Wednesday, December 22, 2010

What Does the Star of Bethleham Mean?


KING DAVID SAID "THE STARS SPEAK." The starry events you have seen match the 9-point account in The Book of Matthew. A reasonable person could conclude that we have found the Biblical Star. If we have, then you have heard the stars speak. You have heard the celestial fanfare for the birth of a King. The Messiah. You have heard the hushed celestial dirge played out in the sky at his crucifixion. But, what do these things mean?

Read more here. You will be absolutely amazed!


Many have marveled at Jesus' statement—that God's "mind" is so great that it allows his complete familiarity with the creation in all of its detail. We can barely begin to contemplate it. But confronting the Star, we see the same message.

For if the Star wasn't magic or a special miracle from outside of the natural order, then it was something even more startling. It was a Clockwork Star. And that is overwhelming. The movement of the heavenly bodies is regular, like a great clock. The Clockwork Star finally means that from the very instant at which God flung the universe into existence, he also knew the moment he would enter human history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He marked it in the stars. And from before the beginning of time as we experience it, God knew the very moment when Messiah would breath his last on the cross.


Jesus is "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."
Revelation 13:8

Thursday, December 09, 2010

What's the real difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so

many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal

Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in Favor of

higher taxes to support more government programs, in other Words

redistribution of wealth.



She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch

Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the Lectures that

she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she

felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to

keep what he thought should be his.



One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to Higher

taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The

self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to Be the

truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by Asking how

she was doing in school.



Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and

let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that She was

taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which

left her no time to go out and party like other people She knew. She

didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many

college friends, because she spent all her time studying.



Her father listened and then asked , 'How is your friend Audrey

doing?' She replied, ' Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are

Easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She Is

so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited

to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for

classes because she's too hung over.'




Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's

office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your

friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and

certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The

daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired

back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really

hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard

work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played

while I worked my tail off!'



The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to The

Republican party.'




If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
test!


If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.



If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat..

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for

everyone.



If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.



If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.

A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.



If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.



If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

Saturday, November 27, 2010

"Homophobia" & the Truth that must be suppressed

Any "phobia" is suppose to be irrational, and at best, just not normal. So if folks desire to suppress the Truth; that being homosexual relations are NOT harmless and those that oppose such relations are NOT irrational or abnormal - what shall they do?

Well... call it a "phobia" of course!

As Christians, True followers of Christ Jesus, we have found ourselves in a new age (only about 40 years ago) that is now not only willing to "accept" those who have same sex attractions ('cause we are a loving people), but willing and ready to celebrate such relationships. Put the long arm of the law behind such a new "system" of thought and reason, and BOOM! You're now the enemy; abnormal and irrational.

Unfortunately, for the True followers of Christ, we now have the media darlings: The Westboro Baptist Church to deal with (which is NOT a church, much less Christian). It is basically a family, an extended family, that has captured the essence of what the "new age" system has already determined and concluded about those folks who say homosexual relations are harmful, wrong, and a complete perversion; irrational and abnormal.

Maybe that's why they get more media time than say... Dr. John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, Albert Mohler etc...

Lest you think I am being "irrational" or paranoid, there are already folks experiencing the new age system's long arm of the law.

God hates sin and His wrath burns against ALL who suppress the Truth in unrighteousness (Westboro folks more especially than those that are gripped by sin's subtle slavery!)

There is one person that every human on these planet needs to know; Christ Jesus and what He has done for you! That my friend is neither irrational nor abnormal, it will only be so to those who suppress the Truth, and it is these folks who will perish eternal damnation, not the sinner (you and I) who have been to the foot of the cross and been washed clean by His blood.

More on this topic here: "Homophobia".

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The Surge in Gay Teen Suicide

"Parents should realize that most of the scientific community believes that sexual orientation is genetic and that being gay is not a choice," says Carlat. "Stigmatizing someone for being gay is like criticizing them for having brown hair. It is really a relic of another era." - Source.

FACTS:
There is absolutely no scientific evidence one's sexual desires are genetic; none zero zip! It is the opinion of some scientists, the same kind of non-scientific opinions that claim a molecule to man theory, and then call it a fact. I would contend that both evolution and sexual orientation are much more about Philosophies, than science; and furthermore, as Dr. Robert Gagnon argues

an appeal to a biologically based orientation is not a moral argument. As two researchers who have worked hard to demonstrate congenital influences on homosexual development have admitted: "No clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior is biologically caused" (Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, "A therapist's guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation," Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4 [2003]: 432).

The term "sexual orientation" may sound authoritative enough, but is it?

“The concept of sexual orientation was an intentional and quite successful attempt to redefine the debate over homosexuality from same-gender sexual acts to homosexual identity–that is, from what homosexuals do to who homosexuals are.

Yet this concept is actually of quite recent vintage. In fact, even within the past decade, the concept more commonly employed by the homosexual movement was sexual preference. The reason for the shift is clear: “Preference” implied a voluntary choice, so the clinical category of “orientation” was more useful in public arguments.”
- Dr. Albert Mohler

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV

If we would start telling our young folks what Christ has done for them, and stop encouraging a anti-Christ "truth" - we would do well.

Monday, September 13, 2010

VA Methodist Bishop Charlene Kammerer - wrong again.

VA Methodist Bishop Charlene Kammerer loves talking about freedom and tolerance, but she is missing the point, as usual.

Bishop Charlene Kammerer and a half-dozen other United Methodist clergy joined religious leaders from several faiths across Central Virginia on Sept. 2 at a press conference responding to the national debate on religious freedom surrounding construction of a Muslim Community Center near the site of the World Trade Center in New York City.

“We stand in solidarity with our Muslim friends and neighbors who are increasingly becoming targets of suspicion, blame and mean-spirited behavior,” Bishop Kammerer said, speaking against what she called the growing trend of “Islamaphobia” which has been in the media in recent weeks. “I am certain it breaks God’s heart to hear strident voices of condemnation and judgment from any one of us.” Speakers echoed the idea of America being built on religious freedom and tolerance and the need for each faith to support other faiths.


We must also remember, Bisphop Kammerer likes the word "homophobia" as well. Both "Islamaphobia" and "homophobia" are words used specifically to silence and shame Christians who have the audacity to think God's word is authoritative and not the "wisdom's" of men and women.

Christians are to do justice in this world, and that would include refuting and fighting against a "system" of beliefs that support a jihad ideology and Shari law. In essence, Islam is a "governing religion" which seeks world domination. To deny this, is to re-define Islam and its teachings; namely jihad ideology and Shari law. Both ideologies have nothing to do with the freedom's our constitution protects (religion, speech just to name two), nor the freedom to choose or reject Christ.

There should be no tolerance for a system of beliefs, in any name of "religion" that seeks to kill (pun intended) the freedom of religion, speech, and supports Shari law.

Two questions that need to be asked of Bishop Krammerer and others:

1. Will you refute and deny jihad ideology as evil in no uncertain terms?

2. Will you refute and deny Shari law as evil in no uncertain terms?

The media definitely won't ask these two questions in a public forum, because it exposes the Truth about this "religion of peace" non-sense that folks are eating up like manna falling from the sky. In addition, the bishop along with many others just HATE calling evil, evil. It's just too intolerant, unloving, and plus it goes against what their imaginary (bible optional) jesus taught.

My advice - let's all start reading the Quran, Sira, and Hadith; the Islamic Trilogy.
We will discover a peace that only a "terrific" vision of jihad can provide - world conquest by the political process.

This is not about freedom of religion or religious tolerance - it is about life and death, good and evil, tyranny and freedom. In essence, it is the same battle throughout history that all Christians face; it's a battle over the Truth. Bishop Kammerer continues to be actively working against the Truth.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Their Blood Cries Out


Why do the Taliban kill Christian humanitarian aid workers?

The Taliban and other radical Muslims do not consider Christians working among Muslims as innocent but as guilty. While they may be providing humanitarian help to fellow countrymen, in the final analysis, these Christians are (perceived by the Taliban) as seeking to spread the Christian message. As such they are guilty of subtly leading Muslims away from the faith. Thus the Taliban see themselves as protectors of the Ummah. In effect, they feel that they are doing God a service by killing Christians. But was this not foretold by Christ?

Jesus warned that some of his followers would be martyred by god-fearing fanatics
Jesus forewarned his disciples, “I have told you these things so you won't abandon your faith. For you will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God.” (John 16:2; Luke 13:12,13) Notice: the latter prophecy is specifically mentioned in the context of end times events. While it may be shocking to see how radical Muslims feel they are doing God a service by killing Christian aid workers, this should not take us by surprise: Christ forewarned us of this.
Read full article here by Roland Clarke

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

A Quran burning can bring out the "best" in folks...

Nothing like a good old fashion Quran burning to expose the Truth less leadership this nation has elected.

A small FL church - burns a book, not to prevent any free and honest exchange of ideas (unlike our MSM, Public schools, and Universities do on a daily basis), but rather to make a point (whatever that may be) - and the President's administration, Secretary of State, General Petraeus, and many other pubic officials cry out about how wrong it is.

Why do I think this particular book burning is beneficial?

1. It exposes the enemy; those calling for the death of (fill in the blank...)
2. It may help others to stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace.
3. It may help others to understand and denounce any and all jihad ideology.
4. It may get people to ask how many people will be killed during this book burning picnic, verses how many were killed in the name of jihad in just one month.

I am sadly amazed at how many "popular" Americans have focused on this book burning. In a nation that declares such freedoms, sends men and women to die for such freedoms, these "popular Americans" have put their tails between their legs, and heads in the sand, in fear of that which is the world's current greatest government threat; Shari law. Yet they haven't a clue of how asinine their reasoning really is.

How many times is the word "love" used in this "holy book"? hint - zip.

Weekly Jihad Report: Aug. 28 - Sep. 03
Jihad Attacks: 43
Dead Bodies: 269
Critically Injured: 758
Islamic Terrorist have carried out more than 16,000 attacks since 9/11.


Jihad ideology is wrong, evil, and a lie from the depths of hell. If you have a problem understanding this simple fact (despite the reality) because you "worship" inclusiveness or tolerance; count yourself among lost; anti-Christ.

Understanding the Truth starts with an empty tomb; the tomb of Christ. His word is the Bible. One may burn it or flush it down a toilet, it doesn't matter to His children. They already know His word is eternal and alive.

John 4:16 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Submissive Wife

Source: Grace To You Blog
•The Fulfilled Family (Sermon Series)


Earlier this year, Mark Oden preached a controversial sermon to his congregation in southeast England. He titled his message “Marriage and Women,” which included a plea for the wives in his congregation to “submit to their husbands.” In the aftermath, some irate wives—along with their disgruntled husbands—vowed never to attend the church again. One female attender said she was disgusted by the message, adding: “How can they talk that way in the twenty-first century?” Another quipped, “What kind of medieval sermon is that?” Pastor Oden, himself a married father of three, responded, “I am passionate about helping people to have healthy marriages. I did not set out to unnecessarily offend people, but I stand by what God has said in His Word, the Bible.” That pastor’s passion to cultivate healthy marriages, coupled with his courage to present the truth is regrettably rare in many churches of our day, but the response of his audience is not.

For the July 2010 edition of Sojourners magazine, feminist scholar Anne Eggebroten wrote an article titled “The Persistence of Patriarchy,” in which she described her recent visit to Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California. Eggebroten was pleased with John MacArthur’s sermon and even commented on the kindness of the members who were eager to meet and greet her.What she was not pleased with was the church’s views on female roles within the home and church. With unconcealed resentment, she described Grace church as a place where “God is male, all the pastors, deacons, and elders are male, and women are taught to live in submission to men.” As Eggebroten’s article progresses, one gets the impression she visited the church looking for sad, dejected women who begrudgingly accepted their role in the home. If that’s the case, she came to the wrong place—as her article demonstrates. After talking with several joyfully submissive wives in the reception area, she became frantic to escape—at least that’s what it sounds like. She writes, “It’s time to get out of here, I tell myself. I’m feeling tense, as if I might cry or launch into a diatribe.” She finished her rant by quoting a barrage of other liberal feminist “Bible scholars” who, through agenda-driven interpretations, heap contempt on God’s Word by claiming the church is mistaken in its understanding of what St. Paul really meant. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

A multitude of other current examples could be listed, all demonstrating the same thing—the issue of authority and submission in the home is not appealing to our fallen culture. Society has been victimized by a godless, Christless, non-biblical philosophy of living perpetrated through the centuries and energized by Satan himself.

What we’re seeing in our day was also true of the philosophy behind the French Revolution, which was a humanistic, egalitarian approach to life. The French believed they could have a society with absolute equality—a classless, godless type of humanistic existence. That atheistic mindset now dominates Western civilization: no sexes, no distinctions, no authority, no submission, and no humility. And rather than reject that philosophy, many churches often reflect it, falling prey to the lies of our age. Much like the angry multitude in Psalm 2 who defied the Godhead, we live in the midst of a godless society that sees God’s divine order for life and family and cries out, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” The world views God’s design for the family—and women—as a threat, and much like Anne Eggebroten and her liberal friends, it seeks to redefine and overthrow that design altogether.

That brings us back to Ephesians, and the most important portion of this post—what does God say about women’s roles in the home? After all, He created the family, designed woman, and established her roles and relationships within the family. If God is the engineer, we’d better stick to His plans. What are they?

After making a statement about mutual submission in the fear of Christ (Eph. 5:21), Paul proceeds to answer an important question: How can we submit to one another in the context of a family, while still recognizing the God-ordained roles of headship and authority? Beginning with Ephesians 5:22, Paul answers that question. Remember, he came to the idea of submission because that’s what epitomized the character of the person who is truly Spirit filled. Then he outlined how mutual submission should work in a family.

Paul’s instructions for family life in Ephesians cover several verses, beginning with 5:22 and running through 6:4. He was writing under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, of course, so this was not merely the apostle’s private opinion (2 Pet. 1:21-21). God Himself inspired the very words of the text, including the order. Paul spoke here to wives first, then husbands, children, and parents.

The admonition to wives is simple, covering just three verses: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:22-24).

Several key ideas in that text are worth pointing out immediately. First, the word translated “submit” doesn’t actually appear in the Greek text of verse 22. The idea is clearly implied, however, from the command of verse 21, which instructs all believers to submit to one another. Remember, wives aren‘t being singled out and consigned to a second-rate status. There’s a sense in which everyone in the family must submit to everyone else. Verse 22 simply begins a practical explanation of how wives ought to demonstrate their submission.

Second, notice that Paul started and ended this short section by specifying whom wives should submit to: “their own husbands” (v. 24). Women as a group are not made serfs to men in general, and men aren’t automatically elevated to a ruling class over all women. But Scripture calls each woman to submit in particular to her own husband’s headship. In other words, the family itself is the primary arena in which a godly woman is to cultivate and demonstrate the attitude of humility, service, and sacrifice called for in verse 21.

Third, the command is general and sweeping. It’s not limited to wives whose husbands are fulfilling their function. It’s not addressed only to wives with children, wives of church leaders, or even wives whose husbands are faithful believers. It’s categorical and unconditional: wives. Anyone who fits that classification is obligated to obey the command of this verse by submitting to her own husband.

What, precisely, does this command require? The Greek word for “submit” (hupotasso) means “to line up under.” It has the idea of placing oneself in a rank lower than someone else, but in no way does it imply any essential inferiority. Nor does it demote the wife to a second-class status in the home or marriage. It speaks of a functional ranking, not an inferiority of essence.

Notice also that the word submit is not the word obey. What it calls for is an active, deliberate, loving, intelligent devotion to the husband’s noble aspirations and ambitions. It does not demand blind, fawning, slavish kowtowing to his every whim. The Greek word for “obey” would be hupakouo, and that is what Paul demanded of children in Ephesians 6:1 and slaves in 6:5. But a wife is neither a child nor a slave, waiting on her husband while he sits in an easy chair and issues commands (“Hand me the remote!” “Get me something to drink!” “Fix me a snack!” Fetch my slippers!”). Marriage is a much more personal and intimate relationship than that. It’s a union, a partnership, a singular mutual devotion, and that truth is emphasized by the words “your own husband.”

The expression itself suggests a tender partnership and mutual belonging to one another. Why wouldn’t a wife willingly respond in submission to one whom she possesses? Paul was subtly pointing out the reasonableness and the desirability of the wife’s submission to her husband.

This is a role that God Himself ordained for wives. In Genesis 3:16, God said to Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” On the one hand, marriage is the perfect union of two people who become one flesh (Gen. 2:24). On the other hand, God has clearly ordained that the husband should be head in that relationship. For the sake of unity and workability, the woman is to be subject to the leadership of her husband—not as a slave but as one who is provided for, cared for, and made secure by her husband. It does not have nearly as much to do with what she does for him as what he is responsible to do for her.

Even nature seems to affirm the proper order. Men normally have the advantage of greater physical and emotional strength, while women usually have a more tenderhearted strength and character that equip them to be a support and encouragement—helpers suitable to their husbands.

We find a parallel passage in Colossians 3:18, where Paul also instructed wives to submit to their own husbands. But there he added a brief phrase that sheds light on why this command is so important: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (italics added). The word translated “fitting” means “seemly, proper, or right.” It is an expression commonly used of something that is legally or morally binding. Paul seems to be pointing out that the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife are an accepted law of virtually all human society. (That has certainly been the case in most societies for the vast majority of human history, and it was most definitely true in Paul’s time.) Paul was suggesting that it is “fitting”—and recognized as such throughout the history of human culture—because it is the divine order. It is “fitting in the Lord.” This is a very strong expression about the propriety of the husband’s headship.

Scripture is both clear and consistent. Every time the Bible speaks about the role of the wife, the emphasis is exactly the same. This is not some chauvinistic private opinion of the apostle Paul, as some have suggested. Nor is it an unclear principle that’s only vaguely suggested in Scripture. Every passage that touches on the subject of the wife’s role says essentially the same thing (1 Pet. 3:1-2; Titus 2:3-5).

Of course, if every husband loved his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25), there presumably would be less resistance to the biblical teaching on the role of wives. But some husbands, rather than presenting a Christlike model of leadership to which their wives joyfully submit, instead play the part of an idle tyrant. Unbelief, anger, passivity, abuse, ridicule, laziness—all those sinful attitudes cause many wives to question God’s charge to submit. But God’s Word answers with stunning clarity. We’ll take a look at that next time.

In the meantime, here’s a question for the discussion thread: What barriers prevent wives from seeing the beauty of submitting to their husbands?

Monday, August 16, 2010

Were there any “gay” couples invited to the official Obama White House Ramadan meal?

Were there any “gay” couples invited to the official Obama White House Ramadan meal? Why not? Obama made a great show of having many homosexuals at his “Easter egg roll” rubbing Christians' noses in what he called a "teachable moment" against "the forces of homophobia and hate." Easter is Christianity’s major holy day. Why did he not mock and insult Muslims in the same way? Why did Obama not shove a “teachable moment” into the faces of Muslims?

Read the full article: Click Here
HT: Debra J.M. Smith - © 08-16-10
www.InformingChristians.com

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Only two questions necessary -

1. Is the Bible the word of God?

2. How do you interpret it?

Those two simple questions will eliminate and clarify all the "confusion" on any subject that believers may get distracted by.

It has been, and always will be, a question of authority; God's authority or (fill in the blank)...

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Bible is absolutely crystal-clear on at least three things...

by Dan Phillips

Practicality, then, is (A) Biblical, and (B) light-years removed from....Pragmatism

1.The Christian's goal must be to please God (Deuteronomy 6:5f.; Matthew 6:1-6, 33; 1 Corinthians 10:31; 1 Peter 1:13-17, etc.).

2.Doing what pleases God may be the direct cause of temporal disaster.

3.Doing what pleases God will be the direct cause of eternal delight.

Be perfectly clear: doing what pleases God, in the right way and from the right heart, may result in —

•Getting murdered by your brother for honoring God in faith

•Being hated by the most powerful in the land for telling God's truth

•Having people run away from your preaching (i.e. a small congregation) because you preach the truth straight

•Being out of sync with your spouse for remaining faithful to God

•Being framed, slandered, and killed for remaining loyal to your family

•Seeing your good name destroyed because of your love for Christ

•Having co-workers start a vicious slander-and-ouster campaign because of your godly excellence

•Being abused, even physically, to doing right in God's eyes

•Enduring a life of persecution, deprivation, and temporal misery

Of course, that's just a sampling. But it is enough to condemn pragmatism once and for all.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Why a transformed life is not proof of salvation

A Must Read - Entire article here: Dangerous pragmatism – why a transformed life is not proof of salvation


False assumption 3: A transformed life is proof of salvation
Many religions transform lives. Mormonism has produced zealous clean-living converts who would put most evangelicals to shame in their general moral conduct. And radical Islam certainly transforms the lives of those who decide to become suicide bombers – and those of their victims.

Self-help books transform lives. Here’s one not atypical comment of many concerning Stephen R. Covey’s bestseller, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People:

This book changed my life. After reading this book back in 1997 my whole thinking about myself and others changed. I wish they teach this book in high school in every country in the world. Since 97 I buy this book and give it as gift to anyone I come across, especially to young people. You read it and judge it.

The religion of the Pharisees transformed lives. Yet Jesus said of them:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15, NKJV)

Clearly, Jesus didn’t approve of that particular sort of life transformation.

We should be concerned that Pharisaism, which was really all about making God’s law doable, is alive and well in far too many of today’s churches. Whenever anyone gives you five simple steps to keep God’s law (whether it is to stay out of debt, or have healthy relationships, etc.), understand that Pharisaism is the religion being offered. Likewise, when someone preaches the law and tells you to just go out and do it. But the Bible tells us that God’s law exists primarily to show us our sin – it does not have the power to make us righteous:

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20, ESV)

I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. (Galatians 2:21, NKJV)

The gospel is not a formula by which we can obey God’s law and thereby become righteous. No, it is the Good News that, even though we do not obey the law, Christ kept it for us. That His perfect righteousness is put to our account, and that the wrath of God that we deserved for our sin was instead poured out upon Christ on the cross:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26, NKJV)

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

The Portrait

A terrific story heard and re-told by Frank Turk... The Portrait


There was a young man -- a doctor -- who was sent off to war, and he left behind a young wife and a 7-month-old baby girl. He was away at the war for two years, and was faithful to his wife. In writing to her frequently, he sent back a portrait of himself to her and the baby as a promise that he would return home soon.

He returned two years later, and the baby was now a toddler who didn't know him. In fact, in some ways she didn't want him in their house. He was a stranger, and he didn't belong. She only knew the portrait.

One Saturday the young doctor was sitting on the couch reading the paper when the toddler got up from her bed and slowly came down the stairs. He didn't want to antagonize her, so he just sat and read, watching her out of the corner of his eye.

She started in the kitchen, then the dining room, then came into the living room sort of watching him, sizing him up. She came to the other end of the sofa, and then pointed at the portrait.

"That's my daddy. Some day he's coming home," she said, looking at the portrait.

He lowered the paper, and looked at her -- both bursting with pride at her confidence and aching on the inside from her ignorance.

She looked at him again, and pointed at the portrait. "That's my daddy," she said certainly, and looked straight at the young doctor.

Then there was a curious silence as her face changed.

"You're my daddy," she said breathlessly.

Monday, June 28, 2010

School Czar Kevin Jennings has openly supported sex between adults and children.



Jennings also gave his support for a book titled "Queering Of Elementary Education!" Jennings also threatens educators who don't undergo gay re-education training.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The children of "gay" parents are speaking.


"My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won't the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father's high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex. I came to deeply care for, love and compassionately understand my dad. He shared his life regrets with me. Unfortunately, my father, as a child, was sexually and physically abused by older males. Due to this, he lived with depression, control issues, anger outbursts, suicidal tendencies, and sexual compulsions. He tried to fulfill his legitimate needs for his father's affirmation, affection and attention with transient and promiscuous relationships. He and his partners were exposed to various contagious STD's as they traveled across North America. My father's (ex)partners, whom I had deep caring feelings for and associated with, had drastically shortened lives due to suicide, contracting HIV or Aids. Sadly, my father died of AIDS in 1991." - Read the rest here.


OUT FROM UNDER:
The Impact of Homosexual Parenting
by Dawn Stefanowicz

The IMPACT of HOMOSEXUAL PARENTING is a compelling, fast-paced, and no-holds-barred narrative of one child’s journey from birth to the end of innocence—and beyond—as the daughter of a homosexual father. Dawn Stefanowicz honestly and sympathetically exposes the transfixing saga of unexpected emotional tangles, discarded dreams, and a desperate search for Daddy’s love. Sobering and colorful, revealing while upholding a standard for good taste, the book uncovers Dawn’s shocking experiences, confused responses, and ultimate redemption as she compassionately reaches out to her father, facing a tragic death from AIDS, in 1991. Now an outspoken advocate of laws protecting children, it took Dawn into her early 30s to realize how her “alternative” rearing impacted her. See how she confronts the forbidden darkness of sexual activities, gets out from under the foreboding weight of family secrets, and finds a future filled with surprising hope, happiness, and healing. *Release date October 2007.


Press here to read Book Review "Out From Under" by The Canada Post in the United Kingdom
Press here to read Book Review "A review of Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting by Dawn Stefanowicz" by Bill Muehlenberg
Press here to read Book Review "Out From Under: The Impact Of Homosexual Parenting by REAL Women of Canada
Press here to read review "When Dad is Homosexual" by Gail Besse of The National Catholic Register
Press here to read Listening to the Children of Gay Parents by Marjorie CampbellPress here to read a review by Rory Leishman of The London Free PressPress here to read a review by Janice Graham of The Standard of Liberty Voice
Press here to read a critique by Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, psychologist and author. This critique is published in the Empirical Journal Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and the Dutch version appears in “Nucleus” (Ghent, Belgium).
Press here to read a review by Tony Gosgnach, Assistant Editor of The Interim.

About the book:
Dawn knows from personal experience that the environment in which a child is raised matters. Her story delivers a provocative, gripping, no-holds-barred account of what it was like to grow up with a homosexual father, his partners, and a chronically ill and passive mother. Candidly, transparently, yet respectfully, Dawn raises the blinds on a home shrouded in secrecy, conflict, confusion, and abuse.

"Out From Under should be read by every legislator, lawyer, physician and mental health professional in a position to lobby for the best interests of children. May society heed Dawn’s courageous testimony and spare other innocents the suffering she and her siblings sustained." -Michelle A. Cretella, M.D., Board of Directors, American College of Pediatricians, and Chair, Committee on Sexuality, ACP, United States

"Out From Under is a personal account told in an emotional narrative. Stefanowicz tells of the enormous burden that was thrust upon her as a young person, a burden that is too great for any child. This story compels one to ponder the vulnerability of children, human suffering, and the meaning of life itself." -Senator Anne Cools, Ottawa, Canada

"Dawn Stefanowicz has the courage to write a politically incorrect book. She has the right because she was raised in a homosexual environment and suffered because of it ... there are few books like this one, which argues that such environments are disturbing to children."-Professor John Patrick, M.D., Augustine College, Ottawa, Canada

"Dawn Stefanowicz writes ... her personal experience, illustrating the unnaturalness of her parenting situation, the hypocrisy of those in her environment who pretended not to see this unnaturalness, and the loneliness of a child who is imprisoned in that situation ... "-Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., psychologist specializing in the treatment of homosexuality, and author of many articles and several books, the Netherlands

Dawn Stefanowicz is an author, speaker, media spokesperson, licensed accountant, and home educator. She recently addressed the Canadian Senate on hate crime legislation and appeared on EWTN. She advocates for children and families, pertaining to marriage, parenting, sexuality, and education. Dawn is a resource to family policy, legislative, medical, research, and scholastic organizations. She offers a safe place for adult children from similar households. Dawn has been married for twenty-three years and has two children.

Visit http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/.

What are the dangers of postmodernism?

Answer: Simply put, Postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, Postmodernism’s viewpoint is exemplified in the statement “that may be true for you, but not for me.” While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of taste and opinion with truth.

The term “Postmodernism” literally means “after Modernism” and is used to philosophically describe the current era which came after the age of Modernism. Postmodernism is a reaction (or perhaps more appropriately, a disillusioned response) to Modernism’s failed promise of using human reason alone to better mankind and make the world a better place. Because one of Modernism’s beliefs was that absolutes did indeed exist, Postmodernism seeks to “correct” things by first eliminating absolute truth and making everything (including the empirical sciences and religion) relative to an individual’s beliefs and desires.

The dangers of Postmodernism can be viewed as a downward spiral that begin with the rejection of absolute truth, which then leads to a loss of distinctions in matters of religion and faith, and finally culminates in a philosophy of religious pluralism that says no faith or religion is objectively true and therefore no one can claim his or her religion is true and another is false.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #1 – Relative Truth

Postmodernism’s stance of relative truth is the outworking of many generations of philosophical thought. From Augustine to the Reformation, the intellectual aspects of Western civilization and the concept of truth were dominated by theologians. But, beginning with the Renaissance periods of the 14th – 17th centuries, thinkers began to elevate humankind to the center of reality. If one were to look at human periods of history like a family tree, the Renaissance would be Modernism’s grandmother and the Enlightenment would be its mother. Renee Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” personified the beginning of this era. God was not the center of truth any longer – man now was.

The Enlightenment was in a way the complete imposition of the scientific model of rationality upon all aspects of truth and claimed that only scientific data could be objectively understood, defined, and defended. Truth as it pertained to religion was left out and discarded. The philosopher who straddled this epoch’s and Modernism’s contribution to relative truth was the Prussian Immanuel Kant and his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which appeared in 1781. Among other things, Kant argued that true knowledge about God was impossible so he created a divide of knowledge between “facts” and “faith.” According to Kant, “Facts have nothing to do with religion.” The end result was that spiritual matters were assigned to be matters of the heart and just opinion, and only the empirical sciences were allowed to speak of truth. And while Modernism believed in absolutes at least in the area of science, God’s special revelation (the Bible) was evicted from the realm of truth and certainty.

From Modernism came Postmodernism and, whereas Kant marked the philosophical transition from the Enlightenment to Modernism, Frederick Nietzsche may symbolize the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. As the patron saint of postmodernist philosophy, Nietzsche held to “perspectivism,” which says that all knowledge (including science) is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many other philosophers have built upon Nietzsche’s work (e.g. Foucault, Rorty, and Lyotard) and have shared his rejection of God and religion in general. They also rejected any hint of absolute truth, or as Lyotard put it, a rejection of a metanarrative (a truth that transcends all peoples and cultures).

This philosophical march through history against objective truth has resulted in Postmodernism having a complete aversion to any claim to absolutes, with such a mindset naturally painting a huge bull’s-eye on something that declares to be inerrant truth, such as the Bible.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #2 – Loss of Discernment

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas said, “It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions.” What Aquinas meant is that truth is dependent upon the ability to discern – the capability to distinguish “this” from “that” in the realm of knowledge. However, if objective and absolute truth does not exist, then everything becomes a matter of personal interpretation. To the postmodern individual, the author of a book does not possess the correct interpretation of their work; it is the reader who actually determines what the book really means – a process called deconstruction. And given that there are multiple readers (vs. one author), there are naturally multiple interpretations, with the end result being no universally valid interpretation.

Such a chaotic situation makes it impossible to make meaningful or lasting distinctions between interpretations because there is no standard or benchmark that can be used. This especially applies to matters of faith and religion because the philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modernism had already deposed religion to the compartment of opinion. Such being the case, it naturally follows that attempting to make proper and meaningful distinctions in the area of religion (ones that dare suggest that one belief is right and another invalid) carries no more weight than one person arguing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. In such situations, it becomes impossible to objectively adjudicate between competing truth claims.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #3 – Pluralism

If absolute truth does not exist, and if there is no way to make meaningful, right/wrong distinctions between different faiths and religions, then the natural conclusion is that all beliefs must be given equal weight and considered valid. The proper term for this practical outworking in Postmodernism is “philosophical pluralism.” With pluralism, no religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true and the other competing faiths false, or even relatively inferior. For those who espouse a philosophical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. D. A. Carson underscores conservative evangelical’s concerns about what they see as the dangerous element of pluralism when he says, “In my most somber moods I sometimes wonder if the ugly face of what I refer to as philosophical pluralism is the most dangerous threat to the gospel since the rise of the Gnostic heresy in the second century.”

These progressive dangers of Postmodernism – relative truth, a loss of discernment, and philosophical pluralism – represent real and imposing threats to Christianity because they collectively relegate God’s Word to something that has no real authority over mankind and no ability to show itself as true in a world of competing religious voices. What is Christianity’s response to these challenges?

Response to the Dangers of Postmodernism

It should first be stated that Christianity claims to be absolutely true, claims that meaningful distinctions in matters of right/wrong (as well as spiritual truth and falsehood) exist, and claims to be correct in its claims about God with any contrary claims from competing religions being incorrect. Such a stance provokes cries of “arrogance” and “intolerance” from Postmodernism. However, truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations and philosophies of Postmodernism quickly crumble and reveal Christianity’s claims to be both plausible and compelling.

First, Christianity claims that absolute truth exists. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He was sent and born to do one thing: “to testify to the truth” (John 18:37). Postmodernism says that no truth should be affirmed, yet its position is one that is self-defeating – it affirms at least one absolute truth: that no truth should be affirmed. This means that Postmodernism does believe in absolute truth, and such a fact is exemplified by its philosophers who write books stating things they expect their readers to embrace and believe as truth. Putting it simply, one professor has said, “When someone says there is no such thing as truth, they are asking you not to believe them. So don’t.”

Second, Christianity claims that meaningful distinctions exist between the Christian faith and all other beliefs. However, it should be understood that those claiming that meaningful distinctions do not exist between religions are actually making a distinction. They are attempting to showcase a difference in what they believe to be true and the Christian’s truth claims. Postmodernist authors expect their readers to come to the right conclusions about what they have written and will correct those who interpret their work differently than they have intended. Again, their position and philosophy proves itself to be self-defeating because they eagerly make distinctions between what they believe to be correct and what they see as being false.

Finally, Christianity claims to be universally true in what it says regarding man’s lostness before God, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of fallen mankind, and the separation between God and anyone who chooses not to accept what God says about sin and the need for repentance. When Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill, he said, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). Paul’s declaration was not a “this is true for me, but may not be true for you” statement, but rather an exclusive and universal command (i.e. a metanarrative) from God to everyone. Any postmodernist who says this is false is committing an error against his own pluralistic philosophy that says no faith or religion is incorrect because, once again, he violates his own mandate of saying every religion is equally true.

In the same way that it is not arrogant for a math teacher to insist that 2+2=4 or for a locksmith to insist that only one key will fit a locked door, it is not arrogant for the Christian to stand against Postmodernist thinking and insist that Christianity is true and anything opposed to it is false. Absolute truth does exist, consequences do exist for being wrong, and while pluralism may be desirable in matters of food preferences, it is not so in matters of truth. The Christian is to present God’s truth in love and simply ask any postmodernist who is angered by the exclusive claims of Christianity, “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

Recommended Resource: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

Some Thoughts on Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

When teaching or preaching the Old Testament as Christians, we have a responsibility to bring Christ into every sermon. Spurgeon explained his preaching method by saying, “I take my text and make a beeline to the cross.” Christian pastors or teachers often bring Christ into the OT in some rather strange ways (allegory, excessive typology, etc.) and not every OT passage is about Christ. Our job is not to make Christ magically appear in every OT text, but we also have not really done our job as preachers unless we explain how Christ relates to every message we preach from the OT. Bringing Christ into the passage is especially a challenge when we preach the OT prophets. It’s easy to see Christ in the “messianic prophecies” like Isaiah 9, 11, 53, 61, etc., but what about Isaiah’s judgment speeches, his calls for justice, or his oracles against the nations?

In exploring how we preach Christ-centered sermons from the OT, Bryan Chappell has explained that the OT points to Christ in four specific ways. First, the OT predicts about Christ (we could look at OT messianic prophecies, messianic psalms, etc). Second, the OT prepares for Christ. OT persons, events, and individuals provide a bridge to Christ (the sacrifices pointing to the need for an ultimate payment for sin and the temple system pointing to God’s ultimate presence with his people in the person of Jesus). The OT also points to dead-ends where Christ becomes the solution and ultimate answer (the failed leadership of Israel; Israel’s inability to keep the law and its other covenantal failures). Third, the OT is a reflection of Christ—God’s calls for love, justice, and his holiness find their perfect reflection in Christ. God’s redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt or the deliverance of Israel form the Babylonian exile reflect God’s deliverance of his people from sin in Christ. Fourth, the OT points to the results of Christ’s coming and work (the salvation portrayals and announcements of the OT in passages like Isaiah 2:2-4 and 4:2-5 would fit into this category—and thus are not just things that will be true in the future kingdom but are also things that have at least become partial realities in the present in light of the first coming of Christ).

Preaching and teaching Christ from the prophets is more than just throwing in a correlating NT passage as a footnote to your lesson. Many times in the prophets, the text will present a problem; our job is not just to diagnose how that problem infects our lives, churches, or culture but also to show how Christ is the answer to that problem. For example, Isaiah 5:8-30 documents the problems of Judah’s oppression, selfishness, pursuit of pleasure—teaching this passage requires more than just showing how we struggle with these same sins in the present; Christian preaching and teaching must also show how the cross and knowing Christ provide the antidote to this type of living. If we fail to do this, we really are doing nothing more than moralizing about the text. We’re like a doctor who diagnoses a disease but then offers to healing prescription for the malady. We are preaching the law but offering no grace.

Chappell made the point in his message that the only reason sin has any power in our lives is that we love it. Our job as Christian teachers and preachers then is to help people love Christ more than they love sin and to point to the grace of Christ that helps them to break sinful patterns in our lives. The people of the OT followed idols and so do we because we love those things more than we love the Lord. It’s easy to simply use the prophets to catalog and condemn the idols in our lives; the real task is to show people how much Christ has loved them and to produce love for Christ that will ultimately transform the human heart.

- Dr. Gary Yates -
Professor of Old Testament
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Cheated by the Affirming Church

"Contrary to what some churches teach, it is homosexuality—and not its suppression—that enslaves people like me." - anonymous, 2004.

The silver tongued lie that sexual expression doesn’t matter to God as long as its based on mutual love is a soul killer.

Gay churches who dangle this poisoned carrot in front of confused, hurting and struggling men and women manipulate their hurt and promise them freedom when just the opposite will result.

The only answer to the devastation of sin is to repent of it and live a disciplined life in submission to Christ.

HT: GCMW - full story here.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

D.C. Mayor Apologizes For Appreciating Work For Ex-Gays

It appears that ex-gays are not included in the people that D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) wishes to be in his "inclusive" city.

For more: The Washington Post Article: Click Here and The PFOX Web Site and article: Click Here

HT Debra J M Smith

Friday, April 30, 2010

The Resurrection of Christ says this...

to Science - explain me!

to Technology - duplicate me!

to History - repeat me!

to Unbelief - disprove me!

to you and I - believe me!

- Dr. Jerry Vines

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

"Sexual orientation" - does the Bible even address this?

From gay christian movement watch: Click to read entire article! It is a must read!

What’s the intent of the term’s current usage?

The introduction of the phrase “sexual orientation” marked a watershed moment in our society. Finally homosexual activists and their allies had something in which they could conveniently insert just about any feeling or sexual behavior and call it “orientation”. It is an intentionally broad term because of the growing expressions of perversion needed a home and this provided it.

Planned Parenthood tells teens that “sexual orientation is the term used to describe whether a person feels sexual desire for people of the other gender, same gender, or both genders.”
The conventional gay wisdom is that you are what you feel. And no one can tell you what you feel is wrong for you. Typical postmodernist relativity stuff. As I asked a young gay man once who vigorously asserted to me that since he “felt” gay from the age of two, it was proof he actually was gay. I asked him if he’d felt like a pig since he was age two what would he be right now? Its silliness that doesn’t even qualify as logic.

You might be astonished to know that this type of shallow, illogical relativity has literally become “scientific” evidence upon which laws in this country are passed.

What implications does it have on the church?

Its dangerous and unbiblical for the church to adopt and include terms as “sexual orientation”. If the concept is biblical, then there is only one legitimate sexual orientation. God created man and oriented him sexually, emotionally and relationally to the woman. Thus any other attraction, emotion, feeling, behavior or the likes is illegitimate as it is rooted in fallen sinful nature.

Inclusion of such destructive terms continue to set the church at odds the divine plan of redemption. If sin can be justified with clever new phrases and “scholars” who sanctify the clever new phrases what will be the church’s message?

If our core message is not that man is hopelessly degenerate apart from the repentance and remission of sin, what is it that we will be teaching and preaching. Self help? Im ok, youre ok? All you need is a hug? No! Our core message is what distinguishes us from every other religion because it is the express reason Jesus Christ came, suffered, died and rose again. If we allow outside influences to dilute or change that message in the slightest, we stand to lose our identity.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Dr. Anne Wortham - I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama;

Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.

Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.

She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.

Recently she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure.


This article (below) by her is something worth your time to read.

Fellow Americans,


Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .


I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .


Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depends. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.


I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University 's Kennedy School of Government.


I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that a man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.


Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.


So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmy Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.


So, toast yourselves, 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee, Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.


There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.God Help Us all...

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Planned Parenthood's defintion of mercy

Abortion Pictures

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, once said, "the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." The question before us, then, is this. Is abortion an act of mercy or an act of violence? While it may be easy to casually maintain support for abortion in the abstract, it becomes much harder when the evidence is put before us.

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Whose hate speech?

The Tea Party folks are pikers compared to the unhinged left.

As self-interested Congressmen try to fool the public into thinking that Tea Partiers yelled the “N” word at them, even as not one shred of proof exists that it ever happened, let’s be reminded of what real hatred looks like… check out this little reminder.

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Queering the Census

FRC: update

In this year's census, the law should count for something. But unfortunately, a very troubling pattern has emerged here in Washington--a complete disregard for the national definition of marriage. First, Congress refused to exercise its constitutional authority when the District of Columbia imposed same-sex "marriage" on the city, deliberately violating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Soon after, John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel Management, decided to use federal dollars to pay for same-sex couples to enjoy the same benefits as married spouses.

The latest disregard for DOMA comes from the Commerce Department, which is actively encouraging people to ignore U.S. marriage law and invent new definitions for their relationships. In an ad (paid for by your hard-earned tax dollars), Census officials urge gay couples not to let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a favorable gay "marriage" count. While these unions only exist in D.C. and five U.S. states, the Bureau insists, "Same-sex couples who are married or consider themselves to be spouses [in any state], can identify one person to be a husband or wife."

Consider themselves to be spouses? What kind of government actively lobbies citizens to lie on their forms? Under this administration, America's legal realities may as well be minor hiccups on the road to a complete abolition of marriage and family. When it comes to advancing the extreme homosexual agenda of this White House, nothing matters. Not even the facts. If this video were honest, it would say, "Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex relationships as 'marriages.' If you are a same-sex couple, you should mark the box that says 'unmarried partner,' even if you are legally married in the state in which you reside."

For a group desperate to redefine marriage, skewing the data will help homosexuals amass even more Capitol clout. A spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force could barely contain her excitement. "It's humongous," she said. "Our opponents are rightfully concerned, because it does lend an air of legitimacy to our marriages. It's another way of weaving us into the fabric instead of continuing to see us as outsiders." Not surprisingly, gay and lesbian activists are pumping thousands of dollars into the campaign to bypass the law. Part of that effort includes television commercials with Star Trek actor George Takei. Wearing his old Starfleet uniform, he and his space alien "husband" try to push Americans into the final frontier of same-sex "marriage." "It doesn't matter whether you have a legal marriage license or not," Takei coaches viewers. "It only matters if you consider yourself married." As CNS News reported, this propaganda was even posted on the Census Bureau website, hinting at just how complicit the Obama government has been in sabotaging the DOMA. According to the Miami Herald, the government has become a major sponsor of the "queering the census" campaign.

In the end, the only thing this charade accomplishes is invalidating the entire process. What good are these numbers if the Bureau persuades people to fabricate them? Timothy Olson, the assistant division chief for the Census's field division, couldn't be more transparent about Washington's agenda. "We've been very public about our interaction with the gay community. I'm a gay man, and I head up the overall program..." The concern over the census goes beyond the use of fuzzy math to the use of fuzzy facts.

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Smithsonian's New Human Origins Exhibit Targets Students Who Doubt Darwinism

Casey Luskin at Evolution News & Views takes a look at the new human origins exhibit at the Smithsonian:

The most amusing part of the exhibit proudly explains that evolution predicted we'd lack evidence for evolution; that's how we know it's true!

That's right, this is how the nation's most prestigious natural history museum presents evolution: evolution predicts that evolution is supported both when we do and when we don't find confirming fossil evidence. Consider the following from the educator's guide:
Continue reading here . . .

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Luke 6:36-“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

Since we have received mercy from God, we are obligated to show mercy to those with physical or spiritual needs.

Jesus demonstrated His mercy many times as He went about healing people and casting out demons. Two blind men cried out, “‘Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!’ . . . And moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight, and followed Him” (Matt. 20:30, 34). He was also deeply moved in spirit and wept when He saw the sorrow that Lazarus’s death caused (John 11:33-36).

His greatest mercy was shown, though, to those with spiritual needs. Not only did He heal a paralytic, but He forgave his sins (Luke 5:18-25). He also prayed for His executioners, saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

We can show mercy by our physical acts. John says, “But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 John 3:17-18).

We must also show mercy spiritually. Because we have experienced God’s mercy, we should have great concern for those who have not. We show spiritual mercy by proclaiming the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to the unsaved and by praying that God would show His mercy to them.

We also demonstrate spiritual mercy by lovingly confronting sinning Christians: “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourselves, lest you too be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). Sinning Christians bring reproach on Christ and His church and will fall under God’s discipline. In such cases it is wrong to say nothing and let the harm continue.

God has promised us in Matthew 5:7 that we will receive mercy from Him if we are merciful to others. If we have received unlimited mercy from our loving God, if we have been lifted from our poor, sinful, wretched state to become citizens of heaven, how can we withhold mercy from others?

- John MacArthur www.gty.org

Friday, February 19, 2010

The World vs. the Kingdom

A great commentary by KyleA over ar GCMW!

If folks in your own church keep asking you why you are so concerned about the acceptance of homosexuality in the church, read this! Unfortunately, many self professing believers adhere to (love) the world's systems rather than God's Kingdom. Too many "love is never wrong" think the ones who speak up against such a worldliness, are more of a threat to the church, than the world's systems and beliefs creeping into the church. A worldly "love" is in fact, no love at all.

Make no mistake, the two (God's way and the World's way) are at opposite ends of the pole and will be in utter conflict until Christ returns to gather His sheep. You either belong to Him, or you belong to the world. (James 4:4)

John 3:17- "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."

Remember - the world was condemned already, so of course Jesus did not come to condemn it.

Homosexuality a sign of corporate decay

When addressing homosexuality, I believe the Bible uses that particular sin in the “corporate” sense meaning that when a group or society practices and/or accepts homosexual conduct as normal its a sign of complete moral decay.

Homosexuality is not necessarily greater or less than any other specific sin regarding individuals, but is rather a mark a society has completely broken down in EVERY matter of sin when homosexuality is engaged in accepted corporately. Romans 1:18-32 comes to mind.

I believe that there is particular emphasis given to homosexuality because essentially it attacks the very foundation of the creation of man. Man was created in the very image of God with the divine mandate to marry and bear children. This command is still in full effect. In this same gender sexual activity literally attacks the foundation of the scripture Genesis 1:1-28. In essence, if you can destroy the beginning you can destroy the future promise.

Homosexuality (and homosexual marriage) is a physical mockery of the spiritual marriage of Christ as the bridegroom and his Church as the bride. Such mockery has the potential to destroy the future promise if you disprove the beginning.

Now when I say “destroy” I’m not speaking of the literal sense because ALL things will come to pass. What I’m saying is that when a society in the corporate sense accepts homosexuality they are in essence attempting to destroy the foundation AND the promise, hence EVERYTHING in between.

In summary the Corporate acceptance homosexuality is a direct mockery of the foundations of creation. Therefore, the Corporate acceptance/engaging of homosexuality is a spiritual rejection of Creation in Genesis through Promise of consumantion in Revelation via physical homosexual activity.

In my summation it would then appear that these homosexual groups/movements are not merely “confused” but are antichrist in their intent, whether cognizant or not, on destroying Christ and his Church. This is why no believer should ever sanction or agree with any entity –whether secular or religious– that declares homosexuality to be an acceptable sexual expression in the eyes of God.

Finally, let me clearly state that this is NOT in any way shape or form an indictment on “individual” homosexuals. They like any other sinner need to repent, believe and turn away from their sin. Their individual sin(s) are no greater than anyone else’s. It is rather my opinion on the movement in the aggregate sense and its implications on biblical faith and why so much emphasis is directed towards that particular sin.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Tactics - A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions


This post is long overdue – that said, I highly recommend to all my brothers and sisters in Christ to read Greg Koukl’s book Tactics!


Click here to learn more about Koukl’s ministry Stand to Reason


This book was not only extremely informative about defending the Christian worldview by utilizing a sound and skillful argument, but it was quite convicting to me personally. Believers are faced with a world that is lost, in rebellion, and separated from God; the Truth has been under attack since creation and Tactics provides a well spring of sound reasoning tactics, that will at a minimum, put a nice little “rock” in the unbeliever's shoe; giving them something they will be forced to remember as they try to live a life arguing for things they call “true” [abortion, evolution, gay marriage, atheism etc...].


If you get frustrated or angry at those who argue for irrational conclusions, built around an argument entrenched in poor logic and indefensible conclusions disguised as science or secular philosophy, this book will change your entire approach. Paul reasoned and argued with anyone he could find at the synagogues, he did not call them names or dismiss them as simply “morons” – my favorite name calling tactic; he knew better than I when that was appropriate and when it was not. Koukl’s book reminded me, I as a believer - must be obedient to God and that calls us to be ambassadors for Christ, not ambassadors of our own personal likes and dislikes. We must remember, our arguments and positions are not built on a foundation of personal opinions, but rather God’s eternal word. Science, reason, and logic are all on God's side.


The apostle Paul knew all too well, that we must spend time maturing believers, not just “winning” them. Koukl’s book does just that. When believers help each other to become reproducing disciples, we will indeed turn the word upside down (Acts 17:5-7). There are those in the world who will most assuredly reject it, but Jesus promised that His sheep will hear His voice (John 10:16; 10:27; 18:37; Rev 3:20).

Still a Methodist?

Yet another shameful reminder of just how hard it is to remain in the United Methodist Church...

Sex and the Church — Ending heterosexism

In this article, Audrey Krumbach (a Field Organizer with the Reconciling Ministries Network and a graduate of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (GETS); who is also a deacon candidate in the Northern Illinois Conference) writes - "Two men who love one another until death can exemplify the possibility for a new masculine role of cooperation rather than competition. This is the gift of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the church. Homophobia prevents receiving this gift and growing into wholeness through it."

She gives these examples of what "homophobia" looks like:
  • Asking a single person if he or she has found a nice partner of the opposite gender to “settle down with."
  • Encouraging gender stereotypes such as little boys should play sports and little girls should wear pink.
  • Ignoring the anniversary of two women who have loved one another for 19 years.
  • Failing to include sexual orientation or gender identity in civic laws that protect diversity.
  • Identifying a person primarily by sexual orientation.
  • Not talking about sexual orientation.
  • Ignoring the biblical interpretation of Sodom as failure of hospitality.
  • Not talking about transgender or the spectrum of gender identities.
  • Describing families as “mommies and daddies.”

Your Apportionment Dollars at Work by Shane Raynor on February 09, 2010.

The Sex and the Church series published at the General Board of Church and Society website is about as edifying as Sex and the City.

The latest article discusses the "evils" of heterosexism. (One wonders if there are also such things as asexism, homosexism and bisexism.)


Did you know that if you assume that a little boy will like toy trucks and guns or that little girls will like dolls, you're a heterosexist and a homophobe? You're also a homophobe if you describe families as consisting of "mommies and daddies". Sodom and Gomorrah's big sin was a "failure of hospitality." And yes, you're a homophobe if you don't consider this to be a valid interpretation. That's what Audrey Krumbach says anyway.

Does the average United Methodist know that this kind of nonsense is being propagated by an official church agency? (Have we forgotten that the official view of the UMC is that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching"?) I attend a fairly liberal United Methodist church, but I'm betting that even in my congregation most of the people are in the dark about what's going on.

It's time to shine some light on some of these problems. A lot of shenanigans happen in our denomination because the average United Methodist either doesn't know or doesn't care. [Bold mine]

Frozen Wasteland

HT: 4simpsons

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Even "young" folks know crap when they hear it, thank God!

"Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck

DeYoung writes:

"I know that some in my generation have a hard time with truth claims. But I'm convinced that there are just as many of us--Christian and not--in our postmodern world who are tired of endless uncertainties and doctrinal repaintings. We are tired of indecision and inconsistency reheated and served to us as paradox and mystery. Some of us long for teaching that has authority, ethics rooted in dogma, and something unique in this world of banal diversity. We long for Jesus--not a shapeless, formless, good-hearted ethical teacher Jesus, but the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus of the church, the Jesus of faith, the Jesus of two millennia of Christian witness with all of its unchanging and edgy doctrinal propositions."

"Emerging Christianity" has a big problem, even if it does ask some good questions; the answers it provides are found in places other than God's word - usually one's imagination or "we" just cannot know Truth with any certainty.

Who do you think benefits from such an approach? God or God's enemy?

God is not interested in confusion, in fact, it is the utter clarity of God's word that offends those in rebellion. That, dear reader, is a timeless Truth - not a mystery.

The coming out party

Some of us may have friends who are self professing Christians, announce one day they are are "gay." They will tell you they've know it since the were "like" six years old, and they still love God and will serve Him and tell others about Christ.

The argument seems to be, the younger one realizes they are sick in sin, then it really can't be sin. Perhaps it is just the way God made them?

They may say that no man or church will ever keep them from loving Jesus and serving Him.

What does God say about those who profess a sincerity in following Him, but do not keep His commandments? 1 John 2.

They may say they have prayed for years, asked forgiveness for many sins, fasted, and yet they remain gay.

What does God say about giving up and accepting (and in this case - celebrating) the sin in our lives? How long is long enough?

They may say - I am one of the "whosoever", and Jesus loves me the way I am - gay.

If Jesus loves us just the way we are - why does he command repentance (a 180 degree turn)?

They may say that no church should tell others how they are to be before coming to Christ.

Guess what "gay Christian" is doing now? He or she is attacking the church, blaming the church for proclaiming what God has already set forth - a Holy standard. Surly there are bad churches everywhere, but this argument is silly. A true church is obedient and under the authority of God's word; the gay christian (and or nominal christian) wants to be a christian without the obedience and authority all Christians share; God's word.

Just how far will folks go to justify their sin? When God's grace is being withdrawn, the depths are unimaginable and the gay christian coming out parties will be on the increase.

Don't miss the signs folks, you cannot love anyone into the Kingdom of God; their minds must be transformed. We must repent and believe, and "we" means everyone!

Friday, January 08, 2010

Myths and misconceptions about marriage

Ever wonder why you don’t hear gay and lesbian leaders lecturing people, “You ought to stop shacking up and get married” ?

Answer is - The homosexual advocates want marriage as an option, not as a norm. But if it’s not a norm for them, then it’s not going to be a norm for anybody else.

Please read this excellent artice by Alan Wisdom of the IRD.

Rediscovering Marriage

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Brit Hume's shining example: the darkness will always hate the Light

Washington Post columnist Tom Shales’ recent article on Brit Hume’s comments is a shining example of exactly what is wrong with a liberal minded culture.

Liberals in general, have been stuffing our nation’s youth with the False idea that absolute Truths do not exist. Perhaps Mr. Shales is just another “victim” of such a crappy education? I doubt it. God’s sheep hear His voice, those who have another father, do not.

Tom Shales writes – “Noting that Woods has referred to himself as a Buddhist, Hume knocked his fellow "Fox News" panelists for mortified loops when he dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet with the remark, "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith."

It sounded a little like one of those Verizon vs. AT&T commercials -- our brand is better than your brand -- except that Hume was comparing two of the world's great religions, not a couple of greedy communications conglomerates. Further, is it really his job to run around trying to drum up new business? He doesn't really have the authority, does he, unless one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize?

1. Either Christianity is True or it is not. Yes, “one brand” is True and the other is False.

2. Yes, it is every believers “job” to tell others about Jesus Christ. To do otherwise, would be like watching a man burn while holding a perfectly functioning fire hose.

3. Yes, a believer does have the authority and commission to “proselytize.” That authority, by the way, comes from our creator.

What is most ironic, if not moronic, is Tom Shales’ entire column is his own attempt to “proselytize” his readers to think like him; specifically convince us that all faiths are True, and the similarities in one’s faith are more important than the differences. You will please notice, he does NOT tell his readers why his view would be more logical or more reasonable. It is, as he states, just plain wrong to offend a "majority" or large number of folks, by telling them what they believe is untrue.

If what I believed was false and had eternal consequences, I'd want to know, and not a small number of Buddhists have as well. They are now believers - in the Truth (Christians).

Tom Shales demands an apology from a man who spoke the Truth – why? If Christianity is false, if Jesus Christ was not God in flesh and God’s word is not absolute truth – give us the reason why, and why we should believe you - Mr. Shales.

Tom Shales knows very well he is unqualified for such an endeavor – by the mere fact he would have to explain away two-thousand years of history. Both Jesus’ followers and His enemies attest to the fact the tomb was empty, is just one tiny obstacle.

You see, Christianity is the only faith that is True; history, science, and archaeological evidence keep giving men more and more evidence. I ask you - how much evidence do you need?

Indeed – there is something about that name “Jesus”! In fact, the Tom Shales of the world, their very own reaction, is what Jesus Christ said it would be – unbelief.

...and that my dear reader is why folks go to hell for eternity, not a lack of reasonable logical evidence!