KILLING CARNIVALS

What kind of a society was it in the days of the Apostles and early church in the first century AD? What did the Romans enjoy for their entertainment?

When Emperor Titus opened the Roman Colosseum in 80 AD, he held 100 days of activities in which according to one historian, over 9,000 animals were killed, 5,000 in a single day. Approximately 2,000 human beings died for the enjoyment of the 50,000-80,000 fans who were there free of charge in a structure that could be filled or emptied in 15 minutes because of its 76 entrances/exits.  Over the course of the life of the Colosseum, over a million animals and nearly half a million people soaked its sand with their blood. It housed a killing carnival.

Bloodthirsty fans who wanted to see that blood and experience the thrill of the kill watched as human beings were forced on the sands of the Colosseum to face fierce animals who would pop out of nowhere from 36 trap doors embedded in the floor of the arena.

There was a killing schedule to the carnival: In the morning, there were animal shows. sometimes only a parade.  Or, there may have been animal hunts in which whole stage sets would be used to reproduce a hunting environment. Emperors sometimes took part in the hunts, shooting at animals with a bow and arrow from the safety of their seats. Part of the animal games featured gladiators trained to fight the wild animals, sometimes with that background scenery.


 And, as part of the morning schedule, sometimes condemned criminals fought the animals, with nothing to use to attack the starving beasts or to protect themselves. Tame animals were released to wander around the arena, as musicians played a melody in the background - until a hungry bear with no appreciation of music was released from a trapdoor and tore out the man's insides.

Another hapless criminal might be dressed as the famous inventor Daedalus, supplied with feathered wings (as in the famous myth of Icarus) and strung over the arena on a wire - which then snapped, dropping him into an enclosure filled with starving bears. The thousands would roar.

During these games, the animals did not always die, although they did more often than not. Lions, tigers, wolves, bears, leopards, wild boars, elephants, hyenas, buffalos, hippopotami, crocodiles, and giraffes were all seen in the Colosseum at some point.

At noon, there were executions, sometimes using torture, sometimes using wild animals to attack a tied up prisoner. But in the late afternoon, the most "interesting" and important part of the day's schedule was the gladiator fights. In some cases, battles were re-enacted, in others, it was a fight to the death, man to man.

Or to further delight the thousands, even women got their death-due, as the 50,000-80,000 especially enjoyed seeing women fight dwarfs.

So, the apostles and the early church lived their everyday lives against the backdrop of a society in which human life was cheap in the first century AD. It was a society characterized by the song, “Any Thing Goes.” Without a moral compass, anything goes.

When they consider the twilight years of America, historians will write the same thing: Amerca became a society in which anything goes; everything was tolerated. They will continue to write, "Beginning in 1973, America began holding its own killing carnival with over 62,000,000 killed by abortion.

Increasingly the people heard and read of multiple shootings every weekend in Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Philadelphia New York, and Atlanta. People were killing people over a parking spot. People were killing people over a jacket or a pair of Nike shoes. People were killing people over a perceived insult. People were killing people over a disagreement about a football team.

The historians will continue to write, "Without a moral compass, anything and everything was tolerated. For an American to say, 'This or that is wrong,' would bring scorn and a stern denouncing when the high tech lynch mob went on the march with the end result of ruining a person's life.

Human life is cheap in a society that's lost its moral compass. 

WINSTON TASTES GOOD LIKE A CIGARETTE SHOULD

Most Americans born in the generations that came after the Baby Boom have lived their entire lives knowing that smoking can cause lung cancer. But that's not always been well-known – and at one time it wasn’t known at all.

Actually, it wasn’t until cigarettes were mass-produced and popularized by manufacturers in the first part of the 20th century that there was cause for concern. Prior to the 1900s, lung cancer was a rare disease. Changes that came with the 20th century brought a time of rapidly increasing lung cancer rates. New technology allowed cigarettes to be mass-produced. Then, movies, TV, and advertising glamorized smoking, making it cool, something that beautiful women, leading men, and tough guys did. Bing Crosby, Ronald Reagan, Lucille Ball, Basil Rathbone in encouraged us to light up. The military got involved – giving, not selling, cigarettes to soldiers during World Wars I and II.

So, when, exactly, was there proof that smoking caused lung cancer? Can we date it? Yes. In the August 7, 1954, Journal of the American Medical Association, the conclusion from years of research was clear: “Men with a history of regular cigarette smoking have a considerably higher death rate than men who have never smoked."

Immediately the tobacco industry went into high gear. We saw ads featuring "doctors," i. e. distinguished-looking men in white coats, recommending this or that brand of cigarettes with various highly-touted filters. Another ad, this one for Chesterfield Cigarettes, cited a 6-month medical study, complete with X-rays, which "proved" that the throat, nose, and the ears were unharmed by smoking that brand. One magazine ad featured a full-color drawing of a dentist in his white coat saying, "As your dentist, I recommend Viceroy."

A TV commercial began by saying, "Follow your doctor around during the day and you'll see how busy he is and you'd find him taking the time to enjoy a Camel because more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." At that point in the commercial, the scene switched to the doctor in his white coat sitting in his office puffing away, his office nurse, also dressed in her professional white uniform and cap, standing nearby.

Advertising trotted various professional athletes into our homes via magazine back covers and inside pages. On TV, one ad featured singers implating a catchy tune in our minds, so catchy, it would be in there forever: "Winston tastes good like a (clap, clap) cigarette should." (Pardon the poor grammar of the jingle, it should be "as a cigarette should). We saw Hank Aaron, Frank Gifford, Jesse Owens, Paul Hornung, and Joe DiMaggio over the decades in our periodicals or in our dens, all holding cigarettes and telling us of the great taste and flavor they were enjoying.

The popular "Dick VanDyke Show" of the early 60s featured Dick and his wife Laura relaxing at home while smoking and bragging on their choice, Kent Cigarettes.

"LSMFT," "Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco," was drilled into our minds so that 70 years later, we still can recite those letters and their meaning in the proper, tobacco-ordained order with no vowels to help us.

There were scientific-sounding ads pontificating, "Although there is research that has shown thus and so, there is some doubt as to thus and so." What was happening was the planting of confusion in the viewers' and readers' minds about the harmful effects of smoking. Why? Because confusion sells. The intent was to cause people to ask: is smoking really bad? Doctors smoke, there are many of them puffing away on TV. Some scientific reports say it's safe, and then what about the filters? Aren't they beneficial?

Satan knows all about the ploy of confusion. He's the master implanter of it. He confused and deceived  Eve about the goodness of God and the infallibility of His Word of God by telling the first lie on our planet, a pattern he's never stopped. Christ called him, "A liar and the father of lies" because he told the first one and continues right on.

If there's one primary mission for the devil, it's to confuse people about the gospel although it's both simple and clear: faith alone in Christ alone. Yet, the Old Deluder as the Puritans called him has infiltrated the gospel with the chaos of works to the extent that the simple, crystal clear message of faith alone in Christ alone has been loaded down with "Forsake sin," "Give your life to Christ," "Change your geographical location," i. e. "Walk down an aisle," "Repent," AKA "Feel sorry for your sins," and "Be baptized."

The Gospel of John is in the Bible to bring people to faith alone in Christ alone. Ninety-nine times in that book, God conditions salvation on faith alone in Christ alone. There are 15,635 words in the Greek of John's gospel and not a single one of them is "repent." Over 150 times in the New Testament, faith alone is the sole condition for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

If you're confused, the confusion isn't coming from God; He's not the author of confusion. Read the Gospel of John, begin to do so immediately; you don't have all the time in the world to settle the question the jailer in Philippi asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?"

A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR CHRISTIANITY

A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR CHRISTIANITY

Instead of attacking Christianity, the world should be praising it. To understand why let’s look at one reason by going back in world history as well as taking a look at today.

In most ancient civilizations, religion was all wrapped up in the state to the extent that the Roman emperors were regarded as gods and they themselves claimed to be divine. Emperors often occupied the high and exalted position of Pontifex Maximus, the most important position in the ancient Roman religion. Not to be outdone, earlier in the history of the ancient world, the pharaohs of Egypt claimed to be gods without whose daily prayers, the sun would not rise.

In Islam, Mohammed was not only a prophet, but he was also the head of the state. Thereafter Islam has always fused the state with religion. At no time has there been a version of Islam that is separate from the state.

Enter Christianity. With one sentence, Jesus stipulated the separation of church and state: “Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” The rest of the New Testament further explained this revolutionary teaching.

Paul commanded obedience to the state, saying that Christians were obligated to obey the laws of the Empire in his classic text of Romans 13. Peter instructed his readers to do the same in I Peter 2, beginning his explanation with the word “Submit.”

But in Christianity, the state is not absolute. If the state commands a Christian to violate a command of God, then there is to be no obedience to that law. And it is noteworthy to mention that when Peter was commanded by the state not to mention the name, “Jesus,” if he were to obey that directive, it would force him to disobey the Great Commission. The state had overstepped its bounds.

It is also important to note that neither Christ nor the Apostles advocated the overthrow of the state; instead, when they were viewed as breaking the law, even though it was a law that transgressed the authority of the state, the Apostles always took the punishment. The early church was not made up of anarchists, no matter how corrupt the government and its psychopathic emperors.

When the state and the religion combine, the result has often been tyranny and the people suffer, bled, and die. But with one sentence of Christ's16 words, the separation of church and state was born.

The world owes Christianity a round of hearty applause.

ASHAMED AND EMBARRASSED

A convinced, staunch, aggressive, and arrogant (by his own admission) was at work to convince his Christian friend to trust the TULIP. Harvey's efforts to secure his friend's conversion were repetitive, yet unproductive. After a while the Harvey threw in the towel, finding his efforts were futile. No use trying any longer.

Shortly after that, Harvey remembered something his debate coach taught him: always know both sides of an argument. He realized that he hadn't read or studied anything the non-Calvinists had written, but had contented himself with what his TULIP teachers said that they said. So, he began to read and study those scholars who disagreed with Calvin and found they were not saying what he had been told they were saying.

The more he studied the issues, the more the various letters in Tulip (Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, and the Perseverance of the saints) began to fall away. Limited atonement was the first to go and one-by-one, the others followed. He realized that his mentors hadn't read the non-Calvinist authors and weren't representing their position honestly.

When all five letters dropped away, one of the first things Harvey did was to go back to his friend and tell him of his cutting the TULIP. During the conversation, Harvey asked, "Why didn't I convince you? What kept you resisting my efforts?" Harvey asked him that question because he usually had success in converting people to the Calvinist system.

The answer came quickly and honestly. His friend said that Calvinism made him ashamed of God. (!) That was a startling answer, so Harvey asked him, "How so?"

His friend answered, "Because, according to the Calvinist system, God created billions and billions of people who, at the last judgment could say to God, "You hated me and billions of others before we were ever born. Before I and billions of others were ever born, You consigned me and them to hell. Before I and billions and billions of others were ever born, we had no chance to go to heaven, none at all. I would be ashamed of a God who would do that."

Harvey knew that was what he had told his friend as he tried to convert him--that Christ didn't die for the unbeliever, that God's choice of those who would go to heaven and that those who would go to hell was purely arbitrary by God's eternal decree. He knew that by God's arbitrally choosing those who would go to heaven, He was at the same time making an arbitrary choice of those who would go to hell.

Calvin said it this way: "“All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” And: "Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns, and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children."

Did Harvey know that what he had been telling his friend as he sought to convert him has been called "the dreadful decree?" And just who called it that? John Calvin. Such teaching is indeed dreadful.