Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for the ‘secular humanism’ Category

Will Smith’s Remarks On Adolph Hitler Well Represent Liberal Christianity

Posted by Job on December 26, 2007

Actual Christianity teaches the total depravity of man, that mankind is born in sin. Liberal Christianity and Scientology (in addition to Judaism, Islam, and basically every other religion, ideology, belief system, etc.) teaches that man is basically good. So Smith states what pretty much everyone who is not a Bible – believing Christian holds to be true … that Hitler was basically good and could have been saved by reprogramming (or auditing or re – education).

Now again, all Smith did was speak what every other person that rejects the total depravity of man believes. It is just that for political correctness reasons, we are not supposed to apply that belief to Adolph Hitler. The case of Hitler requires them to suspend their ideology; to be situational in their ethics. Because Smith is a bit more honest than the average bloke (remember the mini – controversy that he generated in stating that the reason why a Hispanic actress was cast as his love interest in “Hitch” rather than a black or white one was because of financial concerns) he was willing to take this “man is basically good” belief to its actual implications.

So, you have the Jewish Defense League demanding that the man’s career be ended for simply stating what every person that rejects biblical Christianity and with it the total depravity of man believes. When you really think about it, these people really do believe that the only people that are going to spend eternity in the lake of fire are going to be Adolph Hitler plus a few other notorious criminals. The reason why man is unwilling to condemn anyone other than the worst of the worst as evil is because they know that if they go beyond that they are condemning themselves. People know the truth not only of their own behavior but the imagination of their own hearts: what they would do if they thought they could get away with it. But they deny the truth because because accepting the total depravity of man means that you will have to submit yourself to the sovereignty of God as your only hope. So long as the person rejects his own depravity, he tells himself that he will never have to bow his knee to a holy righteous God.

Friends, I urge you not to give yourself over to this self – delusion that man is basically good and only needs proper education and other methods of self – improvement. Acknowledge that you need the Savior Jesus Christ to wash you clean of your sinful nature with His own Blood! Accept Jesus Christ in your heart right now by following The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Posted in atheism, christian left, christian liberalism, Christianity, humanism, liberal christian, Scientology, secular humanism | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

The Purpose Driven Campaign: Mike Huckabee Shows His True Colors By Apologizing To Mormon Mitt Romney

Posted by Job on December 13, 2007

msnbc.msn.com/id/22239946/

Make no mistake, by apologizing to Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee chose political ambition over the true gospel of Jesus Christ. People, there is nothing to apologize for here. First of all, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is a creature, a created being. Now the Mormon religion of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and similar specifically sought to distinguish themselves from Christianity, to the point of calling us “apostates” and “Gentiles.” Their modern goal, however, is to get Mormonism to be regarded “a Christian denomination” so that people will view going from Mormonism to Christianity as being no different from going to Presbyterianism to Lutheranism or Methodism to Baptism. So they do not make it publicly known that Mormonism holds Jesus Christ to be a creature. Instead, they tell you that they regard Jesus Christ as the son of God, and leave it at that. Of course, their hope is that the person who hears that will do so according to the assumptions inherent in Christianity, and presume that Mormons believe the same thing that we do. They do not. Christians know that Jesus Christ is uncreated but rather has always existed as part of the Triune Godhead, the same as the Father and equal to the Father. Mormons claim that God created Jesus Christ just as He created bugs and rocks. Further, consider the fact that Christianity knows that God and Jesus Christ are of the same essence or substance. This cannot be according to Mormonism, for the Mormon god does not truly “create”, call things into existence out of nothing, but rather reorganizes matter that already exists. So while it is incorrect to say that the Mormon Jesus was created by nebular space dust, he cannot be of the same essence or substance as the Father, cannot be equal to the Father, and cannot in any sense be deity. And this leaves alone the fact that Mormonism holds that God the Father Himself was a man who progressed to godhood.

So is the notion that Jesus Christ and Satan are spirit brothers offensive to Mormons and should not be said? Well consider this: the notion was not first said by Christians! Rather, it was first said by Mormons themselves! This is where such comments can be found:

Bruce R. McConkie The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, Pg.407-408
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, on page 744
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, Pg.218 -Pg.219
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., In the Discourses of Brigham Young, on Pg.53-54
Joseph Fielding Smith’s Gospel Doctrine, on Page 371
Otten & Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants, Vol.2, Pg.28
John A. Widtsoe Evidences and Reconciliations, Pg.209
James E. Talmage in his book, “Jesus the Christ,” on Pages 132 & 133
Neal A. Maxwell, in his book Deposition of a Disciple, on Pages 11 & 12
Sterling W. Sill, writing for the Improvement Era, December 1970, Pg.79
Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, Pg.95
Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle, Pg.87
Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pg.216, The Savior’s Example
The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.33, 163

This is far from a comprehensive list, but rather what appears on a single web page, which also contains the relevant quotes from those passages that I did not include for space purposes. Of course, Mormons will say that they are taken apart from context, and that is not entirely unfair. But that ignores the fact that 1. the false teaching exists to be taken apart from context to begin with and 2. their attempts to place it into proper context generally consists of little more than attempting to demonstrate that their doctrine is justified in the Bible. The primary purpose of their claim that their teachings are misunderstood and taken out of context is to avoid having to admit their doctrine that Jesus Christ is a mere creature and it is further extremely unlikely that Christians would have said such a thing – for it is one thing to be a creature but quite another to be Satan’s brother – had Mormons themselves not first said so.

Mitt Romney knows this. That is why the speech of his that is being given so much praise by the religious right apostates specifically called Jesus Christ the Son of God but went no further, with Romney dishonestly claiming that saying any more violates the spirit of Article 6 of the Constitution. Well why even say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God since Jews, Muslims, and even liberal Christians in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. who believe that Jesus Christ was just an ordinary man cannot say the same? Simple: Romney does not so much fear “anti – Mormon bigotry” as he is insistent upon making acceptance of Mormonism and his candidacy a package deal.

Is Romney overtly evangelizing in the sense that he is passing out Mormon tracts at campaign events? No. But by establishing terms where it is inappropriate to talk about the differences between Mormons and Christians by exploiting not so much as Article 6 but the concept of “civil public religion” that was created in the early days of this country so that there could be cooperation between Unitarians, deists, freemasons, Enlightenment agnostics, and Christians and was recreated under the banner of “the religious right” to unite Catholics, Jews, and evangelical Christians, Romney is trying to get Mormonism included within the religious political mainstream. Please realize that this religio – political mainstream was never formed to promote spiritual aims – for the groups have disparate spiritual beliefs and agendas – but rather for secular ones. In other words, the civil religion of our founding fathers and of the modern religious right is in fact no less than the very secular humanism that these people hypocritically claim to oppose, and the hypocrisy is no less than Mitt Romney taking the position that his own Article 6 views should not apply to an atheist.

What Romney and his allies are doing is using politics to advance the evil notion that a false religion is just as good as Christianity so long as “you have the right values.” Basically, it is a values based – or should I say works based – universal common religion. In that respect, it is no different from the religious left! For an example, let us turn to the center of the Roman Catholic – Jewish – evangelical neoconservative universalism, the National Review, specifically comments from their “The Corner” weblog.

Mormonism & “Weirdness” [Mike Potemra]

Thanks to all the readers who passed along their kind words in response to my post about Mormons. To the readers, on the other hand, who have written me about how I should be worried about the (in the words of one) “extremely strange” and “Scientology-level strange” beliefs of Mormons, here’s my response: In my own faith, we believe that the cause of all evil was a single mistake by human beings many millennia ago—but that the situation was set right . . . because we murdered an innocent man 2,000 years ago. Therefore: I’m not about to throw stones about beliefs that sound weird to people who don’t share them. (First of all, Christians do not oppose Mormonism because it is “weird” but because it is WRONG. And if you are unwilling to throw stones, then it is only because you believe Christianity to be a glass house. Therefore, you are not a believer.)

Michael Novak and Mormonism [Mike Potemra]

I want to second something Michael Novak said. In my decades’ worth of meeting people from many different religious backgrounds, I have found that in every faith tradition-Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, what have you-there is roughly the same proportion of nice people and jerks. To this rule there is one conspicuous exception: Mormons. I have yet to meet a single Mormon who has been a jerk-and I have met many LDS believers. As someone who grew up in Rudy Giuliani’s faith, and is now somewhere between Mike Huckabee’s and John McCain’s, I find Mitt Romney’s religious background a factor that makes me more, rather than less, likely to vote for him. (Of course, this means that Potemra is not black, so the Mormon teaching that blacks are the cursed seed of Ham means nothing to him. Potemra also has not administered a weblog which calls Mormonism a false religion that will fill you full of demons and send you to the lake of fire for an eternity, because if he did he would CERTAINLY encounter a multitude of Mormons that are not nearly so nice. Even were what he said true … so what? Where in the Bible does it say that “nice people” are going to heaven? Was Jesus Christ being “nice” when He drove the thieves from the temple and told the Pharisees that invited Him to their house as a dinner guest that they were going to the lake of fire?)

That is just a few. Basically, read the National Review and you will encounter Catholics who see little difference between Mormons, Jews, and Protestant Christians, evangelicals who see little difference between Mormons, Jews, and Catholics, and Jews who have Catholics, Protestant Christians, and Mormons all in the same boat. The same is true of the Weekly Standard, Human Events, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, etc. Why? Because it is a secular movement and not a religious one, and Romney’s agenda is to get Mormons a seat at this secularist table that exploits religious organizations to pursue their secular goals.

And why not? Mormons outnumber Jews numerically, and to be quite honest the GOP party machinery would much rather keep evangelicals within the same position as the Democrats have blacks: seen on election day and given token representation in response, but nothing in terms of actual power or setting an agenda. And that is why these people have the sharp knives out for Huckabee for being a fiscal moderate but are just fine with Rudy Giuliani for being to the left of most Democrats on social issues. The concessions that Romney and Giuliani had to make to govern with Democrats are just fine, but Huckabee is held to some mythic Barry Goldwater standard (hypocritically of course, because the Barry Goldwater in this race, Ron Paul, they hate him too!).

Why? Because rank and file evangelicals are motivated by religion, and not some vision of the way things ought to be based on their secular views, and the GOP does not want anyone representing them to gain real power. The truth is that the GOP has the same view of evangelicals as the left does: fanatics seeking to make the United States a Christian Taliban regime. They just will not admit it because they need evangelicals to retain power so that they can implement their secular ideas. In that respect, they are no different from Democrats, who in case you have noticed is in no hurry to actually be governed by blacks.

So how does getting involved with this den of liars and thieves advance Mormonism? Simple. If Mormonism is included within our “conservative secular religion”, as we well know what is considered acceptable in the secular realm will also be considered acceptable in mainstream Christianity. So just as conversions from evangelical Christianity into Roman Catholicism, once unthinkable, has become not only commonplace but even trendy thanks to the religious right (and see how one of the first prominent religious right leaders to do so, Richard Neuhaus, all but claims Mormonism to be no different from Protestant Christianity here http://www.irr.org/mit/Neuhaus.html with “The history of Christianity, notably since the sixteenth-century Reformation, is littered with prophets and seers who have reestablished “the true church,” usually in opposition to the allegedly false church of Rome, and then, later, in opposition to their own previously true churches” and many similar statements). And now you have Christianity Today, the most prominent evangelical Christian publication, taking seriously the claim that evangelicals should abandon sola scriptura – scripture alone – and accept manmade tradition in order to accommodate and facilitate the growing intermingling between evangelicals and Catholics. Of course, there is no real difference between accepting the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and the tradition of Joseph Smith. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. See Why So Many Prominent Catholics Are Supporting Romney and Bob Novak Joins Catholic Chorus Lying For Mormon Mitt Romney for an example of what I speak.

Truthfully, it is happening already. Here are the comments of evangelical Christian John Schroeder about why Christians should not oppose the teachings that Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers: “Let’s see, we creedal Christians (the new name for Christians for Mormons as calling us apostates and Gentiles is now too strident I guess) believe Satan is a fallen angel; therefore created by God. Save for the by now widely known and completely irrelevant to politics differences in views of the Godhead – Where’s the beef?” here. He is not the only one. Some religious right leaders are actually going about claiming that Mormonism is fully compatible with the Bible, and that the differences are only interpretations, depictions, semantics, etc.

Now Huckabee Hound could expose this whole racket. But he apologizes for telling the truth even in the most timid of fashions! By doing so, Huckabee furthers the precedent that Christians cannot speak the truth outside of a church setting (and even now, the religious right sharks are digging through his old sermons to find information to embarrass him) by retreating from it. Now is this about respecting the beliefs of Mormons? Of course it is, and Christians should have no respect for a lie. Having respect for a lie is akin to either declaring agnosticism on the lie being true or pretending that all liars will have any other fate than the lake of fire. And it has nothing to do with disrespecting Mormons themselves. Disrespecting anyone, Mormons included, is a sin because we are all created in the image of God.

Take the person that claims that 1 + 1 = 3. Should we respect that man? Of course, for he is made in the image of God. Should we respect that man’s belief that 1 + 1 = 3? Of course not, for we know that it is a lie! And do not think that believing that 1 + 1 = 3 (and all of the negative assumptions and deductions that would follow from it) is a trivial matter. Would you hire such a person as an engineer to design dams and bridges? As a pharmacist to fill prescriptions? Of course not! Suffering such a person in that matter will result in the natural deaths of innocent people. So how much less should we have respect for a false religion that will result in people being cast into the lake of fire for eternity?

Now it does turn out that Mormons do not believe the same about Christians, believing that Christians who do good works will receive positive accommodations by God in the afterlife (by the way, this was not the original teaching of Joseph Smith, a fact which many Mormons are unaware of) and get highly offended when they hear of Christians consigning them to the lake of fire. But why should we have any more respect to the offense given to Mormons on this matter than anyone else? And if we are not willing to offend with the gospel, then we have no gospel.

Again, Huckabee knows this. Huckabee did not apologize on the account of Mormons, from whom he knows he will receive precious few votes. Huckabee apologized to curry favor with those who believe “if this is what Huckabee believes about Mormons, then he believes the same about me … that I am going to the lake of fire too, and I am offended by that!” Huckabee’s apology was not for the benefits of Mormons that reject Jesus Christ, but non – Mormons who do, and that includes not a few professed Christians that are politically conservative but practice a modern humanistic faith that either does not condemn anyone with “good values” to the lake of fire or does not force them to be confronted with the reality of the horror that actual living, breathing people that they see every day are going to receive this most horrible fate. And yes, he also apologized for the benefit of legitimate evangelical Christians that are hesitant to vote for anyone “divisive” and “controversial” and were attracted to Huckabee precisely because of his populist positive campaign (a formula that he learned from Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven apostate movement: Why The Media Likes Mike Huckabee So Much: He Is A Rick Warren Worker!). If Huckabee used the Warren method to grow a tiny Arkansas church to a 10,000 person megachurch, then getting Christian voters to choose him over Rudy Giuliani is no small accomplishment. The problem is that he is getting evangelicals to vote for him for the same theologically thin, suspect, and compromised reasons that he, Warren, and other Purpose Driven/emergent types get people to join their churches in the first place.

And the Rick Warren piece is key here. While Huckabee is using electoral politics to recruit conservative evangelicals through presidential process, Rick Warren is going after liberals and those in other religions. First of all, note his relationship with – gasp! – MORMONS!

Rick Warren ‘Works With’ and ‘Strengthens’ Mormon Churches and Other Non-Christian Sects

Second, see how Warren is going after Muslims: ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: THE DEITY OF CHRIST and also Rick Warren Universalist Apostasy Meeting Details Here!

The “Islam and Christianity” link above reminds me of how TBN is using Jeremiah Cummings as well as the oneness preachers like T. D. Jakes, Noel Jones, Juanita Bynum, and Tommy Tenney to court Islam: TBN: REPAINTING ISLAM and
Trinity Broadcasting Network Tries To Merge Islam And Christianity!. And yes, TBN has made overtures to Mormons before: Mormons, Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals, And TBN, OH MY!

These all cannot be coincidences people. There is too much going on here with groups like the Center For National Policy (a Sun Myung Moon shadow group, see Want A List Of Pastors Who Took Sun Myung Moon’s Money?) and the Council on Foreign Relations (who counts Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Oprah Winfrey, T. D. Jakes, and RICK WARREN among is members and the Center for National Policy as one of its umbrella groups in the United States) for it to be. It is called the great apostasy people, the falling away of 2 Thessalonians 2:3!

By apologizing to a man whose beliefs that he knows are false for the “crime” of doing the world a favor and letting them know that they are false, Mike Huckabee shows that he is part of it. For Huckabee is after power, influence, and the things and cares of this world. James 4:4 says this about people like Huckabee Hound: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” I suppose that Huckabee and those like him would have been highly offended at James for calling him a spiritual adulterer and an enemy of God, but I can guarantee you that James would never have apologized for it.

Posted in Center for National Policy, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, emergent church, GOP, humanism, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, mormonism, multiculturalism, political correctness, Republican, Rick Warren, secular humanism, secularism, tolerance, universalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 183 Comments »

AMERICANS’ TRUE RELIGION: SECULAR HUMANISM

Posted by Job on November 6, 2007

newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis114.htm

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 5, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

(Note: On October 23, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1955, titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.” Section 899A of the bill defines “violent radicalization” as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” Nowhere in the legislation is “extremist” or “violence” defined, so you can imagine how the government could even use this bill to imprison people like the founders of this nation! Also, overnight between this past Saturday and Sunday, Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf declared what amounts to martial law. Look at my previous articles regarding the importance of Pakistan.)

You hear many people today saying what a mess this country is in. That’s because while surveys show most Americans claim to believe in Biblical religion, in practice, a growing number of younger people are really secular humanists. Why?

While young people’s values are shaped by the media, music, etc., the only thing they are required to do is go to school. And most of them attend public schools, where secular humanism exclusively has been “preached” for decades. How did this come about?

For the last two centuries, there has been in the U.S. a battle between the Biblically-based values of the American Revolution and the secular humanists’ values of the French Revolution, which emphasized Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati philosophy of “do what thou wilt.” One of the leading proponents of the French Revolution was the Marquis de Lafayette, who brought Madame Francoise d’Arusmont (Fannie) Wright to the U.S. in the early 1800s. Here, she joined with Socialists Robert Dale Owen and Orestes Brownson secretly to take over America. According to Brownson, who later converted to Christianity, they wanted to establish a “national, rational, republican education, free for all at the expense of all, conducted under the guardianship of the State” with the purpose of separating children from what they considered the “negative influence” of parents. In terms of values instruction, they wanted to impart to the students values different from those of their parents, and this would come to be known as secular (not God-centered) humanistic education which emphasizes naturalistic evolution as well as moral relativism and situation ethics via values clarification techniques.

A few years after the plan of Owen, Wright and Brownson was begun, Karl Marx in 1844 authored ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHIC MANUSCRIPTS, which stated: “Communism begins from the outset with atheism. . . . Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism” (see Naturalism chart). The next decade, Auguste Comte in 1851 began to author a series of volumes on his SYSTEM OF POSITIVE POLITY, with a “positivist” philosophy in which man, not God, would decide for himself what’s right or wrong.

During the last half of the 19th century and into the 20th century, this philosophy became dominant among American intellectuals, including educators and jurists. As these individuals in the 20th century gained control of American higher education and the federal courts, the philosophy began to spread, even to public elementary and secondary schools.

In 1930, Charles Francis Potter authored HUMANISM, A NEW RELIGION, in which he boasted: “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

Three years later, Potter signed the first HUMANIST MANIFESTO (1933) as did John Dewey, the “Father of Progressive Education.” The MANIFESTO’s first affirmation stated: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” Secondly, it affirmed that man is a product of naturalistic evolution. Humanist Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO’s first director-general, would later explain that humanism’s “keynote, the central concept to which all its details are related, is evolution.”

In 1954, former president of the American Humanist Association Lloyd Morain, and his wife Mary (a director of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, which has 4 million members), authored HUMANISM AS THE NEXT STEP, which declared that “Humanism is the most rapidly growing religious movement in America today.” With all of these references to humanism as a “religion,” it was no surprise when the U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins (June 19, 1961) listed “secular humanism” as a non-theistic religion.

One would think that with the Supreme Court’s “separation of church and state” rulings in the early 1960s banning school prayer and Bible reading, secular humanism would also be banned from public schools. This, though, was not the case. When a case eventually was brought before federal district Judge Brevard Hand, he sided with parents in their desire to ban this “religion” from public schools (see “Judge Bans Humanist Textbooks,” THE WASHINGTON POST, March 5, 1987). However, his decision was reversed at the federal Appeals Court level, which was dominated by a Positivist philosophy. This was despite the fact that even liberal WASHINGTON POST columnist Colman McCarthy in “Textbook Case Look Again” (April 5, 1987) wrote of Judge Hand’s decision about the school texts being challenged, saying “this highly relativistic and individualistic approach constitutes the promotion of a fundamental faith claim opposed to other religious faiths.” So much for “government neutrality” !

As the decade of the 1960s closed, leading educator Ted Sizer wrote in FIVE LECTURES…ON MORAL EDUCATION (1970) that “Christian sermonizing denies individual autonomy….Moral autonomy…is the ‘new morality’ toward which we are to guide ourselves and other people….Clearly the strict adherence to a (moral) ‘code’ is out of date.” Three years later (1973), HUMANIST MANIFESTO II was published and declared: “Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.”

Three years after that, THE HUMANIST (January-February 1976) published an article by Sheila Schwartz expressing her thankfulness “the crazies (fundamentalists) don’t do all that much reading. If they did, they’d find out that they have already been defeated.” Then, the very next issue of THE HUMANIST (March-April 1976) contained an article by Paul Blanshard, in which he remarked : “I think the most important factor leading us to a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.” Textbooks followed this same philosophy, as in the early 1970s, PERSPECTIVES IN UNITED STATES HISTORY informed students that “the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition was a god worshipped by desert folk…clearly man-created.”

The year after Blanshard’s article appeared, THE HUMANIST (January-February 1977) published an article by Sidney Hook, in which he explained that “human beings can be influenced to examine critically their religious beliefs only by indirection, (by which) I mean the development of a critical attitude in all our educational institutions that will aim to make students less credulous to claims that transcend their reflective experience.” And 3 years after that, Morris Storer (director of the American Humanist Association 1975-1980) declared in his book HUMANIST ETHICS (1980) that “a large majority of the educators of American colleges and universities are predominantly humanists, and a majority of the teachers who go out from their studies in colleges to responsibilities in primary and secondary schools are basically humanists, no matter that many maintain a nominal attachment to church or synagogue for good personal, social or practical reasons.”

The point in using all these quotes is to show that humanists’ control of American education and the values our children are taught in public schools is not an accident. If you need any more proof of this, the following quote by H. J. Blackham, a founder of the 4-million-member International Humanist and Ethical Union, should suffice. In THE HUMANIST (September-October 1981), he proclaimed that if schools teach dependence (in a moral sense) on one’s self, “they are more revolutionary than any conspiracy to overthrow the government.” Blackham was absolutely right, and this is exactly what the religion of secular humanism has done. It has become most Americans’ new religion, and that is reflected both in government (e.g., Supreme Court legalizing abortion) and in most Americans’ personal lives.

Humanists have not hidden their agenda, as John Dunphy’s prize-winning essay was published in THE HUMANIST (January-February 1983), and proclaimed that “the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom…between the rotting corpse of Christianity…and the new faith of humanism…(and) humanism will emerge triumphant.”

Unfortunately, humanism has “emerged triumphant” in the U.S. today. Not too long ago, the Josephson Institute of Ethics polled more than 20,000 middle and high school students and found that an amazing 47% acknowledged that they had stolen something from a store in the past 12 months. Do public school teachers and secular humanists tell students to steal? No, but they do say the student is an autonomous moral decisionmaker who should make up her or his own mind about what is right or wrong based on the situation. This could lead some students to say, “Most of the time I don’t steal, but that store owner ripped me off on the price of a sweater, so in this situation I didn’t see anything wrong with shoplifting something from him.”

Yes, secular humanism has become the new religion of most Americans today whether or not they realize. You think not? Ask yourself how many Americans cheat on their taxes! Public school textbooks actually have promoted this philosophy, as HEALTH COMMUNICATING SERIES asked first-graders: “Do you think there is ever a time when (cheating) might be right? Tell when it is. Tell why you think it’s right.”

The consequence of abandoning Biblical principles will be our “destruction.” Remember that in Philippians 3, Paul is talking about “the enemies of the cross of Christ,” and verse 19 reads: “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.”

There is a famous quote about men and women becoming accomplices to the evils they fail to oppose. This is something of a paraphrase of the last part of Romans 1:32, and it applies to Americans and their new religion of secular humanism today. Shortly after the Iraq war began, a poll showed two-thirds of Americans supported torturing prisoners in wartime. Subsequently, the horrors of Abu Ghraib were made public. The American people basically invited this evil, and since God holds nations accountable for their actions and nations cannot be punished after this life, can’t we expect God to punish the U.S. and its people here in this life?

All of the so-called Christians who humanistically rationalize torture based on situation ethics should ask themselves what Jesus would say about this. You say you’re not one of those supporting torture, so you’re all right. Well, do you check to see from where the TV, radio, shirts, jeans, etc., which you buy come, so you’re sure they are not from Communist China, which tortures and kills Christians? If you buy products from China, you are supporting a torturing and murdering dictatorship, and what would Jesus say about that?

 

If I were a reporter at one of the current presidential debates, I would ask the candidates (and the millions of viewers watching) the following: “If Hitler and the Nazis controlled Germany, Austria, Poland, etc., today, and acknowledged murdering millions of Christians and Jews, would you have a trading relationship with them, supporting their economy and military?” After the gasps of unbelief from the candidates and viewers subsided, I would then ask: “Well, if you wouldn’t trade with Hitler, when are you going to end our trade with Communist China, which we all know has murdered tens of millions of innocent people, including many Christians whose body parts have been harvested to sell to Americans and others for implants?”

Remember Thomas Jefferson’s warning: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

© 2007 Dennis Cuddy – All Rights Reserved

 

Posted in secular humanism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

More Proof That Evolution Is Inherently Racist: Nobel Prize Winner James Watson

Posted by Job on October 17, 2007

Original link here. Will the liberal anti – Christ media cover this, especially from this angle? Probably not.

Now here is what the Bible says: Genesis 1:26-27And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Colossians 3:11Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Philemon 10,15-17 – “I beseech thee for [runaway slave from his master] my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as [your slave] a servant, but above [your slave] a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive [your slave] him as myself.”

Now as you see, Christianity and the Bible are clearly racist. They are incontrovertibly the source of African slavery, the subjugation of the Native Americans, discrimination, segregation, and all racial evil. It is incumbent upon us that we discard the evil of the Bible and the Christianity that arises from it so that we can rid ourselves of racial conflict and enter a new area of peace, tolerance, cooperation, mutual respect, and toleration between the races. Here is a clear example of what the secular humanist and naturalist mindset that comes from rejecting the Bible and embracing reason and rationalism in its place leads to, and how it can result in our racism – free tomorrow.

One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions … reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies … were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when “testing” suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.”

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy … because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really“. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.””

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of ” scientific racism”. ” (What the furor left out by the media was that Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein, who wrote The Bell Curve, were atheist/agnostic. They also do not like to point out that “scientific racism” was practiced by the Nazis. It was their defense at the Nuremberg trials. Instead, they contrive that the Nazis, whose swastika was a pre – Christian European pagan symbol representing the sun god and their leader specifically rejecting the deity, resurrection, and virgin birth of Jesus Christ in his writings, as a Christian movement.).

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science.” But not religion oddly, because they hate Jesus Christ more than they hate racism. “These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels.” Yes, they do prove that attitudes in rebellion against Jesus Christ and the Bible exist at the highest professional levels.

He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.” Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. So did Yasir Arafat. Hmmm …

He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that ” stupidity” could one day be cured.” Wasn’t that precisely what the Nazis were doing in creating their race?

This is the best part.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: ” This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically.”

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson’s remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: “It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way.”” It is astonishing to YOU because you have been taught that racism is a product of Christianity. In your fanatical zeal to oppose Christianity, you have systematically suppressed and ignored all of the things that prove that evolution is inherently racist, including the title of Charles Darwin’s book “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life“.

Want some more? “The human race has evolved to its present state of intelligence and power because of “the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”* “Race”* is the central mechanism of evolution that has created all living things. “The preservation of favored races”* is a simple process to understand, but its effects over time are awesome. If we examine the process, we find that at some stage in evolution we can observe a group of individuals of a single species which exists in an area segregated from other members of that same species. As a result of chance mutation, there occur genetic variations in some members of that segregated group. As the generations continue to reproduce, these genetic variations accumulate in the progeny of that segregate group. At first, the accumulated genetic variations do not make the segregate group different enough from the original species to justify calling the segregated group a new species or even a new “favored race”* of the original species. However, after many generations, the segregated group or tribe which had accumulated sufficient genetic differences would be called a new “race”* of the original species. Over time, these newly developed segregated races continue to accumulate genetic differences through chance mutation, variation, etc. The “favored”* variations increase the survivability of the “race”* which carries them. Once this new “favored race”* has become different enough from the original species, it is called a new species. Hence the subtitle, “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”*There is really no probability that the “races”* would be equal. In fact, the whole notion runs counter to all evolutionary theory and to the whole science of biology.

Given the laws of biology, it would be a great surprise if the average strength or intelligence of one “race”* was found to be exactly equal to the average strength or intelligence of a different “race”*. Despite the controversy surrounding “race”*, it is not particularly useful to know which “race”* happens, as a result of an accident of evolutionary development, to have greater average strength or greater average intelligence because one could not predict from this average that any particular individual member of one “race”* was going to be superior or inferior to any particular individual member of a different “race”*. There are superior and inferior, strong and weak, intelligent and intelligent individuals in all “races”*. Regardless of “racial”* averages, one would still have to judge each individual on the basis of individual merit without reference to the average of the group to which he happened to belong. Only by judging people as individuals, could we avoid injustice and enable all people to make the maximum contribution to society. There is not such thing as a superior “race”* per se, in the sense that every member of one “race”* is superior to every member of another “race”*. Neither is there such a thing as “racial”* equality in the sense that the average strength or intelligence of one “race”* is equal to the average strength or intelligence of every other “race”*. By judging people as individuals, one could perhaps identify a (superior) socio-biological class which might be a cross section of all “races”* although probably not in equal proportion. The only way you could have a (superior race) would be if a “favored race”* evolved into and became the next more highly evolved species above Homo-Sapiens, in which case it would become a superior species. Eugenics is a moral commitment not a racial affiliation and any “race” that adopted a eugenic program could, given sufficient time, evolve into and become the next more highly evolved species above Homo-Sapiens. It is our hope that all “races” will accept that moral responsibility and accomplish that objective, but it can not be accomplished within the political, philosophical and religious milieu of the 20th century.”

Somehow, they left that out in school didn’t they? By the way, has anyone ever asked Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and similar what they think of black people? Of course not.

Right now, I am offering you the opportunity to reject the racism of evolution and everything else that rejects and exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and to accept Yeshua HaMashiach, also known as Jesus Christ, as your personal Savior. Please realize that had Jesus Christ been alive in Germany in the 1940s, evolutionist Adolph Hitler would have put him in his gas chambers. And since the genealogy of Jesus Christ included some people that might have been of African extraction, evolutionist Margaret Sanger, founder of federally Planned Parenthood thanks to the rejecter of God and the Bible in favor of universalism George W. Bush, would have lobbied for Yeshua HaMashiach to be aborted, or for Miriam (Mary) to have been her uterus disabled to prevent her conception. Please reject the evil of racism and choose the love of Jesus Christ today. Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Posted in atheism, Christianity, evolution, George Bush, humanism, identity politics, multiculturalism, political correctness, racism, rationalism, secular humanism, secularism, skepticism, tolerance | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Christian Socialism In A Godless Nation

Posted by Job on August 29, 2007

From Ronald Dart’s Born To Win Ministry, borntowin.net.

If the audio player does not work for you, try these links: christian_socialism.mp3  a_godless_nation.mp3

Posted in anti - Semitism, atheism, christian worldliness, Christianity, church state, church worldliness, devotional, Egypt, evolution, Middle East peace process, Russia, salvation, secular humanism, secularism, socialism, trinity broadcasting network | Leave a Comment »

Why Are Europe’s Birthrates Declining?

Posted by Job on August 17, 2007

From Albert Mohler’s weblog.
Azure is a serious journal of ideas that states its mission as providing “ideas for the Jewish nation.” In the Summer 2007 edition [Jewish year 5767], assistant editor Noah Pollak deals with the reality of the European baby bust.Pollak deals first with the demographic reality. As he explains, the average number of children a woman will bear (known as the total fertility rate, or TFR) must be stable at 2.1 just to maintain the size of a nation’s population. The baby bust is evident in the fact that the TFR is just 1.89 in France. In Spain the TFR is just 1.1 — a birth rate the editors describe as in a “free fall.” Taken together, Europe’s total TFR is just 1.38.

What does this mean? It means that European nations will soon face the reality of fast-falling population levels — levels that will threaten social stability, economic security, and a host of other social goods. Economic security depends upon a stable or growing population. But economic security is not the only issue at stake — not by a long shot. Many observers believe that growing Muslim birth rates and immigration rates, coupled with a decline in the Christian population, will mean an Islamic future for Europe.

A number of very capable scholars have documented this reality. What Noah Pollak of Azure adds to the picture is serious attention to the question of why people decide not to have children.

Consider this paragraph:

The explanation for Europe’s turn from reproducing its civilization is, in fact, as simple and self-contained as how children themselves are viewed. People avoid having children not because they are irreligious, lack financial means, fear the possibility of divorce, or carry university degrees. Rather, people do not have children because they do not want them: They find the curtailment of personal freedom and the assumption of the decades-long obligation inherent in parenthood unattractive, and they do not want to accept the basic restructuring of life that having a family requires. This is not a product of objective economic or social factors; rather, it is a subjective judgment about the meaning and purpose of one’s life and the civilization in which that life is lived. It is, ultimately, a moral answer to a moral question: The question of the value people ascribe to their own families and their own heritage, in a broader cultural context.Then this:This answer, such as it is, did not take shape in a vacuum. The current generation of child-bearing Europeans came to view their lives through the cultural revolutions engendered by the generation of 1968, the great mass of young people who, ironically, were products of the postwar European baby boom and ascended to power and influence by virtue of their own demographic weight. The cultural upheaval of ’68 was an incongruous synthesis of revolutionary hedonism, political and economic collectivism, and a firm conviction that the West had become or had always been a force for imperialism, warfare, and environmental destruction. To a far greater degree than their counterparts in America, the ’68ers achieved real political power and with it a cultural hegemony which dominates much of French and European political and intellectual life to this day.This is a brilliant argument, pointing directly to the essence of the problem — children mean obligation.  They are needy, expensive, and dependent. People who are committed to personal autonomy as their greatest good will see children as an imposition, not a blessing.I would modify the argument to explain that the eclipse of the Christian worldview in Europe is tied to the very cultural changes the editors rightly identify as contributing to the baby bust.Mr. Pollak points to the nation of Israel as a counter-example to Europe, noting that young people in the (also young) Jewish nation saw the birth rate as a matter of national life or death:While young people in Europe celebrated a newfound awareness of their power and a desire to depart from the traditions of their forebears, their Israeli counterparts were called upon to rescue the Jewish state from annihilation. Young Europeans were looking to the future and seeing an era rendered infinitely malleable by enlightened reason and the good intentions of youth; Israelis looked to the future and saw enemy armies gathering on their borders with the intention of finishing what Hitler had started. Europeans, enamored of trendy, apocalyptic pseudo-science such as the “population bomb” theory, internalized the conviction that their civilization was part of the problem in the world, while Israel fought an existential war that assumed its own civilization to be part of the solution. Is it any wonder that Israeli families continue to thrive while Europe cannot sustain itself?Finally, Pollak suggests that the stability of the American TFR (due to a combination of birth rate and immigration) is due to the fact that “Americans believe in their own nation as a multi-generational effort to bring good to the world.”

He offers a haunting word of warning:  “Rome died from a lack of imperial vigor; Europe may die on its own soil, of its own barrenness.”  No real surprise there.  Barren worldviews lead to barren wombs.

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church state, economic collapse, Egypt, EU, evangelism, family breakdown, feminism, gay marriage, gay rights, heresy, homosexuality, humanism, Jehovah's witnesses, Moshiach, Pat Robertson, pro choice, pro life, prophecy, racism, rape, Ron Paul, Russia, secular humanism, social breakdown, societal decline | Leave a Comment »

Hillary Clinton Professes To Believe Upon The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ

Posted by Job on July 8, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/us/politics/07clinton.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=politics She also likes to talk about, you know, “values” and stuff. But the selective set of values and Bible themes that Hillary Clinton chooses to emphasize on … how does that make her any different from – or better than – the religious right, who also traffics in “values” based on selected (and often out of context) Bible themes? That is why I keep claiming that this “religious right values” (see Why Fox News Is Bad For Christianity, Christian Values Do Not Exist, and Christian Values Do Not Exist Part II: The Motivation For Believing A Lie) thing is nothing but a scam that the left will exploit to advance their own agenda one day soon, if not in the form of Hillary Clinton (too much baggage) and Barack Obama (who indeed is looking more and more like he just isn’t cut out to be anything more than a senator no matter how much experience he gets) definitely someone down the line.

As far as Hillary Clinton claiming to believe upon the resurrection, this goes back to the same doctrinal issue that I was speaking of in Final Answer: The Sinner’s Prayer Is Not Only Unnecessary For Salvation, It May Not Be Expedient! Look, lots of people were raised from the dead, Elijah and Enoch were bodily assumed into heaven, and Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. So, it is vital that one believes in the deity and person of Jesus Christ – whether He was fully man and fully God and is part of the Holy Trinity, which this article specifically did not deal with. Believing that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, was the Lamb of God that died to take away our sins, was raised from the dead, and even that He was the Moshiach (Messiah) is not enough … you have to believe that He was GOD. And still more: one of the most important – and most overlooked – verses in the Bible that has implications for salvation is James 2:19 – “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” So yes, evil spirits know all of these things.

So, the question that has to be asked of both the religious left and the religious right: what makes us different? What separates us from the world? What separates us from the demons that know that there is a God because they have seen Him? The demons that know that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation? I propose that it is John 14:15 – “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” And I am not talking about the partial list of commandments that the religious left likes to keep. I am not talking about the partial list of commandments that the religious right likes to speak of. I am talking about all of them! THAT is what separates us from the world. THAT is what separates us from demons. And whether you are a Republican in the religious right or a Democrat in the religious left, if you think that you are somehow standing for God’s righteousness and advancing the kingdom of heaven by promoting a bunch of cultural, social, economic, religious, and political beliefs that are based on not so much a faulty incomplete understanding of God’s Word (though that often is a problem) but a desire to only promote and personally keep the part of God’s Word that you like and agree with and make you feel good, then you are only deceiving yourselves.

And that is why the religious left is now able to copy off the religious right’s playbook. Do not claim that it is not going to work unless they start calling abortion and homosexuality sin. News flash: the majority of the nation supports abortion and homosexuality, including a huge percentage of Republicans. There are plenty of moderates and independents that profess Christianity that either support or simply do not care about abortion and gay rights that the Democrats will be able to reach on election day with their religion talk. This false dichotomy that we like to pretend where the churches are either very conservative fundamentalist on the right and are ordaining gay ministers and abortion doctors on the left: that is not reality. The truth is that most churches are pretty much “in the center”, promote a mix of traditional and revisionist doctrine, and pretty much stay out of the controversial social, political, and religious issues of the day. The Democrats will well be able to come up with rhetoric that will allow them to chase that sizable contingent of voters – ELCA Lutherans, PCUSA Presbyterians, mainstream Baptists and Methodists, Episcopals that support neither Schori or Akinola, most Catholics, etc. while not alienating their base.

Before the religious right starts screaming “its unfair!” please remember that the religious right was only emulating the organizing strategies and tactics of the left, especially the civil rights movement. Just as Martin Luther King, Jr. and similar used religious organizations and selective Bible themes to pursue what was really a secular agenda, the religious right did the same. Neither side sought to truly increase the righteousness of this nation the only true way: which is to increase the number of Christian converts, and to call the existing Christians to righteousness in accordance to scripture. Instead, both movements pushed the very successful message that your righteousness is determined not by your belief in and commitment to the Bible, but rather your political, social, and cultural beliefs. There was no evangelism imperative, because it was all about being better, more moral, than the people on the other side of the ideological divide. And there was no call to repentance, because each side told their own that they were fine: they were already righteous, and it was THE OTHER SIDE that was responsible for the evil in the nation and in the world. Why? Because whether you are in the religious right or the religious left the same message is taught: that you can be a better person and make the world a better place apart from the Bible. So, it leads to the sort of madness that exists today where both the Christian right and the Christian left defend their own leaders and attack the leaders on the other side when they both promote many of the same policies and behave themselves in much the same way. Neither the Christian right or the Christian left is committed to advancing the cause of Jesus Christ in this nation, because both have attached themselves to a political agenda that allows them to ignore the cause of advancing Jesus Christ in their own lives while simultaneously telling themselves that it is their political views that makes them more righteous than the next guy; that if there is a God in heaven then it will be on the basis of their political beliefs that they will be saved and the next guy will perish.

Well, now it looks like the Democrats are finding a way to give the religious middle what the religious left and the religious right have had for decades: a sense of false spiritual maturity, righteousness, and pride that you get from putting your hope in worldly beliefs rather than God who is a spirit. I just want you Republicans to know that before you start howling and crying when this new “religious moderate” thing gets off the ground and becomes the new media buzzword, and you social conservatives get angry when Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, etc. leave you behind to fight the Democrats over them, that you need to know that you made it possible. You were the ones that convinced yourselves that you were standing for God and advancing his kingdom by dealing with people like Ralph Reed, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, etc. It is as bad as the religious left thinking that supporting race hustling poverty pimps and people who supported the Soviets during the Cold War would somehow result in this nation’s race, class, and gender divisions evaporating.

Is the point of this entry that Hillary Clinton is not truly a Christian or is not truly saved? No. The point is that from where I sit and from what I see, there is no basis to presume that virtually any member of the religious right is any more saved than Hillary Clinton is. Put it like this: if you were to poll most conservative Christian Republicans as to which one of Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush is more likely to be born again, the overwhelming majority would pick Bush, and the same would apply down the line for virtually any matchup between similar Democrats and Republicans. What would be their basis for making such a decision? Political party and political views. And this is the really sad part: given the choice between a Democrat that they perceived to be saved and a GOPer that they perceive to be not, who would they pick? I bet that a great many of them would pick the GOPer and trust the party rather than the saved Democrat and trust God. (Incidentally, it is not as if the Christian Democrats are any better.) And that is the really scary part, and why this nation needs a real revival instead of a religious political movement.

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, anti - Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, Christian Persecution, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, Egypt, evolution, false religion, gay marriage, gay rights, Hillary Clinton, homophobia, homosexuality, James Dobson, Jehovah's witnesses, Jerry Falwell, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, Middle East peace process, Moshiach, Muslim Brotherhood, New York Times, Palestinian Christian persecution, Pat Robertson, pro choice, pro life, religious left, Russia, secular humanism, spiritual warfare, trinity broadcasting network, Zola Leavitt | 15 Comments »

Jesus Christ To The Religious Left: Why Do You Call Me Lord Lord And Do Not Do What I Say? Luke 6:46

Posted by Job on June 15, 2007

Please click www.liveprayer.com/signup.htm to sign up to receive this devotional in your email. *Personal note: This is one of the times when Pastor Keller’s views do not line up with my own, but Keller is still a Bible – based preacher so there is nothing wrong with providing this devotional.

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”  Luke 6:46

The “religious left.”  In case you have been sleeping, there is a new group
of people in our nation who call themselves the “religious left.” This is a relatively new term so you may not be familiar with it.  That is why I felt it was so critical to take the time today to insure you not only understood what it means, but who actually makes up this new group of people. Forty years ago, this group didn’t even exist. They have actually evolved and
grown tremendously over the past decade.

The “religious left” is made up of people who identify themselves as
Christians and hold strong religious beliefs as well as sharing left-wing
ideals.  Obviously, this group has risen up in opposition to those who have
been tagged the “religious right” or the “Christian right.”  The “Christian
right” is that group of Bible-believing Christians who are politically
active and seek to elect to office those candidates who hold to Biblical
values on the key spiritual issues of our day that are also political
issues.

These would be issues like abortion and life related matters, gay marriage,
family issues, the proliferation of the pornography industry, and the drive
to remove God from the public square.  Those in the “religious left”
actually take an anti-Biblical position on these issues and are also heavily
involved in the ecumenical movement, environmental issues, opposing war for
any reason, world hunger, and social issues like healthcare, welfare, and
education.

There is nothing wrong with pursing these noble social issues, Believers
should be more involved on those fronts.  The problem with this group is
their anti-Biblical position on the key spiritual issues of our day and
their involvement in these ecumenical movements that require you to set
aside the Absolute Truths of the Bible.

I watched with interest a last week as CNN carried a special program about
faith with the leading Democratic Candidates who are vying for their parties
nomination in the 2008 Presidential election.  Each one dealt with various
faith-related issues in the context of their own personal faith.  I watched
in amazement as each one talked about how important their faith was to them,
how it guided them, how it gave them strength, and went out of their way to
position themselves as people of great faith.

Like my dear mother used to tell me, talk is cheap.  I refuse to try and
judge their heart, that is something only God can and will do.  However, I
have every right to judge them on their actions in accordance with God’s
Word.  How can you say you are a person of faith, yet vote to support the
legalized slaughter of over 4,000 innocent babies every day?  How can you
say you are a person of faith, yet vote to redefine God’s Holy Institution
of Marriage?  How can you say you are a person of faith, yet support special
rights for people who have chosen to engage in perverted sex acts God calls
an abomination, including their ability to adopt children into their deviant
lifestyle?

I guess the real question becomes, what is their faith really in?  It is
inconsistent to say you are person of faith yet continually take a stand in
complete opposition to God’s Word.  Jesus said that if you love Me, you will
obey Me.  That means His Word.  Of course, those in the “religious left” has
been born out of the liberal “churches” of our day who make a mockery of
Christ as they operate in open rebellion to the Truth of the Bible while
claiming to be followers of Christ.

They support the legalized slaughter of babies, redefining marriage to
include men with men and women with women, perverting the family by brining
children into homes with homosexual parents, and embrace ecumenical
fellowships with all of the cults and false religions of the world.  They
deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, have rejected God’s Word
for the Absolute Truth it represents, and have bought into the lie of the
world that there are “many roads that lead to God.”  These are the people
who make up the “religious left!”

I love you and care about you so much.  It is beyond me how a person can
consider themselves a Christian, which means they are a follower of Christ
and automatically a follower of His Word, yet take a public position in
complete opposition to that Word.  You better wake up, since this is the
largest growing segment of Christendom, this apostate group who calls
themselves Christians but go to churches who operate in complete  rebellion
to Christ and the Bible

This is the group that is Biblically illiterate since they don’t even
believe the Bible to be true.  These are the people who see nothing wrong
with electing a member of a satanic cult to the White House because they
think a Mormon is a Christian.  They are the politically correct crowd who
has bought the lie a woman has the right to kill her baby.  They are the
group who lambastes those who speak out against the sin of homosexuality,
calling them names like “intolerant” and “hateful.”

The “religious left” is a group who will wield incredible political
influence in the upcoming 2008 election.  They are mostly made up of people
who call themselves Christians, but support the things Christ and the Bible
condemn.  Pray for these people since you can’t call yourself a follower of
Christ, yet stand on the opposite side of Christ on so many issues.  Truth
is not what we want it to be, it is what God says it is.  We don’t have the
luxury of giving our heart and life to Christ and then live any way we want.
A true follower of Christ is a follower of His Word.  Jesus said, “Why do
you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller

If I can help you in any way you can contact me through my personal email at:
bkeller@liveprayer.com

***ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY?  The fact is you will
die one day.  At that moment, you will either spend eternity with the Lord or
be cast into everlasting darkness forever separated from God your creator.
To know for certain you will be forever with Jesus, go to:
http://www.liveprayer.com/bdy_salvatn.cfm

***I am excited to let you know that the Liveprayer Daily Devotional is now
available via AUDIO each day.  Simply go to http://www.liveprayer.com/Audio.cfm
Also, you can now listen to the Daily Devotional by phone by calling,
1-845-510-2722

***LEGAL UPDATE!  Please be praying this week as our attorneys will be in
Federal Court to seek injunctive relief against Microsoft for blocking our
Daily Devotionals from our subscribers with Microsoft email accounts based
on the “content” of what I write each day.  Censoring mail under the guise
of blocking SPAM is becoming a big problem.  Pray that we find favor from
the judge and those who will be involved.  <<<IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE YOUR
DAILY DEVOTIONAL ON A GIVEN DAY, REMEMBER IT IS POSTED ON THE
WWW.LIVEPRAYER.COM WEBSITE EACH DAY.>>> (C) Copyright 2007, Bill Keller Ministries. All rights reserved.

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, anti - Semitism, Apologetics, baptismal regeneration, Bill Clinton, CAIR, christian left, christian liberalism, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church state, civil rights, conservatism, conservative Christian, devotional, Egypt, eschatology, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, gay marriage, gay rights, George Bush, government dependency, Hillary Clinton, homophobia, homosexuality, humanism, identity politics, illegal immigration, immigration, innocent blood, Jehovah's witnesses, legalism, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, liberation theology, Middle East peace process, mohammed, Moshiach, nigeria, Pat Robertson, political correctness, politics, pornography, post - tribulation rapture, post abortion syndrome, pro choice, pro life, pro life doctor, public education, religious left, Republican, Russia, secular humanism, sexual exploitation, somalia, spiritual deliverance techniques, spiritual warfare, syncretism, Tim LaHaye, Yeshua Hamashiach, Zola Leavitt | 7 Comments »

Stalin and Hitler: Both Statists (Lessons from the Holocaust)

Posted by Job on June 13, 2007

While not technically from a Christian perspective, I will use this link, because it supports the position of Heal The Land that the state is an enemy of God (along with false religion). After all, who was it that crucified Jesus Christ? Now you must consider the fact that the reason why certain “Christians” later blamed all Jews (rather than a collaboration between the state and a corrupt religious system based on works, rituals, and rules standing in the base of a true spiritual relationship with God) is because, well, these “Christians” would have been blaming themselves. In many of these nations, there was no separation between church and state, so you had all of these “state churches.” Of course, “state churches” tend to institute religion by ritual and oppose true worship of God, exhibited by this notion that all you have to do in order to go to heaven is A) perform some baptism ritual (and even that was “sprinkling in the name of Jesus only” instead of full immersion in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), even to infants and B) paying your taxes – excuse me, tithes. So, realize how the “state church” system (which included the Mormonesque pagan religion of the Romans that worshipped Caesar and others as gods) that killed Jesus Christ so easily turned into a “state church” system in Europe that persecuted Jews for centuries and morphed into STATISM, meaning fascism and communism, that killed at least 6 million Jews in the Holocaust and millions more elsewhere. So please read Stalin and Hitler: Both Statists (Lessons from the Holocaust), and if you have not accepted a true relationship of Jesus Christ, please read and follow The Three Step Salvation Plan.

Posted in anti - Semitism, catholic, China, church state, conservatism, fascism, Frank Peretti, how to be saved, Middle East peace process, Mormon, rape, Ron Paul, salvation prayer as doctrinal statement, Scientology, secular humanism, Serbia, socialism, stem cells, Zionism | 4 Comments »

Man’s Genetical Hardwiring Toward Religious Belief

Posted by Job on June 7, 2007

From BornToWin.Net, a most excellent teaching ministry.

Is it true that man is “genetically hardwired” towards religion? According to Tony Blankley, some neuro – scientists think so. One thing is clear. Man is hardwired with a system of logic. I didn’t understand years ago that computers are hardwired with a logical system that included a language. If you didn’t know know the language, you couldn’t do much with the computer. Some friends gave me my first computer. I suspect because they hadn’t been able to make it work any better than I could at first. I turned it on and started pressing keys, but nothing of interest happened. I could make letters appear on the screen, but the letters didn’t do anything.

I sort of felt like the proverbial monkey at a typewriter, banging out random symbols. And them someone told me the magic word: DOS. But what was DOS? Ah well, there was the rub. DOS means “Disk Operating System.” The computer had slots for two disks, so I bought one that said “DOS” and put it in. I still couldn’t do any work, I had to get another disk that had a program. But neither disk would work in just any computer. The computer had to be hardwired with a language so that it would understand what was on the disks.

So the term hardwired entered into the language of psychology and neuro – science as a description of that part of the human mind we are all born with. Every child born into the world arrives with a built – in system of logic. We don’t have to be taught it, because it is hardwired into us. The brain itself is “wired” according to a logical system, and the mind operates on that system. We start life witih an untrained logical system with an enormous potential for development.

What makes this interesting is that, in the absence of true religion and faith in God, man will inevitably make up his onw. In primitive societies, they create wooden gods. In intellectual societies, a little more ingenuity is required. Blankley: Some neuro – scientists see evidence that man is genetically hardwired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why even among the French – the most secular culture on earth – only 25 percent claim to be atheists and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer towards a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.

There are two things I found of special interest. One is that you cannot eradicate religion from the human being by education. If you could, the French would have done it long ago. Maybe this accounts for the persistence of religious faith in this country despite of an educational system that is legally hardwired to eradicate it. I also notice the suggestion of religious sensibility in the environmental movement (*my note: the Gaia religion). The idea of a religious instinct is important. Geese are hardwired to migrate. Man is hardwired to make sense out of his world – what Viktor Frankl called a “drive to meaning.” And making sense out of the world involves some sense of direction, thus prediction. Or, in biblical terms, prophecy. Now, I pause to reflect on an obvious truth. Man didn’t wire himself. Nor did his system of logic evolve from neurons, any more than than the logic of my computer evolved from a collection of wires. Both are the works of a designer/creator. Any suggestion that man is hardwired to do anything is a suggestion of design and object.

Yours in the service of true religion, Ronald L. Dart

To sign up for their mailing list, click here borntowin.net/newsite/MailingLists/index.aspx Podcasting instructions here: borntowin.net/newsite/Audios/Podcasting.aspx?level=1

Posted in Apologetics, atheism, child evangelism, Egypt, evolution, higher education, humanism, mid - tribulation rapture, nigeria, postmillennialism, public education, salvation, salvation prayer, salvation through Jesus Christ, secular humanism, skepticism, thou shalt not murder | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

US Birthrate Lowest Ever! So How Is Our Population Growing?

Posted by Job on June 7, 2007

See this link (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aabirthrate.htm). The native – born birthrate in America is the lowest in recorded history. Yet our population is booming; 300 million or thereabouts. (Or it is booming for some groups anyway; the black population is crawling at about a 1% increase, and the percentage of the population that is black has fallen from 14% to 11%). So, where is the population coming from? Immigration. Mostly ILLEGAL immigration. Now America has its share of problems, always has, but it has still been one of the best and leading nations in the world for PROTESTANT Christianity virtually since its inception, and a high native – born birthrate keeps it that way. But by decreasing the native – born birthrate with the normalization of abortion and divorce (even within conservative churches) and the glamorization of homosexuality and opening the doors to legal and illegal immigrants who practice Catholicism and other religions, TBN and the other Christian broadcasting networks turning the charismatic movement into a big Word of Faith Jesus Only oneness pentecostal modalism heresy abomination, the New Age – inspired syncretism movement, the mainline churches denying the truth and inerrancy of scripture at every turn, etc. the Protestant/Reformed Christian population of our nation is more at risk than ever. That is bad news for America and worse news for Israel. Now we have had at least two “Great Awakenings” in the past (and if you want to count the charismatic revival at least three; I really do not see why not) when it seemed that America was going to turn wholly away from Protestant Christianity. But since the leaders of modern Christendom are either going after money and preaching a bland inoffensive false gospel or are seeking power and to impose their views and will on a world that rejected God and fell into sin through Adam in the garden of Eden using politics, who is going to lead this awakening? Will it be you?

Father God in the Name Of Jesus Christ, please raise up true preachers, teachers, prophets, and evangelists to awake the masses to Your Word, Your Will, Your Spirit, Your Authority, and Your Son, so that there will be righteous men and women found in this nation lest it fall. Amen.

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, baptismal regeneration, catholic, christian television, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church state, conservative Christian, contemplative prayer, corrupt televangelism, divorce, education, Egypt, eschatology, family breakdown, gay marriage, global warming, heresy, homosexuality, illegal immigration, Israel, Jehovah's witnesses, Jesus Only, legalism, Mitt Romney, modalism, New Age, oneness pentecostalism, Pat Robertson, prophecy, reprobate, Russia, secular humanism, sex crime, societal decline, somalia, spiritual warfare, TBN, trinity broadcasting network, Word of Faith, world council churches | 1 Comment »

If You Can Tell A Man By His Supporters, Ron Paul Is Your Guy!

Posted by Job on June 6, 2007

Careful, Washington Post. It almost seems as if you really want me to support this guy. In that article, the campaign says that all Ron Paul needs is a guy like this in each state. Well, if you support this guy, what is your state? After you read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060502787_2.html?hpid=topnews go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and let him know.

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, christian right, church hypocrisy, church state, conservatism, conservative Christian, Egypt, gay marriage, gay rights, GOP, homosexuality, interfaith dialogue, Jehovah's witnesses, jewish temple, Moshiach, Muslim, Orthodox Church, Pat Robertson, persecution Palestinian, rape, religious right, Republican, Ron Paul, Russia, Scientology, secular humanism, Serbia, televangelism, Zionism | 1 Comment »

Why I’d Vote For Ron Paul

Posted by Job on June 6, 2007

I am normally too apolitical to countenance most of the content on Townhall.com, but this link http://moyer.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=ec8f7d2d-5e0c-4d7d-8ebf-51c0ebad60c3 echoes my sentiments almost exactly. Why “almost”? Because I have certain disqualifiers which include support for abortion rights and gay marriage as well as membership in false religions and cults. Fortunately for me, Paul does not hit on any of my automatic disqualifiers. See cut and pasted text of article below:

Right now, if I had to vote, I would vote for Ron Paul.Most conservatives object to Ron Paul because of his stance on the Iraq war. Paul thinks we should withdrawal from Iraq as quickly as possible. Conservatives concede that his Washingtonian policy of “no foreign entanglements” is a sound one, but they fear his strong stance against the Iraq war translates into a weakness regarding national security. It may, I’m not sure. I don’t want to get into a discussion about Iraq right now. I don’t think because Ron Paul wants to leave Iraq it means he wouldn’t defend our country, it just means he might wait until it’s too late.What if Ron Paul’s foreign policy — which wouldn’t have us intervening in foreign disputes or engaging in “nation-building” — resulted in a country like Iran developing nuclear technology and handing a bomb off to a terrorist cell? What if it resulted in the detonation of a nuclear weapon on US soil? Our previous policies of preemptive and preventative intervention may have stopped this, while Paul’s policies allowed it to occur. This is the problem with Ron Paul.

“Moyer, you idiot, why would you vote for him?”

Well, it’s a hard decision to make, so I’ll explain myself. All of the Democratic candidates are socialists at this point. They don’t even try to hide it; they all want socialized health care and the living wage and every other socialist program you can imagine. The Republicans are only slightly better. They at least make an attempt to promote free markets but they end up growing the size of the government anyway. Except for Ron Paul, who at heart is a Libertarian.

The benefits of having a Libertarian as president, even for only one term, would be countless. Ron Paul wouldn’t just cut government size and spending, he would slay it. He would literally do as much as possible to destroy every socialist program in existence. Paul would change our country for the better in an even more significant way than Reagan.

That is why I would vote for Ron Paul. Every other Republican candidate talks about tax cuts and smaller government but if elected they would change little. A Libertarian would overturn years and years of socialization. That’s what America needs, desperately.

America is not going to crumble because we withdrawal from Iraq. America isn’t going to fall because of a nuclear attack (God forbid). America will fall because we will abandon our commitments to freedom and submit to government control and power in hopes of security and safety. I believe this country will crumble as a result of socialism from the inside long before any foreign force could defeat it from the outside.

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?
I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. — Abraham Lincoln

And here is a great link on Ron Paul’s man (and soon to be joined by his wife) in New Hampshire:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060502787_2.html?hpid=topnews 

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, christian right, church hypocrisy, church state, conservatism, conservative Christian, Egypt, gay marriage, gay rights, GOP, homosexuality, interfaith dialogue, Jehovah's witnesses, jewish temple, Moshiach, Muslim, Orthodox Church, Pat Robertson, persecution Palestinian, rape, religious right, Republican, Ron Paul, Russia, Scientology, secular humanism, Serbia, televangelism, Zionism | 22 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: