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 ‘liberalism’

On Franklin Graham And The Pentagon’s Rescinding Their Invitation

Posted by Job on April 26, 2010

You may have heard about how Franklin Graham was disinvited to a Pentagon prayer service because of his refusal to rescind comments that he made attacking Islam, as it is the subject of not a little controversy. Two thoughts.

1. Some use incidents as these as evidence that America is turning away from Christianity. My position is that nations and governments are all of the world, and as such have rejected Jesus Christ and will be judged by this same Jesus Christ. While the rejection of Jesus Christ by our nation and its institutions is perhaps more overt in some respects than in the past, and while there probably are indeed fewer legitimate Christians in America in terms of the percentage of the population than there were in times past, America is still as it always was … of the world. The church of Jesus Christ is the ekklesia, the elect that is called out of the world. Further, America is just one of many nations that has existed and will exist in human history. While God has used America’s Christians to do a lot of great things (i.e. in missionary evangelism), let us not fall into the deceptive thinking that America has a special standing before God; that America is or ever was in some sort of covenant relationship with God, or any of the other myths of American culture and tradition. There was only one nation brought into existence as an act of special creation by God with the purpose of being the light to the nations. That nation was Israel, and Israel’s purpose was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. God did not create America or any other nation to carry out the purposes that Jesus Christ – God in the flesh – already accomplished.

2. For the record, I agree with what Franklin Graham said against Islam. This places me in league with virtually all of the supporters of Graham in this controversy. The point of divergence is that I will apply what Graham said against Islam to Judaism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism and any other false or heretical religion or belief system that denies God’s revelation and exalts itself against the God of the Bible. So Graham attacks Islam, suffers (minor) consequences for it, and is the evangelical hero of the moment in some quarters. But suppose Graham were to say the same about Judaism? These same people wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole. Many of them would be front and center denouncing Graham as anti-Semitic and hateful, and they would by no means be limited to premillennial dispensationalists. The very same people who run their little “Jihad Watch” websites and blogs reciting violent statements in the Koran ignore that the very same exhortations to commit genocide and kill nonbelievers appear in the Old Testament, making them perfectly valid for Jews to practice. They know full well that Jews are operating in darkness because they reject the New Testament revelation – that of an explicitly fully revealed Jesus Christ – that puts the Old Testament into context. Yet had Graham gone after Jews the way that he did Muslims, how many people would find his being expelled from the Pentagon prayer event to be overly objectionable? The same number as would had Graham said those things against Roman Catholics and Mormons. The conservative evangelicals on the religious right, who rely on conservative Catholics, Mormons and Jews, would in particular be apoplectic. Which, of course, is why you rarely hear evangelical leaders speaking against those false religions anymore.

Yes, I know that Franklin Graham made those comments after September 11th, when Muslims killed a great many Americans. But in addition to Graham’s unwillingness to challenge Roman Catholics on their many heresies because he is an ecumenical sort like his father, it is curious that Graham was moved to such strong speech by Muslims’ killing Americans but not Americans’ killing Muslims. What does Graham think of our overthrowing the Iranian government over oil profits? What does Graham think of our overthrowing the Iraqi government to put Saddam Hussein in power, and then sponsoring Hussein’s Iraq government in a war against this same Iran (after they turned on us) that killed millions of Muslims? What does Graham think of first war against Iraq, which happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait as part of a scheme to get OPEC to raise oil prices because our proxy war against Iran left his nation broke? What does Graham think of the crushing sanctions against Iraq after the first Iraq War, or the second Iraq War? Apparently, it is just fine for America to kill millions of Muslims with wars, proxy wars and sanctions. We’re America, and we can do whatever we want, right? But when the Muslim world responds to our killing millions of THEM by killing a few thousand of US, this is how Graham responds (and keep in mind, this was Graham’s softened public relations backtrack from his original, harsher comments)? Graham talks about how Islam treats its women when America invented pornography and is trying to impose legalized abortion on the rest of the world through the U.N. and other NGOs?

Here is a quote: “Graham later wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal saying he did not believe Muslims were evil because of their faith, but “as a minister … I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.”  Fine. But let’s hear Graham, as a minister, replace “Muslim” with “Jew”, “Mormon”, “Roman Catholic”, “Jehovah’s Witness” or “AMERICAN” in that sentence. Theologically, he would be justified. But if he did, the same people defending him over this now would have rejected him over it. The reason is that these people aren’t interested in legitimate Bible-based Christianity. If they were, it would be Muslim, Mormon, Jew, Catholic … six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Instead, these people are fighting political and cultural battles. Because after all, politics and culture – the world – is the only sphere where preferring the Muslim to the Jew or Catholic makes sense. It’s the only sphere where an aggressively hostile attitude towards Muslims can coexist with the “Christians must support Israel!” mindset when in truth there is no New Testament justification for EITHER.

Now again, what Franklin Graham said against Islam was 100% true. The problem is that the same people who supported Graham in what he said against Islam would abandon him in a heartbeat were he to say the same against Jews, Catholics, or for that matter whatever policy that got us into this Iraq/Iran mess. The reason for this double standard, this hypocrisy is worldliness, and this worldliness is not something that can be blamed on the people that had Graham disinvited from the prayer event.

Advertisements

Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Colossians 1:15 How Jesus Christ Is Firstborn Of Creation

Posted by Job on October 7, 2009

Arians, Ebionites, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, theological liberals, and othe pseudo-Christian cults have long used Colossians 1:15 to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, claiming that the notion was contrived long after the apostolic period through the syncretization of Christianity with Greco-Roman polytheism. What gives these hard-hearted people (who are in much need of prayer that God would open their hearts so that they would receive in it the true gospel) the opportunity is the text “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” Such people use that text to deny Jesus Christ’s pre-existence and divinity, claiming that it proves that Jesus Christ was the first thing that God created i.e. the chief angel. They deal with such passages as the Johannine prologue by stating that it only means that Jesus Christ existed before the creation of the world, the natural universe, or that God created Jesus Christ and then Jesus Christ created everything else. Another angle is the assertion that takes more seriously the gospel of John (and other places that identify Jesus Christ as the Word of God) is that Jesus Christ’s creation occurred the first time that God spoke or thought, or at the very least the first time that God spoke or thought with respect to creative activity. Truthfully, the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son”, while considered orthodox, comes very dangerously close to semi-Arianism when taken to its logical conclusion, so those who espouse this doctrine erect logically artificial and arbitrary barriers in order to keep from being counted as heretics. The only difference is that semi-Arianism (Jesus Christ was created the first time God spoke) views Jesus Christ with respect to ontological, philosophical or logical time (while realizing that actual time is a part of creation and thus does not exist in eternity) where “the eternal generation of the Son” denies, ignores or refuses to deal with ontology. You may ask “why should a Christian deal with abstract concepts like ontology anyway?” Well, that is a question that must be answered by the people who adhere to and preach “the eternal generation of the Son” doctrine, which really has no reason for existing beyond philosophy, as it has virtually no practical implications on orthodoxy or orthopraxy (right thinking and right living). If you are going to adhere to and preach a doctrine – especially one that is in and of itself not a core doctrine of the faith but still has real implications for other core doctrines of the faith (as “the eternal generation of God the Son” does for Trinity) – you had better be prepared to deal with what the doctrine implies and leads to. In any event, both semi-Arianism (Jesus Christ originated when God first thought or spoke) and “the eternal generation of the Son” (Jesus Christ exists as God speaks and does so without being a function of time in any way) pose problems for the nature of existence itself, which is that something can only exist if it exists as a unity. This is borne out in Genesis 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 3:21, which make clear that a man cannot and does not exist unless there is a unity of body and spirit. By the same token, God does not exist without a unity of the Father, the Word and the Spirit. If the Word or the Spirit or the Father require creation or generation, that negates the Unity without which God does not exists, and thus violates Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.” Also, as scripture also declares God to be unchanging, God does not create or generate new parts to Himself, so what would be created or generated would necessarily be either a creature (Arianism/Jehovah’s Witnesses) or another god (what “eternal generation of the Son” would possibly lead to if its ontological implications were acknowledged and dealt with rather than simply shoved into “eternity” and ignored).

So, regarding “eternal generation of the Son”, the position should be that the Son is not generated but like the Father and the Spirit simply is and has always been, and this is what the meaning of the Name of God I AM THAT I AM (Exodus 3:14) refers to. Further, it is something that is not only true with respect to time (keep in mind the Arian/Jehovah’s Witness argument, which deals with the problems posed by Jesus Christ’s being a creature by simply saying that it is true by being before Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-18) or timelessness (“eternal generation of the Son”) but ontologically as well. (Truthfully, since the ancient near eastern mindset that produced the Bible did not include ontology, which is a western construct, then God referring to Himself as I AM THAT I AM  of Exodus 3:14 is true spiritually. Where the western mindset has reduced spiritual truth to being merely allegorical, moral, ethical or abstract, the Biblical mindset recognizes spiritual truth as being as explicit, valid and relevant as is 2+2=4 or the law of gravity, or moreover that 2+2 is only always equal to 4 or the law of gravity is only always consistent because of the spiritual truth that is behind it, defines it, and sustains it, and that spiritual truth is none other than Jesus Christ. And yes, the fact that it was most definitely Jesus Christ who appeared to Moses as the flame that did not burn the bush and used the Name I AM THAT I AM with reference to Himself is not only relevant, but would necessarily preclude Arianism/Jehovah’s Witnesses or “eternal generation of the Son”, for had those been so Jesus Christ would have had to say “I am the first that was created” or “I am he who is generated.”)

So if the witness of scripture is to be internally consistent, how can Colossians 1:15 be true? How can Jesus Christ be the firstborn of every creature? The common way is to use the actual definition of firstborn, which is “first in rank” and use it in reference to Jesus Christ’s authority, dominion and rule as creation’s King. It refers to Jesus Christ as Ruler of the universe par excellence. According to this definition, the original firstborn of creation then was Adam. Thus, this is certainly not because Adam was the first thing created (because Adam was created on the 6th day, and thus temporally was actually the LAST thing created!) but because God gave Adam dominion over the earth. Adam forfeited this dominion and firstborn status, and this dominion transferred to Satan. However, Satan was only a usurper. He held the dominion but never the firstborn status, and even his dominion was illegitimately and temporarily possessed just as the pagan Athaliah was illegitimately ruler of Judah for a time (for 6 years, with 6 being the number of a man, how’s that for numerology!) before being replaced by a legitimate rightful monarch that was a son of David. Consider the typology. Athaliah: type. Satan: antitype. Joash: type. Jesus Christ: anti-type. Jesus Christ was the second Adam who not only took on the dominion legitimately but also the firstborn status that Satan could never have even by theft.

Now God gave Adam dominion, the status of firstborn, so that Adam could serve God and in this way God would be glorified through Adam’s service. Adam, of course, was disobedient and utterly failed to fulfill the purpose of his creation – mankind’s creation – which was to serve and glorify God. However, Jesus Christ did so. By way of the incarnation, Jesus Christ became fully man. Born under the law to God’s elect people Israel, Jesus Christ fulfilled the law with His perfect life, living in perfect obedience to God the Father, and fulfilling the purpose of mankind’s creation and also mankind’s destiny, which was and is to glorify God through perfect service forever. So, Adam was the firstborn of creation that failed and died. Jesus Christ is the firstborn of creation that succeeded, was resurrected from the dead and is alive forevermore, and therefore is the Head of all redeemed mankind who will fulfill the purposes mankind’s creation – to serve and glorify God – through Jesus Christ by being Jesus Christ’s own Body. This perfect eternal service is impossible for us to achieve on our own – as Adam proved – but is attainable only by being in Jesus Christ, and our being joined to the firstborn of creation. Where Adam failed to be the progenitor or head of a nation, a people, a race of perfect eternal servants (or even to be this perfect eternal servant himself) Jesus Christ succeeded and is the Head of the church, the bride, the body of Christ.

Now Jesus Christ only succeeded in fulfilling Adam’s original purpose and therefore becoming the true firstborn of creation because unlike Adam, He is fully God. However, Jesus Christ was only fit to fulfill Adam’s purpose, to become the second Adam, by being fully human just as was Adam. Christians can be rightfully accused of refusing to deal with the true nature and implications of Jesus Christ’s humanity because of our desire not to sin and become heretics. Of course, Jesus Christ is the eternal and self-existing God, part of the Triune Godhead. However, this same Jesus Christ was incarnated into A CREATED HUMAN BODY! Jesus Christ’s human body was born of a created woman’s created seed just as was you and I. The ovum in Mary was not eternal, but was created along with Mary, and as such Jesus Christ had a created human body just as do you or I. This body was not simply some animatronic shell, cover or mask for the true divine Person pulling the levers under the covers, which incidentally is a form of the docetism heresy. That implies that Jesus Christ was a fake human who only seemed real. But we know from Romans, Hebrews, Genesis 3:15, and elsewhere that Jesus Christ was a fully thoroughly 100% real human who experienced physical and mental growth, hunger, pain, thirst, agony, isolation, frustration, rejection, temptation and even natural death just like the rest of the human race. That is why He is able to be our priest, His identification with us. However, many of us take the scriptures that refer to Jesus Christ’s identification with us to be more of an association, an affiliation, something less than real. This thinking falls short of the truth of Biblical revelation, and is based on the modern western meaning of “identify with”, which implies merely allegiance or advocacy. For instance, it is possible for a wealthy person to “identify with” the poor through feelings of compassion, works of charity, even political and social advocacy. But unless that person literally gives all his money away and renounces any connections or privileges that he has (i.e. a title or family heritage that he may use to recover at least some of his wealth and status) he will never actually be poor. Jesus Christ did not identify with humanity in that sense, a false and ultimately superficial sense.

Instead, Jesus Christ identified with humanity in the true sense by becoming one of us! Now humans cannot in any way become God in any sense. But in the greatest miracle that ever was or will be, Jesus Christ DID become a human in every sense! And make no mistake, do not be deceived: humans are part of creation. So even though Jesus Christ is God who pre-exists creation, accomplished creation, and in every way transcends creation, when Jesus Christ was incarnated into human flesh, HE BECAME A PART OF CREATION! Now do not be offended or deceived. First off, being God and also not being born of Adam’s seed but rather being the Word of God born of a virgin by the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ had no part in the sin and corruption that creation fell into, and it no part in Him. After all, please recall that creation was originally sinless, a fact proven by God calling it “good”, and God has never at any time called anything sinful or evil “good” except that which God justified by graciously imputing His own righteousness to it (as is the case of sinners). Second, this is not to be confused with such liberal heretical abominations as “process theology” or “death of God theology” which at times holds that God completely surrendered His divine nature. Instead, Jesus Christ became part of creation through His incarnation (becoming fully human) while never at any time ceasing to transcend creation because of His divinity (self-existing and eternal). You can call it the “hypostatic union” if you absolutely must (I do not and have even been accused of adhering to the Nestorianism heresy because of it), but that does not alter the facts.  The result is that through His becoming part of creation, Jesus Christ is given the role of both priest/intercessor/savior for creation (the part of which is elect and will be redeemed) and the judge of creation (the part which is not and will not and whose fate is destruction).

This should cause us to read Colossians 1:15 in a new way. We either read “image of the invisible God, firstborn of creation” devotionally, or we view those as two facts that while true are separate. Instead, Colossians 1:15 is a unity. It describes the incarnation! Man is made in the image of God. Jesus Christ became a man. Jesus Christ became not just any man, but the second Adam. As the first Adam was – until the fall – the firstborn of creation, Jesus Christ by virtue of His incarnation, life, ministry, atoning and substitutionary death on the cross and resurrection not only became the second Adam, but did so in a way that far transcends and exceeded the first Adam! So, not only did Jesus Christ fulfill the original intent of humanity (and by extension of creation, for man is part of creation and creation was accomplished to please and glorify God) but Jesus Christ fulfilled the original intent of mankind and creation in a way BETTER and MORE PLEASING to God the Father than we ever could have ourselves, even if we were to somehow live perfect lives! Again, even if somehow we were to live perfect sinless lives, we would never fulfill the purpose of humanity better or give more honor and glory to God the Father than did Jesus Christ! And not only did Jesus Christ fulfill the purpose of humanity to the glory of God the Father as God the Father’s Suffering Servant, but He did it FOR US as OUR SERVANTS! It is often said that Jesus Christ died for us on the cross, but He also LIVED FOR US BEFORE GOING TO THE CROSS! As a result, Christians receive the benefits of Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection!

Now how many of you out there are parents? Or take care of elderly or handicapped people? In your role as a parent or caretaker, you do for those under your trust and care what they cannot do for themselves: you earn a living, you provide housing, food and clothes, you pay taxes, and in many cases you literally do the work of dressing, bathing, feeding and monitoring them or you pay for the services of someone else who does. A great part of your life is doing for others what others cannot do for themselves and allowing others to benefit from it. Well, that is the same thing that Jesus Christ did for you, except in a grander and more majestic way on an infinitely greater scale! Your purpose in being created was to glorify God, and not only did Jesus Christ do something for you that you could not do yourself, but He did it better than you could ever do even if you could!

And consider that for a second. This child that you are taking care of as a parent will one day grow up and take care of himself. Your son or daughter might do a better job! As a matter of fact, if you are a good loving parent, you hope that they will for themselves and for their own children! By the same token, what if this person who has suffered a stroke or is paralyzed gets healed by God. They go from being taken care of by you to taking care of themselves, and again a decent moral person would hope that they would receive better care from their own hand than they did from yours. And this is an example of how and why what Jesus Christ did for you is so amazing, so special. Because no matter how much you grow up, no matter how much your body (or mind) gets healed, better or stronger, you will NEVER be able to live a perfect life. You can exist for an eternity and still NEVER be able to do what Jesus Christ did for you by living a perfect life on your behalf, and you CERTAINLY would never be able to use your own perfect existence to justify someone else by imputing your righteousness to them.

But Jesus Christ did all that and more by becoming the image of the invisible God, a man in the image of God who yet is simultaneously is God. And He did not rest or be content with simply being a man in the image of God who also is God, but He also succeeded in living a life that glorified God the Father at all times and in every way. And it is because of this that God glorified His Name above every Name, that God bestowed the status of “firstborn of creation” upon Him! Jesus Christ is God who became part of creation and now sits at creation’s head as its Ruler, King, and Firstborn, and did all of this without violating that which is revealed in scripture which is part of God’s nature, which is that God is unchangeable! That is right, Jesus Christ accomplished creation, became part of creation, and became priest for redeemed creation and judge for that which is not redeemed without His Divine nature being altered or changed in any way. (Incidentally, this is something that liberal theologies – i.e.  process theology and open theism – deny.) Now again, I am not a “hypostatic union” guy, but I do acknowledge that the hypostatic union doctrine does articulate and explain this.

So the core of Colossians 1:15 is that Jesus Christ has full membership in both Deity and creation by way of the incarnation. Jesus Christ did this in obedience to God the Father, but He also did it for you! However, in order to partake of the benefits of Jesus Christ becoming a man so that He could die on the cross for your sins in your place, you must believe that these things are true, and as a result turn away from your sins and submit to Jesus Christ as Your Lord and Savior. If there are any people who do not believe in Jesus Christ as described here, I encourage you to do so right now. If there are any Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, oneness pentecostals, Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics or anyone else who denies the Deity or true nature of Jesus Christ or His life and work as clearly revealed through scripture, I encourage you to turn away from those and submit yourself to the truth. I do not say “accept the truth” because that implies that you are in some way an entity who has a role in creating, deciding, or being an arbiter of truth. Rest assured, only God is the creator, decider, determiner, arbiter and revealer of truth, so these things are going to be true whether you accept them or not. So, your duty then is to respond by believing them through faith and following through with obedience. That is the way, the only way that you can submit to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and be saved.

For more information follow  The Three Step Salvation Plan.Vodpod videos no longer available.

Posted in Christianity, watchtower tract | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Proof That Ordaining Women Leads To Endorsing Homosexuality And Other Forms Of Theological Liberalism

Posted by Job on July 26, 2009

See link below. The issue is not attacking women with spiritual gifts, but fidelity and obedience to scripture and its authority.

What Women Preachers Inevitably Leads To

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Burning Incense To Caesar: Regarding Avigdor Lieberman’s Proposed Loyalty Oath In Israel

Posted by Job on February 27, 2009

Two things.

First, I am thoroughly shocked at the intense and pervasive anti – Israel and anti – Semitic feelings around the globe that has been growing exponentially since the September 11th terror attacks. Now I do have a theory on why SOME of this is taking place, specifically among certain corners of the left. First, there has always been a large anti – Semitic presence on the left, but it has been largely muzzled by an apparently pro – Jewish sentiment in that body. I said “apparently” because it was never legitimate, but rather many of these people’s using the Jews. First, Jews were a bold, intellectually vital, and financially necessary part of the radical left in its early days. Second, it was unbecoming to be an open anti – Semite while simultaneously agitating for equal or special rights for blacks, women, Hispanics, homosexuals, atheists etc. Third, and perhaps most important, Jews were very important as a strategic weapon against conservatives, which at the time was primarily led by anti – Semitic (or at least non – Zionist) paleoconservatives.

Now the situation has reversed itself. The radical left is now mainstream, fully in control of the government and further having made major inroads in our corporate and financial institutions. So, they no longer need the courageous leadership, brilliant ideas, or financial backing of Jewish socialists. Also, multiculturalism and relativism now make it entirely possible – indeed fashionable – to denounce Israel and Jewry as evil while glorifying suicide bombers who target Israeli schoolchildren as freedom fighter servants of “god” through the religion of peace. And most importantly, the left can no longer use the charge of anti-Semitism to attack the actions and motivations conservative opponents, because the paleoconservatism of the recent past has given way to a pro – Zionist neoconservatism, many of whose ideas and leaders come from the ranks of conservative Jews, and much of whose money, numbers, and organizing muscle comes from premillennial dispensational evangelical Christianity. So, where a conservative was often called “anti – Semite” as a political tactic in times past by leftist activists, modern leftist activists now bash Jews and Israel far more overtly, publicly, and viciously than the conservative WASP (or as it were Roman Catholic) bankers and politicians ever did in private, and now use “homophobe” as their weapon of choice against conservatives. The best example of this startling shift: where leftist Martin Luther King, Jr. was a fervent Zionist and employed communist Jews as his speechwriters, organizers, and strategists, Barack HUSSEIN Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright casts his lot with the Palestinian terrorists and counts Louis Farrakhan (and similar) among his support system. Not the Palestinians, mind you, for the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not violent criminals, but people and groups who have blood on their hands and are thirsty for more of it. And where King was roundly criticized for his Zionist position, Obama and Wright were only challenged – and in an extremely muted fashion – by a few neoconservatives.  This is only explicable by a rapid and amazing rise in the climate of anti – Semitism (both that which exists and that which is tolerated in others) which can only be explained by the activity of evil spirits. 

So, it is in this context that Avigdor Lieberman is being called – amazingly – “Jewish Hitler” in some circles. I will not even bother to explain how such a moniker, such a comparison, is so grotesquely inaccurate and inappropriate that it can either only be made by someone who is unaware of Hitler’s ideology and behavior and is merely used to calling someone that you disagree with “a Nazi” (which does honestly seem to be increasingly the case … the media and the education system seem fine with willfully refusing to educate people about Hitler and the Nazi regime so that any view or ideology that they disagree with, including those in the New Testament, can be accused of either contributing to the Holocaust or leading us to a new one … a columnist for the Detroit Free Press actually claimed that George W. Bush’s proposals to cut taxes and create private Social Security accounts could lead to a state policy of exterminating low income people, and yes people like her often tend to be pro – abortion!).

And what makes Avigdor Lieberman so monstrous? Quite simply, his proposal for a loyalty oath, that all citizens be required to publicly express loyalty to Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state. Those who refuse have to options: to leave Israel (and if I am correct, it is at Israel’s expense!) or to remain there as a sort of second – class citizen. Lieberman has even stated that a person does not need to declare loyalty to Zionism, which comes with a lot of political and religious implications that a lot of people (including haredi Orthodox Jews!) cannot abide. Such a person merely needs to be willing to declare an acceptance of the fact that Israel exists now and of its continued existence in largely its current makeup and form (a secular western democracy with a mostly Jewish population where Orthodox Judaism plays a huge role – indeed a larger role than Christianity ever has in America, as it is modeled more closely after 19th century Lutheran Germany or Anglican England than America) – in Jewish government and institutions.

Jewish supporters of Lieberman’s proposed oath point out that the United States requires the same of people beocoming  naturalized United States citizens. That is a willfully false comparison, as Lieberman’s oath would be required of everyone, both natural born citizens and already naturalized citizens, as a requirement of retaining their citizenship. In America, it is practically impossible for a natural born or naturalized citizen to be stripped of his status against his will. 

However, Israel is not America. Enumerating the many differences between their legal code and its underlying assumptions and our own would be rather unwieldly, but suffice to say that a Christian could spend a year in an Israeli prison for giving a “Gideon’s Bible” containing the New Testament (as they of course all do) to a Jewish 12 year old. Like all parliamentary democracies, Israel lacks freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other things that make America much more of a constitutional republic than a pure democracy. 

Also, what Israel chooses to do with its citizenry is ultimately a matter of state, not of the cross. And though I believe Lieberman’s proposal to be exceedingly unwise, as it would be the doings of a democratic state that is not only secular but “founded on and governed according to anti – Christian principles and values” (it is a Jewish state, after all, so cast aside your premillennial dispensational Christian Zionism long enough read the 1, 2, and 3rd John and take its contents seriously) as opposed to the doings of a church or other body of professed Bible believing Christians, my position must be neutral, one of the many things that has happened and will happen in this world until Jesus Christ comes back. 

Yet and still, I cannot restrain myself from considering this policy past and future. It reminds me of the persecution against Christians in the Roman Empire. Christians were required to swear loyalty to the Roman state – and its state religion – with Caesar as head of both the state and religion with the status of a minor god in the religion by signing a document and bowing before either Caesar or his effigy. People who did so received certification of having done so, and people found by authorities in a condition of not having this certification either had to burn incense to Caesar or his statue immediately, or be subject to arrest, torture, and death. This policy resulted in the deaths of Christians in numbers exceeding a million, and the imprisonment or torture of still more.

I think that it is fair to point out that some Christians interpret the “mark of the beast” portions of Revelation to refer to this time, while others – myself included – believe the Roman persecution to be a precursor to the much worse persecution still to come under the great tribulation.

With that in mind: consider this. Were Israel to actually implement Lieberman’s policy (which by the way would take major changes to Israel, including but not limited to a major redirection of public opinion, big changes of Israel’s laws, and a complete overhaul of the composition of their largely liberal courts, which are far more likely to sentence conservative Israelis to 6 months of community service for speech code violations for displaying shirts and bumper stickers with slogans offensive to Muslims – again, Israel has no freedom of speech – than approving a citizenship test), then in order to be viable and practical, the government would have to be able to differentiate between who has taken the loyalty oath and who hasn’t. (After all, Christians had various ways of evading detection and capture by the Romans.) This is not the case of apartheid South Africa, where it was very easy to use physical appearance to determine different treatment by government authorities. Israel is not even planning on automatically deporting those who reject the loyalty oath, but rather giving such people the option of remaining as second class citizens. 

So, how is this to be done except A) completing a national computerized database or registry of people who have  and haven’t declared a loyalty oath and B) requiring people to carry evidence of their loyalty and status with them on their person so that the government officials – and anyone else who decides to enact similar policies of their own, including banks, grocery stores, and other businesses – would be able to differentiate and treat people accordingly? Would it take the form of an identification card that a person would be forced to carry? Well, those can be forged. What about a government – issued microchip? 

But that is just Israel, you say? Wrong. Various interests in America have been promoting “national ID cards” and “national registries” for years to combat everything from legal immigration to voter fraud (not to mention databases of people allowed or not allowed to buy firearms, and also of sex crime offenders … are “hate crimes” offenders next?).  If Israel adopts a national registration and ID system to implement their loyalty oath policy, then other western style governments are very likely to emulate it for their own national ID systems to address their own (real and perceived) problems. As a matter of fact, dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes are even more likely to. 

So, for no other reason than that, Lieberman’s proposal is something to watch and think about, along with the many similar proposals in our own country, especially those who prefer national ID cards over simply building a border fence, or people who claim that there aren’t simple and local solutions to voter fraud.

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christian persecution America, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments »

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams Compares Homosexuality to Marriage

Posted by Job on October 1, 2008

Seriously, why continue to affiliate with this synagogue of Satan?

Anglican Head Compared ‘Faithful’ Gay Relationships to Marriage

LONDON – The spotlight is back on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams today after letters emerged in which the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion says gay relationships could “reflect the love of God” in a way comparable to marriage, according to media reports. Williams allegedly affirmed his liberal position on homosexuality in a leaked exchange of letters between 2000 and 2001 with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical living in his former archdiocese in south Wales.

According to media reports, Williams asserts in the letters his belief that parts of the Bible relating to homosexuality were addressed “to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience” rather than gay people in a relationship.

“I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” one letter was quoted as saying.

As a theologian, Williams is liberal on the issue of homosexuality but adopts a more conservative position as leader of the Anglican Communion, which officially regards homosexuality as incompatible with Scripture. (So … they are willing to allow people whom they know to be heretical and apostate run their church?)

The archbishop’s comments come just days after the conclusion of the once-in-a-decade Lambeth Conference, which reaffirmed the Anglican Communion’s official line on homosexuality. (Which means that this church feels that it is OK to lie for expediency’s sake.) Bishops at the conference, which ended on Sunday, called for an immediate halt to same-sex consecrations and blessings, and the suspension of cross-border interventions.

Williams said at the end of the conference that the Anglican Communion would be in “grave peril” if member churches failed to observe the moratorium.

The 77-million member Anglican Communion has been wracked with division, particularly since the 2003 consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. More than 200 conservative bishops boycotted the Lambeth Conference in protest of the presence of pro-gay bishops, including some of those involved in the consecration of Robinson. They held their own meeting, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), in Jerusalem in June.

In his strongest public acknowledgement of GAFCON to date, Williams had said he would look for ways to “build bridges” with bishops in the movement, who include Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi, Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen, and a number of UK bishops, including the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. (Please. The Bible forbids building bridges to apostasy.)

Williams said he would send out a pastoral letter to each of the GAFCON bishops as a first step, but added that the bridge-building process would need some “teasing out” in the coming months

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

Barack HUSSEIN Obama On The Bible

Posted by Job on September 29, 2008

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Trying To Guilt – Or Frighten – Whites Into Voting For Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

Please see this article: The Big ‘What If’. In it, Randall Kennedy not so subtly states his case for why Obama should be president.

1. Blacks in America have been through SOOOO much.

2. Blacks in America that have been through SOOOO much will be … well let me just quote him: 

“If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I’ll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I’ll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I’ll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice — not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip. If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment.”

Consider the unmentioned context. If this is how I, a Princeton educated  civilized black man, will react, then imagine how THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE will react? What will THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE do? Imagine it, white folks. If you don’t keep us pacified by voting for Obama, roving hordes of black males will invade your neighborhoods and steal your jewels and money, burn your homes and businesses to the ground, put your sons to the edge of the sword, and ravish your pure virgin daughters!

Reminds me of the accounts of the shakedown hustles during the civil rights movement that I read about. A civil rights leader would hold a march, inflame the passions of blacks and whites with purposefully incendiary overcharged rhetoric, and then then GET OUT OF DODGE FAST WHEN THE INEVITABLE RIOT HAPPENS. Why do I say “inevitable”? Because that was the purpose of the march and especially the speech. Make no mistake: the civil rights leaders were MARXISTS. Inciting street riots and other violent subversive behavior was standard operating procedure for the radical left, and in some nations the goal was to get so many people rioting on an almost continuous basis that the country would basically shut down (which leads to even more riots due to people unable go to work or buy food) that it mushrooms into a full blown coup. So the myth that the civil rights movement was “nonviolent” was one of the biggest lies in our recent national history, with the media and our government financed and controlled education system fully complicit, and the people who spoke the truth about what was going on branded as racist and therefore dismissed. 

So, the strategy was to start a riot in city A, then go to city B and tell them “agree to our concessions or you are next.” That is what Shelby Steele was only hinting at when he called Martin Luther King, Jr. a “bargainer” and suggested that Obama was following in his footsteps. The truth is that King used the threat and fear of black violence, black criminality, to manipulate white people. Had the civil rights movement been a true civil rights movement, its goal would have been to convince whites that blacks were the moral, social, cultural, and intellectual equal of whites and to afford blacks the opportunity to demonstrate it. (While the hero of sorts of modern neoconservatives, freemason Booker T. Washington, offered an alternative program that was not without flaws, it nonetheless was his basic strategy.) Instead, the fake civil rights movement encouraged whites to view blacks as rapists, thieves, arsonists, and murderers so they would do whatever it took to pacify us animal beasts (yes, I say US for I am black), including legal, political, and financial payoffs.

To this day, this mentality persists. Civil rights leaders to this day blame illegitimacy, crime, abortions, AIDS, unemployment, low educational attainments, and riots (which fortunately have not occured as often this decade as they did in the 80s and 90s) on the persistent refusal of the white majority of this country to submit to Marxism. That blacks should conduct ourselves and be productive moral people no matter the political or economic system just as whites, Jews, Asians, Hispanics who enter this country legally, and EVEN BLACKS WHO EMIGRATE HERE FROM AFRICA, LATIN AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN do is never discussed, for the advancement of the civil rights agenda does not depend on whites viewing us as equals and therefore respecting us by demanding that we fulfill our responsibilites. Instead, blacks MUST be viewed as children to be taken care of (and will become very unruly if we are not!) or vicious animal beasts that must be pacified lest we attack them with our fangs and talons at worst.  And Randall Kennedy is only doing a more subtle form of the threat that Donna Brazile gave Hillary Clinton supporters wanting to allow the superdelegates to decide the nominee at the convention: that there would be rioting in the streets!

The worst part of it all was that after the W.E.B. Du Bois intellectual phase of the civil rights movement gave way to the street criminality tactics, the movement was basically led by THOSE WHO CLAIMED TO BE CHRISTIAN PREACHERS! Leave alone the fact that these Christian preachers were using subversive tactics that no interpretation of either the sermon on the mount or Romans 13 could support. Instead, consider the fact that instead of using the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ to uplift people into becoming new creations, conformed into the image of Jesus Christ, they used their bully pulpits to incite acts of rioting and criminality that debased and demeaned their followers, and then they further demeaned and debased their followers by confirming the worst of the racist thoughts and fears of white people against blacks in their minds! Instead of showing white people – and black people – how the gospel transforms blacks into the image of Jesus Christ, they decided to make merchandise out of their fear of sin and utter depravity. 

Who is this Randall Kennedy to suggest that blacks cannot countenance losing a presidential election just like everybody else? By overtly claiming that Obama’s loss will be only due to racism, Kennedy is calling on blacks NOT to accept it! Well what about it, Kennedy? Do whites have the same privilege? Do whites have the right to attribute a John McCain loss to race since 95% of blacks and (if current tracking polls are correct) 70% of Hispanics are going to vote for Obama? And should whites accept it? Is that not racial equality? But no. Kennedy does not want equality. He wants blacks to have the right to be angry like children, and to act out their anger as children are wont to do, while demanding that whites be mature adults. Because if blacks act like mature adults, he won’t be able to use us to shake anyone down, and if whites act like adults, there will not be anyone to pay the shakedown money, let alone actually run the businesses, schools, and government agencies that Barack HUSSEIN Obama would need in order to actually govern. 

But this is precisely the mentality inculcated by the civil rights preachers, and they did it by preaching a false gospel. The true gospel heals and elevates, not frustrates and denigrates. The true gospel sets captives free, not keeps them in bonds. And yes, the true gospel equips people to conduct themselves in a Christian manner no matter their financial, social, or political circumstances. Do any of these civil rights preachers speak of the poverty, oppression, and disenfranchisement experienced by the early church? The Roman Empire was a monarchy governed in a fascist manner. Virtually all Christians weren’t even citizens, which meant that they had no rights. Making things worse, Christianity was actually regarded as illegal. The rhetoric and ideology of the civil rights movement would have been completely irrelevant to the early church, and their tactics would have only resulted in Rome’s declaring all out war on Christians, which they did not do until 303 AD, by which time the faith was very firmly established. In short, had a Martin Luther King, Jr. been around in the early church, the result would have been no more church, and in short order. 

As a clear contrast to the tactics of the civil rights movement in whose steps this Kennedy person is following, the early church responded to their poverty and persecution with the fruits of the Holy Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-control. Their example was Jesus Christ’s praying for the forgiveness of His murderers while dying on the cross, and many Christian martyrs went to their deaths singing hymns and entreating onlookers to accept their faith. Seeing that the morality of a Christian population that was so put upon far exceeded their own licentious natures was a primary method of winning converts: people saw what the early Christians were going through and wanted to be like them! They were willing to give up their much more comfortable and accepted status in society to join the Christians in tribulation! This is in contrast with the civil rights preachers causing whites to so loathe, hate, and fear their black Christian followers that they would do anything to get away from them. The false Jesus Christ of the civil rights preacher, rather than saying “forgive them Father for they know not what they do” regarding His murderers, would have flashed gang signs, done vulgar sexual poses, and aimed profane tirades at people who had nothing to do with his execution as he was expiring. Instead of saying to the penitent thief “today you will be with me in paradise” as did the true Jesus Christ, the civil rights preacher’s false messiah would have joined the other thief in lamenting their inability to escape, join forces, and commit even more crimes! We should not be surprised because the Jesus Christ of Martin Luther King, Jr. was not born of a virgin, did not die for our sins, did not rise from the dead, is not the Son of God, and is not God incarnate.

This is precisely why we must reject the false gospel of the religious left. We must also reject the false gospel of the religious right. We must reject all false gospels that tells us that it is expedient and appropriate to conform ourselves to our temporal conditions and the ways of this world, and accept only the true gospel of Jesus Christ, which tells us to keep our Christian walk in this life focused on the eternal life to come. Civil rights leaders would have called such talk the message of the sellout who submits himself to injustice and white supremacy out of a fearful refusal to challenge it. It is precisely the same line of thought that led James Cone to declare that any god that did not support black liberation must be killed! My response: follow the God of the Bible or change your religion. Also, quit being so culturally chauvinistic! If you are a Christian in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Barack Obama’s Indonesia, etc. right now, the civil rights movement tactics will only result in your speedy death just as it would have in the early church. The true gospel equips its adherents for whatever circumstances that they will face. That the civil rights gospel was only applicable or effective to our own nation and culture is proof that it always was false to the entire world.

So Christians, black and white, Hispanic or Asian, do not conform to the ways of this world  in this matter or in any other. Instead, resist the devil and he will flee from you.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 47 Comments »

Black Leaders Reject Incontrovertible Evidence Of The Racist Origins Of Gun Control Laws!

Posted by Job on August 23, 2008

Of course, there is a reason why of all the hate crimes committed against blacks, the Camilla Massacre is the one that black leaders would rather not speak of! Why? Because blacks were murdered over the right to possess firearms! Understand this: the right to possess firearms which one would use to defend himself and other innocent people is basic to a society that values and promotes law, order, and justice. Black leaders are part and parcel of the anti – Christ cabal that desires lawlessness, disorder, and injustice, a climate where the innocent will be victimized. Such people promote the notion that the government will protect us while knowing full well that a government which rejects the very concept of truth and right and wrong will be the single biggest force of oppression, injustice, and victimization. Indeed, the very same people who claim that we do not need guns because the government will protect us are also the ones who agitate against police officers and district attorneys so that they will allow violent criminals, even those that victimize and violate women and children in the most heinous and grotesque manner imaginable, go unpunished! It is the ultimate deception: on one hand these people demand that we give up our guns and rely on the government to protect us from criminals, and on the other hand these very same individuals not only petition but coerce the government into refusing to enforce the law and allowing these criminals to roam our streets with no fear of deterrent or reprisal! Evil such as this is brought to you by the same ACLU mindset that advocates for child molesters!

So people out there, read this below and realize that Barack Hussein Obama is on their side. Of course, John Sidney McCain is too, for never forget that McCain supports rewarding the lawless invasion of illegal immigrant criminals with amnesty, as well as the illegal undeclared war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, McCain is brazenly using his volunteering for the similarly illegal undeclared war in Viet Nam, an action which he himself admitted that he was not seeking to honor or follow the will of God in taking up, as his primary qualification for president! That and his position on the illegal undeclared war in Iraq! And yes, both candidates are bought and paid for lock stock barrel and crumb by the same cabal of lawless bankers, financiers, profiteers, speculators, and corporate raiders that have been looting Wall Street, the federal treasury, pension plans, and your own pockets without any threat or possibility of punishment. Look at the list of the big contributors to McCain and Obama, Democrats and Republicans, and you will see so many of the same names! So when we have candidates that are not only openly brazenly committed to lawlessness, BUT ARE USING THEIR COMMITMENT TO LAWLESSNESS AS THEIR PRIMARY QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, how could you even THINK of voting for either one?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, August 22, 2008

Guns-rights advocates want to change a state firearms law that they say has a racist past.

But black lawmakers say those advocates are using the story of a Reconstruction-era massacre of African-Americans to justify letting Georgians tote weapons in churches and other public places.

Next month is the 140th anniversary of the Camilla Massacre, when a group largely made up of blacks heading to a Southwest Georgia Republican political rally were shot up by white locals after being warned not to bring guns to town.

Gun-rights advocates say the September 1868 massacre, in which at least nine freedmen were killed and up to 25-30 were wounded, led the General Assembly to ban citizens from carrying firearms at political rallies and other “public gatherings.” The aim, they say, was to keep guns away from blacks.

“It was entirely about race,” said Ed Stone, president of GeorgiaCarry.org.

But many African-American lawmakers don’t see the “public gatherings” law as a civil rights issue. In fact, at the Capitol, black lawmakers have been some of the leading backers of gun-control legislation over the years.

One, Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), called GeorgiaCarry’s use of the Camilla massacre “deeply offensive.”

“It’s very cynical, even more-so when you understand that in many African-American demographics, gun homicides are the number one cause of death,” Fort said. “To have these people use the history of discrimination against African-Americans going back 140 years to say this is why we need to have guns in churches, restaurants and schools …. where is this going to end?

GeorgiaCarry.org led the charge during the 2008 session to pass legislation allowing Georgians with carry licenses to take guns on MARTA, into restaurants and state parks. They are battling city of Atlanta officials in court over a ban on guns in non-secure areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The next target may be churches and college campuses.

Earlier this month the group made a presentation to a Senate committee that will consider legislation for the 2009 session that would likely loosen the “public gatherings” section of state law, allowing Georgians with licenses to carry firearms in more places. During the meeting, Stone told lawmakers about the Camilla Massacre.

The incident has been called one of most violent episodes of Reconstruction.

It happened after the white-dominated General Assembly expelled 32 black legislators. One of them, Philip Joiner, helped lead a march Sept. 19, 1868, of several hundred blacks and a few whites to Camilla to attend a Republican political rally. Some were armed with walking sticks, shotguns and other various firearms, according to historical accounts of the event.

When the procession was a few miles outside of town, the local sheriff warned them not to come to town with firearms. The marchers told the sheriff they meant no harm and continued on. posse of armed white townsmen gathered to await the group.

When the marchers arrived, they were met by a posse of armed white townsmen, who opened fire. The white Republicans and freedmen fled, but the sheriff’s men pursued them, shooting the freedmen as they tried to escape, according to the state histories. State officials blamed the marchers for defying the sheriff’s order not to bring guns to town.

Two years later, the General Assembly passed legislation prohibiting citizens from carrying guns into places of public worship, court, voting precincts or other “public gatherings.”

E.R. Lanier, a Georgia State University law professor who teaches Georgia legal history, said historical documents connecting the massacre with the gun law from that time are limited. But, he said, ” There is a connection, there is no doubt about it.”

While that may be true, Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta), a longtime civil rights activist, said it’s dishonest for groups like GeorgiaCarry to use “horrible stories to justify why the Legislature and the courts should allow for easier access to guns.

“It’s very disingenuous and it is not appropriate to link these horrible massacres to what they are doing in 2008,” Brooks said. “We need less guns on the street rather than more guns. If you took the guns off the street, particularly in African-American, Hispanic and poor white communities, the homicides would drop dramatically.”

Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), a member of the Senate gun-laws study committee, supports giving more freedom to Georgians with carry licenses. He said the arguments about gun violence don’t hold water because Georgians who go through background checks to get the licenses generally aren’t the ones committing crimes.

“The gun violence that is occurring there is not happening with the people who are going through background checks, it’s happening with people who already have a criminal history,” Rogers said. “If they have a criminal history, particularly a violent criminal history, then we don’t want them carrying a weapon.”

Rogers called the Camilla massacre a sad piece of Georgia history that resulted in the “public gathering” law.

“Law enforcement back then thought you ought to disarm African-Americans,” Rogers said. “Now we are seeing people arguing about the same thing. If they are law-abiding citizens, regardless of what color they are, they ought to be able to protect themselves.”

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

Did Obama Lie About Born Alive Abortion Infanticide Bill?

Posted by Job on August 21, 2008

Not a supporter of the Sun Myung Moon paper the Washington Times (do not even read it anymore!) but still good to read. Not that his opponent, John McCain, would lift a finger to stop this infanticide either, because even if McCain personally opposes it, his new world order globalist masters wouldn’t let him touch it. 

Did Obama Lie About Born Alive Bill?

By Joel Mowbray

For the first time in this presidential cycle, social issues such as abortion took center stage this past week, courtesy of the candidates’ high-profile, back-to-back interviews at a mega-church last weekend.

Yet the mainstream media only days later is starting to address what might be the biggest story in this frame: Barack Obama – whether knowingly or not – provided false information about a controversial abortion vote he made in the Illinois Senate in 2003.

After his nationally televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday night in Orange County, Calif., Mr. Obama sat down with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody and went on the attack against pro-life activists, whom he said were “lying” about his vote to kill a bill protecting babies born alive following botched abortions.

At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births – and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent.

Mr. Obama contended that he “would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported,” but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because “that was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” Except that it was.

As it turns out – and as even Mr. Obama’s campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun – the National Right to Life Committee wasn’t lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn’t contain the federal legislation’s language explicitly stating that it would not “undermine Roe vs. Wade.” (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.

CNN, to its credit, did report on Obama’s Illinois actions before the Democrat’s accusation that his critics were lying. The New York Times first reported on Mr. Obama’s Illinois record two weeks ago – almost 900 words into a 1,400-word piece on page A16. In a page A18 story this Wednesday dedicated solely to the controversy, the Times’ Larry Rohter carries Mr. Obama’s water, stretching to offer excuses for his vote that even Mr. Obama did not suggest until after misstating his own record last weekend.

The highest-profile mainstream-media piece to date ran this Wednesday in The Washington Post, a page A1 article titled, “Candidates’ Abortion Views Not So Simple.” In its reporting, however, The Post seemed to dismiss the significance of Mr. Obama’s opposition to the 2003 Illinois legislation by referring to it as an “obscure law.” The Post further presents as fact the Obama position that the Illinois bill Mr. Obama opposed was solely about “pre-viable” babies. The testimony of former nurse Jill Stanek, who witnessed babies surviving botched abortions at Christ Hospital just outside Chicago, discussed babies past 20 weeks, including into the third trimester – thus not “pre-viable.”

Though understanding the legislative process is not a common strength in political journalists, most of the reporters in question are smart enough to sift through the plentiful documentation of Mr. Obama’s voting history on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois at the Web site of the National Right to Life Committee. Further, they could even read the simple, yet thorough, narrative of National Review’s David Freddoso, who has written two stories spelling out the timeline and Obama’s actions along the way. (Some of the reporting is adapted from his new book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”) Mr. Obama’s camp has shifted explanations this week, now claiming that the Democrat merely wanted a provision in the bill clarifying that it would not impact existing state laws. Yet as several pro-life activists have noted, Mr. Obama was the chairman of the legislature’s health committee when the bill came up again in 2003 and easily could have offered such an amendment. He didn’t.

Regardless of the reasons for his vote, Mr. Obama cannot say that his critics are lying. He did oppose a bill virtually identical to the one unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate. And now, five years later, he might end up paying a political price for that decision.

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) Contradicts Itself Over How Apostate It Should Be

Posted by Job on July 1, 2008

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24376316/

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

My Main Concern With Barack HUSSEIN Obama: His Victory Would Make Liberation Theology Seem Rick Warren Purpose Driven!

Posted by Job on April 9, 2008

I have heard about the nightmare scenarios about a Barack Obama presidency: the anti – Christ thing, the Muslim thing, the inexperience thing, the far – left thing, etc. and to tell the truth none of them concern me terribly much. Allowing them to do so would require my dismissing from consideration the things that some of our past presidents – and our current one! – have done, or pretending that I find John McCain or Hillary Clinton in any way more to my liking. On the last point in particular, let me tell you that in their own way, each of them is immensely dangerous to the interests of Christianity!

But speaking of Christianity, do not mistake this as a statement that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is the one most worthy of opposition, for I legitimately feel that such is the case. Still, in Christian terms, there is one aspect of an Obama presidency that I find extremely worrisome: the potential that his presidency would lead to a mainstream acceptance of liberation theology. Perhaps not the radical and separatist version espoused by Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, but definitely a more commercialized, homogenized, domesticated, works – centered (PURPOSE DRIVEN?) version of it.

Now as you may know, liberation theology was given to the world by the Roman Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. For a time there was a chance of it becoming very influential to mainstream Catholic and Protestant Christianity, but the doctrine suffered a major setback when the very Roman Catholic Church that birthed it began opposing it in a major way in the 1980s. But were Barack Obama to win the White House, there is the potential that this system could again assert itself.

You see, many may underestimate what electing a black President would mean to America’s black citizens. It is not that blacks feel that Barack Obama would enact a raft of laws and policies favoring blacks. Rather, it would be a major symbolic victory, a sign that America is turning its back on its racist past and ready to accept a fairer future. It would signal that at long last, blacks are fully recognized and accepted as equals – as Americans – by a nation that in every way imaginable denied conceding such. You think this to be foolish? Well consider this: we are less than 25 years removed from blacks being regularly featured on television commercials. That occurrence coincided right about the time of the celebrity of Michael Jordan and the success of “The Cosby Show.” Many companies feared that featuring blacks in their commercials would result in white consumers shunning their products! And yes, it has been less than 15 years since blacks began to regularly play quarterback in the NFL. When asked about the controversy in the early 1990s, NFL head coach Jimmy Johnson stated on Fox Sports that a lot of coaches regarded blacks as not being smart enough to read NFL defenses. This trivia may seem to be just that, but it is evidence of how racism so deeply permeated and tainted everything in American life, even the trivial, and it explains why people that are black like me are capable of getting so worked up over things that appear to be so small! But to so many blacks, the election of Obama would signal that the long nightmare of being second – class citizens is about to end.

This is not to say, of course, that all or even most of these people are obsessed with racial victimization. Quite the contrary, conservative views on race such as those espoused by Bill Cosby are much more popular in the black community than is let on. Many blacks are very much concerned about the cultural problems in the black community: crime, illegitimacy, educational failure, etc. It is just that we are unwilling to discuss them in response to the baiting of conservative racists (who can be of any race) that wield these issues not intending to contribute towards solving them, but rather to use them to justify racism (including but certainly not limited to their own). But in Barack and Michelle Obama, such blacks see hope in that respect as well: Harvard Law School graduates, married, and parents of two daughters. Even Barack Obama’s drug use makes him only a more practical role model in the eyes of those who found the aforementioned Cosby Show “too perfect” and “evading the real problems of the black community”, sort of the ideal anti – hero for our cynical postmodern times. So yes, blacks would look to the Obamas as role models for themselves and the black community, and Barack Obama in particular to serve this role for the very troubled black male.

So were Obama to fulfill these dreams for black America, everything that took Obama to the mountaintop, that got him to that brass ring, that he used to bring to fruition the wildest fantasies of the descendants of slaves, would become absorbed into the shared collective black experience. And a great part of Obama’s everything is, of course, none other than Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright’s theology, doctrines, sermons, mentoring, etc. (the media is not shy about calling Wright Obama’s “father figure”) will all become a major part of the narrative of how a confused biracial young man went on to become the first black President. And of course, scores of black people will want to apply what worked so well for Barack Obama into their own communities, their own churches, and their own lives.

Let me say two things about this. First, it is the American way! All Americans of all races have been assimilating the traits of successful people, of leaders, into their own being since this country was founded. And yes, the cult of personality has always been very much a factor in American religious life. Second, with respect to the black community in general, there is already precedent. Who is unaware of the huge impact on black religious life that one Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had? Well, as important as Dr. King is to black America, King never became president (a fact that Hillary Clinton, for reasons that made no sense unless she was TRYING to lose the race, taunted supporters of Obama and King with back in January during the very week of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday … let me point out by the way that if Hillary Clinton and the Republicans in nominating McCain – a fellow that most Republicans don’t even LIKE – are giving Obama every possible shot at victory). So then, the effect of Obama on the black religious landscape might even exceed that of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s!

But that is just American blacks, right? Wrong. There has been a provincial, chauvinistic even, tendency among blacks to overstate this, but American blacks are quite often trendsetters. American blacks set trends for blacks in other regions: Africa, Latin America, etc. Now liberation theology is already more of a factor in those regions than in America, so Obama’s election would give the advocates of that belief system in those areas precisely what they need (and that speaks nothing of the Hispanic, Asian, and white adherents of it). And yes, blacks do set trends for whites in America. American whites, in turn, set trends for white people elsewhere in the world. So world, liberation theology brought to you by Barack Hussein Obama. What, Obama is a Muslim? Well, what better belief system for the secular moderate Muslims to buy into? And the secular moderate Hindus? Buddhists? People that are just, well, secular and moderate? And so on …

Again, a key component to remember is that it will NOT be the same liberation theology as advocated by David Cone and Jeremiah Wright. As a matter of fact, not even the black nationalism or Afrocentrism portion of the messages of Cone and Wright will be overly offensive in time. After all, the current image of Martin Luther King, Jr. is nothing like the man with exceptionally radical views and confrontational methods that actually lived. Does anyone remember that Muhammad Ali was once a member of the Nation of Islam? Nope. And even Malcolm X had his black history month commemorative soda cups sold by McDonald’s! The same will be done with liberation theology. It will be packaged and sold like a commercial product just like everything else in America, and when that happens, it may just find a nation – a globe! – of willing consumers in our churches just waiting to devour it. And why not? In their determined zeal to run away from the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, the cross, and the empty tomb, has not Christianity shown itself more than willing to devour everything else? This, people, is no different, and when you consider a great many of the other falsities ingested into popular Christianity over the ages, liberation theology, black or otherwise, is not so radical after all. Is it?

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, black history month, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, hate speech, Hinduism, homophobia, homosexuality, identity politics, idolatry, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

Jeremiah Wright’s $1.6 Million Dollar Home In The White Suburbs

Posted by Job on April 7, 2008

The fellow is just another false preacher fleecing the flock, no different from the TBN minstrels. See link below:

This is the home that Trinity built

Trinity United Church of Christ is building a million-dollar home along a Tinley Park golf course on land that was owned by its longtime pastor, Rev. A. Jeremiah Wright Jr., records show. The 10,340-square-foot home, apparently planned for Wright’s retirement, sits on land purchased by the pastor in 2004 for $345,000. In September 2006, the church applied for a building permit, and in December 2006 he sold the land to his church, which took out a $1.6 million mortgage on the property.

The church received a permit in April 2007 for the brick-and-stone structure, set on Odyssey Country Club.
Trinity officials declined to comment. The church’s national office said it is “customary and appropriate in many Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ . . . to offer housing provisions for retiring clergy” after years of service.

Rev. J. Bennett Guess, a spokesman in Cleveland, said: “Each local UCC congregation is free to honor a retiring pastor in ways it feels most appropriate.” Rev. Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, said African-American congregations often purchase a parsonage for clergy. In some traditions, ministers own the home. In others, the church retains ownership.

In recent weeks, Wright has been a central figure in the Democratic presidential race as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama—who has described Wright as a spiritual mentor and confidant—has sought to distance himself from racial and political statements made by the pastor.

Tribune reporter Manya A. Brachear contributed to this report.

mwalberg@tribune.com

So … is this the “black value system” and “rejection of middle – classedness” that Jeremiah Wright espouses from the pulpit? Again, I don’t use the Melvin Jones terminology here, but if I did, Wright would get it. The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christianity, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, religion, religious left | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 53 Comments »

Barack HUSSEIN Obama America’s First Homosexual President? Part 2

Posted by Job on March 3, 2008

You know it’s an odd thing when I write a column and leftists knee jerk about it all day until they’ve knocked themselves out from hitting their chins so many times over again.

Yesterday I penned, what I found to be a very logical missive about Obama’s street-cred with homosexual activists and how he could be similar to the homosexual activist movement to what Bill Clinton was to big-government-dependency blacks were in the 1990’s… the FIRST! (Side note – free-market blacks never accepted Billy Jeff as the first black President…)

But stating such observations plainly homosexuals were coming out all over the place feigning indignation that I would have the audacity (good Barack word) to state something that to me is so readily evident.

So just to see how the reaction was continuing I News-Googled, “Obama, gay, homosexual” this morning… and guess what? “THE GAYS” were saying it too… HA!

So for all the knee-jerks that went ten rounds with themselves in hysteria over my column yesterday… what say you now?

Read the entire column: click here.

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, gay rights, homosexuality, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: