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 ‘Republican’

George W. Bush To Attend Religious Universalism Summit. Evangelicals Who Would Trash Bill Clinton or Barack Obama For Doing The Same Where Are You?

Posted by Job on November 1, 2008

Note: this is more evidence still that the “Christian values” movement is simply a universalist works religion. You have the Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, and evangelicals basically making up the religious right and you have the liberal pluralists and universalists (as well as those who basically deny a literal afterlife) making up the religious left, and all are united by a common ethical and cultural worldview, not a religious one. In other words, it is the social gospel left against the social gospel right, but it is still the social gospel. And at its root it is – you guessed it – freemasonry which has always A) denied the divinity and work of Jesus Christ and B) while not denying a supreme being or creator always nonetheless promoted an ethical system that will unite humanity (of course with certain humans, mainly freemason leaders, ultimately being in benevolent control). Of course, freemasonry is not nearly the only group that believes this, and they are also not the first. But again, it is mighty revealing that the same religious right leaders that sounded the alarm when Bill Clinton used to attend and promote religious pluralism at events like these won’t raise a peep about the first president to pray in a Muslim mosque George W. Bush. But let Barack HUSSEIN Obama win the White House and these same people will insist that Obama “is trying to destroy our Biblical Christian heritage” by attending meetings like these. And again, that is why a great part of me is convinced that John McCain will ultimately win. It will be far easier for the former Episcopalian who actually asked a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention if being rebaptized as a Southern Baptist would help him win the GOP primary (he was told no by the fellow who incidentally was also advising Mormon Mitt Romney!) to bring evangelical Christians closer to this than Barack Obama. Seriously, hearing religious right talk radio give unqualified endorsement to John and Sidney McCain’s background and character … well again it will be much easier for McCain to continue to lead the religious right further into the darkness of hypocrisy and willing blindness. If anything, an Obama win would probably mean that the job is finished already, and there is nothing left for McCain to do in that area. 

Bush to Attend U.N. Conference on Religions, Cultures

UNITED NATIONS — President Bush will join several other world leaders at a General Assembly meeting to promote a global dialogue about religions, cultures and common values, U.N. and U.S. officials said Friday.

The meeting is a follow-up to an interfaith conference in Madrid organized by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Juan Carlos of Spain in July which brought together Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and representatives of other religions and sparked hopes of a new relationship among religions.

General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann has sent invitations to all 192 U.N. member states to the high-level meeting on Nov. 12-13 and expects at least 20 or 30 world leaders to attend, his spokesman Enrique Yeves said. Bush will attend on Nov. 13, U.N. and U.S. officials said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush “remains committed to fostering interfaith harmony among all religions, both at home and abroad.” She said Bush also plans to meet separately with Abdullah.

D’Escoto believes the initiative “should be broadened to talking not only about religions but about cultures, about all the common values we have,” Yeves said. “He would like that we talk not only about dialogue, but about joining forces in order to work together with all these common values to address the major issues that we are facing right now in the world,” Yeves said.

Abdullah, whose country bans non-Muslims from openly practicing their religion, has called for religious tolerance and said such dialogue is the duty of every human being.

Advertisements

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

If A Woman Cannot Be A Leader In The Church How Can Sarah Palin Lead The Religious Right?

Posted by Job on October 16, 2008

Now I do not entirely agree with Voddie Baucham’s position below that women should not have leadership roles in the private sphere i.e. government and business. I believe that the New Testament restriction applied only to the church. Baucham’s statement that a nation ruled by women is a sign that said nation is under judgment because of its immorality causing the lack of suitable males I believe applied to Old Testament Israel, which was God’s covenant people. (Of course, looking at what our own wicked culture has done to our men and boys, resulting in a large portion of the male population being unable to hold a job and lead a household, let alone run a government or business, well that certainly makes Baucham appear right and me wrong.)

So were it simply an issue of Sarah Palin being vice president or even president of our government (or for that matter NATO, the UN, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, etc.) I am fine with that because it is a secular position. That is consistent with by interpretation of Proverb 31 as well as with the fact that Lydia of Acts was a businesswoman and entrepreneur, and women supported the ministry of Jesus Christ with their economic activity. Even in practical terms, plenty of women, particularly those whose husbands have either died or abandoned them or become disabled, wind up needing to support themselves and their children, and the current church does not have a social services apparatus to provide food, housing, and education to such women and their children as the early church of Acts did. Therefore, such women either need to get jobs or get on the very government welfare programs that the religious right so hates. 

But that is secular temporal matters such as business and government, not spiritual matters such as Body of Christ ecclesiology. Scripture makes it clear: women cannot take on positions of ecclesiastical leadership. It is interesting that the primary arguments for suggesting otherwise is generally diminishing the spirituality of the church, making it more secular. One either claims that denying certain roles to women is just another manifestation of workplace and societal discrimination, or that the New Testament words in this matter only reflected Middle Eastern worldly cultural norms and was not the Holy Spirit inspired infallible Word of God.

A novel recent attempt has been to claim that the demand that women be silent and learn under subjection only applied to the home, which makes the home the only spiritual institution where God’s suzerain covenant with Adam applies, not the church (to understand the importance of the suzerain covenant with Adam that Paul mentioned that allowed the man to transgress where the woman was only deceived, which allowed woman to be held blameless – though in subjection – and for the church to be redeemed through her seed, please read http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhgr3tfq_197djp7zwfh).

Now as mentioned in Why The Early Church Fathers Were Millennialists And Why The Gentile Church Quickly Rejected It For Sadduceeism because of a vacuum left in the religious right due to not only the deaths of its prominent founding members but many of the people that have since come along tainting themselves with compromise and scandal, Sarah Palin is the de facto leader of the religious right. She is not A LEADER but THE LEADER.

Now she has not asked for the position of leadership in the entire religious right, but rather has been thrust into it by the hyperbole of socially conservative Christian leaders, including those that have not spoken out on such matters in the past but have allowed themselves to become so fearful of Obama (as if Bill Clinton was any better … what makes Obama so much more fearsome than the draft dodging 1960s radical Oxford elitist Clinton eh, but we are not going there!) and excitement with the potential of conservative leadership in the form of someone other than a white male (as if the very reason why there aren’t more black/Hispanic/Asian conservative leaders isn’t, well, the very same one that causes them to fear Obama far more than they did Clinton).

But that is not to say that Palin has not been courting the religious right. After all, she is not the only pro – life religious conservative. Ron Paul has the same views – including the same ability to dissemble on homosexuality as Palin by the way -and what is more has the actual scientific background to speak form it as a medical doctor and the religious right loathes him. Tom Coburn also has the views and medical background, but the next religious right leader to talk up the fellow that actually wants to end abortion and reduce government will be the first. But yes, we know that Palin has not only courted the religious right in her state, but did so using government resources. See State paid for trip when Palin told students to pray for pipeline and As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state. So even though Palin didn’t ask to lead the national religious right, it is certainly a role that she was certainly willing to use to her political advantage in Alaska and as such has experience in. 

But again, Palin is a woman. A woman is not supposed to have such authority in the church, right? I agree that being a leader of the amorphous ill defined religious right is not the same as being leader of the Southern Baptist Convention or pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries. As someone who feels that a woman has the right to, say, initiate and run missionary organizations (a fact made more so because the vast majority of missionaries today are in fact women and said women are putting men to shame in this vital area of the Great Commission) then my challenge is less than perfect because leading the religious right is not direct ecclesiastical authority per se but rather leadership of a parachurch activity. 

Still, it is interesting to note that my very liberal views on women in leadership is not shared by many of Palin’s advocates, including the leaders of denominations that forced women out of the leadership positions of the missionary boards that they themselves started, financed, and ran with very little help (and usually only opposition) from the male leadership of those denominations. Also, there is a difference between being a leader of a parachurch organization like, say, a Christian charity (which I assert is a position akin to a deacon, and the Bible does suffer women to be deacons) and leading the religious right. Simply put: leaders of Christian charities have very little influence on church doctrine and practice other than perhaps being more effective at getting more Christians to participate and give. 

But it is past time to acknowledge that leadership of the religious right is the closest thing that we have in America to a Protestant pope, or as it were the leader of a state church. The best example is how so many evangelicals have become very accommodating to Roman Catholicism and dual covenant theologies surrounding Judaism and Israel thanks to the need to maintain religious right alliances. One truly cannot be a leader in the religious right while unambiguously stating that Roman Catholic doctrines regarding Mary, angels, and icons are grievous blasphemies and apostasies, or that Jews must accept Jesus Christ or face eternal flame. That is why religious right leaders would much rather simply bash gay rights activists and the ACLU, or for that matter are much more comfortable denouncing their political opponents as a group because of their political, cultural, ideological etc. views than denouncing individual sinners for their sin. Further still, being a religious right leader requires being in good company with people like Rush Limbaugh. Stating that an unrepentant thrice divorced former drug addict should not be accepted as a leader or authoritative voice (and the same for, say, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, et al) would be appropriate Christian speech, but it would put one very much at odds with conservatism, correct? And as a result, evangelicalism simply follows suit in refusing to oppose Roman Catholicism, tell the truth about Judaism and Israel, and putting up with Council on Foreign Relations new world order globalist occultists. The next religious right leader that asks why we send an ambassador to the Vatican or challenges Bush on putting on Muslim garb and praying in a mosque (no, they only get mad when Obama does it!) or stating that all religions worship the same God (again, imagine were Obama to say the same!) will be the first. 

So yes, Sarah Palin will be very influential in the doctrine and practice of politically active evangelicals, especially in areas regarding how they relate to the world. As a matter of fact, it has happened already. Did you note how so many religious right leaders took a far more accepting tone towards teen pregnancy because of Bristol Palin? The next religious right leader to go after Sarah Palin, Briston Palin, or Levi Johnston will be the first. And of course, if the religious right EVER tries to make illegitimacy an issue again, they will be reminded of it. And as I have alluded to, their having to give up on the issue politically will basically mean that they have to give up on it THEOLOGICALLY.

As a matter of fact, they already have. Please recall Dobson’s response: “teen pregnancy is part of the cultural landscape now, and the church has to acknowledge it and adapt to it by praying for and offering support to teen mothers.” Excuse me, but any one that read “A Nation At Risk” knows that teen pregnancy has been part of the cultural landscape since the 1950s, and further that the religious right were the last ones to suggest that the church pray for and support them, but instead demanded that such people be excoriated and marginalized in order to get them to change their behavior. 

Now again, if the religious right is a secular movement promoting culture, values, and a particular vision of government and economics, then it is fine for Sarah Palin to wield so much influence over it. But if it is a religious movement, a church movement, then I would like to see how it can be justified. But hey, then again, I was saying precisely the same thing back when many religious right leaders were wanting Mormon Mitt Romney to be their standard bearer. This includes, incidentally, prominent Southern Baptist leaders that were advising him. (Romney did not take their advice, because they wanted him to acknowledge to evangelicals that Mormonism was a totally separate faith from and completely irreconcilable with Christianity, and Romney was determined to force evangelicals to accept his faith as another denomination or branch of Christianity as part of his candidacy, but when you realize that these same evangelicals have done the same with Roman Catholicism and increasingly Judaism, then you cannot blame Romney and his Mormon backers for calling evangelicals big time hypocrites on this issue.) I recall how Romney took the house down at some C-PAC meeting after conceding the nomination to McCain. Make no mistake, based on the buzz emanating from C-PAC, Romney most definitely was going to be the standard bearer for social conservatives going forward. That is, until Sarah Palin, who by virtue of her being female and actually being a Christian has completely usurped and deposed him. (Although ironically if the financial crisis causes a McCain loss, Romney stands to be the biggest beneficiary politically.) 

So how about it political evangelicalism? How does having a woman be your de facto pope or state church leader square with what the Bible says about ecclesiastical roles for women? Will you accept Palin being your teacher just as you have been accepting humanistic pyschology and political/cultural values masquerading as (crossless) Christianity from the likes of James Dobson and Bill Bennett for the past 20 years? (Say what you want about Beth Moore, but her teaching ministry apparently does seem to be aimed at women.) So maybe, then, the Voddie Baucham video below should be considered, if only in the context of the religious right. That is assuming, of course, that such an entity based on compromise and commingling between the church and the world as the religious right should have ever existed in the first place.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments »

Sarah Palin Tries To Use Her Own Seven Year Old Child Piper As A Political Shield AND IT FAILS!

Posted by Job on October 13, 2008

This is the example of a strong bold principled Christian woman that has the support of not only frauds like James Dobson but more serious people like Al Mohler? It is amazing that conservatives not known for being overtly religious like Charles Krauthammer and Kathleen Parker have recanted their support of Palin while Christian leaders and opinion makers are still backing her.

Palin Drops Puck at Flyer’s Game Receives Mixed Reaction

“The GOP Vice-Presidential nominee said at an earlier fundraiser that she would stop some of the booing from the rowdy Philadelphia fans by putting her seven year old daughter, Piper in a Flyers jersey. She said, “How dare they boo Piper!”” Classic. I wonder if J. Lee Grady still thinks that Palin is a prophetess like Deborah. Oh, great, and she is pro – life, right? So am I, as is every legitimate Christian. But are we seeing here that being pro – life does not necessarily a legitimate Christian make? (Plenty of, er, Muslims are pro – life by the way.) But goodness, apparently being pro – life means having them to exploit them for your own personal ambition?

Incidentally, this Fox News report in claiming that her play might have worked … well their take is controversial. From a comment on their own site: ”

…if you’re going to tell a report a story, report in its entirety and be accurate. Let the readers also know, she was “BOOED,” at this game. Pretell. what the h____ has happened to “fair and balanced reporting? Get the video and allow your readers to hear it!!!!!!

I’m ever so grateful for my parents raising me right!”

But hey, that is Fox News, owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch, who calls New Age syncretist Rick Warren his pastor. We should expect them to act like that. For a woman that so many Christians, including serious ones not affiliated with the religious right, are seriously desiring for her to serve as some sort of Christian leader or role model in the secular sphere, we are to expect more. You would think that we would have learned this already from having been burned so many times by George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and so many others who used evangelical votes to gain power for themselves and their masters.

Now whether Palin is another George W. Bush – a liar and deceiver from the start – or is merely someone a bit eccentric and confused and is probably being used by McCain and others, I am not in position to say.

Maybe I am being easy on her because she is a woman. (Or maybe it is because I can personally relate to a person who made one of the biggest gaffes of the campaign while going out to get cheesesteaks. Unless it was staged to contribute to an eventual Obama victory, that incident was probably the best example of how completely unready for the national stage Ms. Palin is. But hey, if I was in Philadelphia, I would have gone out for one of their favorite cheesesteaks too. Getting a cheesesteak versus being John McCain’s vice president: NO CONTEST!) But I will definitely say based on her behavior that Christians should stop viewing her or passing her off as “our Christian warrior representative” and start supporting and advocating (or opposing and rejecting) her based on her views and qualifications. Which, if anyone can let me know anything that she actually DID as city councilwoman, mayor, oil and gas commissioner, and governor aren’t quite that bad.

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

Pulpit Freedom Sunday Is A Stench In The Nostrils Of God

Posted by Job on October 2, 2008

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

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.telladf.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Christians Pray That Congress Stands Firm And Not Pass The Bailout?

Posted by Job on October 2, 2008

My angle of course is not whether the bailout is good or bad; I am presupposing it to be quite horrid for the country and the world. The only question, then, is whether to pray against this wickedness or not. I say yes. What is your opinion? 

Senate passes its own bank bailout package

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

Obama is a Globalist!! Dont vote for him! (Or McCain Either)

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

Painstakingly reconstructed from this blog.

People need to start listening to these politicians when they speak, instead of just hearing them. If you actually listened you’d pick up on these subliminal phrases and you’d see just what they are really talking about…”I work for the NWO…I work for the NWO…I work for the NWO…” lets start off with Obama. I bet you didn’t pick up on any of these subliminal messages when he gave this speech the first time…

Now here’s information about Obamas hidden ties to the Globalists. Obama is a relative of Bush and Cheney. He is a part of the same Illuminati bloodline thats been working for a New World Order…

Lets hear Obama’s reaction to the statements about the CFR…

Really…there’s no NAU? Its just something that’s spread on the internet? No evidence for a NAU? I guess Obama hasn’t been keeping up with all the legislation that’s being pushed through Washington, let alone has seen any news reports on the NAU…

Now what about him denying being a part of the CFR? If you go to the Chicago branch of the CFR and look at their list of members, even his own wife’s name comes up as being a member…seems like someone is lying here…And Why would he appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski to be part of his campaign if he’s not tied to the CFR? Zbigniew Brzezinski has been a member of the CFR and Bilderberg, both organizations are part of the same NWO agenda, since the 1950’s!

Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are a part of the NWO. It doesnt matter if you vote for an R or a D…the globalists will win! Its time we stop them in their tracks…Vote for a 3rd party! Force them to actually give us a legit election for once! Its time we stand up against the NWO!!!!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

How Money and Politics Beguiled Christ’s Worshippers and Blinded Them!

Posted by Job on September 28, 2008

History of and Involvement in the Christian Right

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

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

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim LaHaye And James Dobson Associates Bob DeMoss and Mark Whitlock: Race Baiting For McCain (And For Money) With Obama Waffles!

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

Now PJ Miller was outraged by this. Personally, I find it funny!Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Values Voters, conservative, waffles, Aunt Jemima, campaign 2008, politics, presidential election

Check out THE VERY FIRST COMMENT on an LA Times weblog:

What is truly horrifying to me is that the Waffle creators, Bob DeMoss and Mark Whitlock, once worked at Focus on the Family; DeMoss:has co-authored a book with Tim LaHaye. See Whitlock’s own website:

http://whitlockportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-of-reference-from-bob-demoss.html

People, if you wanted more evidence that the religious right is not led by Christians, here it is. In our current social location, there is no excuse for race baiting, especially when you consider that in our own very country, blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in the very same evangelical, fundamentalist, and traditionalist churches that these “values voters” people are supposed to represent. If they were Christians, they would know that casting stumblingblocks that their black and Hispanic brothers and sisters (as well as the not a few Christians that converted to our religion from Islam, often at great personal cost!) is more important than some ridiculous election. That’s right, getting JOHN MCCAIN, the guy that all of these same people wanted to win LEAST less than a year ago (many actually preferred the cross dressing pro – gay pro – abortion Rudy Giuliani over McCain) into office is so important that they will do this? 

If you wanted more evidence that people like this lack the love of God in them, then here you go. This is not New England in the 1600s, when Christians like Cotton Mather were debating over the proper manner to treat their black slaves. These people know better. They just don’t care about Christians that aren’t white Republicans, which means that they themselves are just as anti – Christian as Jeremiah Wright.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 53 Comments »

30 Years Of The Religious Right AND THE NATION IS MORE LIBERAL!

Posted by Job on September 17, 2008

Of course, rather than fighting this liberal trend, the religious right is merely conforming to it, and its acceptance of McCain – Palin proves it. In the 1980s the religious right demanded leaders that were explicitly fighting for Christianity and against not only such things as abortion and gay rights, but were demanding a rollback of such secular and atheist measures as the ban on prayer in schools and religious symbols in public places. (Of course, there has NEVER been a ban on holding religious OBSERVANCES, you know, CHURCH, in any public places other than public schools – and even there they can take place so long as they are student initiated and led –  but when have these people EVER shown a desire to take the gospel outside their suburban megachurches to the streets?) Now, not only are they backing McCain, who despises religious and social conservatism, but their embrace of Palin is based almost completely on her having the appropriate cultural identifiers (5 kids, from the rural west, being a hunter) than anything that she has actually done or said that she wants to do in order to promote Christianity and social conservatism in government. As a matter of fact, evangelicals are falling over themselves to deny that Palin tried to ban books from the public library, knowing full well that trying to ban books, art, music, etc. was a huge front in the culture wars of the 1980s. Why did the religious right give up the censorship battle? It wasn’t because they changed hearts. It wasn’t because they reread the Bible, Christian history books, and theology books and discovered that they were wrong. No, they gave up that battle – and so many others – because THEY LOST. Political expediency over religious doctrine and spiritual principle? 

You can tell that the religious right has been a massive failure simply by their declaring Sarah Palin to be their next Ronald Reagan just because she is from Alaska, is an NRA member, and chose not to have an abortion. More evidence that as the nation moves further away from the Bible, the religious right is moving with it.

The link below states:

We have documented a similar, if less drastic, shift in public views of morality. Just three years ago, a majority of those we surveyed said that “there are absolute standards of right and wrong that apply to everyone in almost every situation.” Today, however, respondents by a narrow margin say they believe that “everyone has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong in particular situations.” 

I readily grant you that such is the only thing in that article that speaks of something having remotely to do with Christianity … the rest is on issues involving the role of government, foreign policy, etc. But so what? Hasn’t the religious right been telling us that the strait gate to heaven is that of supply side economics, free market capitalism, less government, a strong military and aggressive foreign policy, etc.? The religious right made neoconservatism part and parcel of its agenda. Therefore, a rejection of neoconservatism is every bit a rejection of the religious right as is moral relativism. Then again, McCain – Palin shows just how New Agey relativistic the religious right has gotten along with everyone else, especially when you consider that McCain’s “bounce” began with his being embraced by Rick Warren and Saddleback “Church.”

Another Country

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

Leading Charismatic J. Lee Grady Claiming That Sarah Palin Is A Prophet Chosen By God To Lead Christians Into Holy War!

Posted by Job on September 10, 2008

I know, I know, yet another political article. I promise to do better, but how can I ignore things like this? Brother PJ Miller tipped me off to this fromJ. Lee Gray, editor of the influential Charisma Magazine. Now similar to Christianity Today and Roman Catholics with evangelical Christians, Charisma Magazine should have been rejected by Pentecostals and charismatics once they started accepting oneness pentecostal anti – Trinitarian heretics among their midst. Here it is in black and white from J. Lee Grady’s pen:

2. Trinitarians must embrace our Oneness brothers. I know people in the Assemblies of God who were taught all their lives that the Jesus worshiped by Oneness Pentecostals is “another Jesus.” The Lord told us to love one another, but we have avoided this by declaring that our brothers aren’t really in the family.

So what excuse is there for calling Charisma Magazine anything but what it is, which is apostate? Even better:

It all sounds like pointless doctrinal hair-splitting to us younger types. After all, who can explain the mystery of God’s triune nature? Instead of fussing about terms or reducing the gospel to a baptismal formula, why can’t we rally around our common belief that the Father sent His Son to save the world?

Excuse me, but what vital Christian doctrine CANNOT that be said about? Creationism? It is too hard to understand. Baptism? It is too hard to obey. The incarnation? Can’t believe it. The resurrection? Can’t accept it. Salvation only through the cross? Can’t put up with it. Eternal damnation in the lake of fire for sinners? Can’t conceive it. Adulterers, liars, thieves, necromancers, occultists, homosexuals, and apostates in the pulpit? Judge not, touch not mine anointed and do my prophet no harm! Look, A FALSE GOSPEL CANNOT SAVE!

But enough of that digression. J. Lee Grady claims that Sarah Palin has the Deborah anointing. Now my position is that all of these various spirits that Pentecostals and charismatics speak of do not exist, as there is one Lord who has one spirit, the Holy Spirit. Also, the word “anointing” means “choosing”, when one is “anointed by God”, it means that a person was given a calling by God to a specific calling or ministry in service to the Lord and His people. So I would discourage Christians from going around saying that someone has “a David anointing” or “a Hezekiah anointing” or “Paul’s spirit”, but I will go ahead and say that it is a crude and possibly incorrect but still understandable way of saying that someone has the same office, calling, or task as another Christian.

On J. Lee Grady’s part, this is very problematic for two reasons. First, the Bible commands us to “lay hands quickly on no man.” That is 1 Timothy 5:22. Now the best context for this verse was the practice of the church laying hands on people when they choose officers for the church. Please recall that when Stephen the martyr and Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas were appointed as deacons in Acts 6:1-6. Verse 6 states that after the church selected them, the apostles laid hands on them after praying for them. Though laying hands on people was part of the ritual or process of actually choosing and placing people in the position of service, it became a shorthanded reference for the act of choosing and installing a person into Christian service itself. But please note Acts 6:1-6 and interpret it with 1 Timothy 5:16-25. In both cases, it is obvious that a person should not be laid hands upon, or chosen, or anointed, unless the person had demonstrated their worthiness for the position by their fruits: excellent reputations, spiritual maturity, strong knowledge of and adherence to the Word of God in the eyes of the local congregation.

Now unless Grady has some extensive past history with Sarah Palin that he for some reason chooses not to reveal in his column, he has NO BASIS for claiming under New Testament church standards that God has called this woman to leadership or anything else. If he has been in longtime Christian fellowship with Palin, he should have let us know this. Otherwise, we can presume that like 99.9% of America, he was so ignorant of this woman’s existence that he could not have picked her out of a lineup until now.

So claiming that Palin was appointed by God to anything is irresponsible, reckless, and dangerous because it causes Christians to presume that she is generally acting and leading according to God’s desires and even non – Christians that respect our faith to presume that she is basically honest and moral. Such claims also damage how Christians view church doctrines and practice. Talk like this hinders people from knowing that being called by God or even elected to service by the church MEANS SOMETHING. That there are STANDARDS that these people must adhere to in order to be eligible for their appointment (in the case of a deacon) and AFTER their appointment (in the case of church appointed deacons and God – called everything else). That people keep throwing around  “I have an anointing, he has an anointing, I feel a great anointing and move of the Holy Spirit in this place” with the same level of care and discernment as they would use to say “boy that was a mighty fine and tasty bowl of oatmeal” is a great reason why we allow anyone – especially if he is a Christian – do whatever they want with no accountability whatsoever. 

So what is Grady’s basis for alleging that Palin has a call on her life? Her politics. Her values. Her culture. Her family. Her actions as mayor and governor. And keep in mind: he knows NONE of these first hand! He only knows them by their reports from people who have a motive to portray Palin in the best possible light for worldly reasons, and of course Grady is ignoring all of  the people with opposing views of this woman’s performance and character. They’re just liberals who reject the Bible, right? Now if they were “Jesus Christ was born again in hell” Word of Faith teachers, “Jesus Christ was rich” prosperity doctrine teachers, or “God the Father suffered and died on the cross” United (oneness) Pentecostals, they’d be good credible people, right? 

This is replacing true Christianity, which is of the spirit, with a works – based religion of the flesh. Of the circumcision. And you know what? It is a very shallow one at that. Islam, Judaism, Hinduism … do you know what those religions require before a person is declared worthy, a lifetime process of rigorous spiritual, religious, and personal demands? Muslims according in particular to their belief system have no assurance of their salvation when they die (unless they perish in a holy war) no matter their dedication to Islam during their lives. But Grady – and those like him – are willing to say that just because we like what we KNOW of her church (its denomination is similar to mine), her culture (small town self – reliant Alaska outdoorsmen are more holy and sanctified than those inner city welfare mothers?), her lifestyle (a married mother of five is more holy than, you know, a married mother of two or a single mother of any amount?) and her political beliefs?

The last one is key. Because she shares my values, her daughter being pregnant out of wedlock is fine. It is covered by, you know, grace. But since Jamie Lynn Spears and her family does not share my values, it is horrible. No grace for you! And as for Obama, we can dismiss him by saying that if it was his daughter he would have forced her to have an abortion, convicting him in advance for something that he hasn’t even done yet and we have no idea whether he would! The opposite of grace for you! Never mind the fact that pro – abortion people who have unwanted pregnancies choose to have the baby all the time. Never mind the fact that pro – life people who have unwanted pregnancies have abortions all the time. (Studies assert that evangelicals have the same abortion rate as the national average, some claim that it is even higher.)

Now, THIS is where the 30 years of James Dobson Focus on the Family religious right mindset of conferring righteousness on people based on their lifestyles, cultures, affiliations, and political beliefs has gotten us. And we really are entering a sort of danger zone here. Where J. Lee Grady has generally not been one given to trying to influence politics, he goes and calls this woman God’s prophet. And Albert Mohler, usually a no – nonsense figure who also avoids religious right politics and is no supporter of Pentecostalism, has basically endorsed Palin, something that I can find no evidence whatsoever that he did for Mike Huckabee, a leader of his own denomination. If this is not Phariseeism as expressed in the political and cultural context, what is?

As I said of Grady, if Mohler has some pre – existing relationship with this woman that causes him to regard her as being worthy of his endorsement based largely on her being a Christian (or should I again say a Christian with the “right” cultural markers … where in the Bible does it say that shooting bears, eating mooseburgers, living in the frontier, and having 5 kids places you closer to the kingdom of heaven or is evidence of the inner workings of the fruits of the Holy Spirit?), then he should let us know. Otherwise, it is AT BEST reckless and irresponsible. At worst, it is showing much more respect than he ever would to even another professed Christian that came in different packaging. Would Grady and Mohler be as effusive over a Methodist from Chicago or Episcopal from Baltimore, especially if they were Democrats, even if they were right on the doctrinal issues and the political ones directly related to them (i.e. abortion and homosexuality)?You know the answer to that question and so do they. 

And that is just the first part. The second concern is not nearly as lengthy but even more important. Go back to the book of Judges, chapter 4 in particular for this “Deborah anointing” issue. What was the situation? The children of Israel were at war with an enemy that, oh well, could be compared to the Muslims of today without being too far off. What did God choose Deborah to be? His prophetess through whom He spoke His Word. Again, why did God raise up prophets and judges in those days? TO USE THEM TO LEAD ISRAEL IN BATTLE AGAINST THE ENEMY. And what happened? Though Barak was the judge and the leader of the army, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he would not go into battle against the ancestors of today’s MUSLIMS, in particular THE PALESTINIANS, without God’s prophetess Deborah on the battlefield leading him. Why? Because though Barak had been called by God to lead the army, because of his weak character and faith he was unwilling to do so without a woman of stronger character and faith at his side.

So here we are in America in a war against terror against a Muslim ideology. And – if their electoral hopes and dreams are fulfilled as I think they will be – the commander in chief will be another Barak, a man who professes Christian faith (raised Episcopal but now Southern Baptist evangelical) but does not wear it on his sleeve in the appropriate manner or keep company with the right and proper powerbrokers in the evangelical world (as a matter of fact Palin is his third try at short circuit people like Dobson and also the more Baptist – oriented evangelicals for lesser known Pentecostal figures like John Hagee and Rod Parsley) and is not sufficiently socially conservative in his beliefs.

So where Barak fell short in his true faith, McCain similarly falls short in this new universalist pluralist ecumenical dual covenant (or truthfully many covenant!) works based religion that serves the aims of the religious right. Again, never forget that the preferred candidate of most of this crowd was Mormon Mitt Romney, who fit their “culture and views” requirements precisely and the fellow’s actual religious doctrines (as well as his basic honesty and integrity or more accurately his complete lack thereof) was of no consequence. (Extending this a bit, this also explains J. Lee Grady’s embrace of oneness pentecostal heretics, whose beliefs are totally wrong, but who nonetheless have been a part of the Pentecostal religious scene since 1916, are growing in prominence and influence especially in music and with famous preachers/televangelists and their many theologians in Pentecostal seminaries and Bible colleges, so they must be accepted.)

So the morally flawed less than faithful Barak – McCain needs the pure and faithful prophetess Deborah – Palin at his side to fight the Lord’s battle and win against the Philistines – Muslims. (Please note: correlating Philistines and Muslims is not so coincidental when you consider that the term Palestine, or PALESTINIAN, is what the Roman Empire came up with to denote the Philistines, and they named Israel Palestine after their ancient enemies to spite and mock the Jews.)

I suppose that in this imagination, their first Muslim conquest will be on election day against Barack HUSSEIN “McCain has not made in issue of my Muslim faith/I still remember the Muslim call to prayer at my madrassa, one of the most beautiful sounds in the world” Obama. That is fine. What then? Will the prophetess Deborah – Palin tell Barak – McCain to put every Muslim in Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Somalia, Chechnya, Turkey, Kosovo, Kenya, PALESTINE, etc. to death with the sword? Or more accurately WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS? I don’t know Mr. Grady, that sounds more like McCain anti – Christ Palin false prophet to me! (So you folks thinking that Obama is the anti – Christ may have the right time but the wrong candidate!) Maybe your interpretation of scripture is different. Then again, it would have to be for you to claim that we are brothers with people who blatantly deny scripture by rejecting Trinity, not to mention those who preach the false prosperity and Word of Faith doctrines.

You might say that Grady did not have a militaristic – eschatological intent in calling Palin “Deborah”, that he was only looking for a woman in a leadership position. First of all, even if that were the case, the guy is still wrong. Do you know why? Because words mean things. Especially words from the Bible. We can’t just go around throwing Bible terms and references around because they sound nice, make us feel good, and help us advance or win arguments (or elections). God raised up Deborah to a specific office to perform a specific task. Claiming that a woman that is being appointed to run a college or a bank or even a church ministry is bad enough because of the context. But saying the same of a woman who actually would be the advisor to a commander in chief to a nation that is at war is making a direct parallel between McCain and Palin and the actual Barak and Deborah of the Bible that cannot be ignored!

Also, this paragraph by J. Lee Grady proves that he is not merely applying a Biblical female leadership analogy, even in poor context:

When McCain announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate, I was reminded of the biblical story of Deborah, the Old Testament prophet who rallied God’s people to victory at a time when ancient Israel was being terrorized by foreign invaders. Deborah’s gender didn’t stop her from amassing an army; she inspired the people in a way no man could. She and her defense minister, Barak, headed to the front lines and watched God do a miracle on the battlefield. In her song in Judges 5:7, Deborah declares: “The peasantry ceased, they ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose, a mother in Israel” (NASB). Sometimes it takes a true mother to rally the troops.

Seriously, what else am I supposed to think when I read something like that? So in less than 30 years Christians have gone from cheering when Ronald Reagan largely endorsed the claims of Mormon founder Joseph Smith in declaring America to be New Jerusalem in his “we are the shining city on a hill” speech (which basically gave salvation to all who earned it by agreeing with Reagan culturally and politically, and condemned all dissenters to the lake of fire … hey didn’t Palin’s pastor do largely the same in alluding that Bush critics and Kerry voters are going to the lake of fire?) to claiming that God will use Palin to raise up his army? 

This is where the religious right and the false doctrines surrounding it is taking Christanity, people. (The religious left is no better, so don’t even try it.) If you wish to make your calling and election in Jesus Christ sure, you had best repent yourself of it and love the next world and not this one.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Alan Greenspan Says Give The State More Power Over Banks!

Posted by Job on September 9, 2008

Alan Greenspan works in the Republican Bush administration. Alan Greenspan works in the Democratic Clinton administration. Both Clinton and Bush are in the Council on Foreign Relations. Tell me again why it matters who wins this election?

apnews.myway.com/article/20080905/D930B0EG1.html

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

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

Posted by Job on September 5, 2008

Is Bush Better Than Reagan?

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

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

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

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

 
%d bloggers like this: