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 ‘secularism’ Category

Judge Not Lascivious Christianity: Professed Christian Jamie Lynn Spears (Britney’s Sister) Is Pregnant And So Is Fantasia Barrino

Posted by Job on December 20, 2007

The Fantasia Barrino information here and the Jamie Lynn Spears stuff here. No, this will not be yet another screed against how liberal amoral Hollywood is destroying the moral fiber of America. Why when the church is playing that role?

That is true: the Spears and Barrino are professing Christians, as is Barrino’s American Idol contestant Jennifer Hudson (whom I dealt with here for her refusal to oppose the homosexual agenda not out of her desire to avoid being the sort of hateful gay – basher that harms efforts to evangelize homosexuals, because doing so would have hurt her career). As a matter of fact Spears met the 19 year old father of her child, whom she has been cohabiting with, at church. So, for that matter, are Jessica and Ashlee Simpson, whose father (who can be counted on to make completely inappropriate comments about his daughters’ bodies) is a former minister.

The Destiny’s Child crew, Beyonce Knowles (whose sister Solange also had a child out of wedlock, though she did marry the father soon after) and similar, are also professed Christians. They even place gospel tracts on their albums and make references to being Christian in their secular songs (i.e. Survivor). Michelle Williams released a gospel album, showing only SLIGHTLY less skin in the videos for that album than the stripper attire that Destiny’s Child normally cavorts in. (After it did not sell, she released a secular album and bitterly denounced Christians for judging her.) And this actually is not as recent as it appears. Mary J. Blige, Patti LaBelle, Aretha Franklin, Al Green, and Sam Cooke can all be counted among those with gospel or church roots, Franklin (daughter of prominent pastor C. L. Franklin) particularly.

I will not rehash their histories, which are either well known or can be easily discovered with minimal research, and is really not the point as much as it is an indication of a larger issue. That is, how can the church claim to be under attack by the world if this is how people representing the church act? The Spears and the Simpsons are all Southern Baptists. As a matter of fact, all of them – Barrino, Blige, Knowles/Williams/Rowland, Green, Cooke, etc. – are Baptists or from a similar evangelical denomination. And yes, all of them at one time or another have traded on their Christian roots and backgrounds to A) garner the financial support of Christians and B) improve their images even as they are selling vulgarity and sexuality just like any heavy metal group that incorporates devil worship and the occult in their act.

It is generally acknowledged, for instance, that a few decades back black popular music was commercially stagnant and in danger of dying out. What did they do? Recruit black singers from the church, and also existing black talent started emulating them. Except that the styles, rhythms, and raw emotions once used to glorify Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit were now used primarily to glorify predatory and exploitative sexual behavior. White rock and roll acts i.e. the Rolling Stones, Jerry Lee Lewis (Jimmy Swaggart’s cousin), and Credence Clearwater REVIVAL began getting in on the act as well, adding drugs and violence to the mix. Again, this has been going on quite awhile. And not to pick on merely black music, we cannot forget how Johnny Cash would sing “I shot a man in Vegas just to watch him die” one night and “Just A Closer Walk With Thee” the next, let alone the life that Cash lived. Cash once reportedly asked Billy Graham about his brand of Christianity; Graham basically absolved him and allowed him to sing at his evangelistic meetings.

So when you look at what is going on not only with professing Christians in secular entertainment (and politics!) but even the actual Christian industry itself, we can no longer claim that Christianity is being corrupted by the world. Instead, we have to consider the real possibility that carnal Christianity is one of the influences that CORRUPTS the world, and a major one at that! It appears that Christians that have been all too busy fighting the culture and values wars against feminism, multiculturalism, political correctness, humanism, secularism, liberalism, etc. have been fighting the wrong battle. Such “culture critics” really do need to start working on pulling the beams out of Christendom’s eyes instead of worrying about the motes of the world. Phil Vischer, the creator of the popular Christian children’s series VeggieTales (and one of the few that actually makes references to God and the Bible), said it best in response to James Dobson’s campaign against Spongebob Squarepants (which Dobson quickly aborted in the face of public pressure because he needs a respectable mainstream public persona in order to retain his political influence and business empire): “Christians need to stop acting so shocked when the world acts like the world. Instead Christians need to shock the world by acting like Christians.”

Are you shocking the world by acting like a Christian, by loving Jesus Christ by keeping His Commandments? Or are you among those professed Christians that is perverting the world and leading it astray? You do not have to be someone with a huge presence in the public eye in order to have a negative effect. If anything, you, the individual Christian, are more important than Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears. You are even more important than the pro – abortion pro – rich pro – state universalist Skull and Bones occultist President Bush. No matter what those people choose to do and expose it for the world to see, we only know them based on how we perceive them through the media. It is not personal, only an image. But the people that are in your family, the people in your church, the people in your social or civic organizations, the people on your workplace or at your school, your neighbors, even folks you meet randomly on the street once and only briefly … it is those people who encounter the real you, and it is the real you that will have a lasting impact on them for good or for evil.

So what will that impact be? A corrupting impact or an uplifting one? Will it be the impact of someone that conforms to the world and loves its ways? Or the impact of a person that routinely studies a Bible, prays, and honestly tries to live according to your understanding of it? Will it be someone that is meek, merciful, peaceful, not self – seeking, and forgiving? Someone that loves all righteousness but hates all evil? Someone that is not partial to the wealthy or powerful but instead has his mind on the weak and voiceless? Someone that is willing to sacrifice and finish last on earth in return for your treasure in heaven?

Of course, I am of the firm belief that the body of Christ should speak out against and remove from fellowship such poseurs as these. But that is only a small part of the battle. The real battle is for each individual Christian to reject judge not lascivious carnal false Christianity within their own hearts and lives and start being what God called us to be in the Bible.

Posted in christian worldliness, Christianity, church worldliness, feminism, gay rights, homosexuality, humanism, multiculturalism, political correctness, secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Values – Based Pseudo – Christianity: Christmas in Mayberry

Posted by Job on December 19, 2007

Another excellent piece from Slice of Laodicea going against one of my common themes, the “family values” lie:

Church Has Christmas in Mayberry

Christmas in Bethlehem is apparently out of vogue. A church in Lodi, California is putting on Christmas in Mayberry. Yes, the guy with the ponytail pinned up in the news photo is supposed to be Sheriff Andy Taylor. Apparently other churches are also doing the play. The article reports on Barney Fife writing Andy a parking ticket in the stage show and Otis giving up booze for a “Celebrate Recovery” group, but somehow, Jesus doesn’t show up in the news article. Perhaps he doesn’t show up in the play either. A lot of churches today don’t really need Jesus because they are content with good, solid, Mayberry-style family values instead. Unlike Jesus, generic family values and a generic “faith” offends nobody. It’s only Jesus Christ who is the stumbling block today.

I think it’s ironic that when the Andy Griffith show was being filmed and watched on American television, the culture war/sexual revolution of the 1960’s was already underway. The race riots in Los Angeles were going on just a few blocks from the studios from the studio where the Mayberry set was. If we learned anything from the 1960’s, it should have been that nice, family values—a form of godliness without the power—is never enough. The Baby Boom generation, raised with conventional morality mixed with rampant materialism, rebelled big time. Their parents wanted them to be nice boys and girls, but they failed to tell them why. They tried to impose middle-class morality without teaching them the fear of the Lord and immersing them in His Word. Look what happened when Jesus Christ got left out.

Churches today that are staging Mayberry shows instead of retelling the ancient story of the Incarnation are making a terrible mistake. Jesus didn’t come to make us nicer people, to give us middle class morality and a respectable, family-values America. Jesus left the splendor of heaven and the adoration of the Seraphim to come to a sin-sick world, to die on a bloody cross in our place because of our sin. He came to triumph once and for all over sin, death and hell, to rise triumphantly from the grave and ascend into heaven as our glorified Lord. Amen. Why would this church use a tired 60’s sitcom to entertain crowds when they have the old, old story of Redemption and the glorious words of Scripture with which to tell it?

I won’t be having Christmas in Mayberry, now or ever. I want to make the journey to Bethlehem in my heart this Advent and kneel before that manger as the shepherds once did. O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord!

I am reminded of the old hymn, “Thy Manger is My Paradise”.

Posted in abomination, apostasy, Bible, blasphemy, christian worldliness, Christianity, church worldliness, heresy, Jesus Christ, secularism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Article: Christmas Was Opposed By Protestants Until It Became Capitalist And Secular

Posted by Job on December 18, 2007

When it was a religious holiday, Christians rejected it as paganism. But when it became a secular “family values” holiday associated with status and wealth, it was embraced. How odd. How American.

dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FLife&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FLife%2FTopStoryList_Story_1268949

Posted in big business, capitalism, Christianity, idolatry, mammon, paganism, secularism | Tagged: , , | 3 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 »

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 »

The Death Of Secularism

Posted by Job on August 10, 2007

by Ronald L. Dart  of Borntowin.net 

Hanging labels on people, ideas, or movements is so convenient.  It can even be helpful, as a kind of shorthand to help us categorize ideas and people.  I was labeled recently.  A pastor was trying to figure out where to place me in terms of belief systems, churches, denominations, etc.  After a brief exchange of emails, he decided I was a maverick.

      I don’t think he meant it as a compliment, but here in Texas, we know what a maverick is.  It is an unbranded range animal.  When applied to a human, it denotes an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.  So I figured it was a compliment after all.  For I certainly don’t run with the herd.  That said, I pointed out to the chap that labeling people can become a substitute for thinking, and that is not the best way to understand people or things.

      Sometimes you have to look up the meaning of the label.  A good example of this is the word secular, which is showing up more often these days: It means simply, not religious.  When we go a step further and make it an “ism,” we get secularism, which means indifference to, rejection of, or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations.

      For a long time, talk show hosts were enjoying bashing liberals so much that those who previously defined themselves as liberal, were now calling themselves progressive.  And really, after all, we all want progress, don’t we? In a few quarters, talking heads and pundits are starting to recognize a different “ism.”  The enemy is not merely liberalism or progressivism.  It is the exclusion of religion and religious considerations from public life-in other words, secularism.

      Secularism is not quite the same thing as atheism, although they tend to run in the same channels.  There was a cover article not long ago in one of the major news magazines titled, “The New Atheism.” There have been about five books published in recent months making the case for atheism.  Michael Novak noticed something that could be easily overlooked in all the noise.  He said that there’s an odd defensiveness about all these books-as though they were a sign not of victory but of desperation.  I hadn’t thought about that, but I know in principle that the collapse of an idea is downright scary to people who have lived so confidently in its shadow.  I have seen the same thing in Christian circles when people come face to face with uncomfortable truths about their faith.  The more argumentative a person is, the more insecure he is about his belief.

      What I took away from Michael Novak’s article was that “inevitability” of secularism needs to be reexamined because it is, simply, failing.  It is easy to overlook that fact in the steady drumbeat of news.  But just as communism failed spectacularly in the Soviet Union, so secularism is failing in the West.

      I want you to listen to my radio program on this theme titled, The Death of Secularism.  It won’t air for some weeks yet, but I am happy to offer it to you right now.  Just click here to listen: . If the embedded link does not work, try this direct link: the_death_of_secularism.mp3

Continuing to keep you informed, Ronald L. Dart

Posted in atheism, Christianity, devotional, Egypt, Russia, salvation, secularism | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: