are eternal and stronger than any argument we could make.

Back in this time, Brandon had only been an author for 3 years, but he won an award for his first published book, Elantris. He was being careful with his words, and his take is considered liberal. He was trying to defend the backlash JK Rowling received for her (poor) choice of virtue signaling and tried to mend this defense with his own religion. Mentioning his religious views is what got him canceled back then, which he later apologized for in 2011:

I cannot be deaf to the pleas of [fairy] couples who want important things, such as hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, and custody rights. At the same time, I accept and sustain the leaders of the LDS church. I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve [fairy] marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved.

He was not backing down from his religion yet. His goal post moved to the legal ramifications of the US, which are separate from his church(remember, church and state, supposed to be separate in the US), but he was still saying his religion wanted him to oppose people calling it a marriage and having it in churches. This was a second “cancellation” that didn’t go very far, mostly because he was able to use religion as an excuse for his take, with the Christian Cake Packed With Fudge Scandal not happening yet(2018).
Fast forward to 2023, after he hangs out with a bunch of woke youtubers, and we get a new quote from Brandon:

The church’s first prophet, Joseph Smith, famously taught, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” My current beliefs are where I’ve arrived on my journey, as I attempt to show the love that Jesus Christ taught. I look forward to seeing further changes in the church, and I work to make sure I am helping from within it to create a place that is welcoming of [fairy] people and ideas. I would love, for example, to see the church recognize [fairy] marriage among its members. Both temporally and eternally. I would support ordaining [tinkerbell] men to the priesthood. (And would support the ordination of women, though that is another issue.)

That’s interesting. It seems like he made a complete 180 on his stance, claims that he’s always believed this new stance, blames Jesus for this new stance, and then doubles down on this new stance by adding female ordination(becoming a priest and higher) and even Tinkerbells. As time went on, he decided that his religion was totally wrong about fairies, and this 13 year difference means way more than the nearly 200 years Mormonism has been around. I believe a fellow Mormon, Shadversity, would love to have a discussion about how any of this makes sense, but I’m starting to feel that he’s the same way. Who knows if Ethan Van Sciver understands Mormonism as well as Brandon Sanderson does, with how easy it is to manipulate prophecies and reinterpret scripture.
But that’s been the point for a while, right?
Wokeness is here to restructure both historical evidence and even religions, in order to shift cultures and social institutions to obey this progressive change. Words are changed in the dictionary, social “norms” are changed to be updated for a “modern audience”, and postmodernists like Foucault were able to trick college kids into thinking the Greeks were all pixie fairies. Once a critical theorist gets their hands on something with power, their goal is not to keep it as it is. It is to keep it for themselves. This is why you will hear these people say everything is subjective, which is secret code for “Look at me: I’m the captain of reality now.”
But wait, it gets better! Brandon Sanderson continued with:

Back in 2007, I was mostly known only in my community, not to the world at large. The essay, then, was directed at my local community, and was more controversial among them (for being too liberal) than it was controversial to the world at large for being [fairy]phobic. That might surprise you, if you’ve read the excerpts that often float around the internet. This was mostly me trying to encourage other members of the church to be more open and welcoming of [fairy] characters and ideas.
That said, the essay does display the casual bigotry common to people who (like myself) have lived lives where we haven’t had to deal with some of the issues common to the lives of people suffering discrimination. Many of the assertions (such as my view on [fairy] marriage) do not reflect my current stance. After writing it, and interacting with those who found it objectionable–even painful–I came to understand them and their experiences better. Though they did not owe me that honor, they gave it freely.

