eChurch Blog

Another superb article (as usual) from Bill Muehlenberg, his third of the day!

He mentions the woeful level of biblical illiteracy amongst God’s people and I agree.

I remember some stats that came out many years ago (about 12yrs) that were frankly disturbing. Roughly only a 1/3 of Anglicans had read the New Testament in its entirety and less that 10% had read the entire Bible.

As the Scripture explains and reveals the meaning of Scripture, biblical illiteracy, leaves folks hopelessly vulnerable to every wind of ‘doctrine’ or the ’spirit of the times’.

There has been a general apathy for the Bible, because it seems to be widely believed that the pastor will reveal all, which is dangerous to say the least!

Folks should be encouraged to feel responsible for their own Biblical knowledge, as is the Biblical precedent.

Difficult Bible Passages: Matthew 19:12

This is hopefully the first in an irregular series on difficult Biblical passages. I do this for several reasons. There are admittedly some passages in the Bible which are somewhat hard to understand, or open to all manner of interpretations – some better than others. Believers may well have honest questions about such texts.

Also, I find that sadly there is a woeful level of biblical illiteracy amongst God’s people. It seems increasingly that many Christians do not even have a basic understanding of God’s word. Indeed, one can ask how many Christians have even read the entire Bible through at least once. Far too few I suspect.

Of course I am not claiming here to offer the one correct interpretation of these tough texts. But I will seek to draw upon the wisdom of those who have gone before: Christian thinkers, theologians, interpreters, commentators, and so on. Hopefully at least some light will be shed on these difficult passages.

My first text just happened to be part of my morning reading, so I will begin with that. The full context of this verse is Matthew 19:1-12. In it Jesus answers a question about marriage and divorce, and he reinforces God’s desire for permanence in marriage.

After giving a strong and restrictive word against divorce and remarriage, his disciples reply in verse 10 with these words: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” The reply found in the next two verses comprises the difficult passage:

“Jesus replied, ‘Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it’.”

I have heard all sorts of strange explanations of this passage, even some which would seek to use it to justify homosexuality! So what exactly is Jesus getting at here? The short answer is that Jesus is simply stating that celibacy may well be an option for some of his followers.

Of course in first century Jewish culture this was a pretty radical concept. Jews back then considered marriage and the bearing of children to be a duty. The unmarried Jesus would have been a rare exception in that culture. Marriage is certainly God’s norm, but as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 7, both marriage and singleness are gifts of God.

As to the three categories of eunuchs which Jesus mentions, the first two are to be understood in a literal sense, while the third is evidently metaphorical in intent. The first category has to do with those who are born without the physical capability – in other words, those who are, for various reasons, impotent.

But some apologists for homosexuality seek to twist this passage into support of their cause. They want to argue that Jesus meant some people are born with a same-sex attraction, and therefore heterosexual marriage is not for them. But there are big problems with this view.

As R. T. France states, it is of course anachronistic to read back modern Western notions of homosexual orientation into this passage. No first century Middle Easterner would have thought in those terms. Also, back then homosexuality most often meant what we today call bi-sexuality: primarily men who had sex with both women and other men. There was no thought of people being born with some inherent, unalterable homosexual orientation. (The Gospel of Matthew, Eerdmans, 2007, pp. 724-725.)

The second category would have to do with castration and the like, a common practice for those who worked in harems. Those men who worked with women in high positions in the royal court were usually castrated. We have an example of this in Acts 8:27: the Ethiopian eunuch.

The third category has to do with an individual’s choice. While self-castration may be a very slight possibility here (something which would have been abhorrent to Jews), it most likely should be understood in a figurative sense: it has to do with choosing celibacy over marriage.

That is, some people are willing to remain single for the sake of the Kingdom. That is why Jesus could say it would not be accepted by all, and only those to whom it has been given (i.e., the gift of celibacy) would be able to receive it.

In 1 Corinthians 7:7, 17 Paul also talks about this gift of singleness. Paul, John the Baptist, and Jesus were all single men in a culture overwhelmingly geared toward marriage. Thus celibacy is certainly the exception to the rule, but it is a valid gift and calling of God nonetheless.

As D. A. Carson comments, we must recognise that “neither Jesus nor the apostles see celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (cf. 1 Tim 4:1-3; Heb 13:4), nor as a condition for the top level of ministry (Matt 8:14; 1 Cor 9:5), but as a special calling granted for greater usefulness in the kingdom.”

Looked at in this way, Matthew 19:11-12 is not too difficult to understand. Sure, there will always be theological revisionists who will seek to distort such passages in order to promote their agenda, such as the homosexual activists. But usually each text, considered in its context, and compared with other biblical passages, can be found to be more clear and straightforward than first thought.

Stay tuned for more such tough passages. In fact, if you have a passage you have been stuck on, why not send it through in the form of a comment, and I will see what I can do with it. I do not – and cannot – claim an infallible interpretation for any of these texts, but I am happy to take a stab at them.

Previous related Posts:

The Proposed EU Equal Treatment Directive. “Discrimination” and “Equality” laws may well force Christians into silence, to act against their conscience or risk being on the wrong side of the law.

The proposed EU Equal Treatment Directive has the potential to be used as an instrument of cultural genocide. Its provisions are likely to restrict Christian freedoms to the extent that, in certain cases, we would be silenced and prevented from providing goods or services to the public without violating our consciences, particularly if required to promote other religions or the practice of homosexuality.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales as well as the Scottish Bishops’ Conference have submitted a joint response to an EU proposal for an Equal Treatment Directive. The bishops voiced “serious concerns” that the proposal—which covers religion, belief, disability, age and sexual orientation—could be used by “pressure groups” to limit the freedom of Catholics.

URGENT The Government Equalities Office (GEO) is undertaking a Consultation on the proposed Equal Treatment Directive

CARE Releases New Equalities Report

UK CONSULTATION ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PROPOSAL FOR AN EQUAL TREATMENT DIRECTIVE Response from the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of England and Wales and Scotland

Article from CIVITAS

Jerusalem Post

“Weapons and democracy cannot coexist,” said Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, patriarch of Lebanon’s Maronite Church, in an interview to Lebanon’s al-Massira magazine to be published on Saturday.

During the interview, conducted on Thursday, Sfeir lashed out at Hizbullah, maintaining that the Shi’ite organization threatened Lebanon’s security and stability.

“Someone on the inside is leaning on exterior force to attain parliamentary and ministerial gains,” the patriarch was quoted as saying, suggesting that Hizbullah was undermining Lebanon’s efforts to establish a national unity government.

By carrying out the wishes of foreign parties, using illegal arms and terrorizing the state and its people, he said, Hizbullah was effectively jeopardizing Lebanon’s already-shaky sovereignty under the guise of legitimate political activity.

Read Entire Article

I have just read this absolutely stunning article by Frederick Meekins over at the Epistolizer Blog

The Moral Argument For God

The early 21st century stands as a period of profound moral confusion. On the one hand, mothers and doctors are permitted to crack upon the skulls and suck out the brains of nearly-born babies with government sanction under the banner of partial birth abortion. Should these very same people hike into the woods and crack open a bald eagle egg, they could face serious prison time.

It would therefore seem that contemporary society is marked by two seemingly contradictory extremes — that of extreme license and that of excessive control. However, upon closer inspection it could be concluded that these conditions are not as contradictory as the situation might originally appear. Rather, it would seem each is the result of the systematic removal of the ethical balance provided within the Judeo-Christian tradition with its emphasis upon transcendent standards provided by an infinitely just and loving God.

With the increasing complexity of knowledge and technology, those trained in the acquisition and use of this complex body of thought (those broadly referred to as “intellectuals”) have taken on increased levels of influence and responsibility throughout society. No longer does agriculture or manufacturing dominate society to the degree it once did.

Futurists from Alvin Toffler to Newt Gingrich have characterized the current sociological epoch as information-based, with those manipulating this information from government bureaucrats to Hollywood producers exercising unfathomable power over the composition of the contemporary mind. Therefore, it must be remembered, as Lord Acton is believed to have said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Through a historical process too complicated to detail to a significant degree in this brief analysis, the prevailing secular elite came to see the world around them and their own assorted intellectual systems as satisfactory explanations in and of themselves for the reality in which these thinkers found themselves. According to Phillip Johnson in “Reason In The Balance”, this way of viewing the world prevalent among the most influential intellectuals is naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that the material reality constitutes the totality of existence and the idea of God is merely a mental construct promulgated in an attempt to cope with the stark realities of the universe in which man finds himself (7).

The average person might naturally conclude that naturalism by its nature would confine itself to the issues of blunt observable scientific fact. However, naturalism has left the tedium of the laboratory and now seeks to influence fields as divergent from science as education, ethics, and government. It is through this set of paradigms embracing the present material reality as the highest criteria of judgment that the twin siblings of chaos and tyranny have become so prevalent throughout world society.

No matter what the secular elites call their particular systems or what concerns these systems emphasize, it is the goal of the secular elite to remake man in the image of the prevailing secular elite. According to Alister McGrath in “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths”, prominent ideologies competing for the minds of men include Enlightenment rationalism, Marxism, and scientific materialism (160).

Despite the shades of difference between each of these systems, at their core each shares the assumption that man is bound by no eternal standard beyond this reality and can be remade into whatever the powers that be see fit. It is from this effort to remake the fundamental nature of man that the sorrow of anarchy and tyranny flow.

Bound by certain God-ordained limits regarding behavioral standards and human relationships, man can expect nothing but heartache should he decide to ignore these warnings. However, those seeking to craft a cultural ethos standing apart from the moral will of God regularly ignore these moral stoplights like newly-licensed teenagers barreling down the Las Vegas strip.

Proponents of modernism originally hypothesized that man could retain a high degree of morality without reference to all that theological superstition. Yet without a clear theological reference by which to measure, the actions of man degenerate into the depths of unfathomable evil.

According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, when man looks to himself as the source of right and wrong, the result is existential subjectivism and relativism where each person becomes a law unto themselves (404).

And while modernism attempted to maintain the illusion of objective standards apart from the revelation of God, the logical conclusion of such atheistic thinking — postmodernism — holds to no such delusions. In fact, political radical and literary critic Michel Foulcalt has stated there are no facts (though this assertion is itself stated as a fact) and his fellow travelers down the deconstructionist superhighway literally fancy themselves as “assassins of objectivity” according to Lynne Cheney in “Telling The Truth: Why Our Culture & Country Have Stopped Making Sense & What We Can Do About It” (91).

Such sentiments possess ramifications beyond settling the issue of whether or not hemlines will be low or high for the coming year. Such ideas determine the very shape and composition of human society and relationships.

This is particularly evident on college campuses where these kinds of ideas enjoy free reign having the status of orthodoxy and where no one bats an eye with anarchy and tyranny walking together hand in hand. For example, Dinesh D’Souza points out in “Illiberal Education : The Politics Of Race & Sex On Campus” that many college campuses distribute condoms and support the vilest profanity as art yet advocate a radical form of feminism just about branding traditional forms of sex as rape and enforce speech codes so broad as to punish “misdirected laughter” and “exclusion from conversation” (238).

Furthermore, much of twentieth and twenty-first history has been a running commentary on the chaos and tyranny that result from attempting to undermine the insoluble union between morality and divinity. The former Soviet Union perhaps stands as the primary example of this kind of experiment where in an attempt to better himself man turns his back on God and reaps the consequences in abundance. That particular society experienced bloodshed and misery rarely repeated in human history except perhaps in its sister dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Maoist China.

Without an objective standard as provided by the moral revelation of God, the state as embodied by the Communist Party was free to do as it pleased such as changing the law at the drop of a hat and then violate the law when it suited without any degree of institutional recourse available to the Soviet people. In his monumental Understanding The Times, David Noebel quotes a Communist functionary who said, “There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do as we wish. I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all of this evil in my heart (104). Few Evangelical thinkers have been able to express the moral dangers of atheism in a more succinct manner.

Standing in marked opposition to atheism and its law of the jungle and inherent antinomianism is belief in God and the corollaries of morality flowing from God’s existence. From the heartaches and confusion mentioned previously in this exposition, it is evident that mankind is incapable of establishing a satisfactory moral system of his own accord.

Instead, man must be provided one by an objective outside source yet one familiar with the conditions under which man is capable of thriving. Furthermore, it is only through God as revealed in Scripture that one is even justified in speaking of morality in the first place.

Try as he might, C.S. Lewis points out in “Mere Christianity”, man cannot escape the encompassing embrace or rebuke of morality. For even in the attempt to flee from its more traditional formulations, one must invoke the structure of its dialogue in order to appeal to a competing set of standards (3).

For example, D. James Kennedy points out in “Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul” that tolerance is the last virtue of an immoral society since this moral principle in invoked to cover over a plethora of popular abominations ranging from pornography to abortion to sodomy (78). The issue is not so much that man will live without some degree of morality, but rather by whose standards will man live and the consequences resulting from such decisions.

Westminster Seminary Professor John Frame elaborates in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that, in order to exist as objective standards beyond the level of subjective sentiments, morals must stem from an absolute source; and since these principles govern personable entities, they must exude from an absolute ultimate personality (100). If morality exists in a transcendent source apart from man in God, morality is granted a degree of liberation from the murky fog of subjectivism yet is accessible to man and can be said to exist in all situations even if finite man refused to disentangle himself from the passion of the moment to view these conundrums from the crisp peaks of objective detachment.

Since these divinely legislated standards stem from God, they exist as part of the underlying fabric of the universe. Try as he might, man cannot escape the lure of morality, such a situation further attesting to the power of the God standing behind these principles. Romans 2:14-15 says, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts…(NIV).”

Even those who actively choose to suppress and undermine this universal order appeal to it when it suits their interests. C.S. Lewis writes in “Mere Christianity”, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining before he can say Jack Robinson (5).” Norman Geisler illustrates this point in “Christian Ethics” in the story of a student professing antinomianism who appealed to objective standards upon receiving a failing grade from this ethics instructor regarding a trivial matter (384).

At this point, readers not normally enchanted by the banter of academic dialogue may concede that morality does indeed flow from God but may wonder what practical impact such a truth may have in everyday existence. Actually, quite a bit.

Since God is both the legislator of traditional morality and the loving creator of man, it follows that the traditional moral system established by God and set forth in the revelation of the Holy Bible is the system of morality best suited to the nature of humanity, both protecting him to the greatest possible degree from the rampant evil plaguing a fallen world and allowing him to enjoy whatever goodness that remains in it through the grace of God.

For example, God did not establish the rules surrounding marriage in order to toss a wet blanket over the fornication follies. Rather, confining the act of human intimacy within the context of marriage balances both the desire for physical pleasure and the need for lasting love, to say nothing of protecting the individual against the proto-apocalyptic pestilences now ravaging millions. Instead of withering away like a forgotten memory as predicted by some, Tim LaHaye hypothesizes in “The Battle For The Family” that the family will in reality provide a foundation of stability in times of unprecedented social turmoil (237).

The moral argument for God is far more than a dry academic proof found in seminary textbooks. Its reality is being made more concrete each day throughout the culture as the nation continues to drift away from its Judeo-Christian foundations.

In “Turning The Tide: The Fall Of Liberalism & The Rise Of Common Sense”, Pat Robertson describes the two possible futures that await the United States (293-296). Americans can either repent of their wickedness and return to God and His standards, experiencing national renewal, individual well-being, and eternal salvation in the process. Or, the American people can continue in their sin and deny God’s very existence, risking national decline, personal suffering, and eternal damnation as a result. The choice is up to you, with your eternal destiny and the welfare of your family hanging in the balance.

by Frederick Meekins

Previous posts:-

Scary Stuff – 47 million Americans will don costumes this Halloween – and that’s just the adults.

Derry City Council’s Hallowe’en carnival encourages Satanism and has brought a curse on the city, according to a Methodist minister – Rev Jonathan Campbell, from Newbuildings Independent Methodist Church

Spain’s Roman Catholic bishops have urged parents not to allow their children to dress up at Halloween labelling it an “occult and anti-Christian” custom.

Mail Online

The Vatican today slammed Halloween as ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘dangerous’ for its links to the occult.

The October 31st ritual falls before the deeply significant Roman Catholic holy day of All Saints this Sunday.

The Pope’s condemnation follows on from similar criticism from Catholic bishops in Spain who earlier this week urged parents not to let their children dress up as ghosts and goblins.

In an article entitled ‘The Dangerous Messages of Halloween’, the Vatican’s official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano quoted liturgical expert Joan Maria Canals as saying: ‘Halloween has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian’.

Father Canals urged parents ‘to be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death.’

L’Osservatore praised a church at Alcala de Henares which had decided to hold a prayer vigil on Saturday night, and the Paris archdiocese’s idea of having kids play a lucky dip dubbed ‘Holywins’ instead.

Read more:

Further Internet Links

Christians have condemned Halloween scaremongers for promoting horror and violence as a “family fun” attractions aimed at young children.

Hallowe’en is the devil’s work, Catholic church warns parents

The Christian Institute

The case of Jennie Cain, the school receptionist who was disciplined for sending a prayer email, will be heard by an employment tribunal starting on 22 March.

The hearing will take place in Taunton, Somerset, and is scheduled to last for five days.

Lawyers representing Jennie Cain have lodged papers claiming that she has suffered religious discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

The claim is brought against the governing body of Landscore Primary School and the school’s head teacher Mr Gary Read. A claim is also brought against Devon County Council for aiding the discrimination.

In January this year Mrs Cain’s daughter, Jasmine, was reprimanded by her class teacher for talking about her Christian faith to another child.

The school has said the five-year-old had frightened another child by talking about hell.

It has since come to light that the conversation between the children was never witnessed by any adult and took place around October time the previous year.

On hearing that her daughter had been reprimanded for expressing her faith, Mrs Cain sent a private email to church friends and family asking them to pray about the incident.

The email was sent from Mrs Cain’s home computer, outside work time, using her personal email account.

But the email ended up in the hands of head teacher Gary Read who launched an investigation against Mrs Cain for professional misconduct.

A panel of school governors decided to discipline Mrs Cain by issuing her a final written warning. This was reduced to a written warning on appeal.

However, the legal papers lodged with the Employment Tribunal claim that the decision to discipline Mrs Cain is part of ongoing hostility to her Christian faith by her employers.

The legal papers also claim that the governors sitting on the appeal panel had wanted to remove the warning from Mrs Cain’s record completely but were blocked from doing so by staff from Devon County Council’s Human Resources Department.

It is further claimed that school’s disciplinary procedure was not properly followed.

Mrs Cain was told to stay away from work for four months. The legal papers claim that, upon her return to work, Mrs Cain has continued to suffer religious discrimination and harassment. She also suffered victimisation on account of her taking legal action.

When Mrs Cain’s case came to light, the Archbishop of York backed her.

Archbishop John Sentamu expressed his support in an article for a national newspaper.

The Archbishop said Mrs Cain’s case and that of Christian nurse Caroline Petrie represent a “seeming intolerance and illiberality about faith in God which is being reflected in the higher echelons of our public services”.

He said: “Asking someone to leave their belief in God at the door of their workplace is akin to asking them to remove their skin colour before coming into the office. Faith in God is not an add-on or optional extra.

“For me, my trust in God is part of my DNA; it is central to who I am and defines my place in the world. It informs my whole life, not just a weekly service on a Sunday.

“It is the failure to grasp this basic understanding of what it is to be a follower of Jesus Christ that lies at the heart of the problem of which these two cases are just symptoms.”

He added: “Those who display intolerance and ignorance, and would relegate the Christian faith to just another disposable lifestyle choice, argue that they operate in pursuit of policies based on the twin aims of ‘diversity and equality’.

“Yet in the minds of those charged with implementing such policies, ‘diversity’ apparently means every colour and creed except Christianity, the nominal religion of the white majority; and ‘equality’ seemingly excludes anyone, black or white, with a Christian belief in God.”

Previous related Posts

Jennie Cain, the primary school (Landscore Primary) receptionist who was facing disciplinary action for sending a prayer request is to launch a legal action against the school.

Jennie Cain became embroiled in a row with Landscore Primary School, in Crediton, Devon, after her daughter, Jasmine, was allegedly reprimanded by one of its teachers for talking about Jesus, Heaven and God.

Sidelined UK Christians feel the squeeze poll shows

The Government’s Minister for Communities John Denham has denied Christians are being marginalised in Labour’s Britain.

Homelessness prevention officer sacked over God advice

Doctors and nurses demand right to pray for patients

Sad in a way this report, but at least the church scored higher than the government

By Paul Jarvis, Third Sector Online

Voluntary organisations shape our values, say 68% of households

Charities are now more important in shaping the personal values of people in the Republic of Ireland than the church, according to a survey of 1,000 Irish households.

Sixty-eight per cent of respondents to the survey, conducted by not-for-profit think-tank nfpSynergy, said charities had an influence on their values. The church was mentioned by only 38 per cent.

Only family was a bigger influence than charities on values, while 55 per cent of respondents listed local communities as another important influencing factor.

“These findings underline the central role community and voluntary activity plays in Irish society,” said Ivan Cooper, director of advocacy at The Wheel, a representative group for Irish charities and community groups.

Cooper said charities were increasingly seen as a source of moral authority in society.

Of all the institutions in the survey, government scored lowest, with only 8 per cent saying it shaped their personal values.

I hope they catch the bastards….and pray Lord that Simon pulls through!

Daily Mail

Hero church worker stabbed after ‘saving children from 30-strong gang’ outside anti-crime event

A church worker who bravely stepped in to shield a group of children from a violent gang has been left fighting for his life.

Father-of-four Simon Somerville organised a three-day anti-crime workshop at the Albany Theatre in Deptford in a bid to reduce violence in the area.

But for his efforts the former amateur boxing champion was left with multiple stab wounds after trying to stop a crowd of up to 30 youths picking on younger children.

Read More

UK Press Association

Church volunteer fights for life after stabbing

A volunteer church worker remains critically ill in hospital after being stabbed outside an event in east London to keep teenagers away from crime.

The 41-year-old was stabbed repeatedly when he confronted a rowdy gang outside a meeting for young Christians in Deptford.

Police arrested a 16-year-old boy on suspicion of attempted murder and were questioning him at a south London police station.

A second victim, a 16-year-old boy, suffered stab wounds to his lower body when he stepped in to help the man at about 9.15pm on Wednesday night, Scotland Yard said. He was treated and discharged.

Officers had already been alerted to a large group of youths causing trouble outside the event in Douglas Way shortly before 7pm.

Several roads were closed by police after the stabbings as searches and forensic examinations took place.

A knife was recovered from the scene.

Anyone who witnessed the attack is asked to contact Lewisham police station on 0300 1231234.

FURTHER INTERNET LINKS (I will be continually updating these links as news becomes available)

A church volunteer who worked on anti-violence projects remains critically ill after being stabbed repeatedly as he tried to protect a group of young people in south east London. Simon Somerville, 41, was attacked outside an anti-crime event at a theatre in Deptford on Wednesday.

A 16-year-old arrested on suspicion of stabbing a church volunteer was today released on bail, Scotland Yard said. The victim, named in reports as Simon Somerville, was attacked outside an anti-crime seminar at a theatre in Deptford, south east London.

A 16-year-old arrested on suspicion of stabbing a church volunteer in south east London has been released on bail, Scotland Yard said. The victim, named in reports as Simon Somerville, was attacked outside an anti-crime seminar at a theatre in Deptford.

I have seen quite a bit in the news regarding the seizing of these Bibles in Malaysia. The worrying feature of this story is the fact that Malaysia is considered a ‘moderate’ and ‘progressive’ Islamic nation.

Just for readers information, I have personally studied Arabic and the word ‘Allah’ is simply the Arabic word for God, which is why this word is used by Arab Christians also to define God.

Article from the Christian Post

15,000 Bibles in Malaysia Seized Over ‘Allah’ Reference

Malaysian authorities have seized more than 15,000 Bibles that refer to God as “Allah” in recent months, said church officials Thursday.

About 10,000 Bibles from Indonesia were confiscated by authorities on Sept. 11, according to the Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, according to The Associated Press. The other 5,100 Bibles, also from Indonesia, were seized in March, according to an official from the Bible Society of Malaysia, who requested that AP not identify him to avoid angering the government.

In Malaysia, Christian publications cannot use the word Allah to refer to God. The government contends the word “Allah” is exclusively for Islam, but church officials argue that Allah is not exclusive to Islam because it is an Arabic word that existed before the religion.

The confiscated Bibles were translated into Malay, the country’s official language, where the word for God is “Allah.”

“Malay has borrowed from Arabic, just as it has from Sanskrit and Portuguese,” said Shastri, according to CNN. “We have maintained the community has the right to use the word.

“But I think this has ignited a cause in the Muslim communities, who are interpreting it as a siege on Islamic beliefs.”

The government has said the use of Allah in Christian publications could confuse Muslims and make Christian ideas more appealing to them.

About 60 percent of Malaysia’s population is Muslim and about nine percent is Christian. Buddhists make up another 19 percent and Hindus about six percent of the population.

The confiscated Bibles are the latest incident in a long struggle between the Christian community and the government over the use of the word Allah. The Roman Catholic weekly newspaper, The Herald, has been in an ongoing court battle for over two years after the government threatened to revoke its license for using the word Allah in its Malay edition.

But Shastri said, “For most of the Christians, this is not an issue of going against the authorities. They have been using [the word “Allah”] for a long time,” as reported by AP.

FURTHER INTERNET LINK:-

Bibles seized as Malaysia minorities fear fundamentalism – CNN

Church officials: 15,000 Bibles seized in Malaysia – AP

Malaysia confiscates more than 20,000 Bibles over their use of the word “Allah”

It’s always interesting to note that the giants of the internet world are not themselves without bias or ideologically driven:-

by James Tillman

SEATTLE, WA, October 29 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Representatives of the Google offices in Seattle and Kirkland Washington sent a letter to the editor of the Seattle-Post Intelligencer supporting Referendum 71, which would grant the same legal rights to same-sex “partners” as to married couples.  The letter joins a host of instances in which Google and other large, well-heeled companies have shown themselves actively opposed to the principles of the pro-life and traditional family movements.

The letter, signed by the engineering and site directors of each office, says that although Google does not “not generally take positions on social, legal or political issues that arise beyond our normal, day-to-day business,” there are nevertheless “issues that are so important and so clear cut that we feel compelled to lend our voice.”

“Supporting Referendum 71 is one of those issues.”

This statement comes as an apparently close November 3rd vote on Referendum 71 draws near.  Referendum 71, while not granting the name of marriage to same-sex partnerships, would nevertheless grant to such partnerships the same rights, obligations, and responsibilities that marriages have.

Google is not the only company to come out in favor of such partnerships, however.

Microsoft recently gave $100,000 to Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST), an organization working to pass Referendum 71.  Microsoft also has a long reputation of promoting homosexuality; Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and chief executive Steve Ballmer have each also given $25,000 to WAFST.

Such numbers are typical in a race in which homosexualist groups have raised vastly more money than pro-family groups.  The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission website reports that WAFST has raised nearly two million dollars, while Protect Marriage Washington and Vote Reject on R-71 have together raised less than $450,000 dollars, less than a quarter of what their opposition has raised.

Microsoft, Nike, and Boeing were also among several companies to issue a joint statement in support of Referendum 71.

Like Microsoft’s support, however, Google’s support of Referendum 71 is no surprise. Google has previously worked against conservatives and families in the past through the vast power it exerts over internet content.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, is infamous for censoring pro-life videos.  On June 24th they pulled a video by Life Action Films, featuring a Planned Parenthood employee claiming that the graphic abortion pictures used by pro-lifers are “not real.”  On July 10th, they removed a video showing Planned Parenthood failing to report what would be a statutory rape under Alabama state law.  There have been several other cases of such censorship.

Google also opposed Proposition 8 in California, a referendum to protect California marriages as the union of one man and one woman.  Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, wrote that “it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8.”

He continued: “We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.”

Google has also been sued for refusing to allow pro-life advertisements on abortion that contain religious content. Google settled out of court.

See related LifeSiteNews.com stories:

YouTube Yanks another Pro-Life Exposé Video

YouTube Yanks Video Exposing Obama’s Abortion Extremism

Google to be Sued for Anti-Christian Discrimination for Refusing Advertising