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!

Posts Tagged ‘idolatry’

Theodicy Dialogue With Pastor Matt Wrickman

Posted by Job on January 26, 2012

Matthew Wrickman, a pastor and blogger with whom I have corresponded in the past, wished to discuss How The Penn State University Child Molestation Case Demonstrates The Existence Of God and did so in a comment, which he reproduced as a post on his site (which I encourage you to patronize). The objections – er dialogue points – that he raised are good ones as always, and my interaction with them is as follows. Pastor Wrickman’s words are in blocked quote format, and mine follow. Thank you.

“ Interesting response. Most commentators for the last 200 years at least have used evil in the reverse sense as the greatest problem for the existence of God. The line of logic would be that Sandusky is evil. If God was really good, really powerful, and really existed then He would have intervened and stopped the action. He didn’t so either He is not really good, really powerful, or does not really exist. As a line of logic it seems rather convincing. I, of course, would argue (as you hinted at) that God has intervened through the person of Son. That the cross of Christ represents Christ’s solidarity with the victims of Sandusky, as well as, his offer of healing to both victim and victimizer. Mix that with classical free will theory and I feel that the question has been answered; perhaps not superbly but answered nonetheless.”

Alas, you are of the Remonstrants, I am of the Synod of Dort! (Actually I am Particular Baptist after the manner of Charles Spurgeon, William Carey and Paul Bunyan and you are not classical Arminian or Wesleyan as you to not believe that one can lose his salvation, but otherwise you get the picture.)

“You once stated that you enjoyed boiling down arguments to the logical extreme”

Well, my love of reductio ad absurdum was in my angry, immature phase. (In what many might consider to be an irony, it was becoming a “5 point Calvinist” – or again more accurately a Particular Baptist – that helped me get past my anger, which I ultimately discovered was truthfully coming from within and was directed inwardly also.) I now rarely employ this debate tactic, though I hear that it is a very good tool for computer scientists and mathematicians.

“and that is where pointing from evil to God fails. At it’s extreme it allows for no differentiation between evil and God.””

I agree with you to a point, as a multitude of false religions (as I understand them) have deities that are dualistic, amoral or even malevolent. But that extreme is precluded by the holy scriptures. Though I do dabble in classical and evidential apologetics from time to time – to the extent that I am able – for the most part I adhere to the presuppositional apologetics school of Cornelius Van Til and similar, which takes the truth and authority of the Bible to be a non-negotiable starting point and proceeds from there. (I further build on that school by presuming a basic “rule of faith”, or a normative interpretation of the Bible, belief in its inerrancy/inspiration/authority, and application of its doctrines to the church).

So, inasmuch as the Bible differentiates between evil and God, I presume this to be true also. My purpose for authoring the above piece was intended not to much to be an exercise in philosophy, ethics or similar, but for evangelism and encouragement. Thus, it presumes some degree of faith – and please recall that faith is not produced by man but is given by God – and is not intended for the purposes of debating the likes of Sam Harris, Charles Dawkins or the late Christopher Hitchens.

“One might state that if evil has a positive outcome such as pointing to God; then committing evil cannot be entirely wrong (as it creates some good outcome). Therefore committing an evil act cannot be considered wrong and cannot then be evil.”

What you speak of is outcome-based religion. The problem with such religions is that man, lacking perfect knowledge and morality, is incapable of properly evaluating outcomes. Only God can do so. What we perceive to be a “good” outcome according to our perspective might actually be evil according to God, and the converse is also true. Consider an example: a small leak in a dam. A person might make an improper repair to the leak that for a time stops the water from running, but makes the dam weaker, or at minimum ignores the root cause of the leak. Now though the fix is flawed, it might last a long time – during the duration of that person’s life. And for that time, that person will be considered to have done a great good in fixing the leak, and will go to his grave with such estimation.

But suppose that the dam ultimately breaks and catastrophically floods the town! Was this a good deed? No, because in the most extreme case, where the leak would have been at most a minor annoyance but remained, the fix made the dam weaker and caused it to suddenly burst where it would not have had the fix not been applied. In even the most favorable possible case, the fix caused everyone to BELIEVE that the problem was solved, and hindered them from seeking a real solution, or from evacuating the town if no solution was possible or practical.

Such is the result of false religion: it creates self-righteousness and blinds the sinner from his need for God. And false doctrines in Christianity can similar impede the spiritual growth of a Christian. So, the measure of “good acts” are not by their outcomes (“the ends justify the means”) or their intentions (“he meant well/his heart was in the right place”) but rather the fidelity of these acts to the commandments of Jesus Christ as revealed by the Holy Scriptures regardless of their apparent outcomes. God and His Word are the standard, not the outcome or our perception of it, and by the definition of God as determined by His special revelation to us in the Bible, fidelity to God and His Word cannot be evil.

That is why the people who obeyed the commandments of God to commit genocide and fratricide in the Old Testament were not evil, and those who committed what might have been considered good in sparing, say, a Canaanite baby out of what seemed to be mercy upon the innocent who posed no threat when when God commanded to utterly destroy all the Canaanites would have been evil. Where of course we would say that killing a Canaanite baby is evil, and sparing the baby and raising it up according to the Jewish religion would have been good according to our own understanding, we have to accept by faith God’s statements when He says that His ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts, and obey God according to that same faith.

If we do otherwise, and obey God when it conforms to our own sense of good and evil and abandon God’s commandments when they contradict them, we are following our own religion and morality and not God’s, and we have made ourselves into gods in the place of God.

“On another level it also implicates God in evil; because it seems to make God a participant in the evil action. Therefore one might question the goodness of God.”

Well, the psalmists and prophets seemed to regularly question the goodness of God, no? Yet they remained faithful. It is not blind faith, but faith in God’s self-revelation to us through His Son. The role of the Holy Spirit is not to answer all of our questions, but to reassure us, comfort us and keep us in the faith despite them. Or to save us from our faithless condition despite them. The Bible declares oft that we cannot understand God and His ways, and that we are not to even try to. We are to merely – as the old hymn says – trust and obey Him.

But let it be said that God does certainly use evil to accomplish His ends. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose, and this includes evil things. And God most certainly does use evil events. When a sinner commits evil, the Holy Spirit convicts him of this evil in order to drive him to repentance unto salvation. When a Christian commits evil, the Holy Spirit convicts him of this evil in order to drive him to repentance unto restoration. The Holy Spirit does not cause this evil, but He certainly uses it.

But as touching God and evil actions: consider when God sent a lying spirit to the false prophets in order to provoke wicked king Ahab into going into battle so that Ahab could be slain as a punishment for his (Ahab’s) wickedness. Consider also when God made pharaoh ruler of Egypt and hardened his heart so that pharaoh would oppress the children of Israel mightily, as God wanted an occasion to judge the Egyptians for their wickedness, to save Israel and make them a nation, and to display evidence of His existence and power to the world. Consider when God used the wicked pagan Assyrian and Babylonian empires to judge Israel and Judah for their infidelity to the Sinai covenant (and this required allowing Assyria and Babylon to conquer other nations and otherwise rise to power). And consider when Jesus Christ chose the non-elect Judas Iscariot as one of His apostles so that Judas Iscariot could betray Him and otherwise fulfill the prophecies.

It is very fair to say that God participated in these evil actions, if you rely on the common human definition of participation. In the Bible, God does asserts His right to do evil, at least according to man’s perspective of evil (when God did so, He was condescending to the limited understanding capacity of man in that He allowed them to regard His actions as evil).

Just because we see something as evil does not make it evil. God is the standard, the Self-existing Self-defined one who is goodness and righteousness within Himself. Evil, then, is by definition that which is contrary to God, and God by definition cannot be contrary to Himself. Any other definition of evil makes man a judge of not only himself, but of God. This is something than an unbeliever – especially an atheist or rationalist – will never accept but that Christians are called to accept, believe and submit ourselves to through faith.

The unwillingness to accept the fact that God Himself is the definition of good and that evil is defined by its being in opposition to God is the source of so many of these logical games, tricks and constructions on the behalf of many apologists. This fact also solves the apparent problem of God telling one person to do one thing at one time and another person to do something else (i.e. when God commanded Ezekiel and Hosea to break the Mosaic law by eating bread defiled with excrement and marrying a cult prostitute): we are simply to believe that God can do so without Himself being contradictory.

“I prefer the Biblical account which simply claims that God is the good God who overcomes evil. He is the one that thwarts evil, and instead works good in the life of the believer where the evil one had sought to sow destruction. Evil, then, remains evil; and God remains good. It is not the evil action that points to God; but rather His action in turning away the evil and establishing his redemption in its wake. The redemption points to God.”

The problem with that is that it relies on an incomplete portion of the Holy Scriptures, excluding bad facts. Consider, well, the book of Job (which has been as much a source of fascination and meditation for me as I certainly hope the Gospel of Matthew has been for you)! Let’s face it: God delivered Job into the hands of Satan for Satan to do whatever he wished with Job and all that he had save taking Job’s life. And please recall: the Bible is clear that the calamities that came upon Job were not due to any sin that Job had committed. Job’s CHILDREN died, not because of any sin of Job or the children, and despite Job’s daily sacrificing for his children in case they sinned. (Of course, their deaths would have occurred due to their original sin, as did Job’s death, but let us focus on their untimely deaths, which was considered to be an evil occurrence in OT times and still is to this day.)

We have to come up with a theodicy that is faithful to the entirety of the Bible. Not only must we do this in order to be faithful to God through His Word, but this is also the only way to construct a theodicy that encompasses the range of the facts of life that we have to confront, such things as wars, plagues, horrific crimes, miscarriages, birth defects etc. God does overcome evil by eliminating all that which is contrary to Himself. Keep in mind: this process will not be completely finished until the eschaton, when this creation is destroyed by fire, the wicked are cast into eternal flame, and a new heaven and a new earth is created.

As to why God did not make the original creation after the same manner of the new heaven and new earth, we just have to accept that God did all things according to a manner that pleased Him. The idea that God was obligated to prevent the existence of evil in order to not Himself be evil is man’s thinking, not our own. And it is thinking that is centered on man and his own interests, as we accuse God for not acting to avoid our own misery and suffering. We want to be able to say that God is not good if the result of His original creation was humans – most of whom never encountered with the gospel of Jesus Christ to either accept or reject – being punished in the lake of fire for an eternity. As mentioned earlier, our duty is to accept these facts because they are how God revealed Himself and His actions in the Bible, and not to generate contrivances to avoid the fulness of God’s self-revelation and its implications. Make no mistake: unbelievers are fully aware of these things! Have you ever perused skepticsannotatedbible.org and similar counter-apologetics efforts? It is far better to directly confront these things in scripture, meditate on them, accept them through faith, and work them into our systematic theologies than to simply pretend that they do not exist, or to come up with human-centered (if not necessarily humanistic) evasions.

One last point if evil has some positive function in our world then the ultimate destruction of it would in essence be destroying it, and with it destroying an important way of knowing God. Yet our God promises to end evil once and for all. That is our hope that on a day in the hopefully not-too-distant future He will return to bring into completion or fullness the reality of His Kingdom that he established in His previous visit. The cross is the seal of payment, and the spirit is his down payment asserting His intentions to return. Evil will be no more and His people will be entirely free to serve Him in eternity. We will then celebrate His victory, not His battle.

There is a difference between saying that evil has an absolute positive function in the world, and merely stating that God uses evil to accomplish His purposes. However, even if God did so as you speak, it would be well within His right to terminate it. Does God still feed His people with manna? Of course, God did a great thing by feeding His people with manna. Does the fact that you no longer eat manna destroy an important way of knowing God? Does the fact that you are not a Jew living in Jerusalem under the Mosaic law destroy an important way of knowing God? God forbid! So, if God can discontinue good things, then how much more so can He discontinue evil that He uses for good purposes? We know God only by God’s revelation.

Whether God’s revelation consists of His use of evil to accomplish His goals or not, the knowledge of God is the same. Why? Because God – the one providing the revelation – is the same. Even if you were to say that it is not “the same”, inasmuch as those in Old Testament times did not have the same knowledge as do we in light of the cross and the current ministrations of the Holy Spirit, their knowledge of God based on the revelation that they had was nonetheless sufficient to suit God’s purposes and that is what counts. God is only bound by Himself to reveal to us what He chooses for us to know of Him. He is not bound by us to reveal to us what we desire to know of him.

Further, God reveals Himself to us through the way that He chooses, not the way that we desire. Part of the error of some in the Pentecostal movement that I was once in is their demand that God reveal Himself to us in these ways in the same way that He revealed Himself to the early church, and also to Old Testament Israel. God’s actions and revelations are according to His will, not our desires. And the nature and character of God’s revelation are suitable to fulfill our needs. Not our wants, but our needs. Keep in mind in Romans 1 when Paul states that even the order and nature of creation should have been enough of God’s self-disclosure to live righteously and thereby be saved, and therefore those who do not – including those who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ – are without excuse and therefore subject to condemnation on judgment day.

And of course we celebrate His battle. Are not the Psalms filled with the Jews’ praise of God’s battles on their behalf, physical and spiritual? Concerning Jesus Christ, do we not celebrate His trial in the desert, Gethsemane and the cross, and not merely the resurrection? Jesus Christ specifically instituted the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper so that we would remember His passion. This knowledge of God that you speak of includes God’s battles for our behalf, because through these we know that God has both the power to save us and the love to forgive us. God’s destruction of Egypt and Israel’s other enemies is evidence of the former, and His restoration of the remnant after they broke His covenant is evidence of the latter. This is evidence of the very hope of which you speak!

Well, I am done! I thank this opportunity to dialogue with my old friend and brother in the faith. As always, I hope that I did not offend or mistreat you, and if I did, it was not my intent. Thank you, and I look forward to your response.

The Three Step Salvation Plan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Posted in Bible, Christianity, devotional, evangelism, faith, grace, Jesus Christ, Theodicy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

According To Trip Lee, Pantheist Steven Hawking Has It Twisted

Posted by Job on September 14, 2010

Now in your opinion, who is smarter? Steven Hawking, the brilliant world-renowned physicist/cosmologist/mathematician? Or Trip Lee, the rapper from the inner city? Being someone who has struggled mightily with physics and mathematics (thermodynamics, mechanics, electromagnetism, differential equations, LaPlace and Z transforms, aaargh!) it is tempting to side with the physicist, who clearly has a form of knowledge based on both his God-given intellectual capacity and his vigorous dedication to studying the natural world. But I believe that I will side with Trip Lee. Why? Because where Hawking is clearly advanced in his knowledge of things that are natural, being a born-again Christian, the rapper Trip Lee has knowledge of spiritual things. Whether Lee has a Ph.D. or preschool diploma in spiritual things does not matter. The point is that Lee and Christians like him have accepted enough spiritual knowledge to be saved from sin through Jesus Christ and as a result will be with Him in New Jerusalem for eternity. So, whatever knowledge that Lee has, it is thoroughly adequate and exceedingly useful where it really counts. As for the esteemed Mr. Hawking, unless he repents of his sins and acquires the knowledge of spiritual things that are only revealed to those that are under submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the truth is that he will spend an eternity separated from Jesus Christ burning in a lake of fire. Thus, his great intellect, dedicated study, and many accomplishments will have been of no practical, lasting use to him. With respect to eternity, it will be vain, to no effect, and it would have been better for him had he never been born (Matthew 26:24).

In stating “God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator“, this Hawking embraces the knowledge of the world in place and instead of the foolishness of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18). He thereby despises casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Actually, it goes deeper than that. We know from Romans 1:18-32 that Hawking should have learned enough about God from his pursuit of studying what general revelation reveals about God’s existence and attributes in order to worship Him. But instead, Hawking rejected the knowledge of God available to him in general revelation, and neither did Hawking honor God as God or give Him thanks, but instead Hawking worships the creature in place of the Creator. Thus, Hawking is now doing things which are not convenient, which includes denying what general revelation taught Him about God’s existence and attributes, and thereby becoming a blasphemer. God chooses the foolishness of the world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27), which of course makes those who profess themselves as wise to be so in their own eyes only, and instead become fools because of the foolishness of their darkened hearts.

And let us not be deceived … Hawking is worshiping the creature instead of the Creator. By claiming that the universe created itself from nothing, Hawking aligns himself with the religion of metaphysical naturalism, which truthfully is nothing but pantheism with a scientific veneer or exterior. By claiming that the universe created itself, Hawking is stating that the universe itself is god. Or, since Hawking refuses to deny the existence of God and therefore be an atheist or even an agnostic in the classic sense, Hawking is a henotheist (think Mormonism) in that while he does not deny the existence of another god or gods, there is only one god that Hawking is concerned with and therefore worships, and that is the god of the universe, the natural world. Because let us be honest, people. In order to create, one must have the A) power and B) will to create (and not only that but to do so ex nihilo).. Also, after one has exercised this A) power and B) will in accomplishing creation, that entity, that one, is C) lord, ruler, master, or owner of that creation. So, the universe had power within itself, will within itself (self-will) and is lord over itself. It relies on nothing, is sustained by nothing, needs nothing, and answers to nothing. If that is not a description of a god, then what is?

Now Hawking himself would deny that statement because Hawking subscribes to an epistemology that emphasizes randomness, spontaneity. So, he would say that the universe’s creating itself was not an act that required the exertion of power controlled by a conscious will, but instead was only a random, spontaneous event. Just as it is possible for matter and energy to form itself out of nothing, but it was also possible for laws and organization to form themselves out of chaos, and ultimately for consciousness and intelligence to similarly develop. But, in the words of Trip Lee’s rap song below, Hawking “has it twisted” because Hawking’s religion makes the universe his lord and the chaos that he claims has arranged itself into order his master. And of course, who does the Bible call Hawking’s master, which is the author of the confusion and chaos that Hawking claims that the universe organized itself from? Revelation 9:11 tells us! “And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.”

Do not get it twisted. You have a Creator. One day, every knee shall bow and tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. Submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ today so that your Lord will also become your Savior. Do not let Steven Hawking – despite his many accomplishments and great intellectual gifts – be your role model, for (unless he changes as I did when I renounced my own atheism) his eternal fate makes him an unsuitable one. Instead,

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

(Ummm ... for those of you who find rap music unintelligible at any speed, here is a link to the printed lyrics.)

Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Terry Jones Quran (Koran) Burning Is Just One System Of Idolatry Versus Another

Posted by Job on September 9, 2010

Terry Jones, pastor of Dove World Outreach Center, is planning to commemorate the 9th anniversary of September 11th by burning copies of the Qu’ran (Koran), which is regarded as the holy book for those who practice Islam. These intentions have horrified a great number of people. Many of them, including of course Muslims and also Bible-believing Christians, are no doubt sincere in their intense opposition to this event. Many others, however, are of course grandstanding hypocrites who passionately defend and take pleasure in similar attacks against Christianity and those who practice it. However, there is another group of hypocrites that figure prominently in this controversy, as they were the ones who laid the very groundwork for such a thing as this to happen with their words, doctrines and deeds. Many Christians involved in “religious right” politics are falling over themselves to denounce Jones and his actions as un-Christian, taking full advantage of the opportunity to publicly exhibit their opposition to bigotry. These religious right Christians have spent decades preaching the false gospel of what can be called “Americhristianity“, a syncretism of (false) Christianity and America worship. Realize this: Terry Jones is being consistent here. He is only practicing what his religion preaches, and so is the “Ameri-Christian” who commits a “hate crime” against a Muslim, illegal immigrant, abortion doctor, homosexual or what have you. For the religious right sorts to disseminate their idolatrous doctrines and then disavow the consequences is no different from the imam who preaches jihad and then distances himself from the suicide bomber. Now do not get me wrong, only a tiny percentage of Muslims commit violence based on their religious beliefs. But make no mistake: the same is true of Ameri-Christians.

This should not surprise anyone, as violence is a logical consequence of idolatry. A look at Romans 1:18-32 shows us the evil that following dead idols causes: being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful, etc. Muslims get angry over a Florida pastor burning a Qu’ran? Well, a Florida pastor received death threats from the Ameri-Christians in his own congregation over his removing the American flag from the pulpit! His motivation? Wanting the church to focus on Jesus Christ!

Time to rewind a bit. A lot of people have made false equivalence between burning Bibles and burning the Qu’ran. This is apples and oranges because where Christians merely respect and cherish Bibles, Muslims actually regard copies of the Qu’ran as holy. Essentially, to the Muslim, the Qu’ran is an idol. Christians have no such view of the Bible, because Christianity holds that only God is holy. Thus, the only way to be holy is through a connection to or relationship with God. Born-again Christians are hence holy because God grants us this status through Jesus Christ, and also because God’s Holy Spirit indwells the Christian. So, in Christianity, one commits no sin against anything holy by burning a Bible. Instead, the Christian commits a sin against that which is holy when he sins against his body by breaking God’s commandments to us (see 1 Corinthians 6:18). (Among those commandments? Not to be an idolater!)

So why the difference between the Christian view of the Bible and the Muslim view of the Qu’ran? Return to Romans 1:18-32. It tells us that early in the history of the human race, beginning with Adam and for a time thereafter, man knew God. Now this may give pause to Christians who are conditioned to see God’s being known to man, particularly in a special or religious sense, through Old Testament Judaism and Christianity. Please recall that the Bible is not a comprehensive history, but concentrates on that which is necessary for salvation. Also, the Bible does speak of those who had a relationship with him prior to the calling of Abraham, a group which includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek and Job. The Bible says that men began to call upon the Name of Yahweh in Genesis 4:26. “Call upon the Name” means to worship. Now God had been worshiped prior to that, for remember Abel’s sacrifice, an act of worship that God accepted. Also, the divine Name Yahweh was already known to humanity at that time, as Eve used it in Genesis 4:1 on the occasion of Cain’s birth. So, whatever development that Genesis 4:26 is supposed to refer to exactly, it is clear that at that stage, humanity had knowledge of God by worshiping Him using God’s personal Name.

However, by Genesis 6, things had changed. The population of the earth increased, and man became extremely wicked. Mankind had perverted himself, and as a result the earth was filled with violence. The cause of this? Again, Romans 1:18-32 says that wicked imaginations, perverse natures and violence comes from idolatry, and it also strongly suggests that at this time mankind completely gave himself over to this practice. Verses 21-25 read:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Mankind ceased to worship God, the unseen Spirit, and instead worshiped creatures, meaning things that are created. This included the use of tangible, physical objects that represent entities or ideas – idols – in worship. And to the idolater, the creature, or its symbolic representative stand-in, is itself regarded as “holy”, and even may be considered to have magical or supernatural powers. If nothing else, the idol is a very valuable, cherished and beloved possession because of what it represents to its owner. So, mankind totally gave himself over to rejecting the holiness of the Creator in order to embrace the idea that things created – whether by God or man – were worthy of this reverent status instead.

Because this mindset was embedded in fallen humanity, God condescended to mankind’s status and incorporated some elements of it in the Sinai religion given by Moses to the Jews. Because of this, in Old Testament Judaism, certain days, holidays (or “holy days”), observances, places, objects and rituals were declared holy. However, we must realize that these things were so because God declared them to be as such. Also, God had His purposes. For instance, things that came into contact with God’s presence or were used in giving offerings to God had to be set apart and purified in order to teach Israel about God’s sinless nature and man’s sinfulness. Further, other things were declared holy because of Christological typology.

So what must be emphasized is that things like the temple, the altar, the ark of the covenant, the burnt offering tools etc. were not holy in and of themselves, but were only so because of their identification with God, their proximity to His presence and their use in His plan. It was never an endorsement of the idea that objects, places, rituals or even ideologies were to be considered holy, contained some spiritual or magical powers, imparted grace, and treated that such. So, when Jesus Christ fulfilled all things concerning the Sinai religion that was used as a schoolmaster to bring us to Him (Galatians 3:24-25) the idea of “holy things” ended. Evidence of this was the ripping of the veil of the temple.