You see, he's honored to hear about the life of a bug chaser.
Brandon cares deeply about the pain he caused to his wallet… I mean the fairies who saw his essay. He was an award winning author back then, he didn’t know it would be a global thing. It was supposed to be only seen by people in Utah, that’s it. This is what we call: bullshit. The woke rely heavily on gaslighting and pretending they’re ignorant of everything, while telling others that they need to learn and understand EVERYTHING about a subject before they are even able to mention it.
He was already big on reddit, he knew all about his fandom, and he knew about his publisher, Tor. The only thing that really changed is that now he is unable to stick to being liberal and he has to present himself as progressive. Why? Well, the new Amazon deal happened recently, and he’s the writer of the series The Wheel of Time. As if Rings of Power wasn’t evidence enough of how Amazon mistreats their properties, Brandon was forced to erase his own past, like Agent J in Men in Black, burning his own hands in the process.
I’m not surprised that he’s woke or even that Christians are falling to this woke inquisition. When I said first wave wokeness, I would like to clarify why it’s the catalyst for all of this stupidity. Wokeness is not of Christian values, but instead a parasite upon Christianity, in the same way Gnosticism and Satanism would be. When Christianity started to allow new sects, and a lot of these were considered valid, the crazy sex cults of the 60s opened the floodgates for a bunch of crazy reinterpretations. It’s the same way as how there are still circles of Christianity that go for flat earth theory or say that dinosaurs don’t exist, with these people usually at the forefront of the home-schooling movement.
It’s not that home-schooling is bad by itself, it’s that bad people use it to then have the good people using it be wrongfully grouped into the same area, in the same way gun-ownership does. This type of bastardization has always been a problem in the US, due to the lack of authority over what makes something categorized as such a thing, thanks to liberalism allowing the freedom to constantly change things. As time went on, this liberalism changed into progressivism, with the key difference being that liberalism is an allowance of change while progressivism is an enforced change. The liberalism of the 1800s allowed the Confederates to claim Christianity approved of their enslavement of black people, by blaming the story of Ham and using scripture to claim it was okay to enslave certain people for generations. We always see this strange cherry-picking of scripture from fake Christians, and this problem has expanded into the Vatican itself with the current and following generations of Popes.
A lot of times, we’ll hear news about how Christians are under attack, a bakery is targeted to expose discrimination, or even where people claim they were banned from twitch for being Christian. But what they get wrong is that they are in the same circle as liberal and progressive Christianity, their openness created this weakness to tourism, and most Christian circles have been taken over in the US since before the 60s. The south has a culture of being liberal, Mormons have a culture of being liberal, protestants are very liberal, all because the US began as a liberal culture in the form of classical liberalism. The libertarian argument is always used by these liberal groups, that changes into the progressive enforcement, and over the years these liberal people get infected by the virus.
Add money to the mix, and we have ourselves an endless chain of liberal minded people falling to wokeness. The “redemption” narrative, along with original sin, from Christianity is currently its main weakness. The appeal to ignorance is another weakness, with people playing skeptic as a snake slithers through the grass. Christianity isn’t the problem by itself, it’s the naivety that comes from blind faith, which then expands into a contradictory blind faith that people are good inside, only to later wonder why everything is changing for the worse when evil people are put in charge. Fantasy stories have been under attack by the woke for quite a while, long before they tried to appropriate Tolkien with Rings of Power.
The fantasy that is controlled by the woke is an extension to their attack on religion, because to them a fantasy story is no different than a bible. Mythological presentation, symbolic themes, a dream-like world to present morals to follow; the entire thing has been used by Brandon to then have him later claim that he’s always had fairy characters since the beginning. Sure, his religion says fairies are bad, but then he virtue signals by claiming he’s always made fiction about how they’re good. He would never say this if the publishing world made sense and if publishers were the way they were in the 1950s. That is because he would never have to choose between religion and money back then, with money always mattering more to the typical materialist.
I’m sure people will say that I’m being hard on Christians, or that I’m evil for saying this, or even that I am a satanist for noticing. These people would only be angry at the truth being said, which is the opposite of what Christianity teaches. Fantasy writers, like Brandon, have a lot of supporters, with this support merging between the woke and Mormons. So many feel that they need to make sense of their fandom, so they claim their religion is wokeness, converting it into blind Satanism. This is far from the truth and we need to condemn those who focus solely on radical subjectivity.
Especially if they blame God for their stupid takes, like how Brandon does now.

I am currently 18 years old and living in Canada. I have been here since I was 11, which coincides as the last time I was in Algeria. I have never been in Algeria for more than 2 months at a time before either. I have recently gained Canadian citizenship as of a year ago and now have dual citizenship.
I am exactly a year away from finishing my education and becoming a pilot, which would mean I would be 19. My cousin recently got a paper about his military service as he recently became 19, which got me thinking about what’s going to happen to me.
Aviation is an extremely competitive and difficult field to get into, and if I don’t fly for over 6 months, I will have to re-do a significant portion of what I’ve learnt for what I perceive as no real reason.
To fly, I already need a good medical file, which means I can’t fake anything related to my health. As I have a very religious mom, I cant randomly get a visible tattoo. And as I will get a diploma for finishing my education, I’m not planning to continue into further studies unrelated to my field.
I really need a way to not perform this military service which would ruin my social life here, my connections I have to the aviation industry and even my future career. But I would also like to still be able to go to Algeria as to visit my family there from time to time. Is there any possible way to avoid the service in my situation ? Pretending to be gay would have to be a LAST LAST resort.

As I lay in my room, enjoying the hot air from my fan, I wonder: why do we hate each other so much in our society? Are we not socially developed? Is it genetic? Is it our laws? I ponder these questions while imagining a Nigerian utopia.
Since the day I was born, I've enjoyed privileges beyond many Nigerians. I went to a great school, ate good food, and had all the necessities. Yet, Nigeria has never sat well with me.
In 2015, a new hope appeared: Buhari. Like many northerners, I was glad. As a 16-year-old secondary school student from Kano state, I thought, "A new government is in; I'll start university with President Buhari and finish by 2019. By then, the country will be sorted." I chose Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, to explore. A friend warned me of the risks, but I saw it as an adventure.
Starting at A.B.U. was a new chapter where I grew and learned. If I had stayed in Kano, a more conservative and less culturally diverse state, I wouldn't have understood what I want to discuss in this column. I shared my backstory to provide context. You might think I'm a spoiled child or a product of privilege influenced by the internet or books. But my question remains: why do we hate each other so much? For hate begets hate and only makes things worse.
Nigeria is a diverse country, blessed with resources but cursed by "hate." We believe we are better than each other. As Muslims, we see ourselves as God's chosen ones. Many Christians feel Muslims flaunt their piety, thinking they are better. Isn’t Nigeria a secular state?
The three major tribes—Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo—constantly clash. The Hausa believe they are the food basket and the rightly guided Muslims. The Yoruba see themselves as the most developed, advanced, and educated. The Igbos, believing they are the lost tribe of Judah, feel marginalized and betrayed, especially after the civil war.
This pervasive sense of superiority leads to programmed hate. In the U.S., immigrants from various backgrounds live together despite differences, building a society based on mutual respect and tolerance. In Nigeria, however, subtle teachings and traditions fuel our animosity. This division is not just a recent phenomenon but a deeply ingrained societal issue, perpetuated by generations of cultural and religious indoctrination.
As a Muslim, I know Islam teaches us that a Muslim is ahead of a non-Muslim, but it doesn’t advocate degrading non-Muslims. Would you rather hand your daughter off to Shekau or Bill Gates? No one has chosen the former. This highlights the importance of common sense and humanity over blind adherence to divisive ideologies.
Religious scholars often breed this hate. They oppose anything promoting a secular Nigeria, insisting on religious dominance. An Izala scholar once said, "No Muslim can be equal to a Christian." But living together requires a constitution that protects both Muslims and Christians. This legal framework is essential for maintaining peace and equality in a diverse nation.
Even if Nigeria splits today, internal conflicts will persist. Northerners will still face Christian minorities. Southeasterners will fight among themselves. The Yoruba might develop but still grapple with issues. The South-Southerners are often overlooked in this conversation, but they too would face significant challenges in a divided nation. Economic disparity, political instability, and social unrest are likely outcomes of such divisions.
Some might argue this is intolerance, not hate. But intolerance is a symptom of hate. We tolerate out of love or perceived benefit. A mother bears her child's screams out of love. Similarly, we must learn to tolerate and respect each other out of love for our country and its future.
Intolerance and hate can only be eradicated through education and open dialogue. Schools should teach children about the importance of diversity and inclusion. Media should highlight stories of unity and cooperation among different ethnic and religious groups. Community leaders must advocate for peace and understanding, emphasizing common goals over differences.
Our political leaders also have a crucial role to play. Policies promoting equality and social justice can bridge the gaps between different groups. Corruption and nepotism must be addressed to ensure fair treatment for all citizens, regardless of their background. By fostering an environment of transparency and accountability, trust can be rebuilt among the populace.
I end with two quotes: “Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” - John F. Kennedy “We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them.” - Charles Caleb Colton
We must strive to understand each other, to see beyond our differences and recognize our shared humanity. Only then can we build a Nigeria where hate no longer begets hate, but where love and tolerance prevail.

As-Salamu Alaykum,
Having finished watching an interview between brother Dilly of 5Pillars and this Imran Hosein, I wish to state the obvious regarding Imran Hosein.
Kufriyyat of Imran Hosein
He said not all Christians are disbelievers, and that the Orthodox Christians for example are not. This is stating disbelievers are believers. This is kufr (blasphemy).
He rejected the standard, mutawatir qira'ah of a word of an ayah of the Qur'an, quoting the qira'ah of Abdullah Ibn Abbas Radiyallahu Anhu and stating that sed qira'ah to the exclusion of the standard qira'ah is the only correct recitation. This is rejection of the Qur'an. This is kufr (blasphemy).
Other Abominable and Unorthodox Views
He rejects the standard views on Ashratis-Saa'a such as the rising of the sun from the west, that Yajuj and Majuj are an actual people behind the barrier who have not escaped yet etc.
With regards to the Muslims massacred and genocided around the world such as our brothers in Bosnia, in Syria, in Xinjiang and other places, he barely recognises such bloodshed and loss.
He attacks the Ottoman Turks, who led the Ummah as guzat for centuries. Whilst they were not perfect and had their mistakes, as do we all, he considers them "evil", all the whilst he props up the Russians who the Muslim fought against historically as enemies and who have continued to kill us to the present era.
He is a mouthpiece for the Russians - I do not claim he is an official one, although his meetings with Dugin and Lavrov certainly mean this possibility is not precluded.
What I am not saying
Someone may say, "but his view on the financial system or critique of the west makes sense", there are Sunni ulama and thinkers saying this too. This man says Allah is one, why would you not expect he says other things that are correct? However these things to do not take away from what I have mentioned.
"He criticises X, Y and Z religious/political group." He is not the only one. In fact his criticism of them does a disservice to more objective criticisms, as now we have to contend with such a person saying the same things as mainstream scholarship and Muslim political analysts.
"Russia is better than the West." So? It is not hard to do. Russia may have some points it is superior in than the west, with regards to banning violation of the Qur'an, considering Islam a traditional religion of the country, outlawing promotion of certain sinful degenerate behaviours etc. This does not take away from all the rest of their evil.
As such, and per the views of Shaykh Hasan Ali, Shaykh Yasir, and Shaykh Asrar Rashid etc. this is a man who blasphemes, whose 'unique' views we must give no weight.

So many conservative commenters and posters can't seem to understand what was bigoted about Harrison Butker's speech. Sometimes it's hard to pin it down, especially when the speaker is a bit cagey, as he was at times. So I converted his speech to a pdf and had one of the pdf ChatGPT's analyze it. I think it broke down the exact speech pretty well, with concise statements about why they are bigoted. I checked the quotes - they're all accurate from the speech.
My Request: "Cite for me what portions of this speech appear to demonstrate the speaker has a bigoted point of view, as such is understood in accepted social science in the U.S."
ChatGPT's response:
To identify portions of the speech that demonstrate a bigoted point of view, we can focus on areas where the speaker expresses intolerance or discrimination against particular groups based on their beliefs, actions, or identities. Here are some excerpts that may reflect such a perspective:

1. Comments on Abortion and Gender Ideologies:These statements reflect intolerance towards individuals and policies that support abortion rights, in vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, euthanasia, and gender diversity. The use of the term "degenerate cultural values" is pejorative and dismissive of differing beliefs.
   • "Bad policies and poor leadership have negatively impacted major life issues. Things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values in media, all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder."
   • "From the man behind the COVID lockdowns to the people pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America, they all have a glaring thing in common. They are Catholic."
2. Criticism of Political and Religious Leaders:These excerpts demonstrate a lack of respect and an antagonistic stance towards political leaders and religious individuals who support abortion rights and gender diversity, labelling them as delusional and dangerous.
   • "Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the Sign of the Cross during a pro-abortion rally."
   • "He is not alone. From the man behind the COVID lockdowns to the people pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America, they all have a glaring thing in common. They are Catholic."
3. Remarks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:The speaker portrays diversity, equity, and inclusion as tyrannical and implies that these principles suppress the expression of certain beliefs. This can be seen as dismissive of efforts to promote equality and inclusion.
   • "The world around us says that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves whenever they go against the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority."
   • "Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail."
4. Comments on Gender Roles:These statements reinforce traditional gender roles and suggest that women's primary fulfillment should come from marriage and motherhood, which can be seen as limiting and discriminatory against women who aspire to different life paths.
   • "For the ladies present today... Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world."
   • "I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker."
5. Critique of Birth Control:This reflects a rigid and judgmental stance against those who use birth control, implying that they are acting against natural or divine order.
   • "Heterodox ideas abound even within Catholic circles. But let's be honest, there is nothing good about playing God with having children — whether that be your ideal number or the perfect time to conceive. No matter how you spin it, there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control."

These excerpts collectively illustrate the speaker's intolerance towards various social and cultural issues, reflecting a bigoted viewpoint as understood in contemporary U.S. social science, which emphasizes respect for diversity and inclusion.
***
I think some of these excerpts and comments would be helpful in dialogues about just why Harrison Butker's speech was bigoted. It was also a good reality check to try to view it from a perspective as objective as possible, given the issues.