Saturday, December 27, 2008

A dangerous brand of fake Christianity - Candace Chellew

Pastor DL Foster exposes the false teachings (gay christian venom) of self proclaimed ...
recovering Southern Baptist and founder/editor of Whosoever: An Online Magazine for GLBT Christians. I am an ordained minister and a graduate of the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.

DL Foster writes - Why would any Christian use nasty profanity to express themselves? Perhaps when sexual immorality is no big deal, then neither is having clean conversation. If Candace Chellew, the so-called minister and Christian editor of the so-called gay christian website Whosoever cusses like this on her blog, it makes one wonder what else is acceptable in her so-called Christian life. Chellew is a lesbian cleric with the United Church of Christ.

On a blog ironically called “the christian agnostic”, Chellew foments against the Vatican because it took offense at John Lennon’s remark that the “Beatles were bigger than Jesus”. Lennon made the deadly remark in 1966. Four years later, The Beatles dissolved and Lennon was tragically gunned down on a New York street fourteen years later.

Maybe Chellew is not aware that the Vatican can’t forgive blasphemy.

The post was blatantly hypocritical. While Chellew lambastes the Vatican for not forgiving Lennon she holds Bob Jones University in unforgiveness for not subscribing to her brand of fake –and dangerous– Christianity.

But then again, when you see nothing wrong as a Christian with an abominable sexual practice, then using filthy words, unforgiveness, hypocrisy and lying are of no particular significance either.

More on Candace Chellew and her false whosoever doctrines.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Newsweek's Lisa Miller - delusional in the extreme!

Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Dec. 10, 2008 (expanded slightly Dec. 16)

Excerpts from the outstanding response by Dr. Gagnon's article -
More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus

Jesus, Love, and Homosexual Practice
Jesus was not “inclusive” about sexual matters. He took an already carefully circumscribed sexual ethic given to him in the Hebrew Bible and narrowed it even further, revoking the license given especially to men to have more than one sex partner (the sayings on divorce/remarriage) and extending God’s demand for sexual purity even to the interior life (forbidding adultery of the heart; Matthew 5:27-32).

New Testament scholar Walter Wink once argued against my first book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press, 2001; 500 pgs.), that the Bible has no distinctive sexual ethic but only sexual customs or mores that must be critiqued by Jesus’ love commandment. As I indicated in my rebuttal of Wink (here, pp. 77-80) Jesus obviously had a distinctive sex ethic that sometimes arrived at diametrically opposite results from his application of the love commandment. Jesus taught that we should love all with whom we come into contact, including enemies. He universalized the “love your neighbor as yourself” command in Lev 19:18. At the same time, he restricted the number of sex partners lifetime to one other person of the other sex. Obviously, then, one cannot argue for a sexual union on the basis merely of generic concepts of love; for otherwise Jesus would have had to command sex with everyone we meet or at least with everyone with whom we develop a committed relationship. So it is absurd for Miller to argue, as she does, that since “Jesus taught [us] to love one another,” “what happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this.” The only way to avoid such absurdities is to acknowledge that the love commandment is an insufficient (even if necessary) basis for legitimizing sexual bonds. Sexual relationships must also entail special requirements concerning the formal (structural, embodied) complementarity of the participants. For sexual intimacy is not merely more intimacy or deeper love.

To move, as Miller does, from the fact that Jesus reached out to sexual sinners to the conclusion that Jesus was not really concerned about “what happens in the bedroom" is to misread completely Jesus’ message and mission. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance—and here by sinners Jesus meant those who had egregiously violated the law, including adulterers and economically exploitative tax collectors—lest they be excluded from the kingdom of God that he was proclaiming. Thus he prevented the woman caught in adultery from being stoned—dead people can’t repent—while calling on her to “go and no longer be sinning” (John 8:11). The same line appears in John 5:14, followed up with the warning: “lest something worse happen to you,” in context, loss of eternal life.

One of Miller’s arguments as to why the Bible’s views on homosexual practice should be disregarded—an odd line of argumentation given that she often seems to deny that the Bible indicts homosexual practice absolutely—is: “It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter).” And yet we don’t find Miller rejecting prohibitions of adultery, man-mother or man-daughter incest, or bestiality—other first-tier sexual offenses in Lev 20:10-16 for which a capital sentence is prescribed. The capital sentencing underscores the severity of the offense. The story of the woman caught in adultery suggests that Jesus would have waived the capital sentencing but on grounds of extending the options for repentance and not because he regarded the offenses in question as light matters. In fact, for Jesus something greater was at stake than a capital sentence in this life; namely, eternal exclusion from God’s presence. Therefore every opportunity must be given for the person to repent in this life.

Miller says: “Jesus revealed himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend.” What Miller fails to understand is that Jesus is evangelizing the Samaritan woman, first convincing her of the need to believe in him. The obedience to commands will invariably follow, as John 14:15 makes clear: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Without such moral transformation it is impossible to continue to remain in Jesus; one is thrown like an unfruitful branch into the fire (John 15:10).

There can be no doubt about the fact that Jesus took sexual sin with the utmost seriousness. In the Sermon on the Mount, sandwiched in between the two antitheses having to do with sex (adultery of the heart and divorce/remarriage), is Jesus’ warning that, if one’s eye or hand threatens one’s spiritual downfall, one should cut off the offending member for it is better to enter heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (Matthew 5:29-30). Miller doesn’t love homosexual persons more because she extends to them a “right” to be married. She loves them less because she has granted an absolution from a form of behavior that God has not permitted and, in so doing, encourages them to do things that Scripture (including Jesus) teaches will put them at high risk of not inheriting God’s kingdom. Miller is like a parent telling a child who is about to touch a hot stove: “Go ahead and experiment: It won’t hurt you.” Such “tolerance” and “love” turns out to be functional hate.


Meacham stumbles on: “This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously—though many, many people do—since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts.” No, the forbidding of certain hairstyles is not approached in Scripture with “equal ferocity”—nor with equal pervasiveness across Scripture, nor with the same backing from Jesus, nor with the same absoluteness, nor with the same countercultural force. Any attempt to compare Scripture’s stance on a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations with its stance on “haircuts” shows the complete “intellectual bankruptcy” of the formulator of the argument.

A final note: Should believers work to prevent government from foisting the homosexualist agenda on the population? Yes, very definitely so. The withholding of governmental incentives for homosexual practice is as much a civil issue as society's prohibition of incest and polygamy (even of an adult, consensual sort). As Jesus argued, it is the twoness of the sexes that is the foundation for the limitation of the number of partners in a sexual union to two (bringing together the two primary sexes makes a third party both unnecessary and undesirable). And incest is prohibited in Scripture on the basis of the principle that too much structural (embodied, formal) sameness (here, as regards kinship) is problematic for sexual relationships—a principle established by the prior prohibition of sexual relations between persons too much alike on the level of gender or sex. Paul made use of a nature argument in Romans 1:24-27, for those who don’t know (or don’t care) what Scripture says, alongside of an echo to Genesis 1:26-27. Both Jews and Christians in antiquity viewed the prohibitions of same-sex intercourse, incest, adultery, and bestiality as applicable beyond the sphere of God's people (already in Leviticus they apply also to resident aliens).

We know today that disproportionately high rates of harm attend those who engage in homosexual practice (on average, high numbers of sex partners lifetime and sexually transmitted infections, even for those in “committed relationships”; mental health difficulties and short-term relationships, even when society gives its approval of homosexual unions; go here). Moreover, there is some evidence that cultural approval can affect the incidence of homosexuality in a population (for which go here; and here, pp. 30-34, 120-25). Today’s people of God should actively oppose governmental imposition of "gay marriage" and homosexual civil unions (marriage without the name). The alternative is to have government penalize you for speaking out against homosexual practice, hold hostage your children in the school systems to homosexualist propaganda, and coerce businesses to subsidize immorality through mandatory health benefits for same-sex couples and “affirmative action” programs for “sexual orientation minorities” (go here); in short, to have society treat you as the moral equivalent of a virulent racist and attenuate your civil liberties accordingly.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Joel Osteen and Moses

Two nights ago, I had the opportunity to watch Joel Osteen. He asked his audience to remember Moses - Moses hit the rock with his staff, over and over (twice) Moses struck the rock - says Osteen.

What did God do? God gave them water - "God found favor in Moses for not giving up and blessed Moses with the water" - says Joel Osteen. He ask us to do what Moses did, just keep trying harder and God will bless you. If your in poor health, bad job etc... just say NO! says Osteen. Your words are more powerful then you realize! Keep doing that and you, just like Moses - will find God's favor.

The Truth - yes you will actually need to read your Bible, not just hold one like willowboy - it says

Numbers 20:8-12
The Water of Meribah

8"Take the rod; and you and your brother Aaron assemble the congregation and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it may yield its water. You shall thus bring forth water for them out of the rock and let the congregation and their beasts drink."
9So Moses took the rod from before the LORD, just as He had commanded him;
10 and Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly before the rock. And he said to them, "Listen now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?"
11Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation and their beasts drank.
12But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

Now, why do you suppose Mr. Osteen did not mention verse 12? Doesn't he want his audience to know the Truth?

God in essence says - 'hey Moses, you will NOT step one foot in the promised land'. Is that what Osteen calls finding God's "favor"? God said SPEAK to the rock, and Moses struck it - big mistake.

Secondly in verse 10 Moses says "shall WE bring forth water..." WE??? did Moses just take credit for God's work? I think he did - another big mistake.

Conclusion: Your very BEST is a filthy rag before God - Isaiah 64:6. You nor I can do anything to please God outside of what Christ did for us.

Most importantly - God blesses the just and unjust. I did nothing, Christ did it all. No one can earn God's favor, that is what Satan would like you to believe; you'll die trying and your faith will be in yourself not Christ (that's a perfect recipe for eternal hell) .

If your Best Life is Now, then you're headed for Hell, because for God's children, their "Best Life" - is yet to come.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex

October 23, 2008
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1] He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2] These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

On Romans 1First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).

Read the rest of the article here.
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]

Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

A family's fight for the Truth

Click here -GCMWatch - to read this important letter, sent exclusively to Gay Christian Movement Watch.

The Groff family is still struggling with the AIDS related death of their son Russell. Mrs. Groff’ wanted to share her story as Christian parent in this rare perspective. Quite often we hear from gay groups like PFLAG how parents must accept their child’s homosexuality, but what of those parents who believe God’s word and want to see their children restored and delivered? They are vilified as hateful, homophobic and out of touch with reality. If you are a Christian parent of a child who is in homosexuality, we encourage you to contact Mrs. Groff (send us an email and we will forward to her). But for now, here’s her story.

Also read Mrs. Groff's latest blog entry - Gay blogs, and lies posted about Russell, and his parents, part one.

Think about it folks, two days before dieing of full blown AIDS, a will is signed? Other gay bloggers attempt to raise money for poor poor Kevin; when Kevin had taken out a life insurance policy on Russells life?

Kevin had a lot of insurance on Russell’s life, and he got his entire estate too. He is living on Russell’s blood money, and one day he will have to suffer judgement for all he has done. When I think of how Kevin took Russell’s car, and he had to walk ten blocks to work up and down hills, late at night, I really do have some terrible things go through my mind about Kevin.
Mr. Brummer, {link insert mine} neither you or any of Kevin’s friends knew Russell or his family. The fact that Russell’s real friends would never do or say the things that have been said about his family.

I hope this clears up the facts about your article, and I will continue to write more about other comments made on the Internet, even though they are about the same. They came from the same source….

People say we shouldn't "hate" - well I do hate! I hate evil and so does God!

Proverbs 6:16-19 16There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Amazing Grace - black notes only

As Christians, whether black or white, free or bonded, in His eyes we are all connected - connected by God's amazing grace!

Thursday, September 18, 2008

...the arrogance of what is called “The Clergy Letter Project.”

Guest writer and United Methodist clergyman disagrees with “The Clergy Letter”
by Rev. Dale R. Shunk, Pennsylvania
September 15, 2008

I want it to be known that I am very displeased that my United Methodist denomination adopted Dr. Michael Zimmerman’s “The Clergy Letter,” which endorses evolution as compatible with the teachings of Scripture, at our General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas, last May. The content of the Clergy Letter was added to a petition entitled “God’s Creation and the Church.” While I am in favor of celebrating God’s wonderful creation, protecting it, and seeking out alternate resources of energy, I cannot endorse Dr. Zimmerman’s letter.

In many ways my denomination has embraced the secular culture of North America, and this endorsement of evolution is one example of it. I was also very disappointed and taken aback by the arrogance of what is called “The Clergy Letter Project.” As a Bible-believing Christian, I can’t agree with the premise of his letter which states, “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests” and that “Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.” I am shocked that Dr. Zimmerman calls me ignorant because I hold to a different worldview (I believe in rigorous scientific research, which just so happens to uphold the biblical creation model of origins as stated in Genesis 1 and 2), for he states that biblical creationists “deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

If Dr. Zimmerman and others really want to pursue full scientific research and the truth about origins, then they should not be alienating people by calling them such things but encouraging them to pursue every path of discovery and thought. Instead he is creating a situation where people like me who have moved from a theistic evolutionist worldview to a young-earth creationist worldview over the last 30 years will become marginalized. Does not Dr. Zimmerman have his mind open to the major scientific discoveries in biology related to the complexity of the human cell, as well as to the mapping of the DNA that shows intelligent design? Plus there are other scientific fields that support a biblical model rather than an evolutionary one.

Dr. Zimmerman may have received some notoriety after his ideas were endorsed by the General Conference of the United Methodist Church in May, but I do not believe that his Clergy Letter truly represents most United Methodists who are Bible-believers. There is a growing movement of thoughtful evangelicals within the United Methodist Church who are fed up with the theological liberalism of our leaders and are speaking up. These clergy and laity are loyal to our Wesleyan doctrines and church polity and hold to our historic orthodox doctrine and scriptural holiness.

We all would do well to hold on to the changeless eternal Word of God and not put our faith in scientific principles that change constantly when a better theory arises. At the end of the day, the reality is a difference of faith and worldview.

I believe that God created the universe in six solar days as stated in Genesis 1 and supported by Exodus 20: 8–11. To say that the stories of creation, Noah’s Flood, etc. are poetic (non-historic)—and therefore the only way to convey biblical truths to ancient peoples so that they would understand these accounts—is not acceptable. This would indicate that God was giving the prophets a spirit of falsehood to convey truth. The ancient biblical patriarchs would not tolerate telling stories under the pretext of being true, only to learn later that they were false. God is not a God of falsehood. He gave the prophets His anointing to tell the truth in order to convey to us His invisible attributes of power and divinity.

I say to Dr. Michael Zimmerman: you are conveying false teachings by trying to insert human and fallible extra-biblical material into the Christian faith when it is not needed. To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is. Ultimately, the naturalism of evolution does not belong—nor is it compatible—with the plain teaching of Scripture related to creation and the origin of life on earth.

Friday, August 08, 2008

Transforming Christ into the likeness of the world

Would you go to a gay friend’s wedding and bring presents? Or would you snub the gay wedding?
Comment by Wayne Besen — August 6, 2008 @ 3:12 pm

I would go to a close friend’s gay wedding and yup, I’d bring a gift. I know that all of my close friends know what I believe about sexual ethics and would not assume my beliefs had changed but that my attendance was a sign of my love and friendship. I’m sure I would get some serious flack for this decision - but at the end of the day, I believe loving people is what God asks of me.
Comment by wendy — August 6, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

Ms. Wendy Gritter, M. Div. is the National Director of New Direction - Creating a safe place for same-gender-attracted people to journey towards wholeness in Christ.

It should be noted, New Direction's Mission, Vision, and Core Values Statement makes several references to what Jesus would want, several Truth claims, and yet ZERO scriptural references.

It is not my intention to be-little this group's desire to help folks, but it is my intention to place a sharper focus on a troubling trend that seems to permeate certain kinds of ministries - making Christ (God's word) more like a new and improved reflection of the world (culture). See 1 John 2:15 -17.

It should be no surprise to Ms. Gritter that the world is ruled by the prince of lies - Satan.

If the message proclaimed is tailored to meet the world's demands and definitions for justice, love, and reconciliation - it remains of the world. Dealing with sin does not require a speciality ministry, nor does it require a message that "seek[s] to promote the use of language that builds bridges rather than barriers and commit to rigorously reviewing our language usage on a regular basis." In essence that's double talk for - let the world (culture) define which words are appropriate and let us re-evaluate these words regularly - God's word is not necessary and could perhaps be offensive to some folks; after all, the language (words) like - abomination, sin, vomit, repentance, hell, fool, and death, certainly aren't "bridge builders" nor are they very "seeker" friendly by the world's standards. See Hebrews 12:6 and 1 John 2:15-17.

When one becomes more interested in using language to build bridges of false Truths to the world, a worldly bridge is all you have - that is to marry Christ to the world, it has nothing to do with God's eternal Truth. In essence it is making an idol - making Christ, the word of God - the Truth, dependent on a worldly wisdom or desire. Perhaps it was not an over sight that ZERO scriptural references were missing in this ministries' mission statement - and all the while making Truth claims about what Jesus would want. If healing and reconciliation is important, we may want to re-evaluate our motives when we seek the Truth - God's will.

My point - if we continue down the path that views the world (human sin and our fallen condition) from a purely natural (worldly) perspective, we make ourselves and our own perspectives the center. In essence we corrupt God's Truths and replace His wisdom for our own. We become very susceptible to the world and its subtle pull away from God's Truth. Indeed Wayne Besen's question was well worded - he confronted Ms. Gritter where he knew she would waiver - her feelings. Why? because he operates from a purely natural worldview and knows as well as any believer, that is where we battle - flesh vs. spirit; Truth vs. lie, God's Truths vs. man's wisdom.

Is it any wonder why we see so much Christan faith marketing? Are we not hitching our faith that has been delivered to us and sealed in the blood of Christ, on the culture (world) once again? I submit to you - what is at stake is nothing less than God's eternal Truths.

Answer is: No, Mr. Bensen - I will not attend a public event mocking Christ - I will stay at home and pray my friend stops living in rebellion to the Truth - my gift. A gift I give freely because Christ loved me before I loved Him - a gift I accepted. That's another Truth claim in case you missed it.


Thursday, August 07, 2008

Resisting the Enemy - rebuking not required

With the great number of false teachings that have been let loose on the church, past and present, we must ask ourselves that age old question any Christian should ask - is it True?

Are we called to "rebuke" Satan or demonic forces? Are Christians called to heal the sick or cast out demonic forces (often times called sin demons) in the name of Christ?

The answer is - No!

The only weapon anyone needs - the word of God. Jesus did what when tempted by Satan? He resisted Satan with the word of God! What happened? Satan departed.

Those who support any of this spiritual warfare nonsense have abandoned the word of God (there ONLY weapon) - as all false teachings do and are ultimately speaking on Satan's behalf. The sole purpose of Miracles and Signs were to establish apostolic credentials - 2 Cor. 12:12 - The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. Think about it - if all believers were able to preform miracles Paul would have had no reason to say that it was a True sign of apostleship. The apostles had a unique authority and ministry. The apostles had personally seen the Lord and had been taught by Him. Does anyone today have these credentials? Does Todd Bentley of Lakeland? No!

Remember when the religious leaders demanded that Christ give them a sign - Matthew 12:39 - " But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;". Even while Christ hung on the Cross they mocked Him shouting - Matthew 27:42 - "He saved others; He cannot save Himself He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him."

If you need a "sign" or "miracle" after you have willfully turned a deaf ear and unrepentant heart to God's word - you stand convicted no matter what "miracle" moves you.

If you want or need a "miracle" in your life, if you battle sin and desire to resist Satan and your fleshly (worldly) desires / temptations - you need to focus on God's word and His eternal promises. No one needs any signs, miracles, or any other sensationalized evidence - the evidence already exists folks - the word of God! What you need is new eyes and new ears - that is what the Holy Spirit provides.

Paul nor any other ever "rebuked" Satan, they pursued holiness and obedience until death - living faith. We are to present ourselves as living sacrifices to God, set apart to God, and totally "transformed" wearing the armor of God everyday and under all circumstances - Ephesians 6:11 and 13.

We have never had authority over Satan or demonic forces - only God does! Once we are saved, it's a done deal - instantaneous! No rebuking, no casting out demons etc... 1 Cor 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Friday, August 01, 2008

WARNING: This item contains shocking and graphic content funded by your tax dollars!

FRC update: Given the recent allegations against Planned Parenthood, one would think the organization would play it safe over the next few months and try to exercise some restraint. But the plan to stay under the media's radar is failing dismally in Oregon and Washington, where the local affiliate is making a full-scale assault on the morality of the states' young people.

On its new website,, the group posts a series of videos so revolting that members of my staff were visibly shaken. In one clip, a girl tells her friends that she's staying home from a party to masturbate. When her pals look shocked, she says, "What? I like me. I like spending time with me. Tonight I think I'm going to go all the way with me." On another video, a "teacher" interrupts a boy performing oral sex on another boy and asks them where their condoms are. Others include videos called "Threesome" and "Let me do me," and a song about genitalia that reaches a level of vulgarity that would give even crude networks like MTV pause.

This site is nothing more than an online playground for the prurient. The screen promises "the ins and outs about the ins and outs," but the material is highly inappropriate for adults, let alone young children. Sadly, most parents are unaware that garbage like this is targeting their kids, and even fewer realize that they're paying for it! The website is a project of Planned Parenthood of Columbia Willamette, a Title X grantee. This is exactly why FRC has prodded President Bush to change the government's Title X regulations. Each year, Planned Parenthood pockets more than $300 million of your tax dollars. One way to de-fund the group responsible for obscene material like this is to end the meshing of Title X "family planning" funds with abortion mills. Call the White House switchboard today at 202-456-1414 and ask President Bush to separate these funds before more children are caught up in Planned Parenthood's pornographic web.

View the Video Comprehensive Sex Ed Exposed!

Wednesday, July 02, 2008


Ignore, corrupt, or re-define God's word at your own risk. You will have done nothing short of creating your own idol; and you will perish with it.

"Paul regarded the resurrection as an event in history supported by the strongest possible eyewitness testimony, including his own (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). For Paul, the historicity of the resurrection was a necessary condition for the truth of Christianity and the validity of Christian belief."1

"The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of...first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. ‘We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened....
And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' [Acts 2:22]. Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."2

"There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."3

"There is, I imagine, no body of literature in the world that has been exposed to the stringent analytical study that the four gospels have sustained for the past 200 years. This is not something to be regretted: it is something to be accepted with satisfaction. Scholars today who treat the gospels as credible historical documents do so in the full light of this analytical study, not by closing their minds to it."4

"Skepticism toward the reliability of Scripture seems to survive in many academic circles despite the repeated collapse of critical theories. One still finds a disposition to trust secular writers whose credentials in providing historical testimony are often less adequate than those of the biblical writers. Not long ago many scholars rejected the historicity of the patriarchal accounts, denied that writing existed in Moses' day, and ascribed the Gospels and Epistles to second-century writers. But higher criticism has sustained some spectacular and even stunning reverses, mainly through the findings of archaeology. No longer is it held that the glories of King Solomon's era are literary fabrication, that 'Yahweh,' the redemptive God of the Hebrews, was unknown before the eighth-century prophets, or that Ezra's representations about the Babylonian captivity are fictional. Archaeologists have located the long-lost copper mines of Solomon's time. Tablets discovered at Ebla near Aleppo confirm that names similar to those of the patriarchs were common among people who lived in Ebla shortly before the events recorded in the later chapters of Genesis took place."5

1 Ronald H. Nash, Christian Faith and Historical Understanding (Dallas, TX: Probe Books, 1984), p. 112.
2 F.F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?, 5th ed. (Grand Rapides, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1960), pp. 45–46.

3 F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 3rd rev. ed. (Westwood NJ; Revell, 1963), p. 178.
4 Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Leicester, UK; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), p. ix.
5 Carl F. H. Henry, "The Authority of the Bible," in The Origin of the Bible, Philip Wesley Comfort, ed., (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), p. 17.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The inhospitality of Sodom

Get your Bibles out and turn to Genesis 19.

The gay christian movement wants us to pay special attention to the words / phrase so that we may know them - verse 5. They want you to think (reinterpret the text's utter clarity and context), that it means a good old fashion ancient middle east - Meet and Greet. This verse they say, has nothing to do with homosexuality or the men wanting to have relations with the visitors. Really?

So what does Lot do? and what does Lot say?
8"Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Notice Lot says nothing about meeting and greeting, he specifically informs these men that his own daughters have not had any relations with man. Odd thing to say if this was a meet and greet, no?

What does God do to those folks who are inhospitable?

24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,
25 and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

Yep, it wasn't the utter gross sexual immorality that brought God's judgement of fire and destruction on Sodom - it was inhospitality. No wonder the gay christian movement folks hate God and seek to destroy His word - the Truth.

The Truth - Their real intentions are to utterly destroy the faith once delivered to the saints. It would be foolish of any person who believes the scripture to think that the religious veneer of this demonic movement wants to love or obey the Lord Jesus.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Remove the wicked from among you, bishops included

A great reminder as the The United Methodist Church gathers in Fort Worth, Texas.

Every United Methodist General Conference since 1972 has debated homosexuality. Always, the church has reaffirmed the historic Christian stance that sex is God’s gift for marriage between man and woman, and that homosexual practice, along with other non-marital sex, is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” United Methodism officially prohibits ordination for practicing homosexuals along with others sexually active outside marriage, prohibits the celebration of same-sex rites, prohibits church funding for homosexual advocacy, and calls for monogamy in marriage and celibacy in singleness. The current United Methodist teachings reflect the historic and universal consensus among virtually all churches. In 2004, United Methodism became the first Mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. specifically to endorse “laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” read more here.

1 Corinthians 5:1-13 (New American Standard Bible)

1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife.
2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?
7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.
8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Paul instructed the church:
Not to keep company with the unrepentant brother.
Deliver the brother to Satan in hopes that he would repent.

Monday, March 31, 2008

A slice of Spurgeon pie

I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

I have often wrestled with two Biblical supported doctrines; free will - there was a tree in the garden; and God's complete and utter sovereignty. It's nice to know Spurgeon did as well, and he explains it quite masterfully.

Monday, March 17, 2008

The clarity of false teachers

This statement by Pastor Dave of the Trinity Presbyterian Church of Bethesda, MD in regards to homosexuality being holy before God and most assuredly not condemned in the strongest possible language in the Biblical texts;

But explorations of the complexity and depth of Scripture are not the friends of literalism."

Does anybody notice a common theme here? God's word is just too complex and too deep for you "friends of literalism" to understand. In other words, Stop taking the bible literal when its obvious the book is about your own personal spirit.

If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.

Some advice:
Slowly take the eye plucker out of your hand, put it back in your eye plucking sin expelling box and start taking your sins dead serious.

If the word of God is complete and sufficient for reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness - 2 Timothy 2:16-17, then the last place one should seek Godly wisdom is outside those texts. If it's not, consider yourself God's enemy and the target of His righteous wrath.

The fact that God has commanded something, the Mosaic Law for instance, would necessitate that it indeed has a moral capacity to it; after all, God wrote it. The apostle Paul provides an example of this, among many others, in 1 Corinthians 9:9, “For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING" God is not concerned about oxen, is He?”

R.T. France provides a sufficient and very wise analysis of how and why the New Testament writers utilized the Old Testament texts;
The source of the distinctive Christian use of the Old Testament was not the creative thinking of the primitive community, but that of its founder. It was not the early church which inscribed its theology on the blank cheque of its Master’s teaching, but Jesus whose teaching and life initiated that theology. The church did not create Jesus, but Jesus created the church.

The word’s of Jesus recorded in Matthew 16:15, “He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’”, must be answered with clarity and authority by the faithful.

“The Bible is a Book about God—not a book about human sexuality” - says Soulforce's Rev Mel White. Adopting the view that the Bible promotes the supremacy of love or compassion over the word and law of God, Rev. White has just annihilated the very source of love and compassion, and more important, the very truth taught in the ministry of Christ. When human sexuality is divorced from God’s word, it must then be divorced from truth. It allows him to create his own laws governing human sexuality. If in fact God’s word is employed to strengthen his position, it is thoroughly corrupted to meet a preconceived conclusion; “Often, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient words no longer apply to our modern times”. Notice now the Holy Spirit is used by Rev. White, as if the Holy Spirit is also divorced from Jesus – subtle indeed.

His line of reasoning may sound logical and reasonable to some folks, but this kind of unbiblical interpretation of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit resembles that of a buffet of gods; people pick and choose which god suits their particular appetite, rather than submit their appetites to the eternal truth of the one eternal word of God. It encourages, at a minimum, a “loose” understanding of God’s word - it is after all an “ancient” document and the “holy spirit” tells me so.

The gay Christian movement’s teachings are a direct assault on the word of God. The moment a doctrine dismisses biblical texts, divorces the eternal God from Jesus, dismisses the Old Testament writings, or puts one’s personal “spirit” above the word and law of God; Satan is at work. Jesus’ identity is not rooted in the fashions of the day; it is solidly and historically rooted in the words of scripture. Christ is the word, Christ is God, Christ is King, Christ is Savior, and Christ will return to gather His church.

Heretical teachings will often gain large numbers of supporters when a popular figure; remember Arius was popular in his day, re-invent God’s word. This statement by Archbishop Tutu is an example of that reality today; "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God" Surely the faithful will not reject God’s word based on His law; sadly Archbishop Tutu and Pastor Dave remain unfaithful. The battles will continue, but peace of mind may be assured in the fact that Christ will indeed build his church, then and now - Matthew 16:18.

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

You are right Pastor, these verses are very vague indeed.

The Bible says what it means and it means what it says. Discerning illustrations, metaphors, and literal texts from one another etc.. is not as hard as Pastor Dave and others may lead you to believe. In fact, when one stops living in rebellion to God, the clarity scripture is all the more clear - it is never some hidden mystery. Only God's enemies find it necessary to rewrite, dismiss texts, or corrupt it's perfect clarity - why? to appease, reject and dismiss the very real wrath that awaits them - Satan's age old, time tested, garden mode of operation - surely God didn't say that...

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Church history

Yes, I do think that a man Jesus existed in the first century. But no one really knows whether he was the son of God or just a good speaker or a good person who later people makes into the son of God.

Sure Professor, and by "no one" you really mean everyone that agrees with you. However, I do not agree with you. Folks are able to interpret historical facts, what did and did not happen, and draw their own conclusions. That Professor - is history, yesterday and today. Virtually all ancient near eastern writings had a theological purpose - that should not be news to you.

Do you have to be saved to properly teach Christianity?

It certainly would lend to the quality of what is being taught. From a theological determinist's viewpoint, God is the primary mover, or the church, or a particular faith. As a believer I recognize that all of history is God's story, the good and the bad. If you, as an unbeliever, are teaching Christian history you will obviously miss the relationships that divinely marry the Old Testament and New Testament texts into the universal pronouncement of a sovereign God’s incarnation into our human world –Jesus Christ. The two hundred plus year process of canonization may have been a church task involving men with varying degrees of theological perspectives, but its results- the canon of scripture, was anything but worldly.

As F. F. Bruce writes,“Those who are interested in the Bible chiefly as historians of religious literature have naturally little use for the concept of a canon” - i.e you Professor, not a believer. The canon of scripture is a historical fact. "Individuals or communities may consider that it is too restricted or too comprehensive; but their opinion does not affect the identity of the canon. The canon is not going to be diminished or increased because of what they think or say: it is a literary, historical and theological datum”

If folks claim to be followers of Christ but dismiss the very text Jesus Himself referred to, what have they gained? Nothing. “What was indispensable to the Redeemer must always be indispensable to the redeemed”(G.A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (London, 1901), p.11). Some of your "gay christian" commenter's would do well to chew on that a bit.

Lastly, all historians have an agenda Professor. Your agenda is anti-Christ, that is a fact of reality just as Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected. The evidence is there, do with it what any good church historian would do - give it a synthesis, use it as a pragmatic instrument, use it has a guide, and use it as stimulation to inspire and encourage others. Of course you won't do this, your worldview does not include God. That's why a unbelieving church historian like yourself will miss the reality, the unmistakable prophecies laid before you in ancient texts, the blood of men, and the revelation of God's word equating to truth. Indeed, all you have is an opinion.

Lastly, being "saved" would necessitate you being a priest to yourself, and Jesus being the High Priest. If you're not positive you're saved, positive the Bible is God's word, positive you're a sinner going to Hell without Christ's atonement on the cross, positive there is nothing you can do to save yourself, positive of Christ's Resurrection and positive He will return again to judge the wicked, chances are - you're not saved at all. But don't take my word, study those writings you got a Doctorate in. Or in your case, just make a guess.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Only one message saves!

I am Not Ashamed by Anton Bosch

Modern churches are watering down the gospel and changing the message into one that will sell easily. They bribe, deceive and seduce people to attend and to join their churches. Coffee, entertainment, networking, wealth, health and sex are all promised in exchange for additional numbers and bigger offerings. The same time anything that offends and that could be an obstacle to the joiners is removed. Thus the cross, references to sin, repentance and judgment are deleted along with anything that may hint at the possibility that any kind of commitment would be required.

This all leads me to conclude that they are either ashamed of the Gospel or they do not believe that the gospel is powerful enough to draw people without adding all the frosting, cherries and cream on top. Clearly they no longer believe or agree with Paul who said:"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." (Romans 1:16)

Why could or should Paul have been ashamed? Surely feeling shame is not something that one would connect with the Gospel? Yet, the very fact that people have felt the need to change and camouflage the gospel indicates that they are ashamed of the message of the gospel.

Even at the time of Paul, the Gospel carried a certain reproach. Some of the Galatians, for instance, were being circumcised in order to win the approval of the Judaisers and thus escape the “the offence of the cross” (Galatians 5:11). Paul strongly rebuked them for this and he even doubted that they were saved! (Galatians 4:20).

Paul quotes Isaiah in speaking of Jesus: “Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence” but then he adds “and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. “ (Romans 9:33). To the Corinthians he says that the message of Christ crucified is “to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness” (1Corinthians 1:23). So, it should be no surprise if many in our day want to bypass the offence of the Gospel.

But we need to be reminded that we aught not be ashamed of the Gospel – just as Paul was not ashamed. He wanted everyone to hear that message and so he traveled to the farthest reaches to proclaim the message. It was not something to be hidden under a bushel. It was to be proclaimed in the streets, palaces and prisons. He spoke of it to the poor and the rich, the slave and the noble.

The reason he was not ashamed of the gospel was because it was (and still is) the power of God unto salvation. The message of the cross is not weakness, it is power because it alone can break the power of sin, forgive sins and translate people from darkness to light and from hell to heaven. The Gospel alone can make the unrighteous righteous and justify the sinner. There is no other message, system or religion that can do that. For that reason we should not be ashamed and on the contrary we should be bold to proclaim this a wonderful gift of God.

It would be very strange if someone found a simple cure for every form of cancer but was ashamed of it and never spoke about it. I am sure that if someone found such a cure, they would proclaim it to the whole world. But the Gospel is the cure for an even worse decease than cancer. It is the cure for sin. The disease of sin is guaranteed to kill everyone who is infected by it – there are no survivors. But worse, every person who is born into this world is infected by sin and is therefore under the sentence of death. (Romans 5). Should we not be shouting from the rooftops that we have found the answer?

Instead churches, preachers and “christians” no longer want to speak about this glorious, powerful gospel. They will preach everything else except the one message that can save. Yes, they will speak about how to live positively (while waiting to die), how to be successful in order to hide the fact that you are under the sentence of death and how to have great sex so you can enjoy this life before heading for eternal damnation. (See last week’s article.)

Only one message and one message alone matters. There is only one message that can save from sin and it’s consequences. Only one message that can fix the problems of our society and only one message that can address every problem that has ever beset mankind: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1Corinthians 15:3-4). And “that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Without the Gospel nothing else matters. Preachers can teach people how to think positively but without the gospel they will go to hell with a positive attitude. You can teach them to have healthy families and without the gospel the family circle will be unbroken in the lake of fire. Every religion in the world helps people to improve themselves but only one message can save.

No other system, philosophy or religion can deal with the basic desires and instincts of man. Yet the gospel can change our cravings and place within us a desire for spiritual things. Every other philosophy deals with behavior only while the gospel alone can change every aspect of who we are: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2Corinthians 5:17).

The gospel is not only for some people and it does not only work on some but it is for “everyone who believes”. No one is excluded. You cannot be too good, bad, rich, poor, educated, uneducated rich or poor. The gospel is for very race, age and background. It is truly and literally for “everyone”.

Neither does the gospel cost anything. It cannot be bought with money, good deeds, sacrifice or achievement. All that is required is to be simply believe – it is indeed the free gift of God (Romans 5:15-18).

Let’s join with Paul and shout from the rooftops that “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." (Romans 1:16).

Friday, January 25, 2008

Liberal lessons in tolerance, pride, and hate speech 101

ABC fired an actor because of an anti-gay comment, but gave anchorwoman who told an audience 'F---Jesus' what amounted to a one-week vacation.

Last June, when actor Isaiah Washington, star of ABC's show Grey's Anatomy, made an anti-gay slur in reference to openly homosexual T.R. Knight, the network immediately fired Washington.

But when ESPN (owned by ABC) anchorwoman Dana Jacobson publicly said "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus," the network gave her a one week suspension. In essence, ABC gave Jacobson a one week vacation.

ABC has two standards, one for anti-gay comments and one for anti-Christian comments. Those who use anti-gay comments are punished. Those who use anti-Christian comments are supported.

Monday, January 21, 2008


When Adolph Hitler took power in Germany, he recognized immediately that the major threat to his tyrannical designs would come from the church. If he could neutralize the voice of the church, he correctly reasoned, there would be no one else to stand in his way.

Consequently, he immediately cranked up the Nazi propaganda machine to develop slogans designed to silence the voice of the church, slogans which were then relentlessly hammered into the minds of gullible Germans and their pastors, who meekly complied.

Hitler crafted two slogans in particular, and these became the bulldozers he used to push the church to the margins of the culture and so squelch its freedom to speak truth to power that the liberty of the entire world was soon threatened. Liberty was only preserved at the cost of millions of lives, including hundreds of thousands of America's finest young men.

These slogans, mind you, do not come from the United States Constitution or from Thomas Jefferson or from the mind of the Founding Fathers. These slogans come straight from the mind of Adolph Hitler, and bear a sobering similarity to the mantras of the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Here they are, straight from the mind of Adolph Hitler:

"Politics do not belong in the Church."

"The Church must be separate from the State."

If they sound eerily familiar, it will only be because you instinctively recognize in these words the voice of tyranny and repression.

Hitler himself drove the pilings even deeper when he said, in December of 1934, "The Nazi State will however not tolerate under any circumstances any new or any continued political activity of the denominations."

In the same speech, he added these ominous words: "But we will ensure the purging from our public life of all those priests who have mistaken their profession and who ought to have been politicians and not pastors."

The objective of the Nazi regime was virtually identical to the agenda of today's ACLU: Contain the voice of the church within the four walls of its buildings, turning them into nothing more than echo chambers, and punish any effort of church leaders to make their voices heard in the public square.

Further, in a manner that is strikingly reminiscent of efforts to purge any references to God from our public systems of education, Josef Goebbels said the following in August, 1935:"To educate the young people into religious ways may perhaps be the task of the Church, but to educate the young in politics is very much our affair. The youth belongs to us and we will yield them to no one."

All church youth groups were banned in favor of the Hitler Youth, which became the only legal youth organization in the country. Churches were no longer permitted to hold any meetings in public venues. They were instead locked up inside their sanctuaries, forbidden to speak their message outside the four walls of their church buildings.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

The current restraint on the freedom of the church in America to speak truth to political power was imposed in 1954 through the efforts of then Sen. Lyndon Johnson. Johnson, incensed at some non-profit organizations for opposing his most recent run for office, suspended the sword of the IRS over the necks of any religious leader who would dare to stand for justice and truth in the nation's political life.

And so today's church is still paying the price for this small-minded politician's petty and vengeful ability to use the power of the federal government to punish his adversaries.

Prior to 1954, churches had the freedom to be as engaged in matters of public policy as they chose. They were free to be actively engaged without fear of punishment, and free to be completely uninvolved in political matters if they so chose. That, my friends, is liberty, both of the religious and political kind.

While churches may still today distribute non-partisan voter guides, and pastors are free to speak to the moral issues of the day, watchdogs from the ACLU and other leftist groups are lurking around every corner, looking to pounce on any religious leader who would dare use his influence to help shape the direction of America's public policy.

Just this week, an IRS investigation has been requested by Americans United into a pastor who endorsed Barack Obama from his pulpit last Sunday. In a free country, he should be free to do so without fear that his voice will be strangled by the federal government.

Judicial activism has turned the First Amendment on its head, and the very provision intended by the Framers to protect religious liberty is now being used to repress it.

The remedy? First, Congress should repeal LBJ's onerous 1954 IRS restriction. Second, we must elect a president who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who understand the original intent of the First Amendment and will restore constitutional freedoms of religion and speech in full to America's churches.

Then, and only then, can we be assured that true American liberty will be preserved for us, for our children, and for their children after them.

Nazi Persecution of The Churches, 1933-45," by J.S. Conway, Basic Books, 1968)
Bold mine.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Twisting Scripture:

Monday, January 14, 2008 Homosexuality and What Paul’s Letter to the Romans Really Says

There are numerous scriptural arguments against homosexuality, but none as commonly used as Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which describes the apostle’s vision of the Gospel for the mixed Jew/Gentile church in Rome. Paul wrote it in the 1st Century, long before the idea of “sexuality,” when people spoke merely of various sexual acts. Even so, we’ll take a look at this proof text to see what it says about God’s attitude toward what we call homosexuality today.

In other words, Paul and others were just ignorant first century folk. The concept of 'sexuality' was foreign to them. Nothing could be more clearly wrong. The sexual boundaries God had set forth had been well known for thousands of years. Sexual sin carried a death sentence in the law; the law, Paul a Pharisee, knew all to well.

Of course, because we worship the Creator, rather than any creature in this material world that God breathes into existence, AUR understands that denying the possibility of human error in the process of transcribing, compiling, and transmitting scripture is irrational at best, ecclesiolatrous at worst. Scripture and its human stewards are mere creatures, and for the true believer God alone is perfect.

A common heresy here. God is prefect, man is not. Even God's Divine breath leading man, man still screws it up. This denies two fundamental qualities of God, His truthfulness and His complete sovereign rule. There is no book in antiquity that is more closely scrutinized than the Bible. It remains God's holy and perfect word in 2008, all 66 books!

Therefore, we have to look for God’s wisdom through God’s messengers and messages, not always in them. Even assuming a certain work is “God-breathed,” it has to be read with consideration given to the limited understanding of those inspired by God to write. A 1st-Century mind cannot speak truth with a 21st-Century understanding of sociology, biology, and psychology.

More common heresies here. Notice how the author begins ever so gently to lead you away from the authority of God's word. As if God's word and authority changes over time? The author is really asking you to make excuses and to re-interpret the scripture through a 21st century lens. In other words, see God's word through the world around you, not the spirit. God can only do so much to inspire men to write it down correctly. Once again, the author denies God's fundamental qualities of truth and complete sovereignty.

Even so, let us read what the proof text states with a serious eye to the spiritual truth therein. The proof text most often cited from the Letter to the Romans begins:

1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

The list of idolatrous imagery here demonstrates the point from above: Paul did not have a modern understanding of biology when he categorized living creatures as “man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Does this error in material fact mean that the underlying spiritual truth of the Letter should be dismissed?

Absolutely not. Despite Paul’s unscientific laundry list of creatures, there is still wisdom in worshipping the wholeness of uncreated God, in whom all things are reconciled, rather than worshipping images as represented in God’s creatures, whether those creatures be living or not.

For starters lest use the NASB: 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

The author here is clearly confused. Paul clearly says that foolish men; men who do not know God, make idols of Him. Whether the idols be in the image of another corruptible man, birds, or crawling creatures. The Roman pantheon of gods, which Paul most assuredly was aware, comes to mind. The more shocking arrogance and ignorance of this author is asking should we dismiss this letter based on his/her own 'wisdom' of interpretation. More confusing and quite typical of the Unitarian heretical spin cycle is this idea of worshipping 'the wholeness of uncreated God". I know gnostic garbage when I hear it, now you do as well. Lastly, Christ was made flesh (living and breathing) for a reason, it matters.

Let’s read on:
1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Paul’s more general statement here, using “created things” rather then a list of examples, is much more to the point, and less subject to being rendered obsolete by new discoveries about the material Creation. Turning from the worship of the Universal for the worship of the particular, Paul’s subjects were given over to self-destructive fetishism. The connection seems reasonable.

Lets use the NASB 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Fairly clear scripture here folks. God does not intend His word to be a hidden truth, no matter how hard this author desires that to be. They loved the creature more than the Creator. As we read on, we will discover this author also will ask us to seek truth in the creation and not the creator's word, the Holy scripture.

The author goes on...

One final objection: if homosexual behavior is not categorically “faithless, heartless, ruthless,” what about “senseless”? Are homosexuals behaving in a way that defies sense and reason?

Applying outside standards of sense and reason to biblical morality is a touchy subject for scripturalists and bibliolaters, so let’s see what the Letter itself says about how can we identify God’s Eternal and Universal intent, behind the creaturely limitations of God’s mortal servant Paul.
Take a look at the verses introducing the proof text above:

1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

The Creator’s invisible qualities have been known “since the creation of the world,” meaning long before the existence of scripture, and are “understood from what has been made,” i.e., by studying the created world.

Lets use the NASB 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

These verses have nothing to do with studying the created world and verse 20 has everything to do with Mark 10: 6"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. Further evidence:

Ephesians 5: 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Colossians 3:6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,

Jeremiah 5:21'Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear.

It is our duty as Christians and servants of the One True Creator God to seek truth not merely in the mouths of God’s mortal servants, but by studying “what has been made” by God. This dedication to rationalism would not only lead us to question the material facticity of Paul’s categories of living things, but also his categories of sexuality, without having to doubt the divine inspiration of his underlying moral lesson.

This is pure apostasy: Seeking God's truth in the creation. Does anyone remember the Apple in the garden? The tree of knowledge? Were these things not created? Enough said.

By turning a rational eye to the objects of Creation, it is clear that there is a distinct difference between those for whom homosexual behavior is a matter of love, sacrifice in love, and commitment of character, and those for whom homosexual behavior is reduced to an obsessive fetish, often in the context (and in violation) of an otherwise heterosexual lifestyle.

Actually by having an ounce of common sense, putting the words 'love', 'sacrifice in love' and 'commitment of character' in front of adultery does it no more good than putting it in front of homosexuality. The author would like you to turn your attention away from God's design for sexuality and concentrate on 'fetishes'. The snake's are alive and well.

and more...

“Literalist” worship of Scripture as perfect and sufficient is precisely this sort of image-worship. As scripturalist preachers demonstrate again and again, bibliolaters who turn away from God and “suppress the truth” of human sexuality end up ”senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” and given to “shameful lusts.”

Using the scripture to establish authority in a false doctrine and in the same breath denying that authority is the two faced doubled minded teaching and life of the gay christian movement.

A clear line has to be drawn between homosexual behavior as natural psychology and homosexual behavior as an “unnatural” psychology, homosexual behavior informed by commitment and character and homosexual behavior absent of moral boundaries. This same line must be drawn through heterosexual behavior as well

Actually a clear decision has to be made: My way or God's way? Your eternity, your choice.

Consider 2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

This is one of the clearest statements in the Bible that affirm Paul is writing scripture. The NT apostles just as the OT prophets were aware they were writing the word of God. See 1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

The author concludes:

Given the knowledge to be learned from God’s own Creation using their God-given reason, as Paul’s letter makes clear, these bigots “are without excuse.”

Ah, I knew the word 'bigot' would rear it's ugly head in a sad attempt to silence those who live and abide in God's word.

Be aware of them who preach “ANOTHER” Jesus, “ANOTHER” Gospel, and “ANOTHER” spirit - 2 Corinthians 11:4

Wherever God erects, a house of prayer,
The Devil always builds a chapel there:
And 'twill be found upon examination;
The latter has the largest congregation.
- Daniel Defoe

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Design Found, Intelligence Lacking in Latest Attack by Darwinians

FRC update:

The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have mounted yet another attack on the scientific theory of intelligent design, publishing an 89-page book titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The new publication falsely equates "intelligent design" (a scientific theory which infers the necessity for intelligent design from scientific evidence) with "creationism" (a term usually used for a theory of origins that begins with the Bible or some other religious text). It also lumps together concepts of microevolution within species (such as the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria), which are not controversial, with the more contested theory of macroevolution, which seeks to trace all existing forms of life to a common ancestor. It appears to dodge altogether the crucial question of how living things could have arisen from non-living things in the first place. It also slanders intelligent design as "unscientific" despite peer-reviewed articles on the concept and the credentials of 700 doctoral-level scientists who have publicly questioned Darwinism. Perhaps the biggest problem with the defenders of Darwinian evolution is that, ironically, they have reversed the roles in the supposed historical "war between science and religion," by declaring Darwinism to be inerrant dogma, and punishing its doubters by burning them at the academic stake.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

What the 'gay christian marriage' will never be

And the Two Shall Be One
by Mark Toohey

There is a great and profound mystery at work in the earth today; so great a mystery that it was first initiated in Eden's long ago garden and secured by a covenant of death. This ponderous mystery is a product of heaven itself, born out of the incomprehensible wisdom of God, and imparted unto man wholly by His grace; and yet this mystery is known unto all. Multitudes of men and women partake of its sublime reality every day of their lives, unaware of the magnitude of its portent. It is trampled under foot, mocked, and discarded as much as it is revered, cherished, and made sacred by those who have given themselves to it. In the realm of spirit it is the revelation of the highest calling of God upon the life of a man or woman, yet in the natural it is as common as the rain. And it took no less than an apostle of some notoriety to unveil its secret:

"For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church" (Eph. 5:31,32). The marriage of a man and a woman is, indeed, the greatest of mysteries, for it is, in reality, the unveiling of God's purpose unto humanity in this age the completion of THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST. Few who have repeated their vows and exchanged their rings have even the slightest sense of the immensity of their actions; yet the continuous repetition of that ceremony the world over, in every nation and every culture, gives perpetual testimony to the work and purpose of God in bringing humankind into oneness with Himself. Even the most unregenerate of men unwittingly bear testimony to the surety of God's word with the pronouncement, "I do." And while marriage may at best be a lifelong commitment to love, honor, and obey until death do we part for the average couple, it is for those of His calling nothing less than an open door to the heavenlies. It is among the most blessed opportunities that a man or woman will ever be afforded to ascend to the high realm of spirit and to enter in to the fullness of the reality of Christ which they so earnestly seek.

Here, in the union of a man and a woman, we see portrayed in the natural the higher spiritual marriage of Christ and the church, the sanctification of His most precious bride. The marriage relationship is the very exemplification of our own personal relationship with the Lord, the union of spirit by which we are begotten of Him and brought to the fulness of redemption. It is in the daily outworking of love's commitment that we experience the subduing and overcoming of the carnal man by the inner man of spirit, until both spirit and soul are wed in blessed harmony, a new creation in Christ Jesus. It is upon the proving grounds of marriage that we become schooled in that elusive unconditional love of God until we become that very nature of love for all the world to behold. Here we shall surely encounter the beast, the serpent of old, and become skilled in the mastery and dominion of the spirit over that ancient adversary. We will learn of death and partake of its sting; and having died, we will know the reality and power of a resurrected life. We will know the laying down of our lives, the emptying of ourselves, the bearing of the cross, and the discovery of an entirely new life not our own. In the procreation of that one flesh shall we see the revelation of the man child, the manifestation of the Son, brought to the birth. We shall know the Father's heart, His tender mercies, His unending grace, His corrective judgments. The simple format of marriage is one of the most effective avenues to spiritual maturity, one of the highest forms of spiritual instruction and understanding of which a mortal may partake.