In the October 30, 2001 issue of the Whig, a letter to the editor appeared, dealing with the inconsistencies between what is preached and what is practiced in both Islam and Christianity. Regarding the first, I have addressed the nature of Islamic religion (and what a consistent Muslim must be like) in a previous article (a letter to the editor which, for some reason, has been withheld from print in the Kingston Whig Standard). Interested parties can visit www.lookinguntojesus.net/20011021.htm to read that letter. Herein, I would like to address some false charges wielded against Christianity.

The writer first deals with those guilty of the'ridiculous stretching' of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" to justify capital punishment. The text cited, in part, is Exodus 21:24. It is clear that the individual did not look at the context of the words quoted. In the context, we read, "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:22-25) God established through Moses a system of justice which imposed upon the oppressor a punishment equal to the crime committed. Does the contender question God's standard of justice?

It has been my observation of the past number of years, that a fair number of those who are opposed to capital punishment are strangely backers of abortion. This very text, which required capital punishment in Israel of the Old Testament, acknowledged the value of the unborn child. If the woman gives birth prematurely and any harm follows (ie. either she or the newborn dies due to the injury), God's law demanded life for life. If it is the child who dies, the cause of death can be traced back to an incident which occurred before birth. This is of no consequence. The child is a life, with equal value to any other human, even before birth. How inconsistent to be an opponent of capital punishment, and a supporter of abortion!!

Back to the issue of capital punishment, in Romans 13:4, speaking of civil government, the apostle Paul writes, "...he is God's minister for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Civil government have a God given responsibility to uphold justice, to praise those who do good (v 3) and to punish those who do evil (v 4). The nation which chooses not to properly punish capital crimes has dulled the sword of justice, and become a harbour, not an avenger for those who practice evil.

A second "inconsistency" charged of Christian practice is corporal punishment. The writer cites 'the biblical expression', "spare the rod and spoil the child." I challenge anyone to show me where this statement is found in the Bible. The Bible is much more explicit, "He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly." (Proverbs 13:24) The complainer affirms that such an idea contradicts David's wonderful statement of faith, "...thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me..." (Psalm 23:4). Is that so? Consider that a shepherd uses his rod to discipline any sheep which go astray, not as a means to intentionally injure them, but as an effective method of protection. The alternative would be to allow the animal to wander off, perhaps meeting a bear, a lion, poisonous berries, etc.. A good shepherd disciplines an unruly sheep.

Equating discipline and abuse is a false notion, but widely accepted. This will be (and has been) a contributing factor to the moral decline of Canadian society. Parents who love their children will discipline them. The motivation of discipline is love; the motivation of abuse is anger. One is for the purpose of molding a child in the right path, the other is merely an uncontrolled expression of hatred and selfishness. The inability to distinguish between the two is not because they are identical, but evidence that the disputer has set his mind contrary to the will of God.

Rather than misquote and partially quote Bible verses, I would encourage people to study all the Bible has to say on any given topic. Those who set scripture against scripture have not studied diligently, but are simply looking for an occasion to slander the word of God. The Bible is God's inspired word, and stands without contradiction. Let us study it, apply it, and live.

Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Is God cruel, unmerciful and destructive (Jeremiah 13:14; 1 Samuel 15:3) or is He kind, merciful and good (James 5:11; 1 Chronicles 16:34; Psalm 145:9; 1 John 4:16)? Does the Bible contradict itself?