The Problem of Pleasure (VG & Porn)

From Google Image

 I wonder if this is just a coincidence or a divine providence? Early today, i was reading an excerpt of Dr. Ravi Zacharis new book, Why Jesus - in the book he argues, just like he does in his speaking engagements, that people are now fast approaching the trends of suicide due to a meaningless life, not because of suffering but because of pleasure.

Pleasure is our new big problem, he reflects and philosophically argued. I probably would have forgotten all about that if I didn't read and listen few hours after that to an expert psychologist who now brought what seems to be an argument about the danger of excessive pleasures based on data collection and research that his team had done.

Basically, Video gaming (VG) and Pornography is the new problem and the new dream-killer of our youth generation of male. Who would have thought that pleasure could have such detrimental effects on lives? Well, Christians thinkers and other wise observers warned about that for many decades and centuries. Today, social scientists are joining those old voices in providing more and more data to sustain their ominous predictions.

What is fascinating is that, male (boys and men) are being the principal victims of this new destroyer! Honestly, it ain't much of a NEW destroyer. It is actually an OLD destroyer of dreams and visions. The first couple lost the first paradise because of pleasure*

" When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it" Genesis 3:6

The lust and thirsty for that which is forbidden has long been the central problem of our human race. These pleasurable things may seem harmless but they are profoundly destructive when handled by unwise mind.

" (...) researchers say ... young men become hooked on arousal, sacrificing their schoolwork and relationships in the pursuit of getting a tech-based buzz. Every compulsive gambler, alcoholic or drug addict will tell you that they want increasingly more of a game or drink or drug in order to get the same quality of buzz. Video game and porn addictions are different. They are "arousal addictions," where the attraction is in the novelty, the variety or the surprise factor of the content. Sameness is soon habituated; newness heightens excitement. In traditional drug arousal, conversely, addicts want more of the same cocaine or heroin or favorite food.The consequences could be dramatic: The excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment."

You can read more about that on this CNN article titled: "The Demise of guys: How video games and porn are ruining a generation".

The lead researcher has also given a very short introduction on TED which i recommend the brief listening.

I hope you find this instructive and informative. May the Lord bring more of His light to this world through His church.
Check My Book here.


* Genesis 3:6, doesn't speak of sexual pleasure. It couldn't be a sexual offense for the simple reason that Eve and Adam were a couple and had already received the mandate to replenish the earth (Genesis 1 and 2), and we know well how human populates a region, right?

Pentecost

I just wanted to wish you all a blessed celebration of Pentecost. This day reminds us the way the Lord visited the nations of the world in Jerusalem through the empowerment of the Spirit of God through the lives of the disciples.

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven." Acts 2:1-5

The ministry of the Spirit of God seemed to have started officially that day of Pentecost and we're still experiencing a lot about His/Her/Its ministry 2000 years after.

The empowerment of the Spirit raised up different ministry that gave birth to an organized structure to the church (namely, Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists and Pastors ... see Ephesians 4:11). By the infilling of the Spirit of God we discovered God's grace, the victory of Sin, the value of the work of the Cross in our lives and the real possibility to have a godly character and lives that glorifies God.

Thank you Lord for the Holy Spirit ministry to the Church of Christ.
Check My Book here.

Atheists persecution of Christians

Recently, someone asked in a Facebook wall page, how come Christians were persecuted in the past but aren't persecuted nowadays. The expected answer that i have heard in the past - i used to give the same answers too when i was less informed by history - is that in early century they preached the Gospel but now we no longer preach the Gospel. But this ain't necessary the best approach about that. Religious intolerance has always been directed to the Church when a religious or a secular society got dominated by an intolerant anti-christian man or extremist group in power. For example, in the first century Christians fled Jerusalem to other cities because of the persecution. It is also safe to say that on the Island of Malita, there were no persecution of Christians to the point that St. Paul were free of persecution. The peaceful cohabitation between a Christian and non-Christians on the Malita Island shouldn't be interpreted as if the apostle Paul was no longer preaching the true Gospel. All it means, is that there were no murderous ruler that hated Christianity or its message there.

With these words, I'd like to share with you some information on these issue from Vox Day blog. See a sample of them here below.

Please feel free to also Check My Book here.

...

There are four atheist countries in which atheists are presently jailing, torturing, and murdering Christians. These countries are China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. (Cuba was doing the same in the past, but has shown some respect for religious freedom for nearly a decade now.) While American atheists customarily try to fall back on a spurious No True Atheist defense, government documents prove this defense to not only be illogical, but incontrovertibly false. For example, the motivation for China's most recent wave of anti-Christian persecution was laid out in a government document entitled "Notice on Further Strengthening Marxist Atheism Research, Propaganda and Education". This proves that the motivation underlying the persecution is atheism; specifically the Marxist variant which is the heart of a godless worldview that correctly sees Christianity as a serious threat.


A subsequent document laid out the case against the Christian church: "We have dealt with the Falun-gong. We have arrested and put their leaders on the run. Now we must resolutely and strongly deal with the unregistered house churches. They are too numerous -- too many. We must deal with them strongly."


Given that at least 1,600 Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured to death and a number of recent Christian deaths have also been confirmed, such as the beating death of Ms. Jiang Zongxiu in prison on June 18, 2004 and the death of Bishop John Han Dingxian on September 12, 2007, there is absolutely no question that Chinese atheists are murdering Christians today and intend to continue doing so.


The situation is much worse in North Korea. In TIA, I quoted a 2004 articlepublished by The Guardian: "The number of prisoners held in the North Korean gulag is not known: one estimate is 200,000, held in 12 or more centres. Camp 22 is thought to hold 50,000. Most are imprisoned because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime. Many are Christians, a religion believed by Kim Jong-il to be one of the greatest threats to his power." These North Koreans are not "Kim Jong-ilists"; they are atheists and correctly identify themselves as such. Their atheist self-identification is less dubious than that of the American atheist who makes a fetish of science and/or Darwinism and believes in the ever-ineffable "progress" towards a shiny, secular, material paradise.


In Vietnam, the atheist regime is currently persecuting the Montagnards, a predominantly Christian minority. This is probably done as much for ethnic reasons as anti-religious ones, but the persecution has been purely religious and directed against ethnic Vietnamese Christians in the recent past.Persecution is most intense for the ethnic minorities, especially the Montagnards from the hill country. Many of these people have attempted to flee to neighbouring Cambodia. However, under an agreement with the Vietnamese government, the authorities there have been returning the refugees to Vietnam to collect a bounty. Those who are returned are imprisoned, tortured or killed. Despite the persecution, instead of being destroyed, the church in Vietnam is growing and becoming stronger. Christians now make up almost ten percent of the population.


In Laos, Christians are considered to be enemies of the state and have been viciously persecuted since 1975. Although the persecution has not been as intense in the last three years, it still continues: "At least thirteen Christian villagers who were falsely accused of stirring rebel dissent have been killed by authorities in Laos over the past month, according to an August 7, [2007] report from Compass Direct. The report also states that approximately 200 Christians in the village of Sai Jerern have been arrested and imprisoned."


Atheists have been murdering Christians almost non-stop around the world for the last 91 years and they have done so with predictable regularity in the majority of countries where they have obtained political dominance. It is all too typical that American atheists are far more concerned about Christian crimes committed against non-atheists in Europe more than 500 years ago than they are about the crimes being committed by avowed atheists against Asian Christians today.


But the persecutions will fail in the end, as they always do, and as Western Christianity continues to decline amidst its sloth, wealth, and apostasy, Eastern Christianity will rise, energized by the bloody test of its faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

Answering Skeptics

I'd like to share something from a catholic apologist.
I liked what i read and i think that it will interest some of you.
May God richly bless you in Jesus name.
Please feel free to also Check My Book here.
...
Today, it is popular not to believe in God. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have both written best-selling books explaining why belief in God is a fool's game.


Faith, they say, is a humbug.


Why do they have this attitude?


In part, it's because Christians don't define terms very well. Ask three Christians what faith is and you'll get four different answers. Everyone talks about it; no one knows exactly what it is. They just say you gotta have it, and it's not something we get on our own - it's a gift.


That doesn't help people like Dawkins and Hitchens, scientists who make their livings by investigating facts, not feelings.


So, let's start with something that WILL help them.


In its simplest form, faith, hope and love are each a kind of knowledge.


Faith is our response to knowing who a person is.
Hope is our response to a positive message from a trusted person.
Love springs from our intimate knowledge of this trustworthy, hope-inspiring friend.


Faith is NOT a blind leap.
Faith is evidence-based.
We commit acts of faith every day.


The simple act of ordering a hamburger at the local fast food joint is an act of faith.


Think about it.


When you drive down the road, hungry, you stop at a particular store because it advertises itself as being able to supply food. Do we KNOW that it will be able to provide?


Not really. Perhaps the sign is wrong (new ownership this morning has turned it into a hardware store and they haven't had time to change the sign).


Once we get inside, we see a menu, people eating food, plates, forks, napkins, condiments, and someone ready to take our order.
But can they supply food? We don't honestly know that they can.
Perhaps the previous customer just got the last hamburger and fries.
Perhaps the cook has just gotten sick as we walked in, and is no longer capable of preparing the meal.
Perhaps the cook is incompetent and the meal will be inedible when we finally get it.


Yet we give our money to the man behind the counter BEFORE we have even received the food, tasted the first bite.


That's an act of faith. It is based in the evidence of our senses of sight, sound, smell, the understanding of what we see, the conclusions we draw from all of these facts.


Faith is the sure knowledge that someone can be trusted. When we are speaking of God, faith is two things at once: it is the ability or power to know this fact about God: He can be trusted. It is also the daily choice to act on that fact. God sends us the power as a free, unmerited gift, but faith is never a blind leap. It requires evidence, facts.


Accurately predicting what a person will do based on what we know of him: this is an act of faith. For the most part, our knowledge of a person is founded in other people's testimony. We don't know whether the banker is honest or the mechanic reliable. Someone told us. We trusted that person to know.


Similarly, the power to know that God can be trusted is based in what He has revealed about Himself. The deposit of Faith, that is, all the facts and historical events through which God has revealed Himself to us, is part of what empowers us to trust Him. That is what we mean when we say "Faith is the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). It doesn't mean no one has seen the evidence, or that there isn't any evidence. It means the body of evidence that shows us God is faithful is so vast that no one person has seen all of
it with his own eyes. This evidence is called Providence. Faith is based on this evidence.


Is this so different from what the scientist does?


After all, has he performed EVERY experiment upon which his science is based? No, he hasn't. He reads journals - peer-reviewed journals - in which he trusts that his peers are competent.
He trusts the ones reporting the experiment have accurately reported the facts. He trusts that the peers reviewing the work have correctly discerned their veracity. He commits acts of faith every day or he could accomplish nothing.


Science advances upon faith just as surely as theology does.
The only difference is who we trust.
Scientists tend to trust other scientists.


Christians trust a group of Jews, the prophets of the Old Testament, the apostles of the New Testament.
"But how can you possibly believe or trust the stories of 'miracles' and 'prophecy' that those dead Jews so delighted in telling?" asks the skeptic.


That's the subject of our next message...


Until Then,
God Bless


by Steve Kellmeyer

Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

A friend of mine has sent me a long email from an acquaintance of hers who kind of mocked the current teaching and doctrinal standings on the  baptism of the Holy Spirit as defended by Pentecostal theology. Well, i shared my views in brief to her and i thought sharing that with you too. Hope you like it. If you disagree with me, it is ok. You have the right to disagree with me. :)

Have a nice weekend in Jesus' name.

Please feel free to also Check My Book here.

...

Hello dear xxxxxxx,

Thank you for sharing with me the letter of your friend. Reading it has just reinforced in me the necessity of writing my new book, 'BETRAYAL - The consequences of forsaking the teaching ministry'.

 It is just shocking and astonishing what people can write and say. And all this while they really think they even know or understand what they are talking about. It is sad.

Bon, i came late and as you can imagine i am a bit sleepy hence i can't go through a point by point refutation, correction and clarification of the biblical doctrine that he abused. However let me just touch few points here and there and i am sure that you can find the remaining one's or if there are some specifics you want me to deal with - please let me know i'll be delighted to respond to them when i'll be fully awake. :)

Let start with the first point.

I. He is right when he said we need the holy Spirit to live the Christian life. That is quite correct. This is pretty much all i can wholly agree with him with few exception here and there though.

II. " 1. Being born again and 2. Being baptized in the holy spirit. Now most church say this, but when you study the scriptures, you find out this is not what the bible says. And those who put it this way,are the ones who are seeking more power all the time from God. They're are the ones who are praying and fasting and crying for power. Because they have their Theology mixed up.In no where in the scriptures, does it make the baptism of the holy spirit a 2nd experience!"

Well, let me correct this. After Jesus resurrection and before the Jewish feast of the Pentecost, Jesus gave the Spirit to the disciples by breathing to them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit" John 20:22. So according to the account in the gospel of john the disciples received the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them. This was the first experience. However, before Jesus left the disciples in order to be assumed in Heaven, he said to them, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit ...  Butyou will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Acts 1:4-5, 8. If you look at this portion of Acts 1, Jesus is no longer talking about receiving the Holy Spirit, for that was already done in John 20:22, but he is talking about receiving the promise of the Father. What is the promise of the Father? The baptismal with the Holy Spirit in few days. But is the baptism with the Holy Spirit? It is the reception of power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. Not the reception of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) but the reception of Power (Acts 1:8).

(NB: I emphasis this distinction now because later on i'll use verses where this distinction is not recognized by the author of Acts. Matter of fact it will become clear that 'receiving the Holy Spirit' may mean more than one thing. It may mean receiving Jesus' spirit as at the conversion, or it may mean receiving the power).  

Is the distinction I am making real or just artificial? Maybe the book of Luke can shade some lights, " I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24: 49. Again what was the promise of the father? The clothing with power! Again, the purpose of the promised of the Father, also called the baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), is the reception of power or the clothing with power.

 On Pentecost day, which is believed to have been after 10 days after Jesus' ascension to heaven -which reminds us what Jesus said, 'in few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit ...' (Acts 1:5) - it was reported in Acts 2:4 that the disciples, " All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.". Here we see that the word baptized with the Holy Spirit is not used but rather the word filled with the Holy Spirit. This context suggest that the two words are a description of the same even. Which event? The event of the reception of power. In this situation, the first power that was manifested was their experiences with the speaking in other tongues to the amazement of those who heard them (Acts 2:12).

The story of the disciple denies the assertion that, "no where in the scriptures, does it make the baptism of the holy spirit a 2nd experience!". On the contrary, it was well a different experience with the Holy Spirit than the one they had when Jesus breathed on them. The book of revelation speaks of the seven spirit of God (Rev 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6), which can well mean that the Spirit can manifest itself in more than one way on earth. Matter of fact, even Jesus experienced the presence of the Spirit on him differently twice. Here is an example, 1. "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness," (Luke 4:1) and 2. " Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside" (Luke 4:14). An attentive read will realize that when Jesus was baptized on the Jordan river he received the Holy Spirit and he was full of the Holy Spirit (verse 1). However when he left his 40 days of fasting and temptation victoriously, he had then the power of the Spirit (verse 14). 

Is there other text that can help us understand this distinction? Yes, there are. Philip preach to the Samaritan (Acts 8). They believed the message Philip was preaching. They got baptized with water (Acts 8:12). However they received the power (here again the Tongues as the primary manifestation) through the laying of hands of Peter and James (Acts 8: 15-18) when they came from Jerusalem to witness the fact that the Samaritans had already received the word of God and converted. It is clear here that their conversion (via Philip) was different from their experience of the new power (via Peter and James). Certainly they received the Holy Spirit at their conversion when Philip brought them to the obedience of the Gospel. So in one sense they received the Holy Spirit for without the Spirit there can not be a new birth and a regeneration. But in another sense they had not yet received the Holy Spirit for they still had no power yet. Remember the biblical illustration of the seven Spirit of God. This may mean a diversity in the way the Spirit manifest himself. When Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a counselor in John 14 he used a masculine pronoun as if he was a person. But when Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1 he used a neutral pronoun as if he talked about a thing (the power). The Jehovah witness prefer the Acts 1 usage of the Holy Spirit when they discuss about him. In a sense they are right. In another sense they are wrong. They are right when they emphasize his power, but wrong when they ignore his personality. We can't apply just one criteria especially when the context prevent us to do that. Because the same word is used doesn't mean that it is talking about the same thing. The context will teach us to recognize what is going on here/there.

III. "The baptism of the holy spirit is actually what is meant by the NEW BIRTH. Now for several people,this will completely kick their theology and they'll be like: oooohh what am I hearing??? And you found out all the people who say this never really studied the subject concerning the Holy Spirit."

I have already shown that this is an non careful way to read the scripture. Actually these verses in Acts 8 will show that this is not true:

"¹² But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ¹³ Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

¹⁴ When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. ¹⁵ When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,¹⁶ because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them;they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.¹⁷ Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."

The Samaritans were new believers for the accepted the word of God (verse 14-15) but the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them yet! This is a biblical example that shows that this really happened, and i see no reason why it can't happen again in our century. The context inform us that the Holy Spirit they had not yet received is in fact the power of the Holy Spirit, for when they received the Holy Spirit there were a visible things that was happening to the people as witnessed by even Simon when the disciple placed their hands on them (verse 18).

And in the incident of the disciples in Ephesus that Paul met, contrary to what we were told, the reason Paul might have asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" in Acts 19:2, when the disciples said to him, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." it is because It appears that during the Christian baptism the name of the Holy Spirit is pronounce as recorded in Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," So even if they never heard of a teaching on the Holy Spirit, at least we know they should have heard at least once in their lives that there is such a thing or such a person as the Holy Spirit on the day of their baptism if their baptism followed Jesus model and teaching. So saying they 'never even heard of the Holy Spirit' was really astonishing. Hence Paul wondered what kind of baptism did they receive?

However this is not even the most troubling aspect of this story. The aspect that is really revealing is the fact that Paul asked this question when he first met these disciples for the first time, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" (Acts 19:2) -- It is as if Paul is assuming that it is even possible for someone to believe without receiving the Holy Spirit at the same time. We have to grant this point when reading the text, otherwise this would have made Paul questionnonsensical if that was not possible in any case to believe and not receive the Holy Spirit! So we also have to learn from this apostolic experience to assume that we can meet with Christians who have not yet received the Holy Spirit. And here again, the expression is used not with regards to receiving the Holy Spirit as part of the conversion but receiving it as part of the power that was promised. The context show that they received the ability to prophesy (verse 6) when they received the Holy Spirit indicating by this that Paul meant by receiving the Holy Spirit - the experience of receiving some power as promised by the Father - namely the baptism of the Holy Spirit (remember the discussion on Acts1 above). 

The rest of his discussion is at best tangential to this issue of the timing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit when he converts or at worst irrelevant to the issue. All this shows is that your friends confuses things and do not understand the elementary issues of Christian doctrines, particularly this one, 

"Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, ² of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.³ And this we will^[a] do if God permits." (Hebrews 6:1-3)

Notice that the point 3 in the elementary principles is the doctrine of baptisms (in plural). The New Testament speaks of different form of baptisms namely, a. water baptism (Acts 8: 36-37), b. baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), c. baptism in body (1 Corinthians 12:13), d. baptism of suffering (Luke 12:50), e. baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11). Your friends seem to have a real hard time to distinguish between some of them. And this is just the elementary stuffs of christian principles. How can you expect him to have a developed theology on systematic theology? Impossible. It is clear by his writing that he is just a novice thinker of biblical doctrines who hasn't taken the time sharpen his views notwithstanding his self-congratulating pose. He is just thinking higher about himself than he should have. He still have a long way to go before he start presenting a mature pneumatology even less again a coherent soteriology.

But at least he is trying to think out of the box. Pas mal. I am curious to read what he is going to send you again. :)

I hope my small reaction will help you frame the debate in a more fruitful context with him.

Responding to an Islamic Challenge

Few days ago, I received a challenge from a Muslim in a forum I moderate. I thought my reply to him there might interest some of you.

....

Thanks again Tasbhih Iman to share with us once again your Islamic convictions. However, I remember that in your last post of the 30th March you did a similar thing and on the 31st of March i wrote on this forum (Jeunes de sacre coeur pretoria) asking you a simple question which you have yet to answer. I asked you what was your motive for writing on our forum. I am willing to engage you if only you can tell me what kind of purpose you are pursuing here.

But since you might once again ignore this simple request, let me start by making a simple and brief remark about your two recent posts.

The first post deals with the book of Deuteronomy and the second post speaks of the gospel of John. Let's start with the first one.

A. Does the book of Deuteronomy in the Bible speaks about Muhammad?

The simple answer is you wish! But i am sure that the readers will be interested in the longer answer so let me give that too.

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name." Deuteronomy 18: 18-19

You quoted these two verses of Deuteronomy 18 and you strangely concluded this: "Il sera issu des frères des Israélites, c'est-à-dire les Ismaélites" [in English: He will come from the brethren of Israelites, meaning the Ismaelites] .. only a Muslim can read things like this in the Bible. Pulling out of fine air information that is not found in the text. So let me help you understand something dear. When you are interested to study the Bible, or any book or document for that matter, make sure that you read the context. That will help you so much in getting the meaning of a text.

I'll start quoting this chapter from verse 15 and let see if maybe you'll have enough courage to admit that the author of Deuteronomy was not talking of the Ismaelites.

"15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. ¹⁶ For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lordour God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”¹⁷ The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. ¹⁸ I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. ¹⁹ I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name."

The text in verse 15 emphases that the prophet will be "from among you" and you just have to read this whole chapter to figure out that the author was talking to the Israelite. And when we say among you the Israelite, this means among you the Israelite and not from another cousin nation, brother nation, sister nation, uncle nations, half-brother nations or else. So please dear Tasbih, be attached to intellectual integrity and truth and not to religious fanaticism.

B. Is the predicted New testament Comforter of the Gospel of John, Muhammad?

The simple answer is you wish! Not even in the wildest dream of any prophet!

This is even easier to refute than the first one. It was reported that Jesus said this in John 14:15-16

"¹⁵ “If you love me, keep my commands. ¹⁶ And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ¹⁷ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be^[c] in you."

1. Jesus spoke to the disciples. 2. The paracletos (advocate) was already known by the disciples in the first century. 3. The paracletos (advocate) will be in the disciples and not only with the disciples. And 4. the paracletos will be with the disciples forever.

If Muhammad was that advocate/ paracletos, this means that Jesus would have lied to his disciples by telling them that the Father will give them another advocate to fill in Jesus place when he left them, because by the time Muhammad was born all the disciples were already dead. Hence, they would have never met the paracletos. But thank God Muhammad was not the paracletos. And more, Jesus already informed us in that verse that the disciples already knew the paracletos for he lived with them and that he will be in them.

It is a mistake to assume that the advocate couldn't be a spirit because Jesus said that he can speaks.

You said: 

......

 Jesus said the parakletos is a human being:

John 16:13 "He will speak."

John 16:7 "for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you." It is impossible that the Comforter be the 'Holy Ghost' because the Holy Ghost was present long before Jesus and during his ministry. 

.....

The ability to speak is not only reserved to human beings. God speaks too, but that doesn't make Him a human being. The angel Gabriel spoke too, but that doesn't necessarily make him a human. And the fact that the comforter will speak doesn't make Him necessarily a human being. A baby doesn't speak and yet it does not make it less than a human being. Speaking is the attributes of intelligence. And that which speaks has a conscious personality. That what you should infer from this text about the counselor that Jesus spoke about. He had a personality but he was not a human being. That is why he could be IN the disciples. Matter of fact He came upon the disciple and in the disciple through a series of event surround the resurrection. The principal one is the event that happened at the Pentecost of the Jews few weeks after Jesus' resurrection.

I guess this will suffice for now. 

Beside that, i am always impressed to see critics of the Bible like Muslim always coming back to the bible to find evidence for their belief when in the first place they keep accusing the manuscripts to be inaccurate, corrupted and more. Why on earth do they always try to find solace in what they believe to be a corrupted document? This has always been to me a mystery. Maybe some of them will really need to sit and think through these things and decide if the bible is a reliable document hence start referring to it, or it is not a reliable document, hence stop to make reference to it in their argumentation. Some people really need to decide what they really want in life, because they apparently don't know!

.

Anyway .. I hope you all have a pleasant day and week in Jesus' name.
Check My Book here.

Why Black Women Are Fat

After reading Alice Randall article about 'Why Black Women Are Fat, i thought i should briefly review her commentary. Alice is a writer in residence at Vanderbilt University and the author of "Ada's Rules." She started her article with some frightening stats. about Afro-american women. I'll assume that they are correct.

"FOUR out of five black women are seriously overweight. One out of four middle-aged black women has diabetes. With $174 billion a year spent on diabetes-related illness in America and obesity quickly overtaking smoking as a cause of cancer deaths, it is past time to try something new."

She said that 4/5 black women are overweight. Overweight refers to increased body weight in relation to height. Meaning that the physical change is visible and recognizable. But if everybody can see it and know the health danger for having such a surplus of body mass, why do black women still put themselves in such precarious situation? Alice suggest that knowing the health risk is not sufficient to discourage black women in the USA to loose weight because their health risk fear is superseded by their cultural fear of being skinny. For many black women, being skinny means being undesirable by men. I know, it sounds bizarre to me too.

"too many experts who are involved in the discussion of obesity don't understand something crucial about black women and fat: many black women are fat because we want to be."

It is hard to save people from what they desire and long for. Actually i remember this quote from Derek prince: "God doesn't deliver us from our friends, but from our enemies". In order to change, we need to be willing to change. Unless the mind state of those who value fat on their bodies changes, there is not much that anyone could do to help them change.

At least Alice has made a decision to remedy this situation with the younger generation, particularly her daughter, by inspiring a new culture that values less body fat through sports (walk, dancing, etc.), food and any other things that might contribute to fattening her body (e.g. lack of sleep, etc.):

"I expect obesity will be like alcoholism. People who know the problem intimately find their way out, then lead a few others. The few become millions. Down here, that movement has begun. I hold Zumba classes in my dining room, have a treadmill in my kitchen and have organized yoga classes for women up to 300 pounds. And I've got a weighted exercise Hula-Hoop I call the black Cadillac. Our go-to family dinner is sliced cucumbers, salsa, spinach and scrambled egg whites with onions. Our go-to snack is peanut butter - no added sugar or salt - on a spoon. My quick breakfast is a roasted sweet potato, no butter, or Greek yogurt with six almonds. That's soul food, Nashville 2012."

So you too choose well what kind of legacy you'd like to leave to your children and to those who will look at you as a role model.

Check My Book here.