National Religious Broadcasters Using Oneness Modalist Heretic TD Jakes To Get Out The Vote

Driving to work this morning viewing the effects of the terrible thunderstorms that spared my neighborhood but hard hit the one right next to mine, I was listening to Christian radio. Out of the blue comes TD Jakes’ booming voice. In it, he first speaks of how much he loves America and so forth. I immediately thought of Jakes doing this to exploit anger over Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, and Jeremiah Wright’s considerably less than jingoistic statements and actions. Then he went into his exhortation spiel for people to register and get out to vote. 

First, I see Lifeway Bookstores, owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, selling TD Jakes’ doctrinal error (oneness pentecostalism and the Word of Faith/prosperity doctrine are but a few of his MANY problems) and now the National Religious Broadcasters are using this guy. I had been using the NRB as a sort of a refuge from the blatant charismania that you will find on The Word Network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Daystar, etc. So I just ignored the heavy Pat Robertson presence on the channel, as well as their “white Europeans are the descendants of the children of Israel … the Danube River is so named because of the tribe of Dan” show that comes on early in the morning. I also ignored their embrace of the Ellen White Seventh Day Adventist cult. So I suppose that I cannot cast NRB aside on Jakes’ account, since the ones that I just named are hardly better - if anything some might be worse - or else I would be reacting out of a personal dislike for Jakes rather than on principle. (On the other hand, Slice of Laodicea has criticized NRB, albeit for different reasons, such as this post stating that not one red cent of NRB’s $5 BILLION IN ASSETS is being used to defend the faith from Oprah Winfrey.)

Incidentally, speaking of TD Jakes and PR spots, he has another one out (I did not catch the sponsor!) promoting single sex education, saying that “boys need their own schools so that they will be able to, you know, romp and stuff (his choice of words not mine!) and that boys learn differently from girls and needed their own classrooms in order to be accommodated. So … it looks like Jakes is not that far removed from Jeremiah Wright’s separatist doctrines after all? 

I have to be honest, back when I was part of the religious right and allowing my worldview to be shaped by the Washington Times and the National Review, I was in full agreement. But now … I just recall reading about this inner city public school that went all male. Sure, the discipline problems decreased and the test scores went up. But when they interviewed the boys that attended the school, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WANTED THEM TO BRING THE GIRLS BACK! Why? Because, er … BOYS LIKE GIRLS! Or at least they are supposed to anyway. Perhaps now that T.D. Jakes is on board with the new world order’s gay rights agenda (and yes this is relevant … perhaps due to his son) he thinks it is OK. To me, the whole single sex education thing … who wants it? Certainly not the kids. Not the administrators or teachers. Parents go for it only because they are desperate for any hook or angle to improve the failing school systems that the government is ruining on purpose. Not even the old fashioned religious sorts - of which I am one - think that it is a good idea anymore, where you were supposed to keep boys and girls separate in their little boarding or finishing schools (where they were supposed to look OH SO CUTE in their little uniforms I guess) UNTIL GRADUATION DAY WHEN YOU MARRY THEM OFF.

Sorry people, but society has changed. Not all of the changes have been for the good, but methinks that one of the most important things for a boy to learn from school is how to treat a lady and how to behave yourself in their presence. For some of us guys, those things do not come naturally, and you only learn them through trial and error. Especially error. (If you don’t learn to handle competition and rejection in junior high and high school, how on earth are you supposed to handle being turned down for jobs, promotions, college choices, etc. later in life?) So … HOW ON EARTH ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO LEARN THOSE THINGS IF THERE ARE NO GIRLS AROUND TO LEARN THEM FROM? 

Like I said, TD Jakes may have his own reasons for wanting to turn your local public school into Morehouse College or similar, and whatever they are I oppose them 100%. All the more reason why the Southern Baptist Convention should not be selling this guy’s books and NRB shouldn’t be using him for their get out the vote campaign. But I suppose that this oneness anti - Trinitarian heretic is just too good at making money and moving public opinion for these people to pass up. That is, unless they are actually along with Jakes, on his side. After all, the Southern Baptists refuse to do anything about the likes of New Age heretic Erwin McManus and Council on Foreign Relations worker Rick Warren (and Richard Land too?), and as stated earlier, Al Sharpton Al Gore global warming propagandist partner Pat Robertson is a major partner with the NRB. 

Jesus Camp: Bewitching Our Children With False Doctrines

When I first started this website, I enthusiastically endorsed Jesus camps, thinking that they were an excellent way to turn children into spiritual warriors - as it WAS initially a charismatic spiritual warfare site - from an early age. Well … WOW WAS I WRONG! Jesus camps use the evil combination of spiritually seductive charismatic slain in the spirit frenzy and dominion theology politics. Instead of teaching children to pray for their enemies, to show kindness to the poor and elderly people, to interpret the Bible and discern doctrines, to worship and praise the Lord in a dignified manner becoming His glory, and to exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit, these folks are feeding these children false Christian doctrines and fascist notions of merging church, state, culture, etc. that will makes any of them that internalize this spiritual evil easy pickings for the anti - Christ and moreover very willing workers in the plot to create the climate where the man of sin will take power. The more things like this come out, as well as things with the Jesus Seminar, Mike Huckabee, Jeremiah Wright … Bible believing Christians have to start speaking out. There is something seriously wrong with both the religious right and the religious left, and we have to start boldly opposing it with the Word of God.

Watch this video below and pray for these children … and for their parents. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7157148037183248346

Pope Benedict XVI Plus George Bush Plus Battle Hymn Of The Republic Plus Five Supreme Court Justices Equals FASCISM!

Click Here To Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Now I was going to ignore Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America. I believe in religious freedom and tolerance, and see nothing to be gained by unnecessarily provoking people concerning their deeply held beliefs. I opposed the re - publication of the Muhammad cartoons for the same reason. Not only does such behavior fail to advance the cause of Jesus Christ, but it actually impedes the spread of the gospel by producing a public witness of Christians as being fearful, dishonest, aggressive, and lacking in compassion, mercy, and respect. The best example of this is the revolting racist Ann Coulter, who uses the legitimate truth that Jesus Christ is superior as an excuse to vehemently trash (OVERWHELMINGLY NONWHITE!) Muslims while extending politically expedient pluralistic salvation to (OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE!) Jews and Mormons. So despite the incontrovertible error of the Roman Catholic Church, I was going to remain silent out of respect to members of that false religion, as many of them are good people, and I pray that they are brought out of their error into Biblical Christianity just as I was brought out of works - based prosperity/Word of Faith Pentecostal Holiness. 

And then this happens. To the absolute glee of the religious right and warmongers everywhere (and regrettably to those deceived by them, for example the grieving father of a serviceman killed in Iraq that called into the Hugh Hewitt radio show last night - and yes Hewitt both continued his campaign to define religious faith in political/cultural terms and insist that Mormonism was a branch of Christianity based on it), George W. Bush plays “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” for the pontiff (whom Catholics call “the Shepherd”, not “a shepherd, which all pastors are, BUT THE SINGULAR ONE SHEPHERD). Listen, “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” IS NOT our national anthem. Now our national anthem is militaristic as well, but at least there would have been a REASON for playing it … it is our national anthem and therefore an entirely appropriate accompaniment to state ceremonies. Therefore, playing it would not have sent any religious and political messages (quite the contrary, one would be more likely to send a message by NOT playing it). But as for “Battle Hymn Of The Republic“, there is no ceremonial, traditional, etc. REASON to play that song unless you are trying to send a message, and with Bush the message was none other than the Iraq War and our national policy of warfare in general.

You would reply “So? Who did not know that George W. Bush and for that matter the Bush family is anything other than a bunch of warmongering globalists?” Well, THE POPE is what makes it an issue here. Now due to the nature of his position, the pope is SUPPOSED to be OFFICIALLY anti - war. But realize that state visits involving highly influential dignitaries are extremely sensitive matters with every detail agreed to and choreographed in advance in order to remove even the appearance of an insult by both the parties involved and the populations that they represent. And yes, a gigantic percentage of the national and global Roman Catholic Church, from laity to high ranking church officials, deeply oppose the Iraq War and what it represents: a major and global escalation of warfare and related tactics either directly (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) or by proxy (i.e. encouraging Ethiopia to invade Somalia). So the playing of this song - which would have been extraordinary even absent this context - would have not occurred without prior personal approval from Pope Benedict XVI himself. And Pope Benedict XVI would NEVER have given said approval unless he supported our military policy on some level, even if that support was not full or official.

Keep in mind: the pope is not under any obligation to make a public ceremony of meeting the president when visiting this country, and he certainly is not beholden to being subjected to conduct that he and his members find offensive and disagreeable while there. So had this not been acceptable to the pope, Bush would have asked to play the song, the pope would have said no, and that would have been it. Had Bush insisted, the pope would have simply refused to meet Bush in a public ceremony (or at all). Under those circumstances, NO ONE would have asked why the pope refused to meet with Bush, for the pope meets with virtually everybody. Instead, it would have been asked why Bush failed to receive the pope. And under those circumstances, an appropriate low level Vatican functionary would have been assigned the duty of “leaking” Bush’s completely unreasonable, inappropriate, and quite frankly INSANE demands to play A WAR SONG IN SUPPORT OF A WAR THAT THE VATICAN’S LONG AND WELL KNOWN POSITION IS TO OPPOSE during the visit to the (already hostile) foreign press, with the result being an international public relations firestorm. In short, on a matter such as this, the pope has all the leverage. He would not have exercised said leverage to consent to this highly unusual request - and in the process crossed the substantial portion of his church (possibly even a clear majority!) that oppose this war - had he not supported the politics, policy, and propaganda behind it on some level. Evidence of this is the absolute glee of the pro - war crowd. 

And then after the Bush reception of the pope (which incidentally was not only unprecedented, but would have been IMPOSSIBLE before Billy Graham’s evangelical - Roman Catholic ecumenism, IMPOSSIBLE before Ronald Reagan created white Roman Catholic and evangelical political ecumenism, and IMPOSSIBLE before Reagan established official diplomatic relations with the Vatican including the Roman Catholic Church’s own ambassador who must be appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative one … someone PLEASE explain to me how this DOES NOT VIOLATE the First Amendment’s ban on the government’s favoring any one religious view over another) there was a reception that included Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts at minimum. Robert Kennedy may have been there too, but Kathryn Jean Lopez, the token minority at the National Review, does not include him as a “favorite” of hers. This woman, who has lately taken to blatantly cheerleading for our nation’s institutions and culture to increasingly reflect - and be governed by - Roman Catholicism, actually claimed that the event “was a terrific celebration at the White House of the pontiff, religious freedom, and  Catholicism“! And here is another entry from this loathsome enemy of Jesus Christ where she manages to A) claim that this nation is prosperous, virtuous, and free because it was founded on Roman Catholic principles (a notion which no doubt will soon be reflected in the religious right’s approved history books an curriculum), B) insult Protestants by comparing it to Mitt Romney’s “accept Mormons as Christians evangelicals just as Roman Catholics accepted you or be declared a bigot and the enemy” speech, and C) make a gratuitous “joking” slam against Protestants just for the fun of it. (This woman is still fuming over the evangelical refusal to bow to the notion that not being in the Roman Catholic Church places them on equal footing with Mormons, oneness pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientologists, or any other crackpot cult group that wants to lay claim to Jesus Christ.)

Now Christians, I know a lot of you view Islam as a global threat to our faith, freedom, prosperity, culture, and way of life, believe that this threat should be met militarily, and for that reason support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror in general in some form. I respect those views in the hearts of sincere and well - informed Christians that hold them; I just happen to disagree with them. Still, such Christians have to start investigating the history of the Bush family, their national and international political/business/social associations and activities, and also those of the globalist societies that they are members of or consort with (which now, let us face it, incontrovertibly includes the Roman Catholic Church … this may be gratuitous, but let me remind you that the meeting of Bush and Benedict was literally one between a member of the family that made a lot of money off the Nazi regime and a former member of the regime itself … Benedict was literally a Hitler youth).

Also, study the political, military, and FINANCIAL decisions made in pursuit of this war. It bears no resemblance to actually capturing and punishing the people that have been attacking us and our interests since the early 1990s (in response, let me remind you, to our long term threats, provocations, and military actions against THEM), neutralizing any future threats, or containing whatever threat to the west and its allies that Islam allegedly poses. I will say this: the full scale invasion of foreign nations strategy of Islam has been effectively abandoned ever since their defeat by Charles Martel at Tours. The reason is THEOLOGICAL: the Muslims sincerely believed that their moon god was fighting for them at the time, was responsible for all of their victories, and that global military conquest followed by their version of the endtimes was at hand. So, when they were defeated in such a decisive manner, that forced a change in their theological outlook. Thus, despite the presence of 1 billion Muslims in the world, no one can name the last time that there has been a full scale invasion and subjugation of a non - Muslim country. (By contrast, Muslim areas have been invaded and/or controlled by the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, India, etc. in just the past 50 - 75 years!) Why is this the case?

Again, refer to the fact that THERE ARE NOW ONE BILLION MUSLIMS. Immigration, evangelism, and reproduction has proven to be a much more effective method of spreading their faith than the sword, and if anything going off and launching an invasion of any western nation (which would be technologically superior AND have the backing of other western allies) would not only be suicide, but it would lead to crackdowns of the very same liberal immigration policies that have allowed millions of Muslims to enter (and spread their faith to) western nations over the past few decades. As such, the Bosnia - Serbia - Kosovo mess is a perfect illustration of the current Islam strategy. And who did the United States back? Why the very Muslims that brazenly stole a large chunk of a Christian nation for themselves. 

Which proves that the entire war on terror AND the basis for it is a sham. Were it real, we would have done two things.

1) We would have gone after specific groups with a history of violence against us and our allies AND the nations that supply them with money, weapons, and hiding places. America has done the opposite by not only maintaining diplomatic relations with known terror sponsors like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority (which is actually the closeted homosexual Yasser Arafat’s PLO, people!) to speak nothing of our “special relationship” with Pakistan (which we had with Iraq not too ago!), but we are increasing the pressure on Israel to negotiate with Hamas (just as we forced them to negotiate with the PLO, and see where THAT got Israel … less land, more intifadas, rocket attacks, a collapsing economy, and a deteriorating internal political situation). Excuse me, but what are we supposed to gain by declaring the domestic army of a sovereign nation (Iran’s Revolutionary Guard) to be a “terrorist group”? Even better: what justifies this action? The ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE that they are helping folks that share their religion FIGHT THE SUPERPOWER THAT INVADED THE NATION NEXT DOOR? Sure, like if the Soviet Union had invaded Canada and Mexico during the Cold War we would have just sat around twiddling our thumbs waiting to be next. We were willing to go to start a nuclear war over the Soviet Union putting missiles in Cuba, but Iran is supposed to just do nothing after we A) put them on our axis of evil list, B) attack the regime of the neighboring country that we put in power to attack THEM in the 1980s, C) attack the nearby Afghanistan regime that we put in power to drive out the Soviets in the 1980s, and D) spend YEARS leading an international chorus demanding economic sanctions against them after the manner that caused the deaths of from 500,000 to 1,000,000 people OF THE NATION NEXT DOOR, sanctions that were used to weaken THE NATION NEXT DOOR to prepare for an invasion of THE NATION NEXT DOOR. Why? BECAUSE IRAN IS STARTING THE VERY SAME NUCLEAR PROGRAM THAT WE ALLOWED PAKISTAN TO COMPLETE WITHOUT BATTING AN EYE? What makes it OK for Pakistan to have the potential for weapons of mass destruction but not Iran or Iraq, ESPECIALLY SINCE USAMA BIN LADEN IS HIDING IN PAKISTAN RIGH