However, the desire of people call things other than God holy did not end. As a consequence, Islam reveres not only its books, but its (alleged) prophet, buildings, cities (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem), and even nations that are fully under Muslim control as holy. But the issue here is that it is not unique to Islam, but is also present in false versions of Christianity. Consider Catholicism (Roman and Orthodox) with its sacraments that according to their teachings impart grace, and its seemingly endless assortment of “saints”, icons, relics etc. that are targets of “veneration” because of some spiritual or mystical reason or other.

What does this have to do with Terry Jones? Well, his Ameri-Christianity is more of the same. His Qu’ran burning is not being done for theological reasons. If it were, he would also burn the Book of Mormon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Magazine, and articles from other false faiths. Instead, Jones is singling out the Qu’ran because he has bought into the right wing dogma that Islam constitutes some sort of threat to the American way of life. And since Ameri-Christianity is this blend of certain – but not all – Christian doctrines and some – but again not all – American ideas and traditions, in the eyes of the Ameri-Christian like Jones, an attack on one is an attack on the other.

Make no mistake, whether they support this Qu’ran burning of Jones or not, religious right Ameri-Christians worship the creature besides the Creator. This great nation of ours is but a creature. Further, as Old Testament Israel was the only nation to be created by God, it is a creation of men. And God did not create our institutions or system of laws as He did with Old Testament Israel. Instead, men created democracy (where the Bible only deals with monarchy and theocracy), men created capitalism (which did not even exist until the groundwork for it was accidentally laid by John Calvin), and men created the concept of individual and human rights (the result of Enlightenment philosophers’ taking portions of the Roman Catholic concept of natural law that they found useful and applying it to the secular arena). Ameri-Christians have taken these works of human hands to be the result of divine providence, and quite possibly even divine revelation, and therefore in their eyes to oppose them is to oppose God, and supporting them is part and parcel of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can turn on conservative talk radio – or even Christian radio – at any time and hear so many Christians profess “I believe in and support the Bible and the Constitution 100%” when the truth is that not only does one not have anything to do with the other, but that the worldviews of the Bible (divine revelation) and the Constitution (humanism and deism) are opposed. The Bible is the Word of God, the Constitution is the word of Caesar. Render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but give to God that which is God, and never shall the twain be intermixed!

Now again, let us go back to the Biblically established truth that idolatry leads to violence and apply it to Ameri-Christianity. How many Christians accept without question the idea that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were justified in order to protect the American way of life because it includes the ability to practice Christianity freely? How many of us even justify this concept with thinking like “America needs to remain free and prosperous so that American Christians will have the financial resources to sponsor missions and help the poor in third world countries.” Well dear Christians, the early church of Acts was neither free OR wealthy, yet they managed to evangelize the Roman Empire AND meet the needs of the poor!

Consider another example. How many Christians advocate – or would refuse to criticize – the killing of a robber that is only taking money or property and not physically endangering anyone? Truthfully, very few, because we have the conviction that “we have the right/responsibility to protect our private property.” Now do not err by bringing up the law given to Old Testament Israel concerning executing thieves. A person operating under New Testament doctrine knows that human life is more valuable than property, and that it is better to spare a thief in the hopes that he might hear the gospel down the line than to blow him away after the manner of some Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson movie. This is further evidence that mammon (possessions, “rights”, and the pleasures and passions that we obtain from them) is the true god of the Ameri-Christian.

Consider that such people live in fear of losing their freedoms, their rights and way of life. Well, what freedom, what rights does a slave have? What way of life does a slave enjoy except that which his master dictates? Now the legitimate Christian is a slave to Jesus Christ. The slave of Jesus Christ is able to find joy, peace, fulfillment and all else that he needs whether he is free prince in America or an oppressed pauper in Indonesia. Ameri-Christians reject slavery to Christ in favor of the idea of being their own masters. Being Christian is merely another lifestyle decision that they choose for themselves, and quite frankly they would find practicing Christianity under adverse or oppressive conditions to be more burdensome than liberating.

Thus, it would not surprise me the least if an Ameri-Christian is far more likely to suffer the experience of enduring living in a poor, oppressive overseas regime as a member of the military and therefore willing and ready to kill if ordered to do so by the creature than as a missionary sharing the gift of eternal life if ordered to do so by the Creator. To such a person, making such a lifestyle sacrifice in order to mete out death in defense of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is more agreeable than doing so in order to share the message of life and life more abundantly. And we can only imagine what such a person would think of the one who is a conscientious objector because of the teachings of Jesus Christ on the Sermon of the Mount! For the Ameri-Christian, “the American way of life” is morally and theologically prior to the New Testament.

This ideology is guilty of recognizing one of the main themes of the Sinai religion of the Old Testament. Consider the offering altar. It could only be made of earth, or of a single stone. It could not be made of hewn stone or constructed in any way, because the tools used to make the altar were unholy, and that which was holy was not allowed to mix or come in contact with that which was holy. That was a principle that held for everything and everyone that came into contact with God’s presence, or was used in making an offering to God. If anything common or regular came into contact with anything or anyone that was supposed to make an offering to God or be in God’s presence, then the thing that was supposed to be holy had to go through a purification process.

This was supposed to teach Christians that God is unique, separate and holy and cannot be mixed with or attached to anything worldly, common or unclean. That is what Ameri-Christianity does. It takes the worldly, common things (culture, economics, politics, ideology) and attempts to fuse it with the holiness of God’s Holy Spirit and presence. The result is something that is no longer clean, holy or spiritual, and hence no longer legitimately Christian. Think about that the next time that you hear someone declare that America is “a Christian nation.” Such a thing cannot exist, because it is a mixture of a common creature (America) with a Holy Creator. The very tools that were used to construct America defile it, making it an unworthy altar, and we cannot make an acceptable offering to God on an unclean altar that God rejects. Thus, the person who in any sense joins being American with being Christian is only capable of making an offering to God after the manner of Cain. And let us recall that this same Cain slew Abel, who made the acceptable offering.

And this is why the actions of one Terry Jones, and also of the many other religious right Ameri-Christians doing their best to distance themselves from him because being associated with them hurts their economy in the American political mainstream that they desire and need to remain relevant and powerful in, should be taken notice of. Again, Ameri-Christianity is idolatry. Idolatry leads to violence. And the primary target of idolatrous violence is going to be any non-idolaters that are available. As Galatians 4:29 tells us, those who are of the flesh persecute those who are of the spirit, just as Cain slew righteous Abel and Ishmael persecuted Isaac.

And remember the prediction of Jesus Christ in John 16:2! Can it be that Ameri-Christians may believe that by persecuting us for being “un-American” that they are doing God service? Consider the Glenn Beck rally, where not a few evangelical Ameri-Christians joined this dominionist crusader in his Mormonism worship rally. If the economic problems continue, illegal immigration persists and the American way is threatened by enemies like Iran and North Korea abroad and liberals at home, will the refusal to join ecumenical/interfaith Americanism movements be seen as a betrayal of God? Judging from Ameri-Christian David Barton, who states that we should “judge Beck by his fruits” (meaning his effective support of the religious right agenda), you can guess the answer. So, Christian, what are you going to do when the Ameri-Christian comes for you bearing chains and staves to deliver you to the authorities? Will you stand? Or will you wilt and refuse to profess that Jesus Christ is Lord of all?

That, of course, presumes that you are indeed a Christian and not an Ameri-Christian. Which are you? Today you must make your stand. If you worship God, worship Him only. If you worship Baal, worship Baal only. How long will you halt between two opinions? If you are on the Lord’s side, then flee the syncretism! Come out of Babylon and the abomination of her idols immediately! Otherwise, when Babylon falls – and she will fall – you will with her.

If you are unsaved and are not under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, I urge you now

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

If you are saved, then here is a prayer. Father God in the Name of Jesus Christ, please lead and guide me so that I can discern that which is holy and that which is not so that I may follow the former, spurn the latter, and worship you only in spirit and in truth as you desire and require. Amen.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

What If It Were A Ground Zero Church Instead Of A Ground Zero Mosque?

Posted by Job on August 17, 2010

When you consider the Ground Zero mosque controversy, I cannot help but think of the Orthodox Idolatry post at Judah’s Lion (courtesy of PJ Miller) of concerning the lengths that Christians will go to in order to defend the American system because they perceive the American system to be some Christian ideal and the result of God’s providence and part of His special plan for the redemption of mankind with a unique role in salvation history, and as a result defending America is tantamount to defending the gospel of Jesus Christ itself. From Calvinistic covenant theologians like D. James Kennedy who proclaim America to be the crowning achievement of that system to free will Christians who want the power of man to choose or resist God’s grace to be constitutionally protected by the most powerful nation on earth, there is a lot at stake in claiming that there is Godly virtue in America’s secular freedoms, secular freedoms that are truthfully – according to Judah’s Lion – are actually morally neutral. Nothing of real spiritual value is morally neutral – meaning that it can be used for either evil or good – because God cannot be the origin of evil (James 1:12). Instead, it should be stated that things that are morally neutral can be used to perform God’s purposes. And that is no evidence of the virtues of morally neutral – or amoral – things because even things that are incontrovertibly evil have been used to fulfill God’s purposes too (as in the slaughter of the innocent Jewish children by Herod, which fulfilled a Messianic prophecy).

Now a lot of things have been written by Christians on this mosque topic. So, I will focus on two issues: the need of Christians to submit to the government (Romans 13) and the need of Christians not to be hypocrites. On the first, the Bible makes it clear that failing to obey or respect the law when the law does not force Christians to violate scripture is a sin. To put it another way, attempting to defy or subvert legitimate government is a sin, because legitimate government is a servant of God because of its serving to restrain evil. This means that not only are we to adhere to the law ourselves, but we are to desire that others do so also, and further we are to desire that the law is applied justly, which means fairly and evenly.

With that in mind, make no mistake: the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the applicable state and local laws give Muslims the right to build this mosque. For Christians to go about looking for ways to hinder or intimidate Muslims from exercising and enjoying their legal rights is to attempt to subvert and reject our system of laws. It would make the Muslims the lawmakers and Christians the subversives, the rebels, the seditionists. It would be Christians attempting to subvert the rule of law and undermining a just application of them. Other nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, do not have any pretense of equal treatment under the law. They do not have an equivalent to the Bill of Rights or the equal protection clause. So those nations can have different sets of rules for religious minorities and be justified in their own eyes. But it is America who has those things, and there is no justification for a Christian to attempt to prevent a nation from living up to and enforcing its own laws. Indeed, the Christian who does such a thing is guilty of promoting injustice and lawlessness.

Now a lot of people have taken the stance “it is legal but it isn’t right” under the grounds that it is offensive. The problem is that the First Amendment and other applicable laws are designed specifically to protect things that are offensive. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Now of course, most people are willing to respect the wishes and feelings of the majority. That’s not the point. The point is that they have no legal obligation to. Instead, the law is designed to protect people who have no regard for the majority, and indeed are opposed to the majority.

I don’t believe that a lot of Christians, especially those of a conservative political persuasion, have come to grips with the true nature of the founding of our country. This country’s founding was an act of rebellion, sedition, treason or what have you against England, who (notwithstanding the Native Americans) were the rightful rulers of this nation. Rebelling against a colonial power was a radical act, and it was justified not with the Bible, but with the radical Enlightenment thought that produced – among other things – the murderous French Revolution and ultimately spawned socialism, fascism and communism. So why are we surprised that a bunch of radical seditionists would produce a Constitution that protects the right of radical people to express themselves and organize? So, back then, it was the deists, humanists, rationalists, atheists, unitarians, freemasons (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and similar) plus Jews and Roman Catholics who demanded these protections from our overwhelmingly Protestant nation, and thanks to a revolutionary (seditious) mindset that overthrew the previous experiences of nations from the Roman Empire to Calvin’s Geneva to Bunyan’s England which taught that the long-term survival of a nation (we have only been in existence 300 years!) requires limiting religious freedom, they got it.

Now if it is time to state that the founders were wrong on unfettered religious freedom, fine. But should this reckoning be led by the very Christian leaders who supported the war in Iraq to “defend our religious freedoms and to give the Iraqis religious freedom too!”? If there is a fight to keep Muslims from imposing sharia law on Christians at home, the Christians who supported imposing western style democracies on sharia law on Muslims abroad should not be the ones to lead it. The reason is because such Christians do not support true justice or the rule of law, but instead only want to use these institutions to benefit Christians (and increasingly Jews, Mormons and Roman Catholics, who now all get to be called “Judeo-Christians”). We cannot continue to ignore that our system of laws was created in order to give a bunch of rebellious people that included in their ranks not a few deists and unitarians the “freedom” to reject legitimate Godly authority, which means that we also cannot persist in acting surprised that everyone from the Muslims to the feminists to the Marxists to the homosexual activists to the atheists have used this same system to pursue their agendas also.

Please note that I did not say “co-opt” or “hi-jack” because that would be dishonest. Instead, it can and must be said that these groups are properly utilizing our system according to the manner that it was intended. Our system was created by rebels for rebels. People who are appalled at the rebels of today (i.e. Muslims, homosexuals and other liberals) have forgotten how appalling the American Revolution was to the British! That’s right, the current tea party folks who oppose this mosque on the basis that it will become a breeding ground for terrorists (which it will be, trust me I have no illusion about Islam) conveniently forget how the British very properly viewed the original Tea Party and those who followed after them. Do you believe that the British had any higher regard for George Washington than many Americans have for Feisal Abdul Rauf? Why do you believe that they should have for the man that led a rebellion against their nation that killed many British soldiers? You don’t believe that the British cared any less for their soldiers fighting in America back then than we care about our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today? (And when you consider that unlike our troops occupying sovereign nations, the British troops were fighting to defend territory that was lawfully and properly theirs from traitors and seditionists?)

So, Christians who believe that by opposing the mosque they are defending America have simply deluded themselves as to what they are defending. It should be clear based on the Bible and our history (by this I mean actual scripture and history and not what we wish the Bible and our history to be for our own political or patriotic purposes) that seeking to either break the law or to intimidate Muslims to abandon their legal rights in order to oppose this mosque is not a legitimate expression of Christianity, which renders under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and submits to higher powers. As building this mosque will not stop a single Christian sermon from being preached or evangelist from being sent, contriving excuses to refuse to respect the law and the decisions of legitimately elected leaders (i.e. Bloomberg and Obama) makes the Christian guilty in this matter. And please, no speaking of how that site is “sacred ground.” Sacred in what sense? Not in a Christian sense, because the New Testament speaks only of the church’s identification with Jesus Christ – and through Jesus Christ God the Father – and it’s being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament no longer even affords much special significance to Jerusalem or the temple. Biblical Christianity respects no concept of “sacred ground”, only an elect people, and stating otherwise is political idolatry.

Now the second issue is even easier: hypocrisy. Suppose this former Burlington Coat Factory site had been purchased by a Christian pastor for the purposes of building a church, seminary or similar. And suppose that the state and city governments were to deny the building of it. Suppose that the logic was that it would be inappropriate, insensitive, and a provocation. Suppose Mike Bloomberg and Barack Obama were to say “building a large church so close to Ground Zero would be an act of declaring that site a Christian site and this nation a Christian nation, and that would dishonor the memories of the Jews, atheists, Hindus, Wiccans and Muslims who died on September 11th, and it would also dishonor the non-Christian soldiers who are fighting for our freedoms.” What if devices or tricks such as declaring this Burlington Coat Factory to be some sort of historical landmark site or changes to zoning laws were done to prevent this “Ground Zero Church” from being built, and demands were made to respect it as “sacred ground.” Suppose that someone were to even propose that building a church on a site that Muslims regard as triumphialist – one where they believe themselves to have obtained a great victory over the west – would be considered a religious and ideological “counterstrike” that would incite and inflame “moderate Muslims” and provoke attacks from Islamists. What would be the response?

We know the answer. Many of these very same Christians would invoke the First Amendment and every other law in the books to support the church being built. The same laws that we are demanding that Muslims either abandon or be denied in this case, most of these same Christians would want to be enforced to the fullest extent possible were the roles reversed. The Alliance Defense Fund, the American Center For Law and Justice, and other similar organizations would be working overtime, as would so many Christian leaders and opinion-makers. They would reject the “this isn’t about the First Amendment … you can build a church anywhere, just not here!” excuse. And you know what, they’d be 100% correct in that hypothetical situation just as they are 100% wrong now.  Do not mistake me, I am a Bible-believing Christian who fully knows the difference between Islam and Christianity. The issue is that our laws respect no such difference because they were written by people who wanted a legal code that recognizes no distinctions between Martin Luther and Thomas Jefferson. Our laws can show no favor on Christians or disfavor on Muslims because in going with Enlightenment humanism, our founding fathers chose darkness over light. So then, what is the justification for Christians to completely cast aside the golden rule – let alone the rule of law – with regards to this matter? Simple: there is none. Instead, you have so many professing Christians that are standing up defending the right to treat Muslims in a manner that is not only illegal, but is not the treatment that they would want to receive themselves. (Again, no claims that “I would respect sharia law if I were living in Saudi Arabia” because this isn’t Saudi Arabia. This is America, and the Bible demands that American Christians be subject to American laws and rulers, not that we try to seek ways to justify violating our laws and defying our leaders.)

Now does this means that Christians should support and defend this mosque? Of course not. Christians should never willingly play a role in the promotion of another religion. (Ecumenical Christians who do so with Roman Catholics and Mormons as well as dispensationalists who do so with Jews, please take note.) The idea that we have to defend the freedom of other religions in order to defend our own freedoms is not supported by the Bible. It is akin to claiming that we have to defend homosexual marriage in order to protect state recognition of heterosexual marriage, or defend abortion in order to make sure that those who wish to have children will be allowed to. Also, it takes the position that the protection and advancement of the church comes from the state and not God. Some Christians, especially those of the liberal bent, would claim that the Bible commands us to speak up for the marginalized and dispossessed and make sure that they receive justice. It is my position that such people would be employing questionable hermeneutics and a faulty application based on them in a case like this. Allow me to say that it would be the duty of a Christian who holds a post in civil government to do his job and follow the law with respect to Muslims in this case. Beyond that, it is the duty of our civil government to protect the First Amendment rights of Muslims. Christians should simply allow our civil government to do its job with respect to Muslims seeking to practice their religion and not interfere.

Ultimately, this Ground Zero mosque is a great example of the dangerous deceptions of political Christianity, both right and left. Political Christianity causes us to error in our thought, speech and actions, and divert those things from what God in His New Testament actually told us to do, which is to go and make converts and disciples and to live under submission to Jesus Christ ourselves.

Update: Following Judah’s Lion has the best commentary on this topic to date.

Thousands of Jesus followers around the world are being persecuted and even martyred for their faith. And just like the Amish who forgave the man who murdered their little girls, these believers endure hardships and persecution with the grace that should remind us of the Savior upon that cruel tree.

But in America a mosque is proposed to be built and millions of people who profess Christ get all up in arms and sound the alarm. The “alarm” they sound is not a call to sacrificial prayer for the souls of the Muslims who will frequent this mosque, but it is a caterwauling about America and the indignity of such a building. And these are people who doctrinally say they believe the Bible.

Evidently they do not.

What more can be said?

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Bible, Christianity, evangelism, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Christian Women With Weave, Was Your Hair Offered To Idols?

Posted by Job on October 14, 2009

Let us remember the verdict of the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 where the Jewish Christians decided the guidelines for sanctification and holy living for Gentile Christians. Consider this verse:

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Now consider this nugget from an article on the movie “Good Hair“:

… the movie, “Good Hair” … details the lengths to which some black women and men will go for straight hair … from a hair salon where a 6-year-old maintains a stiff upper lip as a chemical relaxer sits on her scalp, to the temples of India where the hair women sacrifice in a religious ceremony is swept up, sent to factories and exported as weave

Of course, I know the difference between eating something and putting it in your hair. I also know that Paul liberated this principle from being made into legalism in 1 Corinthians 8. However, allow me to propose this:  humans generally need to eat meat in order to be healthy. So, if there was a choice between damaging your health by doing all that one possibly can to obey Acts 15:29 and thus becoming malnourished or eating meat and being healthy, Paul said to eat meat. Also the context of 1 Corinthians 8 is that the meat that had been offered to idols was then mixed and sold with all the other meat, and it was impossible to tell which meat was which.

So while Acts 15:29 made it unlawful to KNOWINGLY eat meat offered to idols – which is practicing idolatry – UNKNOWINGLY eating meat offered to idols was not idolatry and thereby harmless. The reason is that the prohibition is not on the meat itself, which was fine, but rather the idolatry, which is sin. So this was not  a choice between being an idolater and not being an idolater. Instead, it was a choice between not APPEARING to be an idolater and being malnourished, or APPEARING to be an idolater and being healthy. Paul’s reasoning was that appearances don’t matter, only the heart does, so go ahead, buy your meat at the market with no worries as to whether it was offered to idols or not – because it was impossible to tell – and eat it.

However, where meat serves a vital human need, I would argue that hair weave does not. It is entirely cosmetic. So even though it may be lawful, is it nonetheless expedient (1 Corinthians 6:12) for a Christian woman to adorn herself with hair offered to idols? Is such a thing edifying (1 Corinthians 10:23)? Is hair offered to idols and then sold for a price an appropriate covering (1 Corinthians 11:15) for the body of a Christian woman, seeing that such a body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) as opposed to a pagan temple filled with idols? And is acquiring and wearing costly weave that has been offered to idols a way of keeping 1 Timothy 2:9-10?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Now of course I am not going to claim that it is a sin for Christian women to use weave because it MIGHT contain hair offered to idols. Not only would I be guilty of violating 1 Corinthians in saying such a thing, but I would not even be able to rely on the literal interpretation of Acts 15 or Exodus 20:3-4 (the passages concerning idolatry specifically and practicing false religions – which includes participating in their rites and ceremonies – in general). Instead, I am just providing more information for Christian women (and men) to consider in our efforts to make better, more Christ-honoring decisions. After all, where does the idea to go out and put weave in your hair come from? Or the idea that we have to look a certain way come from? Generally the media, Hollywood, mass entertainment, Madison Avenue (commercials), and what have you. They sell you an image of beauty that is not real. I am not merely referring to this image because so much of it is literally fake, whether the product of airbrushing, lighting, cosmetic surgery, photo editing etc. but because it takes our minds and hearts away from the true beauty that is Jesus Christ that is revealed through us through the wonderful works of His creation (Romans 1) and causes us to exchange it for a lie, an image conceived not in God’s mind or made by God’s hands but rather created by man’s hands and conceived in his sinful, corrupt rebellious minds. And what are images conceived and made by man? Merely idols.

So the real issue is not that the hair MAY HAVE BEEN offered to some idol in some Hindu temple. The issue is that your DESIRE to use weave – wherever its origin – probably comes from looking at magazines, watching television, coming up with some false image of beauty that you desire. So, the false idol that is the problem is not in some temple in India, but rather is inside the temple of your own heart! And these false images and idols promoting a perverted, corrupted sense of beauty and attractiveness in the media have only two real purposes. The first is mammon, money. I fear continuing to sound like a leftist or socialist, but the fact is that these images are disseminated to cause you to buy the magazines that contain them, which contain still more images that cause you to want to buy the makeup, hair products, clothes etc. that make the magazine publishers a lot of money.

The second reason, make no mistake, is to challenge and attack Biblical notions of modesty, decency and sexuality. Most of the publications, TV shows, movies etc. that endlessly present these images also ceaselessly mock anything resembling notions of Biblical purity, including but not limited to marital fidelity. Even if they don’t directly attack it, they undermine it with the lie that a man and wife can sit and look at that junk 24/7 without either A) being tempted to stray (adultery) or B) fantasizing (which is also adultery Matthew 5:28), or similarly that our children can watch it without either being tempted to commit fornication or fantasizing about it. So similar to my challenge regarding tattoos, the issue is not whether weave is permissible according to scripture, but whether the motivation to get a weave is Christ-honoring in the first place.

That said, there may be many motivations for getting hair weaves that are completely legitimate, i.e. totally unrelated to wanting to look like the female vampires in these soft-core pornographic magazines and music videos. Some women may state that their husbands like the way that it looks. Others may profess that it is a look that they prefer for themselves. Others still assert that in their work environments (office or professional jobs, etc.) they must maintain a professional appearance. Again, I am in no sense asserting this to be some sort of law that has any bearing on anyone’s salvation, justification, sanctification or consecration. There are also many who may perceive me to be just totally off base, tilting at windmills and causing unnecessary division and confusion (stumblingblocks as it were) when I should focus only on Jesus Christ and Him crucified, risen, and will one day return. To such people, I apologize in advance, and please know that it is not my intent. Instead, my reason for dealing with this topic is this Biblical one: Christians, beware of and be separate from the world and things in it, whether it be its mindsets, its desires … or its idols. After all, we only have to look at the world of televangelism. Paula White, Medina Pullings, and many others are counted among those who market their own appearance, and tie it into their false health/wealth/family prosperity gospel doctrine. Jan Crouch, Juanita Bynum and Cathy DuPlantis are just among the many who proudly declare that they have had cosmetic surgery (or surgeries)! Extend it a little further and we have professed evangelical Christians Carrie Prejean’s lingerie modeling (and plastic surgery), Heidi Montag’s Playboy modeling, and Miley Cyrus pole dancing, all done for a little bit of fame and fortune that even were it to last 1000 years would be a mere flicker of an instant in the eternity that we will either spend with Jesus Christ in New Jerusalem or in the outer darkness where the worm never dies, the fire is never quenched, and there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Again, the issue is not the weave, but the heart and where it lies.

However, for people who are considering the issues raised in this post, allow me to refer you to an expert on the topic by following the link below:

I’m a natural systah

Also, for those who may be wondering what all of this is about to begin with, please play the video below.
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Posted in Bible, christian worldliness, Christianity, church worldliness, Jesus Christ, media conspiracy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 40 Comments »

To Whom Should We NOT Pray?

Posted by Job on October 11, 2009

His list is excellent. Pay attention to #2 on his list, which would in my opinion exclude iconography.

To Whom Should We NOT Pray?

While you are at it, read the following as well:

To whom should we pray?

Who should pray?

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

G.I. Joe: Promoting Adultery And Violence To Children

Posted by Job on August 11, 2009

My motivation for mentioning this was hearing a couple of disc jockeys on Christian (CCM) radio go through great lengths to promote the idea that it is acceptable for Christian parents to take their children, given to them by the Lord for the purpose of instructing in righteousness and protecting them, to see this film. Those disc jockeys need to watch the movie the “The Time Changer” or view the Tim Conway video and link below, and so do all Christians that agree with them.

Now why do Christian parents want to take their children to see this movie? Simple: because despite being rated PG-13, the movie is obviously being marketed to children, just as was the Transformer movies (Incidentally G.I. Joe and Transformers are manufactured by the same toy company and the movies are made by the same studio with the same producer. Isn’t capitalism grand politically conservative Christians?) Do not pretend otherwise. Not only is the mere fact that the movie is based on a toy line going to pique the interests of children, but the movie is heavily promoted during children’s programming (ar reason to consider liberal socialist PBS as an alternative to Nickelodeon, Disney, Cartoon Network, network TV, etc. … no commercials!) and there are the usual “kids’ meal” fast food tie ins. So, many Christian parents have their children begging them to allow them to see it, plus the movie also appeals to the child in a great many adults … meaning the desire for visually stimulating escapist entertainment.

However, Christian parents – and their children – should not be in the business of seeking entertainment from things designed to appeal to our fallen nature. Perhaps the best description of our fallen sinful nature is contained within Romans 1:18-32. Here is an excerpt: “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Sound familiar about any society and culture that you know? Sound familiar about any household that you know?

That excerpt makes it clear that not only does our fallen sinful nature crave wanton violence and sexual immorality ourselves, but we take pleasure in watching others do the same. It is called voyeurism, without which no “reality show” (which consists of sitting around watching other people act immoral for our own entertainment) could survive. However, where true voyeurism is unavailable, fantasy voyeurism – which only depicts immorality – will do. Yet G.I. Joe is where fantasy immorality meets reality in the person of Sienna Miller.

This Sienna Miller may yet legitimately be an actress of some ability and reputation. But let us be honest: her resume and acting ability had nothing to do with her getting this role. Instead, it had everything to do with this Sienna Miller’s being famous – or should I say infamous – in the now rather large tabloid subculture for her very brazen and public relationships with married men. So, this Miller gets rewarded for her grotesque personal immorality with a movie role that she would have never gotten otherwise because the film’s makers knew that her lifestyle would attract people who – again according to Romans 1, have pleasure in her lifestyle!  And for the maximum effect (or exploitation), Miller was cast in the “bad girl temptress”, a role described by a tabloid as that of  “a leather-clad man-eater.” So, what is the (im)moral of the story? Become one of the world’s most notorious adulteresses and get a role in a movie that influential evangelical Christians (which by nature of their profession the CCM disc jockeys are) will defend taking your kids to go see!

Now granted, it is possible that many Christian parents may not know a thing about this Miller person or this film’s attempt to profit from her reputation. (However, no Christian parent can claim to not be aware of Hollywood’s reputation and therefore be surprised in any way that Hollywood is using fascination with adultery to increase the profit margins on movies marketed to children during “Dora The Explorer” and with Burger King kid’s meals.) However, no Christian parent should delude himself about the extreme violence that G.I. Joe (and for that matter all of these comic/book and toy movies) depict. We see the gunfire, the missiles and bombs, the lasers, car crashes, explosions etc. and think “wow that is so cool!”

The truth is that these things are false images, lies, and all lies are the product of the adversary, the enemy, the serpent of old which is Satan that has deceived the whole world. The reason why I say this is because being exposed to false depictions of extreme violence produces a person – and a population and culture – that goes beyond merely being desensitized to violence but having a mindset that is altered and strongly deluded to the point where violence, death, mayhem and destruction are worshiped. How receptive will a mind raised in such a culture be to the Prince of Peace Jesus Christ and the offense of His work on the cross? As a matter of fact, how many professing Christians have real trouble with believing that they have to personally obey the Sermon on the Mount and the other instructions of Jesus Christ to love your enemy, turn the other cheek, make peace with your adversary etc. because they grew up cheering police officers and other “good guys” brutally kill the bad guys vengeance style? Rarely does this “entertainment” depict the bad guy being merely apprehended and placed into custody to stand trial, which is actually the desired outcome in a civilized society based on law, order and justice. Why? Because the viewing wants to see the police officer (or as it happens an average citizen) play judge, jury and executioner and satisfy their lust for blood. We also want this escapist fantasy violence to be our outlet to vent our fears, hatreds and frustrations (preferring to watch the objects of our evil thoughts and emotions being blasted away in movies and on TV) rather than confessing our faults before the body of believers in Jesus Christ and going before the throne of grace for forgiveness of our sins. So, we reject the true High Priest that is seated on the right hand of God the Father, Jesus Christ, in favor of the idol of the TV screen!

And make no mistake, this does impact people’s thinking. The best example of this was the criticisms of the actions of the police department during the Columbine High School massacre. The police were denounced for not barrelling through the front door and confronting armed gunmen! Why? Because a society that has for decades been molded by action movies and TV shows thinks that is what you are supposed to do. In such shows, it is possible for the police, the military (so long as it is ours) and other “good guys” to wade right into a blizzard of bullets and missiles with no casualties. They have no idea that it is the opposite is true: it only takes one guy with one gun firing one bullet to kill the “good guy.” It really is a type of brainwashing, where these false media images conform you to the lies that the god of this world, the prince of the powers of the air, want you to believe so that accepting and living by the truth of Jesus Christ and His resurrection will be all the more difficult.

After all, the reason why we watch entertainment like this is because “it looks so cool and realistic.” Excuse me, but what is “so cool” about a lie? And how can it be “realistic” if it isn’t true? If these movies were so “realistic” and “true” they would show severe burn victims with their skin melted off, and how such people will be disfigured for the rest of their lives even after several iterations of plastic surgery. They will show people lying in hospital beds screaming in pain despite having received the most powerful anesthetics available because their nerve endings are messed up. They will show a paraplegic struggling to learn how to bathe and clothe himself. They will show mothers and wives at the end of their wits struggling under the stress of having to take care of their paraplegic husbands and sons. They will show mortally wounded people slowly degenerate and die over the course of several days and weeks while their family members grieve and watch.  They would show the three year old children waking up in the middle of the night asking their mothers “Where is daddy, when is he coming home?” over and over again and having to be told “Daddy is dead, sweetie, he is never coming home” and the mother and child having to hold each other, cry and console each other.

Why? Because that is the actual result of the real violence and destruction falsely portrayed by G.I. Joe and similar films: people getting maimed for life or killed and their loved ones having to deal with it. Pretending as if these avalances of bullets and bombs can fly all over the place with absolutely no real consequences (i.e. no one that we care about gets injured and no one is personally affected by or has to deal with it in any serious way) is just as wrong as depicting promiscuity while omitting sexually transmitted disease, abortion, divorce, rape and child molestation, and “crimes of passion” that results from this behavior. It is the “sin has no consequences” lie, which by the way was the same lie that Satan used to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden with “you will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). It is called “fantasy” and “escapism” because the ultimate fantasy of every sinner is that he can sin without there being any consequence. The sinner wants to delude himself that the consequence of his behavior is not offense to God’s holiness or righteousness, or that God will not take action against the injustice committed against His holiness. But whether the lie is “no harm done” or “God doesn’t know” or “God doesn’t care” or “God won’t do anything about it”, trust me, it is still a lie no different from the first one told in the Garden of Eden. And just as in that instance, we should not focus too much on the lie or even on the liar, but on the wicked human heart that was all too willing to believe it and act on it. Honestly, what makes you think that your internalizing a lie through your action of being entertained by it is any different from Eve’s? If you can tell me the difference, I would like to hear it. For in both cases, the issue is not the lie so much as it is the heart that wants to believe it for its own purposes, which is to serve its own pleasure rather than to serve the will of God.

If movies like G.I. Joe were realistic, they would show the broken bodies, broken minds, broken spirits, broken families and broken lives that are the result of this violence. They would show you what REALLY happens when a laser hits someone, when there is a serious car crash, when a bomb or missile explodes, when someone starts shooting machine guns, or when buildings collapse. In real life, explosions burn people and blow off body parts. Car crashes and falling buildings crush people. Bullets tear flesh. And when these things happen, no distinction is made between “good guys”, “bad guys”, or “innocent civilians.” You can see things like this happen in an action movie dozens of times and NO ONE GETS HURT. Or if they do, it is all clean and sanitized, with the “bad guys” getting the worst of it, and often very little blood, let alone actual carnage and mayhem. Why? Because no one wants to see that. No one wants the truth, so we would rather have our minds shaped, twisted and conformed by corrupt lies.

We would rather be entertained by lies than live for the truth, and this is the result. So the question is: how can we love a lie and call ourselves Christians? Go read what Revelation 22:15 says about the fate of those who love lies and answer that question. Make no mistake, this is a serious issue. I am not going the usual route of “watching Megan Fox (who openly brags about her lesbianism) in Transformers may cause you to want to go out and fornicate” or “watching the gunfire in G.I. Joe may cause you to go out and shoot somebody.” I realize that this only occurs with a small amount of people who already had these tendencies to begin with. But we have to start directly confronting the issue of how polluting our minds – and that of our children – with things that we know to be lies and with the fascination and worship of sin, evil and destruction causes. I did not say what it leads to, the famous “slippery slope” argument. Instead, we have to deal with what entertaining lies in our mind and worshiping violence and destruction are, which is sin.

Why are we so quick to resort to escapist entertainment anyway? Because dealing with the real world is so hard, so painful, so difficult. We would rather take the easy way – escape from it – than the hard way, which is deal with it. Well, if that is how we as adults feel, imagine how our children, who have to deal with so many strong emotions and frightening situations at such young ages, feel? Instead of plunging our children ever deeper into escapist fantasy cocoons, we need to show our children the reality that they are going to have to deal with if they are going to effectively serve Jesus Christ and glorify God the Father by obeying the Holy Spirit in the actual world that does exist. Yes, the primary way that we teach our children how to deal with reality is by showing them to with our own example! Of course, Satan does not want your kids to be able to effectively deal with the real world (a precondition for serving Jesus Christ), and allowing your kids to be trapped by his worldly system that plunges them mentally and emotionally into some confused fantasy land state where they cannot tell their right hand from their left (which means they don’t know right from wrong, tell what is real and what is fake, don’t know the truth from a lie, and wouldn’t even know how to deal with what is right, what is real, and what is true if they did) is nothing less than a dereliction of your duty as a Christian parent.

Christian parents need to build their children up in the Lord, not destroy them with the things of Satan. The enemy has already been defeated on the cross by Jesus Christ and the battle is already won, so why even give a place to this defeated foe in the mind of your children? So, instead of filling your children with hate, violence, wrath, wantonness, sensuality and craven glorification of sin, please use this test to evaluate whatever your children (and for that matter you yourself) are exposed to and reject whatever fails.

Philippians 4:8 – Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

And no, do not go pulling the “legalist” card. Biblically, a “legalist” is someone who claims that a Christian needs to convert to Judaism and follow the law of Moses in order to go to heaven. The modern definition of “legalist” is adding rules and creating sins that do not appear in the Bible and claiming that they have the force of scripture. Advising Christian parents against giving money to Hollywood producers seeking to profit off Sienna Miller’s adulteries and warning against things that conform your mind to a lie (read Romans 12:1-2 and 2 Corinthians 10:5) is not legalism. Instead, the burden is on the Christian to explain why he absolutely HAS to view this “entertainment” in the first place, let alone let his children see it. If Christians were able to get by for almost 2000 years without the advantages of movies glorifying fantasy (meaning unrealistic and therefore inherently immoral) depictions of violence because such things hadn’t been invented yet, today’s church has no need of these things either.

Tim Conway – Do You Watch Things That God Hates?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

More Evidence That Barack HUSSEIN Obama Is Following After Martin Luther King: He Adheres To The Abominations Of The Religions Of India

Posted by Job on November 12, 2008

In case you did not know, Martin Luther King Jr. developed his philosophy of “nonviolent” subversive political tactics by merging SELECTIVE AND OUT OF CONTEXT doctrines of Christianity and the jainism religion of India. Well, the fellow who has often been identified as King’s successor, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, is going one step further. See, King’s aims in co – opting both jainism and a partial set of Christianity were entirely secular and political. It looks more and more like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, meanwhile, is either personally committed to or is at least heavily promoting a religious system of India out of some strong commitment to religious pluralism. When you consider his religious links to not only Jeremiah Wright but new age witch Oprah Winfrey, that is not surprising. Please consider the information below.

President Elect Barack Hussein Obama, Junior. Has Promised To Install A Pagan Idol In His Presidential Chamber.

by @ 10:29 pm. Filed under Nuts on Parade

You may recall in an earlier post, I noted how both of the leading Presidential candidates engage in idolatry. I noted how Obama keeps a pagan idol, Hanuman, Hinduism’s popular monkey god in his pocket. Well, some people felt it should not be considered a major issue. Some people felt it was noting that indicated a serious issue of idolatry in the life of the President elect. Well the folks who wanted to give Obama a 2-foot gold plated statue of Hanuman, that has been prayed over by 12 Hindu priests, have been seeking continually to get it to him. And Obama, instead of treating it as something he might keep in a garage, or better refuse, has made it known he will keep this false monkey god in his Presidential chamber.

Congressman Bhama says Hanuman helped Obama     

NEW DELHI: Barack Obama couldn’t have made the giant leap to the White House as the first Afro-American President in the US without the divine blessings of an Indian god. That is the firm belief of elected member of All India Congress Committee (AICC), Brij Mohan Bhama. “It was the magic of Pawanputra Hanuman that did it all,” asserts a convinced Bhama, a devoted Obama fan. “It is the truimph of Lord Hanuman on the soils of America,” he declares, and nothing can shake his belief-in Obama or Hanuman’s blessings.

Bhama claimed he had been flooded with grateful smses and emails since the results to the US polls were announced. He was thanked for his staunch support for Obama. “I sent out a congratulatory email to the president elect early in the morning,” he said, as he talked about the email id he had specially created to rally support for Obama. The id was called bhamaobama.

Some may have concerns about Obama’s India policies, but Bhama will hear none of it.’`He is a Democrat, yet he extended his full support to the nuclear deal. His ethnicity will automatically make him a friend of this country,” he said.

In July this year, Bhama created waves of excitement when he organised a special puja by 12 priests at the Sankat Mochan Dham on Pusa Road for Obama’s victory. At the time, Bhama gifted a two-foot high, gold-plated idol of Hanuman to Obama.

“I had a conversation with Obama in July and he promised to install the idol at his chamber once he was elected President,” smiles the elated Congressman. Now he plans to visit the White House after January 20, 2009, to present the Hanuman idol. “Along with a delegation, I will go to the US to gift him the idol. So far, American law forbade him from accepting any overseas gift that cost more than $10. But, now that he will be president, no such problem will arise,” said Bhama. The idol at present is lording over in a temple in New Jersey, he adds.

Bhama says Obama’s success run began soon after he accepted the gift and agreed to keep it in his office. “When we gifted him the idol, he was not even the Democrats’ presidential nominee. But, after that, he was not just elected as the Democrats’ candidate but also won,” he added.

According to media reports, among Obama’s good luck charms are “a bracelet belonging to a soldier deployed in Iraq, a gambler’s lucky chit and a tiny Madonna and child, and a tiny monkey god.”

And what do you know, he carries a Mary idol too!

Now from this point in this post, I could go and expound on how anyone claiming to be Christian is warned to flee from idolatry. I mean 1 Corinthians 10Acts 15Galatians 51 John 5 and so many other scriptures make it profoundly clear, that nobody claiming the Lord’s name is to EVER engage in idolatry. But there’s only one I’m going to focus on in this post, because it’s short and to the point. With Obama, we have a man who has openly denied that Jesus is the only means of salvation, which totally denies Jesus is the one true Christ and hope for salvation. It’s heresy, a secular humanistic form of Universalism, that he and those like him promote, that asserts someone’s good works can bring them salvation. He’s totally embraced idols, many idols. He has spewed all manner of heresies. He totally has the posture of a politician who claims Christianity because it goes over well in election polling. But he’s not showing the true fruit of a saint, I mean not at all. So the one passage of scripture I want to put focus on, is the one I really hope some pastor who knows the truth might be able to reach the President elect with.

Revelation 22:15 (New American Standard Bible)     

15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Now I know the President elect has denied the truth of the Word of God, in his clams that passages in the book of Romans are “obscure”. And trying to act as if red letters can be played against all other scripture; which defies all scripture is to be taken as equal weight and God breathed, 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21. But I’d still prefer someone share the truth with him.

So, Islam, Roman Catholicism, eastern religions, a liberation theology version of Protestantism, a willingness to make some of the more moderate evangelicals happy by making it clear that he “respects” them (which is a big thing for them, respect from the world), plus a healthy dose of Ivy League intellectual skepticism to mollify the atheist crowd that he is as good as they are going to get anytime soon. Looks like Hussein Obama has all the bases covered. It is not one world religion, but it is definitely a strong move towards that direction. And please remember that Martin Luther King, Jr. in getting world Christianity to respect syncretism with eastern religions using his “nonviolent civil rights movement” Trojan horse helped pave the way.

By the way, pagan idolatrous symbolism is apparently very important to this Obama character. Remember his Democratic national convention acceptance speech?

Well If You’re Going To Have Worship Of Man, An Ancient Greek Temple Replica Is Only Fitting!

by @ 10:50 am. Filed under Nuts on Parade

Check this out.

Obama Speech Stage Resembles Ancient Greek Temple  

DENVER (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.

The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos’ National Football League team plays.

Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington’s Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party’s nomination for president.

He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.

The show should provide a striking image for the millions of Americans watching on television as Obama delivers a speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.

Politicians in past elections have typically spoken from the convention site itself, but the Obama campaign liked the idea of having their man speak to a larger, stadium-sized crowd not far from where the Democratic National Convention is being held, at the Denver pro basketball arena.

Obama was taking a page from the campaign book of John Kennedy in 1960 when the future president delivered his acceptance speech to 80,000 people in the Los Angeles Coliseum.

Once Obama speaks, confetti will rain down on him and fireworks will be fired off from locations around the stadium wall.

So in the tradition of man (idol) worship, with Obama being the (idol) cult focal point, Barack Hussein Obama, Junior will be in a Greek temple replica giving his speech. Then there will be celebration once Obama (the idol) is finished addressing the crowd. It’s bad enough that this nation’s Capitol building and White House resemble buildings constructed for idolatry, but now Team Obama is knowingly promoting the cult “temple” vision. I guess they didn’t want to do it like other candidates, when they can further promote idolatry with their own “temple”.

Sure I know some of you disagree, but there is a not very subtle promotion of an idol going on here. And now they’ve constructed him a temple. They hope he goes to the even larger temple. To spread the doctrine of Obama and they feel that will heal our land. It is why this man is being played up in ways beyond many presidential candidates before him, because for many he is a living idol. The Democratic convention opened to the theme of Universalism and will close around the central cult figure, Obama.


Related posts:

Now I have not paid much attention to the messianic cult that surrounds Obama in large part because other nations and cultures have traditionally revered their leaders in a similar manner. As a matter of fact, it was not uncommon even in the west in times past. You should see some of the songs, sonnets and artwork composed to honor monarchs, for instance. So I am going to chalk that up to America reverting back to historical norms or taking on the traits of other cultures before I make anything exceptional of it, especially when you consider some of the nonsense stories that used to be traded about George Washington, that he was “bulletproof” because of some special calling or standing that this FREEMASON allegedly had from God and other such rabble. (Amazing how we used to indoctrinate our kids. Political correctness and multiculturalism largely just replaced one form of indoctrination with another.)

Incidentally, there is a story, probably true, about Abraham Lincoln that is relevant here. It is said that an emancipated slave prostrated himself before Lincoln to express his gratitude to the president for his freedom and that of others. According to the story, Lincoln told the man to get up and to give thanks to God for his freedom. Again, if this tale is true, please contrast the refusal of a political leader to receive human praise to the vanity of this current one who seems to demand and require it. I still recall how Obama definitely was angered and lost his composure – and it took him awhile to regain it! – when John McCain dared to question his notions of being great and high and lifted up with that Britney Spears/Paris Hilton commercial. Well, Obama, there is only one that is truly Holy. There is only one that is truly High and Lifted Up. There is only one that is truly deserving of praise. You are not Him. Instead, you will stand before Him in judgment, bow, and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Are you ready for that day, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.? Your mother, father, grandmother and grandfather have gone on before you, and their fates are sealed. But what of your fate, Mr. Obama? What of you and your house?

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. please remember Isaiah 14. Also, please recall Ezekiel 28:12-19. It is true that the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel were speaking to Satan. It is also true that they were speaking to the king of Tyre, in whom there was a form of Satan’s pride and vanity that caused his downfall. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. it is God who raises up rulers to do His will, not false gods like Hanuman. It was not the skull that those Peruvian shamans had their seance ritual over that got you elected either! It was God who raised you up. And if you continue in the ways of pride and vanity like the king of Tyre, like the king of Tyre and of Satan as well, your downfall is coming.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Pulpit Freedom Sunday Is A Stench In The Nostrils Of God

Posted by Job on October 2, 2008

Romans 13:1-8 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” Now read how people below plan to commit a high handed premediated sin against the Bible. Keep in mind: they are not sinning against man by doing this, but against the Word of the living God!

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

Participating pastors will exercise First Amendment right to speak on positions of electoral candidates Sept. 28 Thursday, September 25, 2008, 8:05 AM (MST) | ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Pastors participating in the Alliance Defense Fund’s “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will preach from their pulpits Sept. 28 about the moral qualifications of candidates seeking political office.  The pastors will exercise their First Amendment right to preach on the subject, despite federal tax regulations that prohibit intervening or participating in a political campaign.

“Pastors have a right to speak about Biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment.  No one should be able to use the government to intimidate pastors into giving up their constitutional rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley.  “If you have a concern about pastors speaking about electoral candidates from the pulpit, ask yourself this:  should the church decide that question, or should the IRS?”

Pulpit Freedom Sunday is an event associated with the ADF Pulpit Initiative (www.telladf.org/church), a legal effort designed to secure the First Amendment rights of pastors in the pulpit.  A document explaining what the Pulpit Initiative is and is not is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WhatIsPI.pdf. “ADF is not trying to get politics into the pulpit.  Churches can decide for themselves that they either do or don’t want their pastors to speak about electoral candidates.  The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple:  the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status.  We need to get the government out of the pulpit,” said Stanley. Stanley explained that, contrary to the misunderstandings of many, tax-exempt status is not a “gift” or “subsidy” bestowed by the government.

“Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954.  That’s when the unconstitutional rule known as the ‘Johnson Amendment’ was enacted,” explained Stanley.  “Churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it.  As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy.  The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS.” After Sept. 28, ADF plans to provide via news release a list of pastors who participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. (Please note that this statement mentions Jesus Christ in no way, shape, or form.)

www.telladf.org

How do we live out Romans 13:1-8 in a lost and dying world? Simple: by not acting like the lost and dying. Jesus Christ said that we must fulfill all righteousness. So, one of the reasons why Christ did not follow the false teachers and political revolutionaries by refusing to pay taxes was because had He done so, He would have been, well, indistinguishable from false teachers and political revolutionaries.

The political revolutionaries stated not to pay taxes because they felt that it was God’s Will for them to be sovereign, free from Roman rule, and that paying taxes was submission to a wicked order that would be overthrown when the Messiah came to defeat Rome and take the throne of David. These people ignored that Israel lost its sovereignty when they the Sinai covenant, the result of which was the northern kingdom being wiped off the map and Judah going into captivity. The Messiah was not coming to restore the broken covenant, but to bring a new covenant. So, at best the political revolutionaries were being presumptuous in acting as if God needed their help by way of subversive behavior. At worst, they were pretending as if the Sinai covenant had never been broken, and the words of Jeremiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel had never been given by God. (Keep in mind, it was the Hellenistic Sadducees who denied the validity of the prophetic books, and they supported the Romans!)

As for the religious leaders, they may have had superficially religious reasons for claiming that taxes should not be paid to Caesar (i.e. idolatry), the truth was that their actual motivations were that they agreed with the political objectives of the subversives. So then just as now, you had false teachers at best claiming that secular aims were spiritual, and at worst calling sin righteousness. Jesus Christ rejected both groups (which in truth were really only one) by stating that it was OK to give back to Caesar what was Caesar’s anyway. The things of this world are ruled by the prince of this world (Satan) but the gospel and the kingdom are not of this world and cannot be given or taken by this world or those of it.

Now John Calvin did do the work of a theologian (that is, in Bible speak, a doctor of the law, or that is one who creates doctrines for Christians to live by) and state that it is OK to defy the law if it forces a Christian to sin. That is consistent with Biblical example, particularly how the apostles refused to stop preaching the gospel when the Sanhedrin told them to cease in Acts. (Please realize that the Roman empire gave local nations and tribes some degree of autonomy, so the Sanhedrin was the legitimate authority in this matter!) But a law against getting in the pulpit and telling your congregations that their key to justification and sanctification is voting for John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, or Cynthia McKinney (Republican, Democrat, Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Party candidates for president) or even for one of your own deacons for dog catcher does not hinder the gospel of Jesus Christ in any way, shape, or form. Were it the case, then in monarchies and other situations where rulers are not democratically elected, there would be no way to spread the gospel at all, and that was certainly the case in the Roman Empire, which was not only a monarchy, but in the time of the early church most Christians weren’t even citizens! 

This is the best part: these pastors aren’t even invoking their right or duty to break these statutes as coming to them from God either by special revelation via the Bible or even universal revelation and common grace through natural law. Instead, they are claiming that their right to use their pulpit to promote a bunch of lying thieving adulterous new world order occultist viper crooks into office comes from the state: the first amendment. Now from the example of Paul in Acts fully exploiting his legal rights as a Roman citizen to spread the gospel, on the surface this would seem to be OK. But look closer and you will see that A) Paul invoked his Roman rights TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL, not to put more evil people in office and B) if the state has the right to give you free speech, then that same state has the right to narrow or clarify that right. 

The state is not forcing you to kill your child, like China’s forced abortion policy. The state is not imprisoning you for preaching the gospel, like China is. (And by the way: the very same George W. Bush that so many of these people voted for LAST TIME worked very hard to get China into the WTO and most favored trade nation status!) The state is merely telling you that you cannot abuse your spiritual authority by telling your congregation to go out and vote for someone fully controlled by the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, you name it. In this instance, the righteousness of the STATE actually exceeds the righteousness of the CHURCH who not only seeks to break the law, but is deceiving their adherents into thinking that by voting for wicked men that they can advance the kingdom of heaven! 

The worst part is that there is no need whatsoever to do this. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State would LOVE to go after pastors for their political activism. But pastors have studied the law and found a way to legally separate their actions as private citizens from those as pastors. So, when a pastor would endorse candidates for office, the pastor does so not from their position as pastor of a particular congregation or leader in a denomination but as individuals, and they make it clear that their positions and activities were their own apart from their employers (churches or denominations). Now you may disagree with this SCRIPTURALLY, but the fact is that pastors has the same LEGAL right to do whatever they please when not on the job as does any doctor, lawyer, engineer, schoolteacher, janitor, construction worker, etc. Now your workplace can certainly fire you, but the state can’t touch you. 

So if a pastor is certain that the kingdom of heaven will be advanced by endorsing the candidacy of his dogcatcher, well then they have a very effective and legal model available for them. But instead of following the accommodations that do exist for them in the law, these people in their pride and hardened hearts have decided to be rebels against the living God and His Word. People, see how the mixing of religion and politics leads people into apostasy? This, my good Christians, proves that the Bible is true. For politics is of the world. The Bible states that you should not mix things that are common with those that are holy. Take a look at the Old Testament sacrificial system, and God spent thousands of years teaching His people with the Sinai religion that principle: certain altars and certain religious implements such as things used in sacrifices and religious ceremonies were either holy or most holy, and those things could not be defiled by unclean people or things. So why are these people trying to defile the gospel of Jesus Christ by A) electioneering for wickedness and B) engaging in and encouraging illegal behavior? The answer is that they love the world and the things in it. Well, to them this verse applies: 1 John 2:15 – “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Christian Coalition Leader Dennis Baxley: Barack Obama’s Fallen Mind Is Due To His Having Been Reared In A Muslim Country!

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

Dennis Baxley calls Obama “scary”, but with comments like this:

We all know what early intervention with children is all about, and I am really wondering what the influence was on him from his father’s background and being in a Muslim country. 

what is scary to ME is just how deeply the psycho – babble of New Age pseudo – Christians who teach culture and works like James Dobson, Robert Schuller, etc. has become ingrained into modern American evangelical Christianity. Make no mistake, this is in no way a defense of Barack Obama. Obama actually used to BRAG on his family and personal ties to Islam back when it made him seem more exotic, cosmopolitan, “citizen of the world” sort free of the type of provincial attitudes that had divided Americans from each other and the world. Obama only began distancing himself from his Islamic background when it became necessary to win over more conservative and traditional Americans to get elected president, part of the same evolution that led to Obama’s finally putting an American flag pin on his lapel, which in my opinion was a regrettable concession to what was at best meaningless symbolism and at worst state idolatry, but hey, he’s Obama so why expect anything remotely principled, righteous, or true from the guy … that is something that should come from the CHRISTIANS THAT WERE AMONG THE MAIN ONES TO CRITICIZE OBAMA FOR FAILING TO BOW TO NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S STATUE OR BE CAST INTO THE FIERY FURNACE.  McCain fans please note: your guy did the same thing, going from comparing evangelical Christians to Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton in 2000 to asking a Southern Baptist leader if he needed to be re – baptized to win the Republican nomination in 2008

In any event, instead of telling people that all people not born again of Jesus Christ are not of this world and are such at emnity with God, Baxley is telling people that any fallen mindset that Barack Obama may have was due to his being raised in a different culture with different values. Growing up in a different culture with different values did whatever damage to Obama’s mindset that evangelicals like Dobson that push the gospel of Freud and the epistles of psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, etc. on people. Without the slightest bit of irony, Baxley states:

On Obama’s description of himself as a devout Christian: “I don’t want to pass judgment. I take him at face value. I do look at his story and where he’s been, and the influence of the Rev. Wright-type of Christianity, and I’m not sure that’s what I relate to…He wants to tax the rich more and redistribute wealth to other people — where I come from that’s socialism. Karl Marx was not a Christian.” 

Baxley has no idea that the evangelical church of Reagan neoconservatism advocates economic and military policies that are no closer to what Jesus Christ actually taught than anything that Marx wrote. I agree, Karl Marx rejected the liberal Christianity that he was raised in and was not a Christian. But my issue with you, Baxley, is are you one? Baxley first says “I don’t want to pass judgment” and then goes on to do precisely that! Baxley claims “I take Obama’s claim of being a Christian at face value” and then does the opposite! And incidentally, what on earth is wrong with saying that someone whose life contradicts the Bible and who adheres to a heretical apostate false church is not a Christian? Quite the contrary, if this “Christian Coalition” is a legitimate Christian organization and you are a leader in it, IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE PRECISELY THOSE TYPES OF PRONOUNCEMENTS! 

Baxley is not leading a movement whose goal it is to produce hearts changed and spirits regenerated by the Holy Ghost with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is leading a movement where a person is judged by where they were socialized and what political beliefs and cultural norms they exhibit and adhere to. That is the gospel of modern political and cultural Christianity, and it is a false gospel. The true gospel states that whether you were born in a Muslim household in Saudi Arabia or a Christian household in Mississippi, you are still born in sin, totally depraved, and need God to save you. Once you are born again, any “psychological damage” that allegedly may have been done by an Islamic culture that teaches submission and control (or an American culture saturated by violent movies and video games, pornography, and glorification of wicca and paganism, and oh yeah false New Age psychological Christianity) can easily be undone with sound preaching, teaching, and discipleship. 

As scary as Obama may be, people like Baxley are even more so. People like Baxley dupe people into believing that we don’t need to give people the gospel of Jesus Christ so that they can receive a true salvation. Instead, people like Baxley cause people to believe that all we need to give them is a cultural or political salvation of mom and apple pie (in the sky), the flag, and George Washington cutting down a cherry tree (which if it ever actually happened would have been for the purposes of building an edifice to practice his freemasonry anyway). This is the test here. Under Baxley’s gospel, is it possible to be saved? Either you were born in a western country or you weren’t! If you were not born in a western country, then you were irreversibly psychologically damaged as a child. Right? Well no, that is not what Baxley believes, because we well know that anyone from another culture that is willing to adopt and promote neoconservatism becomes their hero. The person doesn’t even need to be Christian! The person can be Roman Catholic, like the neoconservative’s great Indian hope Bobby Jindal, or Jewish, or atheist … doesn’t matter, because neoconservatism is their salvation! 

Christians, who are supposed to be aware of first what was their own fallen nature before they were saved and then the fallen nature of all mankind save those that God has elected for Himself, should be the last ones to claim that Barack Hussein Obama is some sort of Manchurian candidate or Muslim conspiracy plant because of where he was when he was 6 years old. My goodness, what does Baxley think of the man who was raised in Saudi Arabia all his life, converted from Christianity to Islam YESTERDAY, and is still in Saudi Arabia? Would Baxley support this person’s seeking religious asylum in this country? Or would Baxley decide that this person’s Freudian Kinseyan deep seated psychological issues are too great to be overcome? 

It would be one thing had Baxley stated that Obama was a potential Trojan horse because he hasn’t been born again and is not a new creation. But that isn’t what Baxley said, now is it? Now of course, Baxley may be hindered from EXPLICITLY doing such a thing because the Bible says that only God knows a man’s heart. Fine. But Baxley IMPLICITLY does THE SAME THING not using THE BIBLE but Dobson Freudian psychology? Another reason: Baxley knows that were he, from his position, to judge Obama’s salvation, he would have to do so for MCCAIN! He would have to publicly say that Obama is not born again and that McCain is, and that Christians should vote for McCain based on it. Since he obviously cannot do such a thing, tactics like this is what he is left with.

Now it is perfectly acceptable in most contexts to express a preference for McCain – Palin based at least in part on their background and culture. After all, Obama supporters are doing the same, even going to the point of claiming that Obama’s background and heritage will make it easier for us to deal with non – Christian and nonwhite nations. What is NOT ACCEPTABLE is taking what are actually cultural and ideological preferences and claiming that it is Christianity. Jesus Christ is not culture or ideology, and people who are making a living off claiming this are going to find that out on judgment day. Christian, just be careful that you are not one of them!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

How Could Sarah Palin Have Attended An Evangelical Church All Those Years Without Being Able To Say That Homosexuality Is A Sin?

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

Remember the religious right and conservatives in general proclaiming “How could Barack Obama have spent all those years in Jeremiah Wright’s church without hearing anything racist or anti – American?” Well evangelicals, right back at you! Second … Palin is a member of “the church of judge not.” By the way, Palin calls homosexuality “diversity.” As a black man, let me say that a person’s decision to abuse and defile himself and another person with unnatural sex acts IS NOT DIVERSITY. Is claiming that being homosexual and being black are basically the same part the new GOP strategy to increase their share of the nowhite vote? But that is just part of it.

Please recall my great disappointment in serious Christian leaders like Albert Mohler rushing to endorse a woman that they knew nothing about! This is the issue. Had Palin been a leader in the religious right and social conservative movement she would have been well known to Christian political circles. Had she, say, tried to outlaw abortion on the state level to challenge Roe v. Wade (as John Ashcroft attempted to do in the 1990s and Republicans in Idaho did in 2006), attempted to pass a law opposing gay marriage (as several states have done) or tried to post the Ten Commandments on state buildings (a la Alabama state judge Roy Moore) these folks would have already known about this woman and had a very positive opinion of her based on it. This is not to say that had Palin embarked on these political crusades that she would have been doing the right thing Biblically. Rather, I am merely stating that her doing so would have justified the religious right’s support of this woman in the political context (if not quite justifying Al Mohler’s support of her for more theological reasons or J. Lee Grady calling her God’s prophet with the Deborah anointing). 

As it is, Palin was none of these things. Instead, she was endorsed and is being promoted by not only the religious right but people like Mohler, Grady, etc. because she is from Alaska (as opposed to one of the dirty places with all the liberals and minorities on welfare), she hunts (as opposed to, you know, windsurfing like Harvard elites or playing basketball with inner city welfare minorities or whatever it is those people do with each other in those dirty places), and has five children (because, you know, having trouble conceiving or being married to a man with fertility problems before fasting and praying and finally being blessed with ONE CHILD that you desperately love and make sacrifices for in order to raise him in the faith sounds like something those dirty people from dirty places like Abraham and Sarah or Hannah and Elkanah in Canaan/Israel!) and chose not to abort her child (which, you know, so doesn’t count when any one of the millions of those dirty people from those dirty places made the exact same decision). 

But say this person were a born again Christian from one of those dirty places like inner city Miami or Detroit who was childless (because scripture says some women will be barren) or single (because scripture says that God will not suffer all to get married) or even had received an abortion (before getting born again and becoming a new creation) but ran a hospice for those dirty people like AIDS victims or a youth center to try and keep some of these young dirty males off the streets and from being locked up and the key from being thrown away with these three strikes laws before entering politics and proving herself over a long period of time of being a wise, capable, effective, and honest public servant (the sort of leader that the Bible praises i.e. Cyrus the Mede, the pharoah in the time of Joseph, etc). Would there be this level of excitement? Of course not. She would received nothing but faint, backhanded, feigned “praise” and there would be grumbling that McCain proved his liberal stripes after all.

The religious right types do not support Palin because of Jesus Christ. They support Palin because in their eyes, her background and lifestyle makes her the ideal HUMAN woman! It is HUMAN worship, idolatry, no different from how artists in times past would sculpt and paint images of gods and goddesses from Nordic and Greek mythology to represent their ideal of humanity. She is nothing more than a symbol, an object, to them. In other words, an idol that represents not the gospel of Jesus Christ, but their ideal of human virtue. A single woman born to a family on public assistance, got pregnant at age 16 and took advantage of Ronald Reagan’s most liberal abortion laws in the nation to kill her child, but then gave her life to Jesus Christ, began an outreach ministry to help the dirty people, and went from that background into public service where she served with competence and justice as the Bible requires? Well hey, such a woman would receive some praise from the right I guess. They might even send her as a delegate to the Republican National Convention! (Assuming that she is a Republican to begin with, and that she doesn’t spent any of her time doing what the Bible says by using her position to advocate for, you know, dirty people like widows, orphans, the poor, etc. Of course, the religious right believes in fresh oil, fresh fire, and new revelation where the the contents of the Bible have been replaced by the anointed prophets of neoconservatism.) But this frenzied feverish reaction? Of course not! Because while such a woman may be born again, loving Jesus Christ, and advancing the kingdom of heaven, she simply isn’t cut out to be a religious right idol of cultural virtue and family values. Why? BECAUSE SHE WOULDN’T FIT THE PROFILE! (By the way, any of you remember Joe Biden saying that Barack Obama was “clean”? As opposed to what? DIRTY?)

So it is left to people like IndependentConservative, people who actually are thinking about Jesus Christ, to expose the facade for all who are willing to face the truth because their trust is not in the things of this world but rather in Jesus Christ and His rule to come. Sadly, most seem to want to be deceived because their heart is in this world. Now do not mistake me. In criticizing Palin, it is not because I am seeking some notion of perfection according to my own eyes. No, all I want is a decent, honest, capable, qualified person. Neither Obama, Biden, McCain, or Palin fits the bill. We see this in the case of Palin, who was a member for years at a Pentecostal church that runs a “be saved from homosexuality” conference (and yes, Palin is now subtly distancing herself from that church) and is now a member at an evangelical Bible church, tapdance around the issue of homosexuality. The people who asked “how could Barack Obama have sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for all those years without knowing Wright’s Marxist views” need to ask “how could Sarah Palin have sat in Wasilla Assembly of God Church all those years without being able to boldly, directly, and unconditionally claim that homosexuality is sinful, unnatural, and an abomination to God and that people who practice it need salvation and deliverance through Jesus Christ? Look at the video below and consider the answer. Look at the video and see why Christians must flee idolatry. 

By the way: do I need to say that Adolph Hitler took the statues of Nordic gods that represented ideal humanity, placed them in churches, and used them to come up with this neo – Pagan religion based on the worship and promotion of the ideal man? Well, keep following your Alaskan bear shooting mooseburger eating beauty queen with 5 kids because of WHAT SHE REPRESENTS rather than WHO SHE IS and see if that path takes you to the strait gate or the wide gate.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

Exposing Ronald Reagan Idolatry: REAGAN WAS NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE!

Posted by Job on September 5, 2008

Is Bush Better Than Reagan?

Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 29, 2008 09:34 AM
Ronald Reagan has the reputation of a tax-cutter because of his stirring blarney, and media lies. But in office, whether as governor of California or president of the US, he raised taxes and expanded the government. His first major act as governor was to enact withholding for state income taxes. When people had to come up with the whole amount on April 15th, it was a huge barrier to tax increases. Reagan, like Milton Friedman at the federal level in WWII, made possible a vast increase in taxes with withholding, and then he signed the tax increases while increasing state spending. The late John Schmitz opposed this conservative fraud, and was demonized for being anti-Reagan.

When Reagan was president, he cut taxes once, and raised them six times. He gave amnesty to illegal aliens, ballooned government spending, and vastly increased the deficit. He was such a big spender that Tip O’Neill’s congress passsed less of it that he requested. I’ll never forget one of Reagan’s rare vetoes: of a foreign aid bill that was too small. He was also a militarist and imperialist, a neocon, really, though Bush makes him look good in this area by comparison.

One of Reagan’s federal tax increase bills “closed loopholes” in many areas, and abolished the tax exemption for health insurance premiums. Now Bush want to undo that, he said last night. Indeed, we should undo all of Reagan’s tax increases.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

The Apostle Paul Affirms Mary Is Not Mediator And Also Affirms Christians Should Not Pray To Dead People!

Posted by Job on August 11, 2008

Wholesale lifted from Independent Conservative.

The Apostle Paul Affirms Mary Is Not Mediatrix. Also Affirms Christians Should Not Pray To Dead People, Even If Those People Are Considered To Be Saints.

by @ 12:21 am. Filed under The Truth Shall Set you Free!

The Roman Catholic Tradition is guided by its Catechism. I have often warned, that Roman Catholicism is the cult of Mary and a false Mary at that. The following entry in the Roman Catholic Catechism proves beyond all doubt, that Roman Catholicism is another gospel.

Catechism of the Catholic [Roman] Church  

969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation …. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

In short, Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary is a mediator.

Dictionary.com entry for the term: Mediatrix  

a woman who mediates, esp. between parties at variance.

Notice, Roman Catholic Catechism entry 969 says “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix”. Many Roman Catholics and even some who are not Roman Catholics, but follow many of those traditions, literally pray to “Mary”. They see Mary as a valid advocate between God and man. Just as many times they pray to people they consider to be “dead saints”.

The apostle Paul made it clear beyond all doubt, that neither Mary or anyone else other than Jesus Christ is a mediator between God and man.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 (New American Standard Bible)  

5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Please understand, that it is estimated, that Paul wrote those Words as inspired by Godbetween 62-66 A.D. That was decades AFTER Mary’s death. It has been estimated by some, that Mary lived 3-15 years after Christ rose and ascended to Heaven. Meaning Paul openly declared Mary was NOT a mediator about 50-60 years after Mary was dead. Also, given Paul was a young man named Saul at the stoning of Stephen, Acts 7:54-60. We know for Mary to have been alive when Paul wrote to Timothy, would mean she lived well over 100 years, which no source has ever claimed. (When I speak of “life” and “death” in this post, I’m talking about the physical body.) So Mary’s body was very much in the grave when Paul wrote to Timothy. Also keep in mind, that Paul never mentions praying to Stephen. He didn’t pray to dead saints!

This leaves one bottom line. Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man. Prayers made through any other are unheard and invalid. Knowing the truth of scripture, anyone trying to claim Mary as a mediator between God and man is in need of repentance.

 2 John 1:10-11


Related posts:

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: