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 ‘media conspiracy’

The Strange Religious Direction That Quantum Physics Is Taking

Posted by Job on October 15, 2009

From the Huffington Post:

And in the modern world, with the strange and inexplicable discoveries of quantum physics, scientific treatises on the nature of reality sound remarkably like ancient mystical writings. The more we learn about the shocking contradictions and improbable mechanics of the subatomic world, the more it appears that the universe is less like Isaac Newton’s giant clock and more like one giant dream, imagined from within an implicate order that transcends human reason. Such a vision would be familiar to the Sufis of Islam, along with their counterparts among Buddhist masters, Kabbalists and Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart.

So, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and “Christian” mystics all agree on this stuff. Fascinating. In addition, the “dreamtime” religious myths of Australian aborigines can be compared to this also. (Incidentally, Kabbalist means Jewish, as Kabbalism is part and parcel to the accepted Jewish religion. Kabbalism is in no way pseudo-Jewish cultism. Instead, esoteric knowledge and magic are all over Judaism, and is the acknowledged but seldom spoken of underpinnings of the Talmud and other rabbinic Jewish books. Kabbalah, which at best is a syncretism between some elements of the Hebrew religion and the Babylonian pagan mystery religions and is more likely the Babylonian mystery religion in Jewish guise, can be considered “higher Judaism.” Jews are encouraged to master the Talmud and the other books first, and the brightest and most devoted then go on to study Kabbalah. From a Jewish website: Kabbalah is also part of the Oral law. It is the traditional mystical understanding of the Torah. Kabbalah stresses the reasons and understanding of the commandments, and the cause of events described in the Torah. Kabbalah includes the understanding of the spiritual spheres in creation, and the rules and ways by which G-d administers the existence of the universe. More information that “Christian Zionist” preachers and leaders never tell the laymen, though they certainly know about it. So, we should not be surprised that Kabbalists and Muslims agree on this topic, because it is “knowledge” that not only spiritually but also quite literally has the same origin.)

This also seems to correlate to the religious worldview pushed by people such as Dan Brown and George Lucas (theosophy and New Age sorts), where knowledge (or more accurately consciousness), matter and energy themselves are worshiped as god. Reminds me of a couple of articles I read (see below). One world religion anybody? The interesting thing is that this religio-scientific worldview very much accommodates evolution, the big bang theory and similar. As a matter of fact, the article points out that believers in this worldview include Francis Collins, the current director of the National Institutes of Health (Barack Hussein Obama appointee). Despite his belief in and advocacy for evolution, Collins is considered to be an evangelical Christian (and is indeed embraced as one by evangelicals desperate to see one of their own ranks represented in mainstream culture, especially in the elite academic, scientific and government arenas, and Collins represents all three), and is working to get evangelical Christians to abandon their opposition to evolution. I should point out that in this Francis is far from alone, as not a few Anglican evangelical theologians, including Alister McGrath, have been trying to get evangelicals to submit to evolution for decades. And incidentally, you should know that the Roman Catholic Church, with its long history of mysticism, is slowly accommodating evolution as well. Again, one world religion maybe, perhaps?

crossroad.to/articles2/05/star-wars.htm

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/newage.htm

Advertisements

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

Rush Limbaugh’s Not Being Allowed To Buy An NFL Team May Be A Bad Sign For American Christians

Posted by Job on October 15, 2009

First, please do not mistake me for being a Rush Limbaugh supporter of any sort. (For the record: I was once a regular listener to his show back when I was an ardent religious right neoconservative Republican, but since then my religious views have changed, resulting in my political views changing – to apolitical –  as well). Also, it is significant that by his own words Rush Limbaugh cannot be considered to be a Christian of any sort, which makes it particularly distressing that so many of my politically conservative Christian brothers and sisters vigorously endorse and allow themselves to be influenced by Limbaugh’s views and count him among their ranks, even to the point of considering him to be a great articulator and defender of the faith and equating an attack on him and his views to being an attack on Christianity. (Such people really need to pay serious attention to the history of Christianity, allow me to recommend The Reformers And Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin, a book that would shatter the basis for most religious right – and religious left – delusions.)

Yet the rejection of Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to become a minority owner of an NFL team should still cause Bible-believing Christians some concern. Make no mistake: the opposition to Limbaugh is largely due to his opposition to ideas and things that Christians also consider sinful: abortion, homosexuality, feminism etc. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Limbaugh’s racial views. Let me point something out: the NFL has a long history of racism. It is the only major sports league that has an explicit affirmative action program (the despised Rooney rule) because it is the only one that needs it! Limbaugh would have been far more likely to make the NFL less racist than more racist. Also, there is a huge double standard. You would have had a difficult time finding a bigger racist in modern professional sports – or in big business – than Ted Turner. Yet neither the media or civil rights groups said a peep about Ted Turner’s longtime ownership of the Atlanta Braves or the Atlanta Hawks (or for that matter CNN or the Turner Networks). By contrast, the media pressured Major League Baseball into forcing Marge Schott to sell her team!

The difference: Ted Turner openly mocks Christianity. So Turner’s racism is not only never commented on by the media, but it is artfully concealed. Instead, the media talks glowingly of Turner’s “philanthropy”, which JUST HAPPENS to include support for PLANNED PARENTHOOD and U.N. POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS. Check out this quote where Turner claims that global warming could cause us to become cannibals, and it could turn civilized countries into places like SOMALIA and SUDAN, examples which JUST HAPPEN to be black African nations. Oh yes, this supporter of Darwinian evolution Ted Turner also claims that the world has too many people. Which people would those be, Mr. prominent supporter of “The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life“? But can any of you recall the last time Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or any of the other types denouncing Limbaugh’s attempt to own an NFL team saying a thing about Turner’s racism EVER?

Now do not mistake this for being just another “liberal media hypocrisy double standard” screed that you can find in any right wing organ like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, National Review (or sadly far too many evangelical Christian outlets). That the world is evil and hypocritical is to be expected, and that is precisely one of the reasons why Jesus Christ called the church out of the world and commanded us to be separate from it. Instead, my angle is this: the treatment of Limbaugh is still more evidence that this country is becoming ever more hostile to Bible-believing Christians. Don’t be deceived into thinking that it is because of our political views, our “moral values” or what have you. For instance Hollywood gave the rabidly homophobic rapper Eminem award after award and also raved over the allegedly “pro-life” movie Juno (which was actually a very cleverly concealed feminist hatchet job on males and fatherhood). As the movie “The Time Changer” excellently made the case for, it isn’t conservative political views or good family values that Satan – and by extension the world that Satan rules – hates, it is Jesus Christ. That’s why the very same people who attack Christians for opposing abortion and gay rights RARELY IF EVER do the same regarding shari’a law Muslims!

So take up the cause of Rush Limbaugh? I would really dissuade any Bible-believing Christian from doing so. But realize that the media firestorm that resulted from Limbaugh’s attempt to become a minority owner of an NFL team is still more evidence that this nation is becoming ever more hostile to Christians and recognizing it as a sign of the times? That is what you should do. Ironically, Limbaugh is one of the major purveyors of the “America is a Christian nation” nonsense that is actually a false doctrine and form of the religion, one that takes a religion based on faith in the revelation of God’s Son Jesus Christ and turns it into merely a political/cultural belief system. Because of that, many of Limbaugh’s Christian followers are convinced that American Christians will not – or should not – ever face the marginalization and persecution that Christians in other nations do because America and its church are a special covenant nation with a special standing before God. This line of thinking is why so many of the rapture-based movies like “Left Behind” and “The Omega Code” depict America as leading the fight against the anti-Christ, at times with the American president leading the way. However, the truth is that America is part of Babylon, the worldwide political, economic and religious system that exalts itself against God, just like any other nation. If anything, America is a leader in it. America is where the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve are. Freemason and occult emblems are all over our national symbols. And if America didn’t invent violent and occultic movies, pornography, and similar content in heavy metal and rap music, we certainly lead the world in exporting it, and incidentally the same is true with the dissemination of false religious cults (Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, oneness pentecostalism) and religious syncretism, especially with New Age. And yes, America does have an ambassador to the Vatican, and 6 of our 9 Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics, including at least one Opus Dei member.

So, the prophecies in Revelation apply to America just like everyplace else. America will turn against and persecute its Christians just like every other nation, and America will be judged by God for its treatment of Christians (do not believe John Hagee and other dispensationalists who claim that judgment will be based on the nation’s treatment of Israel, the martyrs that will be avenged in Revelation 6:10 are Christian martyrs, not Jewish ones) just like other nations. And speaking of dispensationalism, in addition to their erroneous claims concerning America and Israel in the last days, the Bible (including Revelation 6) states that the church will have to endure this time as opposed to being “raptured out of it.” So, this Limbaugh episode is more evidence that Christians should be preparing themselves for what is coming in America as opposed to continuing to delude ourselves.

Incidentally, if you are not a Christian, please know that all of the things that are going on in this country and our world, all of the massive problems, were foretold long ago in the Bible. There is no excuse for continuing to disbelieve the Bible and continuing to rebel against Jesus Christ. Please end your rebellion in Jesus Christ today. The video below provides information designed to help you do so.Vodpod videos no longer available.

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christian persecution America, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Did Barack Obama Support The Murder Of Christians In Kenya By Raila Odinga Supporters?

Posted by Job on October 14, 2008

HYMAN: Obama’s Kenya ghosts

About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.

The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier.

By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians.

The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama‘s father.

Mr. Odinga had the backing of Kenya’s Muslim community heading into the election. For months he denied any ties to Muslim leaders, but fell silent when Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, appeared on Kenya television displaying a memorandum of understanding signed on Aug. 29, 2007, by Mr. Odinga and the Muslim leader. Mr. Odinga then denied his denials.

The details of the MOU were shocking. In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of “Islam as the only true religion,” Islamic leaders would have an “oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original],” installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who “allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists,” adoption of a women’s dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork.

This was not Mr. Odinga’s first brush with notoriety. Like his father, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the main opposition leader in the 1960s and 1970s, Raila Odinga is a Marxist He graduated from East Germany’s Magdeburg University in 1970 on a scholarship provided by the East German government. He named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

Raila Odinga was implicated in the bloody coup attempt in 1982 against then-President Daniel Arap Moi, a close ally of the United States. Kenya has been one of the most stable democracies in Africa since the 1960s. The ethnic cleansing earlier this year was the worst violence in Kenya since that 1982 coup attempt.

Mr. Odinga spent eight years in prison. At the time, he denied guilt but later detailed he was a coup leader in his 2006 biography. Statue of limitations precluded further prosecution when the biography appeared.

Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.

“Kenyans are now yearning for change,” he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans – he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama’s August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama’s father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, “Barack Obama’s father is my maternal uncle.”

President Kibaki requested a meeting of all opposition leaders in early January in an effort to quell the violence. All agreed to attend except Mr. Odinga. A month later, Mr. Kibaki offered Mr. Odinga the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government, in return for an end to the attacks. Mr. Odinga was sworn in on April 17, 2008.

Mr. Obama’s judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.

Mark Hyman is an award-winning news commentator for Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Buffy The Vampire Slayer versus Jesus Christ: Wicca Glorification In Media Reducing Female Church Attendance!

Posted by Job on August 24, 2008

Buffy the Vampire Slayer slaying church attendance among women, study claims

Religion News Blog, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Aug. 23, 2008 News Summary
www.religionnewsblog.com

Buffy the Vampire Slayer slaying church attendance among women, study claims The old-fashioned attitudes and hierarchies of churches are causing a steep decline in the number of female worshippers, according to an academic study.

The report claims more than 50,000 women a year have deserted their congregations over the past two decades because they feel the church is not relevant to their lives.

It says that instead young women are becoming attracted to the pagan religion Wicca, where females play a central role, which has grown in popularity after being featured positively in films, TV shows and books.

The study comes amid ongoing controversy over the role of women in all Christian denominations. Last month its governing body voted to allow women to become bishops for the first time, having admitted them to the priesthood in 1994, but traditionalist bishops have warned that hundreds of clergy and parishes will leave if the move goes ahead as planned.

The report’s author, Dr Kristin Aune, a sociologist at the University of Derby, said: “In short, women are abandoning the church.

“Because of its focus on female empowerment, young women are attracted by Wicca, popularised by the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

“Young women tend to express egalitarian values and dislike the traditionalism and hierarchies they imagine are integral to the church.

“Women’s ordination, as priests and now bishops, has dominated debate and headlines – but while looking at women in the pulpit we have taken our eyes off the pews, where a shift with more consequences for the church’s survival is underway.”

Her research, published in a new book called Women and Religion in the West, cites an English Church Census which found more than a million women worshippers have left churches since 1989.

Over the past decade, it claims, women have been leaving churches at twice the rate of men.

In addition, the census is said to show that teenage boys now outnumber girls in the pews for the first time.

Dr Aune says the church must adapt to the needs of modern women if it is to stop them leaving in their droves.

She believes many women have been put off going to church in recent years because of the influence of feminism, which challenged the traditional Christian view of women’s roles and raised their aspirations.

Her report claims they feel forced out of the church because of its “silence” about sexual desire and activity, and because of its hostility to single-parent families and unmarried couples which are now a reality for many women.

But it also says changes in women’s working lives, with many more now pursuing careers as well as raising children, mean they have less time to attend church.

Source: Buffy the Vampire Slayer slaying church attendance among women, study claims, Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent, Telegraph, UK, Aug. 23, 2008 — Summarized by Religion News Blog

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

Knoxville Liberal Unitarian Church Shooter Jim Adkisson IS AN ATHEIST WHO HATES RELIGION!

Posted by Job on July 28, 2008

More here from WorldNetDaily, who beat me to the punch by 20 minutes (grr!) and GetReligion who beat me by 15 (grr grr!). Is that what the media is reporting? NO! They are reporting that Adkisson targeted this unitarian universalist church because Adkisson hates liberals in stories like this (see link). Also, CNN’s report is more of the same. From there, they allow people to presume that Adkisson is a fundamentalist Christian. Not because, mind you, that there is a pattern of fundamentalist Christians doing things like this. Do you know why? BECAUSE THERE ISN’T! The famous hate crime committers in America, the killers of people like James Byrd, Tina Brandon (Brandon Teena), and Matthew Shepard were not Christians. Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. Neither is Eric Rudolph. No, it is the media and left wing types who do all they can to make you THINK that they are Christians. This includes, for instance, the JUDGE in Eric Rudolph’s trial, who from the bench admonished him for “breaking the law because of his faith.” The media actually frequently claimed that it was North Carolina fundamentalist Christians that helped Rudolph hide from and avoid the authorities for so long – that he was a hero among, you know, the Jesse Helms crowd, for his attacks on abortion clinics and homosexual night clubs – and when Rudolph set the record straight in interviews after his capture, THEY REFUSED TO REPORT IT!

But look here, buried in this USA Today item below – and it is not even in most other news outlets – is the truth:

“Karen Massey, who lived two houses from Adkisson’s home, told the Knoxville News Sentinel of a lengthy conversation she had with Adkisson a couple years ago after she told him her daughter had just graduated from Johnson Bible College. She said she ended up having to explain to him that she was a Christian. “He almost turned angry,” she told the newspaper. “He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it.” Massey said Adkisson talked frequently about his parents, who “made him go to church all his life. … He acted like he was forced to do that.” 

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to do much with this angle … and that is those who will even report it at al. Just like they didn’t report that Timothy McVeigh was an ATHEIST. Similar to founder of the hate group “World Church of the Creator” Matt Hale (whose follower murdered former basketball coach Rickey Birdsong in a rage over Hale’s being denied an Illinois law license), McVeigh rejected the Bible because it teaches that all people are equal. Eric Rudolph also rejected the Bible, and freely admitted that his decision to become a terrorist was influenced by anti – God philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche (of the “God is dead” fame)! Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold of Columbine? Atheists. Also, an extremely underreported item during the late 1990s was when an atheist walked into a Southern Baptist youth event in Texas and started killing people before committing suicide … his last words were “What you people believe is @#$%!” Despite being asked to do so by Congress, attorney general Janet Reno refused to even consider investigating it as a hate crime. (Reno’s department also sent out a memo claiming that people who went to church more than once a week … people just like the ones that this atheist murdered … were exhibiting extremist cult behavior and should be monitored by the federal government … when a stink was raised over the memo Reno’s justice department withdrew it.) And the teenage shooter of Ted Haggard’s former church in Colorado was a fellow that had rejected Christianity. 

The amazing thing is that even in this USA Today comment thread, you have tons of people attributing this fellow’s actions to Christianity. Why? Because of this same media. The oped columnists and news writers continually talk about THE POSSIBILITY of fundamentalist Christians being violent. These folks know full well that this only actually occurred in rare and isolated acts of violence against abortion doctors and clinics. I recall that when John Ashcroft – not a fundamental Christian mind you – was having his confirmation hearings for attorney general, one of the main reasons the media gave for opposing him was the idea that it would send a signal to violent pro – lifers that they could start back bombing clinics and killing doctors and women, and that Ashcroft would not prosecute them. The truth is that the last three cases of pro – life activists committing violence was in 1996 (the atheist Rudolph), 1993 (Pensacola, Florida) and 1992 (Buffalo New York). Even during the 1970s and 1980s incidents of violence were extremely rare, yet the news media and popular entertainment presented it as constant threats. 

And I did mention popular entertainment, correct? Movies, TV shows, and novels frequently present fundamental Christians as committing politically or religious motivated violence. Not only do several such come out each year, but we have had at least one horror movie featuring a fundamentalist Christian depicted as a serial killer (“Frailty”) and an X – Files episode depicting the same. There are tons of other examples … as a matter of fact killer Christians are practically a staple on the long – running “Law And Order” TV series, depicted almost as often as drug dealers, gang members, and mobsters. 

So after 30 years of being conditioned to view Christians as violent, it is no shock that people immediately jump to conclusions. Keep in mind: THIS IS DESPITE THERE BEING NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS! There are no statistics backing this belief, there are also no sensationalized public instances of Christians going on violent rampages with political or religious motivations. There were a few loners in the pro – life movement two decades ago (legal trials PROVED that the criminals were not affiliated with the pro – life organizations, but they went ahead and bankrupted Operation Rescue and started prosecuting pro – lifers under the RICO statute anyway … please note that civil rights, gay rights, feminist, and other leftist agitator groups were NEVER prosecuted under RICO!), Klu Klux Klan related violence (and the KKK was much more of a fraternal and freemason outfit than an actual Christian one … WHAT CHRISTIAN WOULD BURN A CROSS?) and that is it. As evil as their crimes were, they do not constitute a basis for people to believe that Christians are prone to politically and religious motivated acts of violence (or other words, TERRORISM). But that is what the media and Hollywood want you to believe, and in the minds of most Americans, they have already succeeded.

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-27-tennessee-shooting_N.htm

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

The Associated Press Directly Correlates Racism To Homosexuality Again

Posted by Job on June 1, 2008

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDtE4BJl7ikWbvmL2Wxw29k6zaiQD90S48EO0

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

To Indiana Jones And Star Wars Fans: Writer George Lucas Is A Theosophy Occultist

Posted by Job on May 24, 2008

Why did I watch the new Indiana Jones movie to begin with? Long story, but let me summarize: many months stretching into a few years going through an incredible effort to live holy by rejecting entertainment that did not conform to a Christian worldview – which inevitably lead to patronizing only “Christian” entertainment – left me JUST A LITTLE BIT BITTER when I discovered the decidedly non Christian views, lifestyles, and decisions made by many (as in JUST ABOUT ALL!) of the popular creators and distributors of said “Christian” entertainment that I was patronizing. So, the other day I turned to the wife and made comments to the effect of “Hey, let’s check out the new Indiana Jones movie, how bad could it be? Lucas and Spielberg are not the ones harming Christians by spreading false doctrines with products that they pretend were created to honor Jesus Christ.” So … let us say that in less than two years I went from thinking that keeping the TV on televangelists 24 by 7 would make me more holy and sanctified to thinking that there was nothing that Lucas and Spielberg could throw at me that was more spiritually harmful than what was being produced by Paul Crouch, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Fred Price, etc. 

Now let me say that it was not very long into the movie that I remembered why I had shunned popular movies to begin with. (My reason for renouncing television was due to the drastic decline in the quality of writing since the 1980s TV that I grew up on … movies suffer from the same incidentally.) I will not “review” the film other than to say that the general consensus of it by critics is correct, but let me just say that its ending – which I will not reveal for the benefit of those who will see it – got me to thinking about George Lucas’ religious beliefs. Claiming that Lucas has none is incredible (by that I mean the original meaning of the word – not credible or discredited – as opposed to how the term is now employed) after watching a movie whose only purpose was proselytization: to promote the religion and resulting worldview of Lucas. Seriously, there is no other reason why the movie exists. Yes, the movie does tie up some loose ends of the entire series.

However, an integral part of the “tying up” was using the fourth movie to connect the previous three in a tight little religious circle. How? Raiders of the Lost Ark = Judaism. Temple of Doom = Hinduism (sort of). The Last Crusade = Christianity. The Crystal Skull = New Age/the oddly similar religions of many third world tribal religions. Further, this current movie presses the case that all of these religions – and all religions in general – have the same origin, which is actually George Lucas’ religion. Now, I have always felt that it was a VERY GOOD THING for the religious landscape of America that the last two movies of the gnostic/Marxist “The Matrix” series were so terrible, otherwise more people than those like gospel artist Tonex would have taken its political – religious ideology seriously. Similarly, I am extremely glad that “The Crystal Skull” communicates Lucas’ beliefs rather poorly, and moreover is a very flawed vehicle for doing so. Still, even though very few people if any will be won over to Lucas’ views by this movie, it motivated me to do a bit of research into precisely what it is that Lucas believes. I found the answer rather quickly which is a good thing as the consensus of opinion in a variety of sources both religious and secular greatly increases the likelihood that it is true.

So, the belief system that Lucas adheres to is most likely theosophy or something similar. Below is one of the better links that I found – a Christian one related to the Star Wars series – on what Lucas believes and how he uses his film projects to promote it, followed by one that ties theosophy to the modern New Age movement. And as to whether my practice of generally trying to avoid secular entertainment for one reason or another related to Christianity … I am just going to say that CHRISTIANS WHOSE DOCTRINES STRONGLY RESEMBLE THEOSOPHY AND EVERYTHING ELSE FALSE EVIL AND WICKED ARE A FAR BIGGER PROBLEM and if you start by unconditionally rejecting them first as the Bible explicitly incontrovertibly tells you to, then wherever you end up will be fine. 

crossroad.to/articles2/05/star-wars.htm

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/newage.htm

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

Anti – Christ Hillary Clinton Supporters Attacking Pastor That Gave Sermon On Adultery Paul Fryman

Posted by Job on May 22, 2008

I made some guesses in While Campaigning in Kentucky Hillary Clinton Hears Sermon On Infidelity regarding her visit to a Kentucky United Methodist Church that turned out to be incorrect. Reasoned Audacity has a better picture in this post. Some excerpts (and I hope that they do not mind!):

He has been the subject of abuse because his sermon was on adultery. He has received hate mail and all sorts of attacks – including accusations of being a pedophile and needing therapy, etc. He has chosen (wisely) not to react or respond at all. Paul is a humble, guileless servant of Christ. The more I hear about this fellow the more I like him! I tell you this … Paul Fryman DOES NOT fit the profile of the typical religious right pastor. The typical religious right pastor rails against the sins of liberals while ignoring the sins of conservatives. The typical religious right pastor rails against the sins of famous liberals BEHIND THE BACKS OF SAID LIBERALS while cowardly clamming up and making nice and friendly while in the presence of said liberal. In other words, most religious right pastors are nothing like the Old Testament prophets or John the Baptist. In other words, had Paul Fryman been a typical religious right pastor, he would have had Hillary Clinton stand up, thank her for visiting his church – and bringing it tons of free publicity – and mentioned that HER PASTOR is NOTHING LIKE that AWFUL Jeremiah Wright! And were he a religious right pastor he CERTAINLY would have held 100 news conferences talking about all the horrible persecution that he has received, and would have enlisted the aid of the various Jay Sekulow – type “Christian defense foundations” to manage his public relations operation – excuse me – serve as his advocate and defense (a role that incidentally SHOULD be played by Jesus Christ). 

The service and Paul have been distorted unbelievably.

Here are some facts, in case someone asks you:

· Hillary’s people called Paul and told him she would be in his church, it was not a request.

· He told her people that they were in a series of sermons and that the morning sermon would be on adultery from the Sermon on The Mount, making sure she knew what she would hear, the bulletins were already printed.

I stated that this was possibly a case of poor vetting. This was worse. Either the right hand – the advance team planning, scheduling and coordinating the events – did not know what the left hand – the one responsible for making the final decision and getting the candidate to the event – was doing, or these people felt that the church would alter their plans to accommodate the candidate. Now the former, a lack of communication between Clinton’s team, is inexcusable. The latter is much less so, because let us face it, churches have a habit of completely ignoring the book of James and doing everything that they can to accommodate the powerful. If the last 99 churches she has been to stooped down and kissed her ring (and that of George W. Bush and Barack HUSSEIN Obama and so on) why should number 100 be different?

As bad as Hillary Clinton is, it appears that the press is worse. 

· Paul’s sermon was 12 minutes (not the hour-long that was in the press – that was the length of the whole service)

· Paul acknowledged the presidential candidate’s presence in the service (some reports said that she was ignored and unwelcomed).

· Reporters sat in the service with their laptops – did not participate in the service respectfully.

Read where CNN gets it wrong. This is not news.

But what is news is that CNN can’t spell. Nancy writes into CNN,

May 18th, 2008 5:15 pm ETJust a note – please check the spelling on the word “alter,” which I belive [sic] should be “altar”. Or at least that’s how it’s spelled at my church. See, all democrats are not Godless heathens.

 

Nancy must be pro-life.

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

How Coed College Dorm Rooms Demonstrate The Triumph Of The Homosexual Agenda In America

Posted by Job on May 4, 2008

See article One boy, one girl — one dorm room by clicking on link. In it, the writers and editors of the article do all they can to promote the notion that a healthy male and female in their teens can live together without even considering the notion of sexual intercourse. It would be one thing if they were promoting it as some virtue of personal restraint. But you will never hear them commend personal restraint as a virtue, because that would ruin the anti – Christ media’s position against abstinence education. Now I do not support abstinence education, because it is nothing but an attempt to use government schools to impose Christian morality and values – a universalist works based theology – on the population in the place of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The solution to the illegitimacy problem is not returning to “Leave It To Beaver Ozzie and Harriet traditional American values” – how many underclass families ever had the luxury of “homemaker” wives and mothers to begin with, even during the “ideal” 1950s? – that will not save anyone from the lake of fire and deliver them from evil spirits, but the gospel of Jesus Christ that will.

Nonetheless, the media and political advocates in their aggressive promotion and defense of all manners of sinfulness and the confusion that results, tells us that we should not have abstinence education because it is unrealistic to expect teenagers to do the impossible, which is refrain from sexual activity. In one surreal moment on Fox News, a feminist lawyer who owes her wealth and fame in large part to sexual harassment law claimed to be powerless to be able to educate her own son to delay sexual activity, so she stated that with her son – and with teenagers in general – the best route was to accommodate “the inevitable” by encouraging her son to engage in safe sex. (Please note that the standard line This was particularly chilling because feminists have for quite a time been proposing the notion that males will inevitably be sexually aggressive – unable to prevent themselves from committing crimes ranging from unwanted touching (sexual battery) to rape – because of evolutionary biology. It is generally regarded that this sort of Camille Paglia Andrea Dworkin Saray Blaffer Hrdy crowd promotes male homosexuality because they view homosexuals to be less likely inclined to rape females than heterosexuals. So how can coeducational dorms not result in the male inevitably engaging in unwanted sexual activity towards the female, ranging from undesired looks at her (which that same Fox News feminist lawyer/pundit calls sexual harassment, and I agree with her) to unwanted touching (sexual battery) to violent rape? 

Make no mistake, homosexual rights activism also plays a role. It did not take public health researchers long at all to attribute the sky high infection rates of homosexual men to – among other things – extreme promiscuity within this group. Being refrained from advocating not only the Biblical mindset that homosexual behavior is sinful, but also the medical/biological truth that homosexual behavior is inherently unnatural and harmful, the best line of rhetoric that the public health advocates could do in order to slow the spread of AIDS among this population was to advocate monogamy. Unsurprisingly, homosexual activists had no interest in this approach whatsoever. Borrowing heavily from feminist theories on sexuality that attacked marriage, homosexuals called the demands that they be monogamous “heterosexism”; that it was “homophobia.” So, the idea that a homosexual should be expected to not only refrain from sexual activity altogether but even limit it to one partner even to preserve his own life and the life of his sex partners was portrayed as oppressive. Again, keep in mind that they had a vast amount of feminist work to mine and co – opt as their own: one of the primary reasons for feminist opposition to welfare reform in the 1990s was a notion that it was an attack on black female independent sexuality by cutting off financial support for the lifestyle in order to force black females into marriage. White conservative men were acting against black female sexual independence not out of a legitimate concern for the black family structure, but in order to prevent white females from following the example of black females and becoming similarly liberated. (I kid you not, not only do people get paid huge sums of money to come up with these notions in our leading universities, but people representing opposing points of view face difficulty finding employment at these same universities.) 

So once you have embraced the notion that resisting sexual desire is impossible, any attempt to do so is unhealthy repression, and any suggestion that you have some moral or even practical responsibility to inhibit your sexual behavior amounts to oppression, where does that leave you? Well for one, I have long noticed that the “anti – teen pregnancy” educational programs often amount to male – bashing. Teen females are told not to allow boys to pressure them into having sex (which is an offense that ranges from sexual harassment to even sexual assault depending on the circumstances), and that the only reason why boys want to have sex with them anyway is to get them pregnant and prevent them from going to college and becoming feminist lawyers (I am not making this up … this was the theme of Bill Clinton Health and Human Services secretary Donna Shalala’s anti – teen pregnancy campaign). The component of this campaign aimed at boys was entirely concerned with demanding that they not use manipulation and coercion to extort sex acts from females. The idea that a female desiring sexual activity may be capable of finding a male willing to accommodate her was never countenanced, because the very notion of a person abstaining from consensual sex for any reason is not an option for this mindset. 

So that brings us to the situation at Connecticut’s Wesleyan University – yes, a Christian school! – where we are supposed to believe that it is biologically, emotionally, psychologically NORMAL for a male and female to share a room without so much as glancing at each other EVEN OUT OF CURIOSITY OR FOR PERSONAL ENTERTAINMENT! Why? Because due to this mindset, there is nothing inherently desirable or attractive about the female body that a heterosexual male would respect, and a female has no real interest in receiving attention and affection from a male, and this is the case even for males and females that are lonely, awkward, emotionally/socially stunted, etc., which is known to be a problem for teenagers. (Now in times past, it was common to attribute these emotional and social problems to repressed sexuality, and advocate sexual liberation to solve the problem. In the modern era, it has become common to convince children experiencing these adjustment issues that they are homosexual or transgendered, and that their problems will be solved by coming out of the closet … the purpose of proselytizing “gay clubs” at junior high, high, and increasingly elementary schools, and sex change procedures for preteens.) Instead, the interviewees selected for this story brag about their “platonic friendships” and how “they avert their eyes when their roommate is wearing underwear.” So, that is where it gets really strange. The natural order of affairs is for heterosexuals of the same sex avoid viewing one another because, quite frankly, they have no desire to, and as a result no sexual behavior is going to result from heterosexuals being nude or near – nude around each other. So while exposing people to unwanted nudity is not ideal, in certain situations it is practically unavoidable, so the best approach is to limit these situations to people of the same sex in order to protect members of both sexes from unwanted sexual behavior and sexual aggression (yes looking at someone sexually who does not desire it, raping someone with your eyes, is sexual aggression). So, we are supposed to perceive a healthy female and male sharing a room for months without looking, touching, engaging in intercourse, etc. without any hint of sexual tension or frustration to be a sign of the advanced modern progressive mindset, as opposed to the very unnatural sexual repression that these same leftists oppose in other contexts.

 So why is it allowed in this context? And moreover, why do the campus feminists not see any compelling interest in protecting their sisters from the sexual harassment and rape that will inevitably occur not only because of evolutionary biology, but a patriarchal society that encourages and rewards males that engage in female victimization? Why are these feminists willing to allow such arrangements to exist based on the mere “trust” (in the words of the female quoted in the article) of a male that biology and society makes inherently untrustworthy? Well, the answer is hinted at in the article.

The only bit of truth that they were willing to reveal was that the policy of allowing coeducational rooms was adopted at the request of homosexuals who preferred not to live with people of the same sex. But the full range of the homosexual agenda, of course, is not given in the article. They merely quote the National Student Genderblind Campaign and leave it at that. But it is simple: the very notion that rooms should not be coeducational is “heterosexist” based on the presumption that the inhabitants of the room are heterosexual, and would want to avoid sexually uncomfortable male – female living arrangements based on it. It discriminates against the homosexual who would find living with a member of the same sex just as uncomfortable as would a heterosexual woman would in being forced to cohabitate with an unrelated male. 

Now please note two things. 1) It is perfectly acceptable for a homosexual to declare himself uncomfortable with living with a heterosexual member of the same sex and request a different room assignment based on it. But a heterosexual doing the same regarding a homosexual roommate would not only never be accommodated, but would likely face disciplinary action under these universities’ “nondiscrimination policies.” 2) Accommodating homosexuals on this point requires heterosexuals to not only participate, but behave themselves in a most unnatural manner. Publicity, after all, is everything. Public relations – wise, it would be very difficult to implement this policy were the justification to facilitate the desire of males and females to sexually experiment on each other. (One university cited by CNN has a specific policy against sex partners explicitly seeking to room together, and it is mentioned that “roomcest” is the popular term for it.) It would also be very difficult to pull off were notions of homosexual rights and equality to be the known motivating force. So, in the very same fashion that former CBS News employee Bernard Goldberg detailed in his book “Bias” of how the mainstream media used the AIDS virus to advance the homosexual agenda by making the public face of AIDS heterosexual white upper middle class suburban sexually inactive people like Ryan White and Kimberly Bergalis (“Peanuts” creator Charles Schultz even got into the act by producing a cartoon special aired on CBS about a playmate and schoolmate of Charlie Brown having AIDS), the public face of this growing policy is white upper class heterosexual college kids at elite universities that have no interest in having sex with each other; heterosexuals that either lack or have specifically rejected very natural biological, emotional, and psychological needs and desires. Now keep in mind the context here: these policies exist because homosexuals were unable or unwilling to either lack or reject their desires for roommates of the same sex and requested a roommate of a different one, “Will and Grace” situation comedy style. So we have reached a situation where – according to the practical effects of homosexual rights activism and its accommodation by university administrators and the media – heterosexual desire is unnatural, undesirable, harmful, and should be inhibited. Homosexual desire is natural and desirable, a goal or ideal to be appreciated and attained. Which is – surprise surprise – precisely what homosexual intellectuals of both sexes have been advocating for decades now. It is not the least uncommon for homosexual intellectuals and researchers to publish scholarship and give lectures consisting primarily of rants against normal sexuality. (It is only uncommon for the mainstream media to publicize them.)

Though homosexual male scholars have since developed their own, this began with feminist queer studies (yes, educational study field exists, you can earn college degrees for it and such) first indoctrinating women about how evil and depraved males were for wanting to have sex with women, how women had no ability to consent to sexual behavior in patriarchal (meaning Christian) societies because men have the power and use it to brainwash and coerce women, how all sexual relations between men and women is actually rape as a result, and how women who delude themselves into thinking that they love and desire men and acting accordingly are contributing to domestic violence, rape, child molestation, etc. Again, I am not making this stuff up. But it puts the response of the academic community and the media to the Duke lacrosse rape scandal in context: even after it was discovered that the charges were false, “the men were still guilty for wanting to look at naked black women in the first place.”

Yes, according to the university crowd and the media, the very act of men hiring these women that were not only consenting adults but actually OLDER than the Duke students themselves (the women were 26 and 32 according to media reports) for the purposes of being entertained by viewing their bodies was no different from actually raping them. So, the university community and the media have internalized this homosexual agenda to this very extent. Perhaps the best example was an “Afrocentric” black MALE scholar who was widely – and uncritically – quoted in the media as saying that the white males were wrong – and should have been punished by the administration and legal system! – for hiring black strippers because “they wanted to do something with them that they couldn’t do to white girls.” That betrays this fellow’s mindset that sex between a man and a woman is merely the man exploiting, oppressing, harming, etc. a woman, and that these fellows wanted black women so that they could behave even more wantonly … even more unnaturally. During that entire controversy, none of the people that professed indignantly “what were these wealthy privileged white male athletes doing hiring black strippers to begin with”, no one even questioned the possibility that these fellows might have simply wanted a full viewing of the black female bodies that they can only get a teasing partial viewing of on Black Entertainment Television practically 24 – 7. Why? Because that desire would have been natural, and the media and the academic community have all fully embraced unnatural sexuality as the the only form of sexuality that is moral.

So, the question is this: after the media and the educational institutions of a nation adopt an idea, how long does it take for mainstream society to follow suit? 30 years? 20 years? 10 years? How long before large portions of society start viewing heterosexual desire as an object of ridicule and scorn, and even a reason for self – hate and self – mutilation such as that exhibited by children getting sex change procedures in the article mentioned prior? Only time will tell. The question is: will you also adopt this unnatural mindset, the twisted mind of a person that has thoroughly rejected Jesus Christ and the Bible not only in this area but in so many others? If you do not wish to, then the answer is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Click Here for details.

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

The Media Is FALSELY CLAIMING That Most Black Churches Support Jeremiah Wright And Black Liberation Theology!

Posted by Job on May 2, 2008

How many black followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. would have done so had they known that Martin Luther King rejected the deity of Jesus Christ? The media made sure that King’s black Christian followers did not know the fellow’s true theological – let alone political – beliefs, for they knew that had they done so, a huge percentage of King’s followers would have abandoned him and the civil rights movement in general. Please recall: despite the heavy attention given them by the media and the historical romanticism of them, Malcolm X’s Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers had a combined membership of less than a million. The reason is that even though the dire conditions in the black community made a large percentage of blacks receptive to political and economic radicalism, both the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers suffered greatly in their efforts to recruit blacks because of their requirement that blacks overtly reject Jesus Christ. But these same blacks, however, were more than willing to follow a political movement disguised with the exterior trappings of orthodox Christianity, and the media was more than willing to keep the ruse going, just as they are more than willing to allow white evangelicals to be deceived by the religious right. How many white evangelicals know that George W. Bush lost a Texas Congressional race to a pro – life Democrat solely because of his stand on abortion? To the extent that the media even reported that race, they simply repeated the Bush line that he lost the race because he was branded as a Yankee carpetbagging interloper.

So now, the media is reporting that most black preachers either preach or support on some level Jeremiah Wright’s heretical abomination theology. Just as in the white community, you have black churches that are theologically conservative, theologically liberal, and theologically moderate. You also have churches that are not so much theological as they are traditional, and others that attempt to be modernistic. Now while there are few black churches that would legitimately qualify as fundamentalist, the percentage of liberal churches is far higher in the white community. As a matter of fact, were it not for denominations like the National Baptist Convention and the Progressive Baptist Convention getting involved with civil rights leaders and Democratic politics, and for some of the other black denominations hiring black preachers educated at the far more liberal white seminaries from similar denominations (i.e. African Methodist Episcopal churches hiring black graduates of very liberal United Methodist seminaries) there would be far fewer black liberal churches. Now I will grant you that in My Main Concern With Barack HUSSEIN Obama: His Victory Would Make Liberation Theology Seem Rick Warren Purpose Driven! I stated that a Barack Obama victory would result in wide acceptance of black liberation theology in the black community, meaning that other races would adopt some form of it as well, and how it would over time moderate and homogenize into a religio – political doctrine acceptable to the wide masses. Consider that Mormonism in its current form is very different – and hence much more acceptable to the mainstream – than what Joseph Smith founded. And while I am not making spiritual comparisons to charismatic Christianity – many of its adherents do actually believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are born again – and either liberation theology and Mormonism, the fact remains that the modern dominant forms of it that you will see practiced in the Assemblies of God and Churches of God in Christ (the non televangelist charismatic Christianity) is far removed from the doctrines and practice of Charles Parham and Azusa Street, and for practical purposes are almost indistinguishable from many Baptist churches.

But the point is that the media is lying to make it appear as if there are this great number of blacks that preach black liberation theology NOW, sit in their churches and rant against white people, and espouse Marxism and Afrocentrism NOW, when no such thing is the case. The media is also contributing to this by not telling black people the full extent of the belief system of Afrocentrism and black liberation theology (just as they never told black people that Martin Luther King, Jr. did not believe in the deity, virgin birth, or resurrection of Jesus Christ, a fact that probably less than 1% of the black community knows). They just see a black preacher on TV attacking poverty, racism, George Bush, and the war. The blacks attacking the media for being hypocrites for focusing on Obama’s relationship with Wright while not attacking John McCain’s ties with John Hagee have no idea that THEY ARE FAR FAR CLOSER TO HAGEE THEOLOGICALLY THAN THEY ARE TO WRIGHT.

Wright himself contributes to this. When the National Press Club asked Wright if salvation was available only through Jesus Christ, Wright merely responded “did not Jesus Christ say that He had other sheep?” Now not only does the vast majority of black Baptists, Methodists, charismatics, etc. utterly reject pluralism and universalism – and most further have no idea of the question to or response concerning Wright since it was not widely reported – but Wright purposefully chose to omit the fact that liberation theology (and liberal theology in general) espouses a completely different notion of salvation and condemnation than is found in the Bible: liberal theologies DO NOT BELIEVE IN A LITERAL HEAVEN OR LAKE OF FIRE. Wright did not say that because he knew the headlines would have been “OBAMA PASTOR DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HEAVEN OR HELL!” and a good percentage of the Christian black support for Obama would evaporate. (Does Hillary Clinton’s liberal Methodism believe in heaven and hell? The media will never report that either!)

Link to New York Times Story

Link To MSNBC Story

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: