Tim Mackie of the Bible Project Denies Literal Hell, Says It’s Something That Humans Created - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

The Doctrinal Police, ever vigilant to defend every jot and tittle of their doctrines, today bring their cannons to bear on Tim Mackie, whom they deem a false teacher. Now, it's certainly possible that this fellow has some bad doctrines. He may even teach some incorrect things. So we're not here to defend him so much as we desire to examine the writer of this article, who cowardly hides behind the moniker "publisher." 

Happily, "publisher" actually quotes a Scripture, an all-to-rare occurrence among these supposed Bible teachers. But he will make several claims without documenting them.

----------------------

The nature of sound, and the spiritual realm

Every once in a while our thoughts turn deep, and we begin to consider spiritual things we otherwise have taken for granted. This often takes the form of reconsidering the doctrines we believe (which we have deemed our rethink), the whys of what we do in church, or even, the presumptions we possess regarding how things work in nature.

Sound is one of those things that recently came to our attention. This phenomenon called sound is really an astounding feature of God's creation. The process of hearing, including the auditory apparatus and the interpretive ability of the brain, is really quite amazing from a design perspective. Because of God's infinite creativity, we possess the ability to receive and derive meaning from the sounds that fill the atmosphere.

The anti-abortion myth haunting the pro-choice movement - By Andréa Becker and Dr. Daniel Grossman

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The title of the article promises to explain a certain myth that haunts these abortion advocates. We've read the article several times and are unable to identify this myth, repeatedly asserted as existing, yet never articulated. 

The authors are able purveyors of agitprop. They continually trumpet the dangers to women and doctors that the "born alive act" supposedly represents, but are unwilling or unable to identify a single danger. No myths. No medical misinformation. Nothing. Astonishing.

----------------------

Letter to the editor: Why not make it easier for Montanans to vote? - by Tom Stonecipher

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The letter writer doesn't want common-sense voter ID laws. He thinks that because there isn't a present problem, there never will be. But somehow he still wants every qualified Montanan to vote, which necessarily admits there are people who are not qualified to vote. This means he favors some people not being able to vote. 

Therefore, he actually agrees with his political adversaries in principle. It's merely a matter of degree.

So we wonder what the big problem is in ensuring only legally able citizens cast a vote, since he otherwise supports the concept. He pretends (without evidence) that anti-fraud legislation will disenfranchise certain groups, but that is just a red herring. People who are motivated to vote will ensure their eligibility to vote, and people who can't be pried from their couches will not vote. 

There's not a thing wrong with that.

He can't come out and say what he really wants, because it's extremely unpopular: He wants anyone to vote. No standards. No voter rolls. No residency requirements. No legal status ascertained.

--------------------

What Jesus Meant by “Water and the Spirit” - by John MacArthur

Found here. Though we've often taken issue with Dr. MacArthur's teaching, the below article is on the whole very good.

-------------------

This post was first published in December, 2018. —ed.

There’s nothing we can do to earn our way into God’s kingdom. We need God to do something to us.

That truth demolishes every religious system outside of Christianity. And that is the sobering reality Jesus used to initiate His evangelistic encounter with Nicodemus—a man who had devoted his whole life to earning favor with God through his own pious efforts.

To anyone who lacked Nicodemus’s familiarity with the Old Testament, Christ’s words in John 3:5–7 would have created confusion.

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, “You must be born again.” (John 3:5–7)

In fact, many Bible students who examine this passage are confused by it. Some have suggested that when Jesus spoke of “water,” He was speaking of baptism—and some of them then interpret this to be a statement about the necessity of water baptism as a prerequisite for regeneration. But John’s baptism could not have been a means of regeneration, because it signified an already-repentant heart, which is a fruit of regeneration. Christian baptism (likewise a symbol, not a means, of regeneration) had not even been instituted yet. So the idea of baptism is utterly foreign to this passage.

Trump Isn't Our Biggest Problem: It's the Authoritarian Fascist Movement He Launched - By Thom Hartmann

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

The Narrative for the last few weeks is Trump/fascist. This is the talking point that went out from Central Command to the minions on the Left, so Mr. Hartmann dutifully pumped out yet another article. Mr. Hartmann marches in lock-step with other leftist agitprop generators to supply the day's bumper sticker slogans.

Therefore, Mr. Hartmann's purpose is not to inform, explain, or clarify. He's not intending to impart information or understanding. This is not written to contribute to the debate. No, he is simply bolstering The Narrative in service to The Agenda. The Narrative is the Leftist talking points of the day, the factoids and topics that always appear simultaneously all over the media landscape, designed as a barrage to overcome the intellect so as to facilitate The Agenda. The Agenda is the elimination of the current system to install Marxism. 

And ironically, Mr. Hartmann is really bad at it. One would think that simply spouting random sentences pulled from various leftist websites would be relatively easy. And regurgitating a couple of leftist factoids shouldn't be much of a challenge. A superficial correlation of otherwise unrelated events is what these minions do. So, the central point of Mr. Hartmann's article is to establish that Trump started an authoritarian fascist movement. But  doesn't even discuss this. All he does is state it as if it were true and move on. Astonishing. 

We should also note that he is engaging in Mountain Man's Law. Everything he tells us about the Republicans, conservatives, and Trump, is something the Left is actually doing and in many cases have been doing for decades.

Lastly, Mr. Hartmann seems incapable of writing a paragraph that develops an idea. That's the purpose of a paragraph. His paragraphs are mostly a single sentence, which we suppose is because the average leftist cannot be counted on to pay attention. We have found this lack of intellectual depth to likely be deliberate, although in Mr. Hartmann's case it might be because of his own limits.

---------------------------

Anna: The Prophetess from Asher - by John MacArthur

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------------

Before we begin, we shall quote the whole passage to which Dr. MacArthur will frequently refer:

Lk. 2:36-38 There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshipped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

Oddly, he never quotes more than a couple of snippets from it, and in fact, never quotes any more than a phrase from any Bible verse. It is astonishing to us that a supposed Bible teacher cannot quote the Bible.

Lastly, we wonder about the purpose of this article. It is ostensibly intended to teach about Anna, but there seems to be an underlying agenda to diminish her and every woman in the Bible, especially those who prophesied. We don't know what that agenda is, but we will be on the lookout for clues.

-------------------

Who Were the Magi, and Why Did They Worship Jesus? (Matthew 2) - by Dan Doriani

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

The author never fully admits that the Magi actually did worship the baby Jesus. They bowed before Him, he says, but then he asks:

But do the magi fully comprehend Jesus’ identity?

Who can know the answer to such a question? No knows another's heart. We can only judge by the words before us: 

11 ...and they fell down and worshiped him...

The author will make a distinction between two Greek words, proskyneō (to bow or prostrate one's self in the presence of a superior, to worship) and piptō (to bow in respect). Both look the same to an observer. Are they worshiping, or just bowing in respect? 

Note that the verse we just quoted contains both words. The Magi both fell down in respect, and they prostrated themselves in humility, i.e., they worshiped.

So why does the author wonder about the Magi?  

Proskyneō is the same word Jesus uses here:

Jn. 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.

So Jesus explains true and spiritual worship, and tells us this is what the Father is looking for. If the author wants to discuss worship, why does he take us on a rhetorical journey about astrology, Herod, the gifts from the Magi, etc, but never gets around to discussing worship itself? 

Implied in the author's remarks is that a certain amount of knowledge is required to truly worship: 

If the magi do not know enough to worship in the fullest sense, they at least move in that direction...

What is this "fullest sense?" What knowledge is required? How do we know we are worshiping adequately? He never tells us.

And why did the Magi worship Jesus? This is one of the questions in the title. The author never answers the question. He instead abruptly concludes his article with a statement about how Herod was duped. 

What Is the Perseverance of the Saints? - by Danny Myers

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The author of this article wastes our time by mentioning many things but explaining few if any of them. We had hoped for an explanation of his doctrine, but he doesn't bother. It's a truly strange and unenlightening presentation.

-----------------------

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, sometimes referred to as “eternal security,” speaks to questions such as “Can I lose my salvation?” or “How do I know that I will remain a Christian to the end?” Isn’t that what Jesus says in Matthew 24:13—“The one who perseveres to the end will be saved” (BSB)? (The author never explains this Scripture.)

These are real questions that pose real challenges to many people.

When studying salvation, it is always helpful to consider the context. The doctrines summarized in the acrostic TULIP outline the condition of man, and God’s loving work and answer to man’s greatest problems. (The author mentions TULIP as if we should know what it is. He doesn't explain it or discuss it, nor does he tell us its source. Strange.

TULIP is a rough summation of certain doctrines of Calvinism:

• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

It is the last one the author intends to explain. Let's see how he does.)

The story of redemption shows that man’s condition is that he is totally sinful (Total depravity. No Scriptures cited, however.)

—yet God intervened. It is important to stop and emphasize for a moment that the rest of the story of redemption unfolds from the foundation of “yet God.” In other words, we are the object of salvation, not the subject. (What does this mean? Why is this important?)

Salvation was accomplished and applied by God. What this tells us is that when we ask the questions: “Can I lose my salvation?” or, “How do I know whether or not I will remain a Christian?”, we cannot forget who the object of salvation is (man) and who the subject of salvation is (Jesus Christ). (He repeats the equation, adds to it the parties involved, but still doesn't explain.)

The word perseverance might be somewhat confusing because it could seem to communicate that God has started something, and now it is your turn: you must persevere. The biblical teaching, however, is that God has done something; God is doing something; and God will do something. The God who starts is the God who finishes. (The author offers an explanation that does not address the question. How is it that we do nothing in perseverance?)

That is what Paul says in Philippians 1:6: “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (The good work to which Paul refers is the Philippian church's partnership in the Gospel from the first day until now... [vs. 5].)

The historic Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us of this doctrinal truth when it says, “They, whom God has accepted in his Beloved [Jesus Christ, His only Son], effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally, fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (17.1). (A statement of faith is not the biblical case.)

Notice the repeated pronoun “His,” for it tells us who is the subject of salvation (This is the third time this has been mentioned, but still no explanation regarding what it means.)

is and how certain the results are. The reason that this doctrine at times creates tension and opposition is that the Bible reveals that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a Christian (Matt. 7:22). (This is the only reason for tension and opposition? What about the tension and opposition of other Scriptures that seems to say the opposite?

Why is it relevant that some people who claim to be Christian are not? Will the author explain anything?)

As difficult as that is to hear, is it not also a greater comfort to those who are in fact, followers of Christ?

As He is circled by enemies, Jesus reminds us in John 10 of the confidence and comfort we have in being united to Him in salvation. John records for us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that He knows His sheep, and they know and follow Him (John 10:1–16). Jesus provides a striking and clear statement on our security in salvation. Jesus says, “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:28). (Oh, my. The author rips this passage from its context. Jesus was actually speaking judgment against the Pharisees [Jn. 9:4-41, 10:31-34] by way of explaining His sheep.

The Pharisees had just finished their hostile interrogation of the man who Jesus healed of blindness, and he worshiped Jesus [9:38]. Jesus responded to this with a statement about those who see will become blind [vs. 39], and the Pharisees understood Jesus was speaking about them. "Are we blind too?" [vs. 40].

This is the basis for Jesus explaining the sheep. The Pharisees are blind and do not recognize the voice of the Shepherd. In fact, they did not even understand the parable [10:6], so He even explained it again [vs. 7]. But Jesus knows his sheep, and they know Him [vs. 14]. 

Jesus was speaking against the Pharisees, who cannot hear Him and refuse to be His sheep. Jesus was speaking to Jews about Jews. Therefore, the sheep are the saved Jews. How do we know this? Because Jesus said,

Jn. 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

These are the gentiles who will come to believe later. Salvation is for the Jews first, and then the gentiles [Ro. 1:16]. 

The author is misinformed.)

This is a claim worthy of consideration because Jesus is making a promise of eternal life, not simply temporal life. What hope is there apart from the promise Jesus makes? If Jesus doesn’t give eternal life, then the best perseverance we can have is a present effort in this present life. (Why? Why is this present life the only possibility we have in perseverance? Again, the author explains nothing.)

The teaching of Jesus is further explained by the Apostle Paul. The comfort that we derive from reading Romans 8 would be ruined apart from the promise of eternal perseverance. If there is a chance that Christians might not totally and finally (WCF 17.1) be saved, then we would need an adjustment to such claims. As one author suggests, Jesus would have to say: “No one will snatch them out of my hand . . . although they might snatch themselves by a failure to persevere” (see John 10:28). Or imagine Paul saying, “Nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord . . . except for our own weakness”1 (see Rom. 8:38–39). (The author might wish to explore who is "us" in this passage. We think Paul is pretty clearly talking about "us" as being himself and his fellow Jews who believe. We know that Paul was writing to Jewish Christians in Rome [Ro. 2:17], and explaining in great detail the nature of the Jew and the law as compared to the gentile and grace. 

We must be careful to read in context, and not put ourselves into the narrative when we should not.)

The promise of perseverance, if not eternal, would provide a cruel and false hope of an impossible reality. (Why?)

The truth of the matter would be that we are sovereign rather than God. (Why? Why doesn't the author explain these things?)

Yet, the song that Scripture sings is that Jesus paid it all and upholds it all by the word of His power. Peter’s life gives us an example of this hope. Having put his trust in Christ, we see it waver over and over throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus. Yet in the end, we learn that Peter doesn’t persevere because he tried harder or had more passion, but rather, because he was always held tightly by His King. The one who was saved by Jesus shows that in the end, he is sustained and secured by Jesus. The one who was sifted by Satan, yet secured by his Savior, says, “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” because “the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you” (2 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 5:10). To Him be the dominion forever and ever, amen. (Sigh. There are so many missed opportunities to explain. The author could have spent some time explaining certain Scriptures that might be contrary to his doctrine [He. 6:4-6, Ph. 2:12, 1Jn. 5:16, etc.]. He could have explained any of the several points he raised, using Scripture and a logical procession of ideas. He could have even explained his theological base of understanding, i.e., Calvinism, and how it comes to bear on his thought process.

Nope.)

1 Paul D. Wolfe, “Perseverance: The Hope-Full Gospel that Encourages Abiding Faith” in Theology for Ministry: How Doctrine Affects Pastoral Life and Practice, ed.s William R. Edwards, John C.A. Ferguson, and Chad Van Dixhoorn. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2022), 307.

What My Little Project Here Is All About (a leftist explains her vision of utopia) - by Caitlin Johnstone

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------

This leftist author has a vision, and it's the same vision all would-be tyrants, dictators, and authoritarians want: World domination. She is working toward her version of peace, cooperation, and spirituality, which of course means your version must be eliminated. You are deceived, believing a lie, living in an illusion. She's here to tell the truth.

------------------

Guest column: Let's support Montana families, not out-of-state millionaires - By Sen. Pat Flowers and Rep. Kim Abbott

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

This article is replete with leftist bumper-sticker slogans, platitudes, and talking points. It contains no substance, facts, details or concrete information. The writers extensively employ tired worn out leftist tropes (aka agitprop) in an effort to demonize some people and favor other people based on asserted merit.

Most importantly, the Democrats are in the minority in Montana. Substantially so: 

Republicans will hold 68 seats in the House and 34 in the Senate during the 2023 session...

Democrats will occupy 32 seats in the House and 16 seats in the Senate. Therefore, their policies and agenda were rejected, big time. This means they are the ones who need to compromise. They are the ones who need to work with the Republicans. 

They are the ones who need to change.

-------------------

Theological Song Review: Firm Foundation by The Belonging Co. Ft. Cody Carnes – 35/100 - by David Morrill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

We've commented on some other articles written by Mr. Morrill. We've found that he seems to have an ax to grind, which colors his writing in a substantial way. He is simply looking for trouble in the "NAR" songs he reviews, and rigs his rating system to ensure they receive bad recommendations.

We recognize that everyone has their own tastes in worship music and in the way worship is conducted when the saints gather, so we have no quibble with Mr. Morrill's tastes. It's only when he attacks and impugns based on some imagined infractions that we draw the line.

Since Mr. Morrill cannot do us the courtesy of supplying the actual lyrics in question, we shall do so ourselves:

Christ is my firm foundation, The Rock on which I stand
When everything around me is shaken, I've never been more glad
That I put my faith in Jesus, 'Cause He's never let me down
He's faithful through generations, So why would He fail now?

He won't

I've still got joy in chaos, I've got peace that makes no sense
So I won't be going under, I'm not held by my own strength
'Cause I've built my life on Jesus, He's never let me down
He's faithful in every season, So why would He fail now?

He won't

He won't fail

He won't

Rain came and wind blew, But my house was built on You
I'm safe with You, I'm gonna make it through

Audio link.

In actual fact, these are pretty innocuous lyrics, which is probably why Mr. Morrill did not quote them. Not terribly profound, but not heretical or misleading in any way. And they have the virtue of being based on Scripture. 

We decided to examine a hymn that is based on the same theme, On Christ the Solid Rock, using the author's criteria. That is found at the end of our post below.

We should note that we are not here to defend the song, the songwriter, or any organization. We intend to evaluate Mr. Morrill's presentation.

Also, we examined another critique of this song here.

------------------

What is the Doctrine of Divine Immutability and Why Does it Matter - by Publisher

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

The word "immutability," like the doctrine, is unnecessarily arcane and pretentious. It simply means "unchanging."

We have found this pretentiousness too often in our studies of doctrine. Impassibility, soteriology, regeneration, aseity, decretive will, hypostatic union, immanence, middle knowledge... the list of obtuse theological terminology goes on and on to no one's profit.

If the reader thinks we are wrong about this, the existence of the article itself vindicates us. If conventional terminology were more typically used, this article would not need to exist. Thus the article, needed to explain the term, means the term requires explanation. 

But strangely, this is a short and unsatisfying article. The author has the opportunity to explain and document and explore the idea that God does not change, but punts with less than 500 words expended. 

Lastly, we note the author cowardly hides behind the nameless "Publisher" moniker.

--------------

Snowflake Apostate Christians Suffer the Persecution of Canceled Dinner Reservations - By Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------

Rev. Wade shows his leftist political bonafides once again. And his aversion to the Bible as well, since he neither quotes nor references any Bible verse in this entire "devotional," other than the irrelevant opening Scripture. He has nearly 1500 words (minus quoted material) to explain some biblical principle, expound upon some matter of doctrine, or uplift the reader's faith. 

He doesn't bother.

Rev. Wade is a reliably terrible writer. His presentations consist almost entirely of undocumented assertions, leaps of logic, false equivalencies, summary denials, and unintentional ironies, all written in a stream-of-consciousness impenetrable prose.

This is embarrassingly bad.

------------------

PREDESTINED BY GOD - by Gabriel Hughes

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

Predestination is a favorite subject of Calvinists, and perhaps one of the most misunderstood.  Our primary quibble with predestination is that it can lead to kind of a fatalism, where one might easily conclude that nothing makes a difference because God will save whom He will save.

But more importantly, knowing about predestination is pretty much useless. It does not change any obligation or privilege of the Christian life. It is nothing more than an intellectual exercise with no practical application.

Further, Christians all agree that God is sovereign. But what that means (in particular, to God) is another matter. 

The author quotes a lot of Scripture, which gladdens our heart. He thoroughly documents God's sovereignty, which is helpful. Quoting Scripture is an all-to-rare occurrence among those who represent themselves as Bible teachers.

What he does not demonstrate is God's sovereignty means that God is absolutely determining everything that happens. Cannot God, being sovereign, sovereignly choose to not choose? What if God, knowing and controlling everything, nevertheless possesses the power to let things play out as they will in some fashion of His choosing?

Our problem is, we want to anthropomorphize God. Our human view of sovereignty causes us to impose upon God our definitions. We arrogantly decide what sovereignty means, when we have no idea at all the sheer greatness and power of God to decide for Himself who He is and how His will plays out in the universe.

We will take time to examine some of the proof texts offered by the author, and explain why they are not about universal predestination.

-------------------------

Myths of Doom: Can the origins of today’s right be traced to the 1990s? -By John Ganz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author takes over 2500 words to provide what is essentially a fawning book review, interwoven with an incoherent narrative comprised of half-remembered history, the haphazard lumping together of uncorrelated persons and events, unrelated factoids, and agendized smears of his political opponents. It's simply a long string of bits and pieces of phrases and talking points, as if the author did a series of random copy and pastes from leftist websites.

There is no discernable purpose, nothing of use, and nothing that even makes sense.

We are willing to bet that the reader will not be able to finish reading this screed.

-----------------

5 Ways Covenant Theology Applies to Everyday Life - by Sarah Ivill

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

The author promises to tell us about the usefulness of covenant theology, but we notice she did not promise to explain how covenant theology is uniquely useful. Her desire is to bolster her doctrine, yet she does not tell us how only her doctrine does these things. Read her list. Does the reader see any item that is facilitated only by covenant theology?

Astonishingly, the author will not tell us anything about covenant theology, so we cannot even evaluate her statements. She does briefly explain some doctrines, complete with Bible references, but she does not explain what is covenant theology, how it uniquely comes to bear within those doctrines, or how it's relevant.

Gotquestions provides a relatively clear explanation, and even provides some information on a competing viewpoint, dispensationalism. 

But more to the point, since we've noted that the author does not tell us anything about covenant theology, it causes us to wonder, why does she bother?

-----------------------

Strange Lyre: A Radical Departure from Historic Worship - by DAVID DE BRUYN

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author of today's article is continuing his series on what's wrong with "Pentecostal worship." Or "charismatic worship." We commented on another of those articles here. In fact, the author has been on this train of thought for over a year.

He clearly has an ax to grind, but he never really articulates what the problem is, other than the fact that "Pentecostal worship" (or "charismatic worship") is evil because it's not like the worship of the traditional church. From there he goes from inference to assertion to accusation, without documenting a single statement.  He doesn't explain anything, he just asserts and moves on.

And, in keeping with past practice, the author quotes no Scripture. Not a syllable. He writes nearly 900 words. How can one teach about worship or any other part of our faith without quoting the Bible? He simply appeals to his preference. 

This is truly bad teaching. The author ought to be ashamed.

--------------------

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned

A "pastor" posted this on his faceborg feed:

***

Transcript:

10 things about Christianity that Jesus would not be happy about if he returned:

1. That his vision for a transformed society, got twisted into an afterlife fantasy about heaven.

2. That a religion was formed to worship his name, instead of a movement to advance his message.

3. That the gospel says his death solved the problem of humankind's separation from God, instead of accepting thot his life revealed the truth that there is no separation from God.

4. That the religion bearing his name was conceived by the theories and doctrines of Paul, instead of the truth Jesus lived and demonstrated.

5, That he was said to exclusively be God in the flesh, putting his example out of reach, rather than teaching that we all share in the same spirit that empowered his character and life.

6. That the religion that claims his name, teaches that his wisdom and teachings a re the only legitimate way to know truth and God.

7. The idea that humankind stands condemned before God and deserving of Divine wrath and eternal conscious judgement, requiring the death of Jesus to fix it.

8. That people are waiting on Jesus to return to save the world and end suffering, rather than taking responsibility for saving the world and solving suffering ourselves.

9. That people think there is magical potency in uttering the name of Jesus, rather than accessing our own natural powers and capabilities to effect change.

10. That people have come to associate Jesus with church, theology, po litics and power, rather than courage, justice, humanity, beauty and love.

The first thing we want to note about this typically Leftist version of Jesus and Christianity is the raw audacity required to put one's own political and social opinions in Jesus' mouth, while simultaneously contradicting the biblical record on what Jesus is actually recorded as saying. 

Yes, we have an actual reference for what Jesus said, although most leftists would not accept it as valid: The Bible. But while the Bible is an indisputably trustworthy source of things Jesus said, it's also clearly superior to the references cited by the author, which are, well, nothing. He just makes it all up, spouting leftist agitprop.

As we noted, this is a typical leftist version of Jesus and Christianity, where Jesus becomes an excuse for leftist political philosophy and social action that perfectly aligns with Marxism.