Calvinism and the Bible
by Mark Cahill
I have been getting a lot of inquiries about where I stand on the topic of Calvinism. So let me address a little bit of that here.
First, let's take a look at some of the historic points of Calvinism, but as we do, don't forget this quote below:
"The five points which identify Calvin's teaching (commonly called "TULIP") are like dominoes; they stand or fall together. If a person claims to be a One-Point (Total Depravity) Calvinist, if he believes the doctrine taught as Calvin taught it, then the person must accept the other four points."
(http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn1.htm)
Similarly, if you can prove any of the points of Calvinism wrong, than the whole belief system comes tumbling down like a house of cards. So let's take a look at some Calvinistic teachings and what the Bible has to say about them.
When one talks about the 'total depravity of man', typically what that person means is that man is so dead in his sins that there is no way that he can believe what Jesus Christ has done for him without God first enabling him to do so. Some people refer to this concept as 'total inability'.
Man is separated from God by his sins, but that in no way means that he cannot repent and believe.
"Throughout the whole Bible, God is presenting principles of truth before sinful, fallen men and imploring them to choose life in Christ rather than death, which is the result of rejecting truth." (Reformed Theology Explained And Exposed by Brenda Nickel, p. 73)
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
Why would God ask us to reason with Him, if we were so dead in our sins that we couldn't reason with Him?
Psalm 14: 1-3 "To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
Remember the Bible says it is the fool that has said in his heart that there is no God. It is a choice to come to that conclusion. It wasn't that he couldn't come to the conclusion that there is a God, but he chose to make that decision; and because of that, there is no good thing in him.
Men are required to make a choice for God in this lifetime. That is why we are here. Period.
Isaiah 55:3 "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David."
Isaiah 55:7 "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
God's words are very clear. Are you listening?
How can God judge people that had no ability to repent and believe in Him? The very thought is preposterous. 1 John 4:7 says, "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." God is a loving being. You cannot separate love from who God is.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The loving God of the Bible does not want people to perish but have everlasting life! That is why He created them with the ability, and not inability, to choose.
"It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of His people, those the Bible calls the 'elect or chosen ones.' It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case."
(http://anti-calvinism.blogspot.com/2008/05/quotes.html, citing; R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 32.)
Even Mr. Sproul knew something isn't right here. His false view of election then makes him wonder why a loving God would create people that He purposefully damned to hell. It doesn't make any logical sense. His conscience is getting to him.
John 3:19, 20 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Men loved the darkness and not the light. That doesn't mean they couldn't repent and go towards the light. But they loved the darkness. It had their affections, and God did not.
Matthew 4:17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Who was Jesus talking to here? He was talking to everyone in front of him. Not just the elect, but everybody that was there. Why? Because everyone has the ability to repent: the only question is will they do it or not?
Acts 17:30-32 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter."
God calls every man to repentance. It is their choice if they will do it. And look what it says at the end of verse 32: 'We will hear thee again on this matter.' This is just one more verse that makes it easy to disprove the idea of total depravity, because these folks wanted to hear more about the things of God. I thought man had no desire for those things? The truth of the matter is that I meet people all the time who have questions about God and eternity. Why? God has placed that curiosity in us and the creation around us speaks of this wonderful Creator!!
"A man is like a pillar of salt, he's like Lot's wife." "He's like a log, he's like a stone, he's like a lifeless statue which has neither eyes, nor ears, nor mouth, neither senses or heart unless he is enlightened, converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit."
(John Macarthur, quoted by Brenda Nickel, Basic Reformed Theology Explained and Exposed, p. 80)
That is quite obviously not Biblically correct. People can choose.
Calvinism teaches that one must be regenerated first before he or she can believe. The only problem is that you will never find that in the Bible. The Bible teaches that you are regenerated when you believe and not before you believe.
"The Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again…one does not first believe, then become reborn."
(http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-eorge/books/fpocwafw.htm, Citing; R. C.Sproul, Chosen by God, 72.)
"A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the maxim: "Regeneration precedes faith."
(http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books/fpocwafw.htm, Citing; R. C.Sproul, Chosen by God, 72.)
Even though these statements come from one of the great thinkers of our time, he is off base in his theology. Why? He can't back up what he is saying with Scripture.
"Sometimes it would be easier not to be a Calvinist. An intellectual price tag comes with any conceptual scheme, but the one that comes with Calvinism seems beyond the resources of human intelligence to pay. Calvinists hold views that appear at very least counter-intuitive. This is especially so with respect to Calvinists accounts of God's sovereign control in relation to human freedom and moral responsibility for evil. If Calvinists are right about divine sovereignty, there seems to be little room for human freedom. If freedom goes, so does human moral responsibility for sin. Worst of all, if Calvinists are right, it appears that God decides that there will be sin and evil in our world, maybe even brings it about that there is such evil, and yet, according to Calvinists, not morally responsible for any of it.
We are. If this is Calvinism's God, Calvinism seems not only intellectually bankrupt but also religiously bankrupt. Who could worship this God? Moreover, if atheists understand this portrait of God as paradigmatic of traditional Christianity, no wonder they are repulsed by Christianity. Although committed atheists will not likely abandon their atheism for any concept of God, at least the Arminian portrayal of God seems more attractive than the Calvinist portrayal."
(http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books/fpocwafw.htm, citing John Feinberg, Edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, Vol.2, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, Chapter 20, by John S. Fienberg, page 459.)
"The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service"
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
So according to Calvinist teachers and even John Calvin himself, we have no free will. God has orchestrated everything. There is no free will or choices on our part.
Calvinism teaches that God has unconditionally elected certain people to go to heaven. It has nothing to do with that person. Nothing they believe comes into play. God has decided in eternity past to regenerate certain people who are dead in their sins and therefore want nothing to do with Him, and make them born again. But in order to hold that position, you also have to hold that God has unconditionally rejected certain people to go to hell and there is nothing they can do about it. The interesting thing is though that there is something God can do about it! But He chose not to. Does that sound like the loving God that we read about in the Bible?
"Predestination seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, (unconditionally) that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined placating. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out His scenario."
(http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books/fpocwafw.htm, Citing; R.C.Sproul, Chosen by God, 51.)
So Mr. Sproul is saying that we really don't have free will. It is a charade. God is the puppet master behind everything, orchestrating everything to its minutest detail. There's only one problem with that: How can God hold me accountable for things I didn't do, but that He orchestrated to happen in my life?
"Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation."
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
I am meeting Calvinists who tell me that God elects certain people to go to heaven, but it is man's choice to go to hell. Well John Calvin calls you childish and ignorant if you hold that position. You can't have one without the other.
"…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction."
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
What a statement that is from John Calvin! Did he never read Ezekiel 33:11 which says, "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" God does not want wicked people to die and go to hell. That is why He provided a way out for all people through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Acts 10:34-43 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
If election is real, God is a respecter of persons. But the Bible shows that He clearly is not. Never forget that whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins. Praise the Lord!!
The Bible teaches that election is conditional on one's belief. When you believe, you are elect.
1 Peter 1:1, 2 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied."
Election does not mean that God elected some and rejected others. The word election, according to 1 Peter, simply means that God, since He is omniscient, knew who would believe in Him and it is those people He calls the elect. It is really that simple. We mustn't change the definition of a word!
Calvinists traditionally believe that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect and not for the sins of the whole world. This is what they call 'limited atonement'. When you meet four point Calvinists, they almost always drop the "L" in TULIP. Why? Because the Bible clearly teaches against it. But remember that Calvinism is a house of cards or like dominos. If one of them falls, they all fall. Most major Calvinistic teachers will say this. I have heard Paul Washer make that same statement: 'If one falls, they all fall.'
1 John 2:2 states, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
John 1:29 says, "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
Isaiah 53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
As one guy said about this verse, 'make sure you go in at the first 'all' and come out at the second 'all' and you will be just fine!' Jesus died on the cross for your sins. Now the question is what will you do about it?
"But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died."
(Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70, http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/danger02.htm)
Can you imagine having to preach, "Ladies & gentlemen we are here to tell you that Jesus only died for some of you!" That is totally absurd! But that is what you would have to preach as a true Calvinist, because to them, Jesus did not die for all people. His blood was only shed for the elect.
"Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation."
(http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books/fpocwafw.htm, Citing; David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, 7.)
"It was just because God so loved the world of elect sinners that He sent His only begotten Son that the world [i.e., the elect by Calvinist definition] might be saved through Him (John 3:16-17). In this passage, "world" does not mean every single person, reprobate as well as elect, but the whole world in the sense of people [elected] from every tribe and nation…"
(What Love Is This, Dave Hunt, Third Edition, Published by The Berean Call, Copyright © 2006, ISBN-13: 978-1-928660-12-5, ISBN-10: 1-928660-12-6, Page 300., Citing; Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, enlarged edition, 20th printing, 1999, 44-45.)
1 Timothy 2:4 "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
In The DVD by Dave Hunt called 'What Love Is This?', he made a very interesting observation. In order for Calvinism to be true, they would have to change the meaning of words in certain verses to fit their theology.
For example:
'World' must be changed to 'Elect' 20 times
'Whoever' must be changed to 'Elect' 16 times
'Whosoever' must be changed to 'Elect' 16 times
'All' must be changed to 'Elect' 16 times
'Everyman' must be changed to 'Elect' 6 times
That is over seventy times that they must change the meaning of certain words in Scripture to fit their doctrine. None of us have the right to destroy Scripture this way. Changing the meaning of words to fit your doctrine is something false prophets do and something that the Bible warns us about specifically.
Changing Scripture is something the devil would be the author of and not God.
Romans 10:9-13 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
John 11:25, 26 "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
Romans 9:30-33 "What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Whosoever means whosoever. It is really that simple. Let the Bible determine what you believe and don't let what you believe determine what you think the Bible says. "Christ died for all men, but His death benefits the non-elect only in a temporal sense. Because they aren't instantly destroyed. He did not really pay the penalty for their sins."
(http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/4whom14.htm, Citing, Dr. John MacArthur, see Tape GC 56-19, "Saving Grace" - Part 2, Titus 2:11, distributed by GRACE TO YOU, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412)
With this one statement, Mr. Macarthur goes completely against Scripture. So are you filtering your ideas and the Bible through Reformed Theology, or do you trust the Word of God to do all of the filtering for you in deciding what is right and what is wrong?
In the Reformed/Calvinistic teaching, when God's irresistible grace comes upon you, there is nothing you can do about it. So before anyone can believe, God must first choose to send His irresistible grace upon that person, so they can believe. So again, you have no choice in the matter.
But in the great story of Stephen in Acts 7, people do have the ability to resist God. Verse 51 says, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Yes, you can resist the Holy Ghost. People do it all the time. The question is when will you surrender to the Holy Ghost?
Galatians 3:1 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?"
Who has bewitched you to follow this false doctrine? One of the amazing things I have found when I talk to both Calvinists and people who have left Calvinism is that they never tell me they found Calvinistic teachings reading their Bibles. They always tell me they found them reading someone's book or listening to someone's teaching tapes! Who has bewitched you?
Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." The manmade philosophy of Calvinism is just that: manmade. You do not find it by studying the Scriptures.
"And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."
(The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, Curts & Jennings, Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, 1898, Vol. I, p.172, http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/spurgeon.htm)
This is one of the saddest statements I have ever heard. Calvinism is not the gospel or the good news.
1 Corinthians 15:3-6 tells us what that good news is!!
Romans 1:18-20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
If men had no chance at all to repent and believe, because God in eternity past unconditionally rejected them to go to hell, then they would have an excuse before God. But as you can see in Romans 1, because of God's marvelous creation, men will have no excuse on Judgment Day as to why they did not find out whom the God was that made this grand universe.
And also why would this all-loving God (1 John 4:7; John 3:16) hold back that grace from so many people? What kind of love is that?
2 Timothy 4:2-4 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
Matthew 7:14,15 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
There are fables being taught and false prophets everywhere in our world. Are you sure you haven't been captured by one of them?
Joshua 24:15 "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
Deuteronomy 30:19 "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:"
One of the challenges that I give to people all the time is to read their Bibles front to back. Actually, it is a good thing to do every year. It is impossible to read your Bible front to back and not realize that every one of us has to make decisions. We have to make choices, and we are responsible for those choices. We have the ability and responsibility to choose God or not to choose God.
I got an unsolicited call one day from Tony Miano with Living Waters. He was trying to convince me of Calvinism. Let's just say it did not work! During a moment of candor, he said, "Mark, what you believe and what I believe are mutually exclusive." What an amazing statement. What I believe and what he believes both can't be true at the same point. He is very correct. Now what we believe can both be wrong, but they can't both be true. If God has already preselected who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, then I have no choice in this matter.
But now truthfully, it is time for you to choose. Choose which side that you are on. Don't sit on the fence any longer. It's time to make a stand. If you believe Calvinism is unbiblical, stand strongly against it. The character of God is at stake here. I have made my choice.
Galatians 1:6-9 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Why is it that we have no problem saying a Mormon fits in this category, because they believe in a different God and a different Jesus? We have no problem putting a Jehovah's Witness in this category, because they believe in a different God and a different Jesus. So why is it so difficult to put the teachings of John Calvin in this category when he talks about a God who unconditionally rejects people to hell and of a Jesus that did not die for the sins of the whole world?
I just got this statement from a Pastor: "These REFORMED THEOLOGY people are preaching another Jesus and another gospel and are under the 'accursed' terminology as God wrote in Galatians 1:8-9 that I quoted today in my morning message. I believe God's Word is totally against any part of 'reformed theology.' As such, we must be careful to avoid CLOSE fellowship with them lest we are swayed by their false philosophy. One thing is sure. They MAJOR in this one thing and won't quit talking about it."
If you believe in the god and jesus of Calvinism, you are either in Galatians 1 territory, or you are heading straight toward it.
2 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" Make sure you test yourself to prove that you are of the faith. This is a very serious issue about the character of God, the gospel, and who God is or isn't. It is not a secondary issue, but a primary one. Some people keep telling me that this is a side issue and not a main issue. Anytime you are talking about the character of God, it is a main issue. Period.
"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings."
(What Love is This, Dave Hunt, Loyal Publishing, Inc. Sister, OR, 2002, pg.46, citing; John Calvin, A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God.)
"The main features of Calvin's theology are found [in] the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism."
(Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publication, re. ed., 1999) p.38., citing; Gregg Singer, JOHN CALVIN: His Roots and Fruits, Atlanta; A Press, 1989, pg. vii.)
Augustine is considered one of the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. Since so many of Calvin's ideas were truly from Augustine, are you followers of Calvin okay with that? I, as a former Catholic, am not. I left those false teachings behind when I got saved.
"...salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it."
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)
Can you even imagine the God of the Bible barring access to people from finding Him? He died for the sins of the world and whosoever will come.
John Calvin was a false teacher. The question is: Is he still a false teacher? That would depend upon whether you believe his teachings or not.
One thing that cannot happen in the coming days as we head towards the end is for us to sacrifice truth on the altar of unity. Everyone keeps saying we must all come together and why can't we all get along.
Remember folks, the only thing you can unify over is truth. The days of sacrificing truth on the altar of unity need to be left behind for born again believers.
Play the concept of election all the way through. You are a parent, and you have four children. God has elected one of them to go to heaven and rejected three of them to go to hell. So, every night, when you hug and kiss them goodnight and tuck them in, think about that. Think in your head each night, "I wonder which of these three God is sending to hell for eternity." How does that sound to you, Mom and Dad?
Oh, and by the way, there is nothing you can do about it. So when you train up a child in the way they should go, and you teach them the things of God when they sit down, rise up, walk by the way, and lie down, that has no effect on how your kids will turn out. They have already been elected or rejected by God.
We have a saying down South: That dog won't hunt. It means don't even try it. When you look at election this way, it doesn't pass the smell test, the logic test, the dog won't hunt test, or the Biblical test. Period!
When you take even a cursory look at Calvinism (and there are so, so many more verses that can be used to disprove all of these teachings), it has been weighed in the balance. And it has truly been weighed and found wanting.
Until the nets are full,
Mark Cahill
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
THE LAST DEFENSE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
By Lee Duigon
January 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
What is the last defense of public education?
They can’t sell us on the academics anymore. Homeschooled kids run rings around the public-schooled in every standardized test available.
Until recently, the best defense of public education was, “It’s free.” People are beginning to realize this is a lie: it’s paid for by your ever-increasing taxes. And it’s all about teachers’ unions devouring our money—making fabulous salaries, with benefits the rest of us can’t even dream of, and retiring at 55 on lavish pensions. Yes, people have been getting wise to this.
So the defenders of public education fall back on their last redoubt—“socialization.”
Supposedly, schooling your kids at home will make them feral—rather like locking them up in a chicken coop until they’re 21. Sending them to a Christian school isn’t much better: they won’t be exposed to the enlightened teachings of the teachers’ unions. What a handicap!
“Socialization” is the process of learning how to live with other human beings. According to the National Education Assn. et al, this process can only occur in a public school classroom. The fact that public school classrooms did not exist in human history until the middle of the 19th century only goes to show that people weren’t socialized till then.
As the teachers’ unions see it, the only way a human being can be properly socialized is by being confined to a room, or a series of rooms, with no society but that of other children exactly his own age—no younger, no older—under the direction of a union-certified teacher. This is to continue throughout one’s entire childhood, starting with day care and pre-school and going right on up to college, with no time off for good behavior. Incarcerated felons get a better break.
In this scheme of socialization, every child in the classroom is to do the same thing at the same time. When one bell rings, they start. When another bell rings, they stop. And if this makes you antsy, the school nurse gives you Ritalin.
Early on, your age-group peers will become the most important people in your life: what with Facebook and cell phones, and both parents working, now more than ever. Your peers will teach you what is cool and what is not. They’ll teach you who is cool and who is not—and heaven help you if you’re not! By this method, every child is educated socially by the vast experience and wisdom of the other children.
Sounds pretty normal so far, doesn’t it?
We mustn’t forget the role of the teacher. It’s the classroom teacher who will preach to the children, day in and day out, about “gay families” (whatever they are), how to choose your gender, the falsity of the Christian religion, and the despicable influence of America on world affairs. It is the teacher, backed up by the school administration, who will keep the children on the reservation, either through some senseless and draconian “zero-tolerance” policy, or some gentler method like mockery or detention.
More than anything else, the great lesson taught by public education is conformity. How could it be otherwise? If you’re ten years old, no teenager cares what you think, nor will any six-year-old be interested. But no one is as tyrannical as a group of children of the same age. As a group, the other ten-year-olds will insist on your conformity. Very few children get away with being any kind of oddball.
Publicly-schooled children are intolerant of differences; if you’ve ever been one, you know it’s true. The impulse to conform is programmed into them at an early age by “education” experts who’ve had 100 years of practice.
Why the passion for conformity? Well, according to the teachers’ unions and the teachers’ colleges—if you don’t believe me, look it up—classroom teachers are to be “change agents.” Their function is to convince children that everything believed in by their parents and their pastors is stupid, hateful, and wrong. Their mission is to transform America—into what, the Devil only knows—by brainwashing whole generations of children. This mission really can’t be carried out unless the children are first programmed for conformity.
Unionized public school teachers have been getting better and better at this all the time. Visit the union websites and see for yourself what they’re up to.
Are your children being socialized by public school? If so, you really ought to reconsider your position.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee132.htm
January 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
What is the last defense of public education?
They can’t sell us on the academics anymore. Homeschooled kids run rings around the public-schooled in every standardized test available.
Until recently, the best defense of public education was, “It’s free.” People are beginning to realize this is a lie: it’s paid for by your ever-increasing taxes. And it’s all about teachers’ unions devouring our money—making fabulous salaries, with benefits the rest of us can’t even dream of, and retiring at 55 on lavish pensions. Yes, people have been getting wise to this.
So the defenders of public education fall back on their last redoubt—“socialization.”
Supposedly, schooling your kids at home will make them feral—rather like locking them up in a chicken coop until they’re 21. Sending them to a Christian school isn’t much better: they won’t be exposed to the enlightened teachings of the teachers’ unions. What a handicap!
“Socialization” is the process of learning how to live with other human beings. According to the National Education Assn. et al, this process can only occur in a public school classroom. The fact that public school classrooms did not exist in human history until the middle of the 19th century only goes to show that people weren’t socialized till then.
As the teachers’ unions see it, the only way a human being can be properly socialized is by being confined to a room, or a series of rooms, with no society but that of other children exactly his own age—no younger, no older—under the direction of a union-certified teacher. This is to continue throughout one’s entire childhood, starting with day care and pre-school and going right on up to college, with no time off for good behavior. Incarcerated felons get a better break.
In this scheme of socialization, every child in the classroom is to do the same thing at the same time. When one bell rings, they start. When another bell rings, they stop. And if this makes you antsy, the school nurse gives you Ritalin.
Early on, your age-group peers will become the most important people in your life: what with Facebook and cell phones, and both parents working, now more than ever. Your peers will teach you what is cool and what is not. They’ll teach you who is cool and who is not—and heaven help you if you’re not! By this method, every child is educated socially by the vast experience and wisdom of the other children.
Sounds pretty normal so far, doesn’t it?
We mustn’t forget the role of the teacher. It’s the classroom teacher who will preach to the children, day in and day out, about “gay families” (whatever they are), how to choose your gender, the falsity of the Christian religion, and the despicable influence of America on world affairs. It is the teacher, backed up by the school administration, who will keep the children on the reservation, either through some senseless and draconian “zero-tolerance” policy, or some gentler method like mockery or detention.
More than anything else, the great lesson taught by public education is conformity. How could it be otherwise? If you’re ten years old, no teenager cares what you think, nor will any six-year-old be interested. But no one is as tyrannical as a group of children of the same age. As a group, the other ten-year-olds will insist on your conformity. Very few children get away with being any kind of oddball.
Publicly-schooled children are intolerant of differences; if you’ve ever been one, you know it’s true. The impulse to conform is programmed into them at an early age by “education” experts who’ve had 100 years of practice.
Why the passion for conformity? Well, according to the teachers’ unions and the teachers’ colleges—if you don’t believe me, look it up—classroom teachers are to be “change agents.” Their function is to convince children that everything believed in by their parents and their pastors is stupid, hateful, and wrong. Their mission is to transform America—into what, the Devil only knows—by brainwashing whole generations of children. This mission really can’t be carried out unless the children are first programmed for conformity.
Unionized public school teachers have been getting better and better at this all the time. Visit the union websites and see for yourself what they’re up to.
Are your children being socialized by public school? If so, you really ought to reconsider your position.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee132.htm
Target Date Set for CRC Ratification
Proponents of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have set a target date by which they would like to see it ratified in the United States: November 20,2012. That date is the anniversary of its adoption by the UN General Assembly back in 1989.
Last month the Child Rights Campaign began pushing online petitions calling on the President to move for CRC ratification. Tuesday, Time ran an online opinion piece by Lawrence Cohen and Anthony Debenedet calling for the United States to ratify by November 20. In the piece, they name our organization and then provide some misinformation to convince readers we are wrong.
Clearly, our opponents have no intention of letting up. They are pressing to make ratification happen before Obama – and their best opportunity – are gone.
That is why we must continue to stand against them. And we need your help.
The CRC purports to protect children, but would replace fit parents with government bureaucrats and judges as the first line of defense for our kids. In addition, it would take family law authority away from our states and make it an international treaty obligation at the federal level.
This is because under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound by it, regardless of conflicts with federal law or state laws or constitutions.
Cohen and Debenedet cite Reid v. Covert to contend that our concern is false because “no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution.” But this ignores the fact that parental rights do not appear in the Constitution; they are implied rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Reid v. Covert addressed rights not expressly in the Constitution, such as parental rights, thus: “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their authority to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier” 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Sadly, the CRC is supported by international organizations with billions of dollars in assets (and with access to outlets like Time magazine), while we must depend entirely on the support of individual donors – people just like you who understand the dangers of letting the government decide whether fit parents are making the best decisions for their children.
We must continue to fight for free families and free U.S. courts, no matter how deep the pockets of those who oppose us.
Last month the Child Rights Campaign began pushing online petitions calling on the President to move for CRC ratification. Tuesday, Time ran an online opinion piece by Lawrence Cohen and Anthony Debenedet calling for the United States to ratify by November 20. In the piece, they name our organization and then provide some misinformation to convince readers we are wrong.
Clearly, our opponents have no intention of letting up. They are pressing to make ratification happen before Obama – and their best opportunity – are gone.
That is why we must continue to stand against them. And we need your help.
The CRC purports to protect children, but would replace fit parents with government bureaucrats and judges as the first line of defense for our kids. In addition, it would take family law authority away from our states and make it an international treaty obligation at the federal level.
This is because under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, any ratified treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state are bound by it, regardless of conflicts with federal law or state laws or constitutions.
Cohen and Debenedet cite Reid v. Covert to contend that our concern is false because “no international treaty has the power to override the U.S. Constitution.” But this ignores the fact that parental rights do not appear in the Constitution; they are implied rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Reid v. Covert addressed rights not expressly in the Constitution, such as parental rights, thus: “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their authority to the National Government, and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier” 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Sadly, the CRC is supported by international organizations with billions of dollars in assets (and with access to outlets like Time magazine), while we must depend entirely on the support of individual donors – people just like you who understand the dangers of letting the government decide whether fit parents are making the best decisions for their children.
We must continue to fight for free families and free U.S. courts, no matter how deep the pockets of those who oppose us.
Friday, January 13, 2012
AGENDA 21 IN ONE EASY LESSON
by Tom DeWeese
April 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.
So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.
A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social Justice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Economic Prosperity
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government's power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN's Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… " -Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases - DR
Urgent to implement - but we don't know what it is!
"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform - a program that has yet to be fully defined." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
"No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
"Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice." -From the report from the 1976 UN's Habitat I Conference.
"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…" -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN's Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals." -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development
"Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects - we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land." -Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." -UN's Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21's UN roots from the people
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom194.htm
April 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.
So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.
A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social Justice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Economic Prosperity
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government's power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN's Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… " -Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases - DR
Urgent to implement - but we don't know what it is!
"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform - a program that has yet to be fully defined." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
"No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
"Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice." -From the report from the 1976 UN's Habitat I Conference.
"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…" -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN's Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals." -Report from the President's Council on Sustainable Development
"Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects - we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land." -Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." -UN's Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21's UN roots from the people
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom194.htm
CONSTITUTIONALIST OR RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITE?
By Coach Mitchell Goldstein
January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Political correctness at its worst
The liberal/fascist press are all agog - 22 years ago, some questionable phrases appeared in four of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I have read the “hate” speech and the racist, anti-Semitic rants of Ron Paul. They amount to nothing! At root, this is a political witch hunt, a liberal lynching, in the best style of Goebbels, Hitler’s master marketing manipulator.
This really comes down to the question of what constitutes racism. Is a statement racist if it is primarily factual but also has a negative overtone? My experience shows that anything liberals/progressives/fascists don’t like will automatically be labeled as racist, fascist, anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-democratic or fattening.
We all lose when perception is seen as reality, when style supersedes substance, when “winning is the only thing.” Yet, sadly, this is Americas political reality is 2011, and 2012 will be even worse.
The examples used in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not racist. It is not racist to state facts or comment on societal impressions related to a particular race or ethnicity.
Truth as Hate Speech
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: African American woman are prone to having illegitimate children.
A. 75% of babies born to African-American woman are illegitimate.
Q. In today’s America, how do you state this fact without being accused of being racist?
Q. As 33% of Caucasian births are illegitimate, is it racist to think or to ask: Have African-American attitudes towards the acceptance of illegitimate babies been adopted into the greater American culture?
Q. Is it racist to ask if the African-American imprint on American culture is primarily: illegitimate babies, gangster rap and young men avoiding their responsibilities to become educated, care for their illegitimate children, and avoid drugs and criminal activity?
Q. If 50% of African-American males are able to avoid arrest, is it racist to ask why the other 50% cannot also act properly?
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Jews are the biggest thieves on Wall Street.
A. Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. These are men who defrauded the most or have been fined the most – all were born of Jewish parentage.
Being an American Jew, I will admit that the tone of the statement can be considered troublesome, but so is the fact that many thousands were harmed terribly by Madoff, Milken and Boesky. These criminals deserve all the punishment they receive and more. All their jail time multiplied by 100 will not come close to the angst, disappointment and trauma that these men caused to others. Their ill effect will be felt for generations.
Q. Is it less Anti-Semitic to say, “In Europe, one of the only professions Jews were allowed to pursue was moneylending; therefore, Jews became skilled in finance. A human trait is to manipulate when able and history has shown that a few persons of Jewish descent have been prosecuted successfully for financial crimes.”
The real issue is not the statement; rather, it is the context of the statement and the reaction to the statement.
If one were to say, “Those Jews, they’re the biggest thieves on Wall Street; you can’t trust any of them.” Then that is Anti-Semitic.
Compare the statement above with a recent interview given by “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Conservatives are Fascists!
A. This is both false and speech that is full of hate. However, because it is stated so often in the left wing press without any push back, it is accepted by the left as being gospel.
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Liberals are Fascists!
A. This is nominally true and therefore not hate speech. The problem is that liberals do not know that they are fascists because they do not know history nor the proper definition of words.
The actual definition of Fascism: A type of Socialism; an economic system that controls the means of production;
Webster’s Dictionary
1962 edition - before it became politically correct.
The politically correct current left wing propaganda definition of Fascism is: “any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc”
These definitions are far apart from each other. This is a great example of how the Left adulterates language to its own purpose.
To control the workplace via regulation is nominal fascism. You own the factory, but the government controls by telling you how much to pay the workers, the safety equipment required, rules the product must conform to, etc.
This is all done under the banner of safety, i.e. “It is for your own good.” The real question is: who is in control of your property, you or the government? Tort law will repair any negligence in safety.
BTW, it is factually impossible for economic conservatives to be fascists.
We have grown up hearing and believing one of the biggest left wing lies; that the political paradigm is left wing = liberal and right wing = fascist. This is totally incorrect.
Total Government: Socialist/Communist/Fascist Liberal/Progressives
Constitutional Republic: America = just enough government Conservatives
No Government: Anarchy
On the left put 100% government, or some form of collectivism like socialism or dictatorship or plutocracy.
The opposite of 100% government is 0% government, or anarchy.
In the middle is our constitutional republic, rule by moral/freedom oriented law.
Anarchy can never be a form of government because out of the chaos, some men will organize their tribes and rule as mini dictators, e.g. kings, chiefs.
Current events verify and history is replete with those seeking power.
Individual freedom simply does not exist in the manner that allows men to thrive. Americans are on the verge of allowing the virtual annihilation of our G-d given rights to life, liberty and property, and the left cheers this on.
Socialism has many variants, only two of which are Communists and Fascists.
Fabian Socialism is the type that exists in England and in America. Fabian Socialism envisions a slow adjustment of the people and the economy to the constrictions of freedom and the institutionalization of government, with “them” as the rule makers and overseers.
Leninists/Stalinists/Hitlerites/Maoists-Castroites/Sandanista’s/Sadam/Chavez etc. all sought a quick reversion to dictatorial Socialism, typically through revolution.
Socialism is simply the best marketing vehicle available for those with selfish intentions who want to gain and hold sway over the masses. The strategy is to gain control over people by calling for people to be constrained because of safety concerns, e.g. mining, environment, finance, consumer protection, etc. It sounds so nice.
How could anyone possibly be against safety? The answer: the devil is in the details.
How does this relate to Ron Paul?
First, Ron Paul has disavowed these few newsletters, only four letters in several thousand having any questionable passages. The political talking heads have cherry picked a few isolated incidents and paint a false narrative while ignoring 30 years of the candidate’s actions. These jaded “journalists” have to look back over 22 years in order to find dirt on Ron Paul because he has zero skeletons in his closet.
One does not become known as a racist overnight. If one is a racist, then there is a long documented history, e.g. David Duke.
To say, “Ron Paul is a racist,” rates the Orwellian Double-Speak Award for Speech of the Lowest Order.
It is ironic that the only person in the race who wants to stop the US government from killing more “brown people” is being labeled a racist!
This, despite the many instances of free health care Ron Paul has given to “brown people.”
The only member of the Texas congressional delegation to vote for the Martin Luther King national holiday was Ron Paul.
Senator McCain did not vote for the holiday and was not labeled a racist. Ron Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders; African-American’s make up the largest segment of offenders.
The double-standard
The left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press has done all it can to collapse support for Ron Paul. They are unabashed about their partiality, making unfair and prejudicial comments like, “Paul can’t win,” “Paul is crazy,” “Paul’s support is thin,” “His 21% in Iowa is as high as he gets,” “He certainly sounds like a racist.” etc.
However, upon the least blip of support or on any good news, the left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press goes agog over Obama. We get more accurate news reading Pravda.
Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-White, anti-Semitic rhetoric seems to not be taken seriously. Obama’s allegiance to Wright and the brainwashing Obama received over the many years he attended Wright’s church seem to not be an important issue.
Compare Wright’s rhetoric to Ron Paul’s. Wright’s sermons are vitriolic, to the point of actual incitement to violence or at least inciting attitudes in a dangerous direction; Paul’s mild comments in a letter are aimed at fundraising.
Ronald Reagan’s candidacy back in 1980 was endorsed by several KKK groups. Does that mean Reagan was a racist? Some would claim that those endorsements must mean that Ronald Reagan believed in the same things as the KKK. Lunacy.
Ron Paul’s message has been consistent for decades. He’s never been a flip-flopper, unlike Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest of the GOP field In the newsletter, Ron Paul echoed Jesse Jackson’s statement that he felt fear hearing men walking behind him, fearing they were black, and when he looked back over his shoulder, he felt relief seeing that it was white men walking behind him.
This is understandable because in 2004 African Americans constituted roughly 13.4% of the general population, yet 49% of all murder victims in 2005 were African American. According to “The Color of Crime,” “blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.” Showing a correlation to race within crime rate statistics is not racism, and making unflattering statements about African-Americans is not racism, in and of itself, except to semi-literates.
Racism is pernicious and malicious. And, as many of US know, both of these traits are specialties of the Left. Are we all racists for having genuine human feelings of fear based upon the knowledge that, statistically, African-American males have a higher likelihood of committing a crime? This is the kind of backwards logic that permeates the Left.
Why all the hate speech aimed at Ron Paul?
Left wing/liberal/progressive/fascists feel genuine terror that Ron Paul, if elected, would actually follow through with his campaign promises and reduce government overreach.
The left wing fears that someone who stands for something with a clear message has a chance to break down the status quo in American politics. They fear less government, lower taxes and a country where people are not forced to implement their left wing agenda.
Ron Paul is not some messianic fix-all; but he is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul has voted with an originalist constitutional mindset consistently for the last 30 years. That is not hearsay but 100% fact. He is the only congressman who regularly receives a 100% rating on the Freedom Index. Ron Paul is the boogeyman that haunts big federal government. His sin is that he believes in US as individuals; his congressional colleagues all believe in some level of big federal government.
Paul has an honest, constitutional, pro-American mentality. This is exactly what we need right now. Only an originalist constitutional approach will save our country. However, if Ron Paul is elected, prepare for big fights, as neither Congress nor the bureaucracy is going to allow the implementation of the elimination of subsidies, sweetheart contacts, insider deals, special protections and massive war preparations; the greed is too deeply embedded. They will defend at all costs over 100 years of planning and scheming to insinuate their subservient mindset.
The biggest problems in America today ALL stem from our bloated, overbearing form of Statism. That’s the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. America needs the constitutional restitution that Ron Paul represents and this is exactly what the big corporations that own the major media outlets do NOT want.
Rep. Paul’s message has achieved enough currency that it can no longer be ignored, despite the alarming lack of media coverage. I now expect the Establishment to switch to attack mode.
However, Ron Paul doesn’t have much in his background to attack. His writings and rhetoric have remained consistent. We know that there are no major scandals to uncover or they would have already announced them. He remains faithful to one wife. Ron Paul never dodged the draft and he is the only veteran in the race.
There is only one place to attack and it is tenuous at best. Some of his distant staff wrote some unpopular lines in a few newsletters 22 years ago. The lines fail to match anything in Dr. Paul’s long voting record or anything he’s actually said. Paul clearly states what he believes personally and that his personal views should not matter. Liberty for all means exactly that. Ron Paul’s positions on individual liberty are antithetical to the collectivist notion of racism.
Interestingly, the question of whether Ron Paul is racist has never come up in a political career spanning 30+ years. Were Paul a racist, I would expect many people to come forward with accounts of anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities. However, all we ever hear about are the accounts of minorities getting free healthcare. The lack of proper journalism in the media today is appalling.
These attacks on the only candidate who upholds the Constitution are happening because the military industrial complex and big business do NOT want an end to the status quo of bug business in bed with big totalitarian government.
Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s anti-war, pro-constitutionalist message.
Full article and additional links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Goldstein/mitchell106.htm
January 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Political correctness at its worst
The liberal/fascist press are all agog - 22 years ago, some questionable phrases appeared in four of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I have read the “hate” speech and the racist, anti-Semitic rants of Ron Paul. They amount to nothing! At root, this is a political witch hunt, a liberal lynching, in the best style of Goebbels, Hitler’s master marketing manipulator.
This really comes down to the question of what constitutes racism. Is a statement racist if it is primarily factual but also has a negative overtone? My experience shows that anything liberals/progressives/fascists don’t like will automatically be labeled as racist, fascist, anti-environmental, anti-union, anti-democratic or fattening.
We all lose when perception is seen as reality, when style supersedes substance, when “winning is the only thing.” Yet, sadly, this is Americas political reality is 2011, and 2012 will be even worse.
The examples used in Ron Paul’s newsletters were not racist. It is not racist to state facts or comment on societal impressions related to a particular race or ethnicity.
Truth as Hate Speech
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: African American woman are prone to having illegitimate children.
A. 75% of babies born to African-American woman are illegitimate.
Q. In today’s America, how do you state this fact without being accused of being racist?
Q. As 33% of Caucasian births are illegitimate, is it racist to think or to ask: Have African-American attitudes towards the acceptance of illegitimate babies been adopted into the greater American culture?
Q. Is it racist to ask if the African-American imprint on American culture is primarily: illegitimate babies, gangster rap and young men avoiding their responsibilities to become educated, care for their illegitimate children, and avoid drugs and criminal activity?
Q. If 50% of African-American males are able to avoid arrest, is it racist to ask why the other 50% cannot also act properly?
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Jews are the biggest thieves on Wall Street.
A. Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. These are men who defrauded the most or have been fined the most – all were born of Jewish parentage.
Being an American Jew, I will admit that the tone of the statement can be considered troublesome, but so is the fact that many thousands were harmed terribly by Madoff, Milken and Boesky. These criminals deserve all the punishment they receive and more. All their jail time multiplied by 100 will not come close to the angst, disappointment and trauma that these men caused to others. Their ill effect will be felt for generations.
Q. Is it less Anti-Semitic to say, “In Europe, one of the only professions Jews were allowed to pursue was moneylending; therefore, Jews became skilled in finance. A human trait is to manipulate when able and history has shown that a few persons of Jewish descent have been prosecuted successfully for financial crimes.”
The real issue is not the statement; rather, it is the context of the statement and the reaction to the statement.
If one were to say, “Those Jews, they’re the biggest thieves on Wall Street; you can’t trust any of them.” Then that is Anti-Semitic.
Compare the statement above with a recent interview given by “anti-Semitic” Ron Paul
- “Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz, conducted by email. “Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals,”
- “I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.”
- “I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”
- “I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.”
- “I am personally against all foreign aid. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her avowed enemies. How does that help Israel? And in return, we act like her master and demand veto power over her foreign policy.”
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Conservatives are Fascists!
A. This is both false and speech that is full of hate. However, because it is stated so often in the left wing press without any push back, it is accepted by the left as being gospel.
Q. Is it Truth or Hate Speech: Liberals are Fascists!
A. This is nominally true and therefore not hate speech. The problem is that liberals do not know that they are fascists because they do not know history nor the proper definition of words.
The actual definition of Fascism: A type of Socialism; an economic system that controls the means of production;
Webster’s Dictionary
1962 edition - before it became politically correct.
The politically correct current left wing propaganda definition of Fascism is: “any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc”
These definitions are far apart from each other. This is a great example of how the Left adulterates language to its own purpose.
To control the workplace via regulation is nominal fascism. You own the factory, but the government controls by telling you how much to pay the workers, the safety equipment required, rules the product must conform to, etc.
This is all done under the banner of safety, i.e. “It is for your own good.” The real question is: who is in control of your property, you or the government? Tort law will repair any negligence in safety.
BTW, it is factually impossible for economic conservatives to be fascists.
We have grown up hearing and believing one of the biggest left wing lies; that the political paradigm is left wing = liberal and right wing = fascist. This is totally incorrect.
Total Government: Socialist/Communist/Fascist Liberal/Progressives
Constitutional Republic: America = just enough government Conservatives
No Government: Anarchy
On the left put 100% government, or some form of collectivism like socialism or dictatorship or plutocracy.
The opposite of 100% government is 0% government, or anarchy.
In the middle is our constitutional republic, rule by moral/freedom oriented law.
Anarchy can never be a form of government because out of the chaos, some men will organize their tribes and rule as mini dictators, e.g. kings, chiefs.
Current events verify and history is replete with those seeking power.
Individual freedom simply does not exist in the manner that allows men to thrive. Americans are on the verge of allowing the virtual annihilation of our G-d given rights to life, liberty and property, and the left cheers this on.
Socialism has many variants, only two of which are Communists and Fascists.
Fabian Socialism is the type that exists in England and in America. Fabian Socialism envisions a slow adjustment of the people and the economy to the constrictions of freedom and the institutionalization of government, with “them” as the rule makers and overseers.
Leninists/Stalinists/Hitlerites/Maoists-Castroites/Sandanista’s/Sadam/Chavez etc. all sought a quick reversion to dictatorial Socialism, typically through revolution.
Socialism is simply the best marketing vehicle available for those with selfish intentions who want to gain and hold sway over the masses. The strategy is to gain control over people by calling for people to be constrained because of safety concerns, e.g. mining, environment, finance, consumer protection, etc. It sounds so nice.
How could anyone possibly be against safety? The answer: the devil is in the details.
How does this relate to Ron Paul?
First, Ron Paul has disavowed these few newsletters, only four letters in several thousand having any questionable passages. The political talking heads have cherry picked a few isolated incidents and paint a false narrative while ignoring 30 years of the candidate’s actions. These jaded “journalists” have to look back over 22 years in order to find dirt on Ron Paul because he has zero skeletons in his closet.
One does not become known as a racist overnight. If one is a racist, then there is a long documented history, e.g. David Duke.
To say, “Ron Paul is a racist,” rates the Orwellian Double-Speak Award for Speech of the Lowest Order.
It is ironic that the only person in the race who wants to stop the US government from killing more “brown people” is being labeled a racist!
This, despite the many instances of free health care Ron Paul has given to “brown people.”
The only member of the Texas congressional delegation to vote for the Martin Luther King national holiday was Ron Paul.
Senator McCain did not vote for the holiday and was not labeled a racist. Ron Paul wants to release all non-violent drug offenders; African-American’s make up the largest segment of offenders.
The double-standard
The left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press has done all it can to collapse support for Ron Paul. They are unabashed about their partiality, making unfair and prejudicial comments like, “Paul can’t win,” “Paul is crazy,” “Paul’s support is thin,” “His 21% in Iowa is as high as he gets,” “He certainly sounds like a racist.” etc.
However, upon the least blip of support or on any good news, the left wing/liberal/progressive/fascist press goes agog over Obama. We get more accurate news reading Pravda.
Reverend Wright’s anti-American, anti-White, anti-Semitic rhetoric seems to not be taken seriously. Obama’s allegiance to Wright and the brainwashing Obama received over the many years he attended Wright’s church seem to not be an important issue.
Compare Wright’s rhetoric to Ron Paul’s. Wright’s sermons are vitriolic, to the point of actual incitement to violence or at least inciting attitudes in a dangerous direction; Paul’s mild comments in a letter are aimed at fundraising.
Ronald Reagan’s candidacy back in 1980 was endorsed by several KKK groups. Does that mean Reagan was a racist? Some would claim that those endorsements must mean that Ronald Reagan believed in the same things as the KKK. Lunacy.
Ron Paul’s message has been consistent for decades. He’s never been a flip-flopper, unlike Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Romney, and the rest of the GOP field In the newsletter, Ron Paul echoed Jesse Jackson’s statement that he felt fear hearing men walking behind him, fearing they were black, and when he looked back over his shoulder, he felt relief seeing that it was white men walking behind him.
This is understandable because in 2004 African Americans constituted roughly 13.4% of the general population, yet 49% of all murder victims in 2005 were African American. According to “The Color of Crime,” “blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.” Showing a correlation to race within crime rate statistics is not racism, and making unflattering statements about African-Americans is not racism, in and of itself, except to semi-literates.
Racism is pernicious and malicious. And, as many of US know, both of these traits are specialties of the Left. Are we all racists for having genuine human feelings of fear based upon the knowledge that, statistically, African-American males have a higher likelihood of committing a crime? This is the kind of backwards logic that permeates the Left.
Why all the hate speech aimed at Ron Paul?
Left wing/liberal/progressive/fascists feel genuine terror that Ron Paul, if elected, would actually follow through with his campaign promises and reduce government overreach.
The left wing fears that someone who stands for something with a clear message has a chance to break down the status quo in American politics. They fear less government, lower taxes and a country where people are not forced to implement their left wing agenda.
Ron Paul is not some messianic fix-all; but he is a step in the right direction. Ron Paul has voted with an originalist constitutional mindset consistently for the last 30 years. That is not hearsay but 100% fact. He is the only congressman who regularly receives a 100% rating on the Freedom Index. Ron Paul is the boogeyman that haunts big federal government. His sin is that he believes in US as individuals; his congressional colleagues all believe in some level of big federal government.
Paul has an honest, constitutional, pro-American mentality. This is exactly what we need right now. Only an originalist constitutional approach will save our country. However, if Ron Paul is elected, prepare for big fights, as neither Congress nor the bureaucracy is going to allow the implementation of the elimination of subsidies, sweetheart contacts, insider deals, special protections and massive war preparations; the greed is too deeply embedded. They will defend at all costs over 100 years of planning and scheming to insinuate their subservient mindset.
The biggest problems in America today ALL stem from our bloated, overbearing form of Statism. That’s the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. America needs the constitutional restitution that Ron Paul represents and this is exactly what the big corporations that own the major media outlets do NOT want.
Rep. Paul’s message has achieved enough currency that it can no longer be ignored, despite the alarming lack of media coverage. I now expect the Establishment to switch to attack mode.
However, Ron Paul doesn’t have much in his background to attack. His writings and rhetoric have remained consistent. We know that there are no major scandals to uncover or they would have already announced them. He remains faithful to one wife. Ron Paul never dodged the draft and he is the only veteran in the race.
There is only one place to attack and it is tenuous at best. Some of his distant staff wrote some unpopular lines in a few newsletters 22 years ago. The lines fail to match anything in Dr. Paul’s long voting record or anything he’s actually said. Paul clearly states what he believes personally and that his personal views should not matter. Liberty for all means exactly that. Ron Paul’s positions on individual liberty are antithetical to the collectivist notion of racism.
Interestingly, the question of whether Ron Paul is racist has never come up in a political career spanning 30+ years. Were Paul a racist, I would expect many people to come forward with accounts of anti-Semitism and hatred of minorities. However, all we ever hear about are the accounts of minorities getting free healthcare. The lack of proper journalism in the media today is appalling.
These attacks on the only candidate who upholds the Constitution are happening because the military industrial complex and big business do NOT want an end to the status quo of bug business in bed with big totalitarian government.
Don’t be fooled by the mainstream media’s disinformation campaign to marginalize Ron Paul’s anti-war, pro-constitutionalist message.
Full article and additional links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Goldstein/mitchell106.htm
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Modernist Preacher - Entering Hell
by Oscar C. Eliason
He was an ordained minister, but modern in his views.
He preached his twisted doctrines to people in the pews.
He would not hurt their feelings, whate'er the cost would be,
But for their smiles and friendship and compliments sought he.
His church was filled with wicked souls that should be saved from sin,
But never once he showed the way or tried a soul to win.
He preached about the lovely birds that twitter in the trees,
The babl'ing of the running brooks, the murm'ring of the seas.
He quoted fancy poetry that tickled list'ning ears
When sorrow came to some, he tried to laugh away their tears.
His smooth and slipp'ry sermons made the people slide to hell.
The harm he did by preaching goes beyond what we can tell.
He took our Holy Bible, and preached it full of holes,
The Virgin Birth, said he can't be believed by honest souls,
The miracles of Jesus and the resurrection tale
For educated ones like us, today, cannot avail.
We're living in an age, said he, when wisdom rules and reigns,
When man's intelligence is great and superstition wanes.
He said, we're all God's children who live upon this earth,
No message of salvation, no need of second birth.
His coat was bought with money that he had wrongly gained,
For through his twisted sermons his wealth he had obtained.
He was just like the Roman soldiers that watched at Jesus' grave,
For money in abundance, to them, the people gave;
It all was theirs by telling what was a sinful lie -
A resurrected Savior, they, too, were to deny.
The day at last had come for the minister to die,
When to his congregation, he had to say good-bye.
His form lay cold and lifeless, his ministry was past,
His tongue with all its poison was hushed and stilled at last.
His funeral was grand; he was lauded to the skies-
They preached him into heaven where there are no good-byes.
Upon the lonely hill, underneath the shady trees,
His form was laid to rest in the whisp'ring of the breeze.
A tombstone was erected with words: "He is at rest,
He's gone to heaven's glories to live among the blest."
His body now is lifeless, but Ah! His soul lives on,
He failed to enter in where they thought that he had gone.
The letters on the tombstone or that sermon some had heard,
Could not decide his destiny, 'twas not the final word.
He still had God to deal with, the one who knows the heart;
While others entered heaven, he heard the word, "Depart."
He pauses for a moment upon the brink of hell;
He stares into a depth where he evermore will dwell.
He hears the cries and groanings of souls he had misled,
He recognizes faces among the screaming dead.
He sees departed deacons which he had highly praised.
Their fingers pointing at him as they their voices raised:
"You stood behind the pulpit, and lived in awful sin,
We took you for a saint, but a liar you have been."
Accusing cries! He hears them, "Ah! You have been to blame,
You led us into darkness when you were seeking fame."
"You preached your deadly doctrine, we thought you knew the way.
We fed you and we clothed you, we even raised your pay.
You've robbed us of a home where no tear-drops ever flow,
Where days are always fair and the heav'nly breezes blow.
Where living streams are flowing, and saints and Angels sing,
Where every one is happy, and Hallelujahs ring.
We're in this place of torment, from which no soul returns;
We hear the cry of lost ones, we feel the sizzling burns;
Give us a drop of water, we're tortured in this flame;
You failed to preach salvation to us through Jesus' Name."
The preacher turns in horror, he tries to leave the scene,
He knows the awful future for every soul unclean,
But there he meets the devil, whom he has served so well,
He feels the demon powers as they drag him into hell.
Throughout eternal ages, his groans, too, must be heard-
He, too, must suffer torment-he failed to heed God's Word.
He feels God's wrath upon him, he hears the hot flames roar,
His doctrine now is different, he ridicules no more.
By Oscar C. Eliason, c1960
He was an ordained minister, but modern in his views.
He preached his twisted doctrines to people in the pews.
He would not hurt their feelings, whate'er the cost would be,
But for their smiles and friendship and compliments sought he.
His church was filled with wicked souls that should be saved from sin,
But never once he showed the way or tried a soul to win.
He preached about the lovely birds that twitter in the trees,
The babl'ing of the running brooks, the murm'ring of the seas.
He quoted fancy poetry that tickled list'ning ears
When sorrow came to some, he tried to laugh away their tears.
His smooth and slipp'ry sermons made the people slide to hell.
The harm he did by preaching goes beyond what we can tell.
He took our Holy Bible, and preached it full of holes,
The Virgin Birth, said he can't be believed by honest souls,
The miracles of Jesus and the resurrection tale
For educated ones like us, today, cannot avail.
We're living in an age, said he, when wisdom rules and reigns,
When man's intelligence is great and superstition wanes.
He said, we're all God's children who live upon this earth,
No message of salvation, no need of second birth.
His coat was bought with money that he had wrongly gained,
For through his twisted sermons his wealth he had obtained.
He was just like the Roman soldiers that watched at Jesus' grave,
For money in abundance, to them, the people gave;
It all was theirs by telling what was a sinful lie -
A resurrected Savior, they, too, were to deny.
The day at last had come for the minister to die,
When to his congregation, he had to say good-bye.
His form lay cold and lifeless, his ministry was past,
His tongue with all its poison was hushed and stilled at last.
His funeral was grand; he was lauded to the skies-
They preached him into heaven where there are no good-byes.
Upon the lonely hill, underneath the shady trees,
His form was laid to rest in the whisp'ring of the breeze.
A tombstone was erected with words: "He is at rest,
He's gone to heaven's glories to live among the blest."
His body now is lifeless, but Ah! His soul lives on,
He failed to enter in where they thought that he had gone.
The letters on the tombstone or that sermon some had heard,
Could not decide his destiny, 'twas not the final word.
He still had God to deal with, the one who knows the heart;
While others entered heaven, he heard the word, "Depart."
He pauses for a moment upon the brink of hell;
He stares into a depth where he evermore will dwell.
He hears the cries and groanings of souls he had misled,
He recognizes faces among the screaming dead.
He sees departed deacons which he had highly praised.
Their fingers pointing at him as they their voices raised:
"You stood behind the pulpit, and lived in awful sin,
We took you for a saint, but a liar you have been."
Accusing cries! He hears them, "Ah! You have been to blame,
You led us into darkness when you were seeking fame."
"You preached your deadly doctrine, we thought you knew the way.
We fed you and we clothed you, we even raised your pay.
You've robbed us of a home where no tear-drops ever flow,
Where days are always fair and the heav'nly breezes blow.
Where living streams are flowing, and saints and Angels sing,
Where every one is happy, and Hallelujahs ring.
We're in this place of torment, from which no soul returns;
We hear the cry of lost ones, we feel the sizzling burns;
Give us a drop of water, we're tortured in this flame;
You failed to preach salvation to us through Jesus' Name."
The preacher turns in horror, he tries to leave the scene,
He knows the awful future for every soul unclean,
But there he meets the devil, whom he has served so well,
He feels the demon powers as they drag him into hell.
Throughout eternal ages, his groans, too, must be heard-
He, too, must suffer torment-he failed to heed God's Word.
He feels God's wrath upon him, he hears the hot flames roar,
His doctrine now is different, he ridicules no more.
By Oscar C. Eliason, c1960
ARAB WINTER
Dr. Michael Youssef
onenewsnow.com
11/30/2011 10:05:00 AM
ARAB WINTER [Excerpts]
After making numerous phone calls and speaking to many Christian leaders in Egypt... I have learned that what is really happening on the ground is far removed from the television reporters' happy endorsement of democracy seekers. To describe what is really going on around the country as "barbaric" would be an understatement. While some of the protestors may be true democracy lovers, the widespread terrorism on display defies all human decency.
The truth about recent events in Egypt reveals that the country has disintegrated into a total anarchy and barbarianism that would make the Vikings blush.
Peaceful Christians are being beheaded in their own homes. Their possessions are being carried off as police either stand helplessly by or, for a portion of the booty, turn a blind eye. And surprise, surprise! Nearly all the victims of beheadings were Christians killed by Muslim fundamentalists.
Not only are the Egyptian Islamists poised to take over the country as a result of elections [the week of November 28], but these acts of terrorism are serving as propaganda tools to "prove" that they and they alone can bring order to the country with their Sharia law. So, for now at least, these terrorist acts reinforce their cause and agenda.
So much for President Obama's "Arab Spring." When history books are written truthfully, they will reveal that the President's speech in Cairo, one he insisted the Islamists attend, set this barbarism in motion.
Indecisive leadership kills innocent people and causes disasters. Take President Jimmy Carter's vacillating support for the Shah of Iran. In one breath, Carter would support the beleaguered leader, and in the next, he would praise the Iranian Revolution. That indecisiveness led to 52 Americans being taken hostage for 444 days inside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Full article:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1487262
onenewsnow.com
11/30/2011 10:05:00 AM
ARAB WINTER [Excerpts]
After making numerous phone calls and speaking to many Christian leaders in Egypt... I have learned that what is really happening on the ground is far removed from the television reporters' happy endorsement of democracy seekers. To describe what is really going on around the country as "barbaric" would be an understatement. While some of the protestors may be true democracy lovers, the widespread terrorism on display defies all human decency.
The truth about recent events in Egypt reveals that the country has disintegrated into a total anarchy and barbarianism that would make the Vikings blush.
Peaceful Christians are being beheaded in their own homes. Their possessions are being carried off as police either stand helplessly by or, for a portion of the booty, turn a blind eye. And surprise, surprise! Nearly all the victims of beheadings were Christians killed by Muslim fundamentalists.
Not only are the Egyptian Islamists poised to take over the country as a result of elections [the week of November 28], but these acts of terrorism are serving as propaganda tools to "prove" that they and they alone can bring order to the country with their Sharia law. So, for now at least, these terrorist acts reinforce their cause and agenda.
So much for President Obama's "Arab Spring." When history books are written truthfully, they will reveal that the President's speech in Cairo, one he insisted the Islamists attend, set this barbarism in motion.
Indecisive leadership kills innocent people and causes disasters. Take President Jimmy Carter's vacillating support for the Shah of Iran. In one breath, Carter would support the beleaguered leader, and in the next, he would praise the Iranian Revolution. That indecisiveness led to 52 Americans being taken hostage for 444 days inside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Full article:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1487262
Welcome to the Nanny State
Todd Strandberg
raptureready.com
Jan 9, 2012
The arrival of the new year brought with it a host of new laws that regulate every detail of our daily lives. I read one report that said over 40,000 new state laws took effect at the start of this month. The amount of regulation is reaching insane levels.
In Illinois, you now need to provide photo identification and sign a log just to buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances. State Rep. Jack Franks obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them. Noncompliance results in fines: $150 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and up to $1,500 for the third and subsequent violations.
It is now illegal to produce 100W and 75W incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. Anyone who doesn't like the light produced by Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs will need to stock up before they run out. In a few years, they will probably be made illegal all together, and we'll hear stories of them being smuggled into the country.
I'm dead-set against all these laws that trample on our rights while going after criminals. I understand that Sudafed is used to produce methamphetamines, but it shouldn't be a controlled substance for someone who uses it for a cold remedy. Arrest the guy with a drug lab in his garage, and leave the rest of us alone.
The regulation of products used to make drugs doesn't work anyway. It just makes addicts more resourceful. In response to the clamp down on cold remedies, someone came up with a one-pot or shake-and-bake method of producing meth. Instead of a lab with beakers and hoses taking up a lot of space, all drug producers need now is a two-liter drink bottle. A couple of weeks ago, a woman was arrested while making meth in the bathroom at a Wal-Mart. I guess we now need a ban on plastic soda bottles.
Last week, President Obama named Richard Cordray director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). The appointment was in the news because Obama used unconstitutional means to make appointment. What was lost in the headlines was the fact that here we have yet another layer of regulation gumming up our financial markets. We already had about 20 major agencies governing finance. For some brokerages, their largest division is the one where people are working to ensure compliance to government rules.
One of the most sinister examples of how we are turning into a Nanny State is the regulations that govern our banking industry. Your bank is required by law to keep an eye on your financial transactions to make sure you are not engaged in a growing list of illegal activities. Years ago, it was unheard of to have your bank nosing around in your account. Last year, I saw a photo of a $2 million check written in 1979 by author Hunter S. Thompson. It had “Cocaine” written in the memo field. If Hunter had written the same check today, there would probably be a call to the Drug Enforcement Agency or the FBI.
Turning America into a police state is not going to solve our problems. The need for laws is a sign of the lack of morality in a society. There was once a time when anyone could walk into a drugstore and buy a bottle of opium or heroin. We didn't have drug crimes because people knew the abuse of these drugs was contrary to biblical values.
It absolutely astounds me how tolerant people are about the government incursion into their daily lives. I still can't believe people are now willing to allow strangers to feel them up at the airport. Obama signing the law on New Year's Eve that allows him to arrest anyone for any reason was just plain scary. I just wonder what would cause the public to say to the government, "Now, you've gone too far.”
When I was a youngster, I wondered how the Antichrist would be able to get everyone to line up and receive the mark of the Beast. Back then, there were all types of civil rights watch groups, and anything that hinted of a "big brother" move by the government was automatically shot down. Today, the watchdogs are all gone and any move seems very possible. All the Beast would need to do is say the 666 mark is to fight terrorism, and people will be bustling to be the first in line.
"He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name" (Revelation 13:16-17, NLT).
Full article:
http://raptureready.com/rap16.html
raptureready.com
Jan 9, 2012
The arrival of the new year brought with it a host of new laws that regulate every detail of our daily lives. I read one report that said over 40,000 new state laws took effect at the start of this month. The amount of regulation is reaching insane levels.
In Illinois, you now need to provide photo identification and sign a log just to buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances. State Rep. Jack Franks obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them. Noncompliance results in fines: $150 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and up to $1,500 for the third and subsequent violations.
It is now illegal to produce 100W and 75W incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. Anyone who doesn't like the light produced by Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs will need to stock up before they run out. In a few years, they will probably be made illegal all together, and we'll hear stories of them being smuggled into the country.
I'm dead-set against all these laws that trample on our rights while going after criminals. I understand that Sudafed is used to produce methamphetamines, but it shouldn't be a controlled substance for someone who uses it for a cold remedy. Arrest the guy with a drug lab in his garage, and leave the rest of us alone.
The regulation of products used to make drugs doesn't work anyway. It just makes addicts more resourceful. In response to the clamp down on cold remedies, someone came up with a one-pot or shake-and-bake method of producing meth. Instead of a lab with beakers and hoses taking up a lot of space, all drug producers need now is a two-liter drink bottle. A couple of weeks ago, a woman was arrested while making meth in the bathroom at a Wal-Mart. I guess we now need a ban on plastic soda bottles.
Last week, President Obama named Richard Cordray director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). The appointment was in the news because Obama used unconstitutional means to make appointment. What was lost in the headlines was the fact that here we have yet another layer of regulation gumming up our financial markets. We already had about 20 major agencies governing finance. For some brokerages, their largest division is the one where people are working to ensure compliance to government rules.
One of the most sinister examples of how we are turning into a Nanny State is the regulations that govern our banking industry. Your bank is required by law to keep an eye on your financial transactions to make sure you are not engaged in a growing list of illegal activities. Years ago, it was unheard of to have your bank nosing around in your account. Last year, I saw a photo of a $2 million check written in 1979 by author Hunter S. Thompson. It had “Cocaine” written in the memo field. If Hunter had written the same check today, there would probably be a call to the Drug Enforcement Agency or the FBI.
Turning America into a police state is not going to solve our problems. The need for laws is a sign of the lack of morality in a society. There was once a time when anyone could walk into a drugstore and buy a bottle of opium or heroin. We didn't have drug crimes because people knew the abuse of these drugs was contrary to biblical values.
It absolutely astounds me how tolerant people are about the government incursion into their daily lives. I still can't believe people are now willing to allow strangers to feel them up at the airport. Obama signing the law on New Year's Eve that allows him to arrest anyone for any reason was just plain scary. I just wonder what would cause the public to say to the government, "Now, you've gone too far.”
When I was a youngster, I wondered how the Antichrist would be able to get everyone to line up and receive the mark of the Beast. Back then, there were all types of civil rights watch groups, and anything that hinted of a "big brother" move by the government was automatically shot down. Today, the watchdogs are all gone and any move seems very possible. All the Beast would need to do is say the 666 mark is to fight terrorism, and people will be bustling to be the first in line.
"He required everyone--great and small, rich and poor, slave and free--to be given a mark on the right hand or on the forehead. And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name" (Revelation 13:16-17, NLT).
Full article:
http://raptureready.com/rap16.html
Monday, January 09, 2012
WORDS HAVE MEANING
Excerpts from "WORDS HAVE MEANING: LOVE, AND FREEDOM"
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
January 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
The cost of something for nothing is human dignity
Conservatives think loving their neighbor – being their brother’s keeper – means teaching the poor and downtrodden to fish.
Liberals believe love means giving the poor and downtrodden a fish.
Which definition of love is right? To judge truthfully, one must look at the long-term results of each act… teaching and giving.
When we teach someone to fish – when we train a person to work and be productive – it has a long-term effect on the recipient’s life. Properly taught and considerately planned, it provides life purpose and a career and of being able to support a family and send kids to college.
When we give someone a fish day after day, what do we do? We teach people to be dependent on something outside of them – and that stifles their creative energy. We motivate laziness. Even worse, we motivate the recipient to lose the important drive to get out of bed each morning with the zest required to find meaning and purpose (of which happiness is made) in the day ahead.
The giving of the free fish makes givers feel good about themselves - but is that how we define love of neighbor? No. It isn't. No mature, sane person defines love in this way. The giver of the fish probably won't admit it, but providing the fish is an exercise in power… and love isn't an exercise in one ego dominating another ego.
What about the word "charity?"
To be charitable is to be kind. I would repeat the meaning of love and merely ask: Is it kinder to give your neighbor or your brother a fish? Or is it kinder to teach him to fish? Which has the best long-term impact on the person's life? Which offers the best potential for growth?
How do you define "freedom?"
It seems to me that "freedom" has its root in the right to own personal property - which includes owning one's own body… the avoidance of slavery If you are free to own property, you must have the accompanying right to define its use. If you cannot use property as you wish, do you really own it?
NDAA
In late December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It decimates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
A majority of Republicans voted for the NDAA (which validates my concern that Democrats want to get us to one world government via socialism, Republicans via fascism). The official Russian international radio broadcasting service. Voice of Russia, compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich.
If you're unfamiliar with this legislation, don't be. The NDAA gives the President authority to detain, via our armed forces any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. (NOTE: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.)
It is interesting to note that "terrorism" has not by law been defined. NDAA, then, allows the President to define who a terrorist is and to have the military arrest him/her and "disappear" them to a foreign country. It wasn't too long ago that law enforcement in more than one state defined a potential terrorist as someone who had bumper stickers that were pro-Constitution.
That's why it's important to define our words more carefully and know what words like "freedom" mean.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn177.htm
By Marilyn M. Barnewall
January 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
The cost of something for nothing is human dignity
Conservatives think loving their neighbor – being their brother’s keeper – means teaching the poor and downtrodden to fish.
Liberals believe love means giving the poor and downtrodden a fish.
Which definition of love is right? To judge truthfully, one must look at the long-term results of each act… teaching and giving.
When we teach someone to fish – when we train a person to work and be productive – it has a long-term effect on the recipient’s life. Properly taught and considerately planned, it provides life purpose and a career and of being able to support a family and send kids to college.
When we give someone a fish day after day, what do we do? We teach people to be dependent on something outside of them – and that stifles their creative energy. We motivate laziness. Even worse, we motivate the recipient to lose the important drive to get out of bed each morning with the zest required to find meaning and purpose (of which happiness is made) in the day ahead.
The giving of the free fish makes givers feel good about themselves - but is that how we define love of neighbor? No. It isn't. No mature, sane person defines love in this way. The giver of the fish probably won't admit it, but providing the fish is an exercise in power… and love isn't an exercise in one ego dominating another ego.
What about the word "charity?"
To be charitable is to be kind. I would repeat the meaning of love and merely ask: Is it kinder to give your neighbor or your brother a fish? Or is it kinder to teach him to fish? Which has the best long-term impact on the person's life? Which offers the best potential for growth?
How do you define "freedom?"
It seems to me that "freedom" has its root in the right to own personal property - which includes owning one's own body… the avoidance of slavery If you are free to own property, you must have the accompanying right to define its use. If you cannot use property as you wish, do you really own it?
NDAA
In late December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It decimates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
A majority of Republicans voted for the NDAA (which validates my concern that Democrats want to get us to one world government via socialism, Republicans via fascism). The official Russian international radio broadcasting service. Voice of Russia, compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich.
If you're unfamiliar with this legislation, don't be. The NDAA gives the President authority to detain, via our armed forces any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. (NOTE: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.)
It is interesting to note that "terrorism" has not by law been defined. NDAA, then, allows the President to define who a terrorist is and to have the military arrest him/her and "disappear" them to a foreign country. It wasn't too long ago that law enforcement in more than one state defined a potential terrorist as someone who had bumper stickers that were pro-Constitution.
That's why it's important to define our words more carefully and know what words like "freedom" mean.
Full article:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewall/marilyn177.htm
Before Jumping on Board with Rick Santorum...
Before jumping on board with Rick Santorum, consider his past voting record and activities...
Rick Santorum has a history of:
* Padding his own wallet as a corporate lobbyist at the expense of taxpayers;
* Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
* Voting to DOUBLE the federal Department of Education;
* Voting with liberals like Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions in support of Big Labor's radical agenda;
* Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
* Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;
* Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;
* Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;
* Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;
* Voting for gun control;
* Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;
* Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea;
* Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion - and hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.
Rick Santorum isn't even trying to sweep his Big Government record under the rug. He's proud of it!
Rick Santorum said constitutional conservatives have a "crazy" idea that government should "keep our taxes down, and keep our regulations low."
Not only that, but he endorsed Mitt Romney just four years ago!
How can the "alternative to Romney" also be a Romney supporter?
The truth is, Rick Santorum has no national campaign and no funding to compete against Mitt Romney, let alone Barack Obama.
There's no way his Big Government record can stand up to an ounce of scrutiny.
See in his own words:
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum has a history of:
* Padding his own wallet as a corporate lobbyist at the expense of taxpayers;
* Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
* Voting to DOUBLE the federal Department of Education;
* Voting with liberals like Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions in support of Big Labor's radical agenda;
* Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
* Voting to create a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;
* Endorsing liberal Big Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course, Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama to pass his radical agenda;
* Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;
* Supporting raising taxes on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their pockets at the gas pump;
* Voting for gun control;
* Voting to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border patrol agents;
* Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea;
* Voting to send hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of abortion - and hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.
Rick Santorum isn't even trying to sweep his Big Government record under the rug. He's proud of it!
Rick Santorum said constitutional conservatives have a "crazy" idea that government should "keep our taxes down, and keep our regulations low."
Not only that, but he endorsed Mitt Romney just four years ago!
How can the "alternative to Romney" also be a Romney supporter?
The truth is, Rick Santorum has no national campaign and no funding to compete against Mitt Romney, let alone Barack Obama.
There's no way his Big Government record can stand up to an ounce of scrutiny.
See in his own words:
Rick Santorum
Friday, January 06, 2012
Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex
Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu
October 23, 2008
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1] He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2] These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).
On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).
On Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount
Third, Obama’s remarks grossly distort the message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount says nothing at all that intimates either support for homosexual relationships or opposition to the kind of view espoused in Romans 1, a view that would have been held universally by Jews and Christians of the period.
The Sermon as a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses
Following the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), Jesus contends that he has not come to abolish any portion of the law and the prophets but rather has come to tighten its demands and close remaining loopholes (5:17-48). Six “antitheses” are put forward, the gist of which is: You use to be able to get away with the following but I say ‘no longer’ (5:21-48). Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex: adultery of the heart (5:27-28), which extends God’s requirement for sexual purity into the interior life, and divorce/remarriage (5:31-32). In between them is a warning by Jesus that if your eye or hand threatens your downfall, remove them, for it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (5:29-30). This last statement—along with Jesus’ strong affirmation of “the law and the prophets”—does not fit well with Obama’s view that applying the adage “hate the sin but love the sinner” to homosexual practice is wrong because “such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”[3]
The two-sexes foundation for Jesus’ view of marital twoness
The remarks against both divorce and marriage to a divorced person are pertinent to the issue of homosexuality. While we permit both in our society it would be invalid to argue from this to acceptance of homosexual unions; first, because Jesus’ remarks implicitly forbade polygamy, which we continue to reject today; and, secondly, because Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for any sexual union) as foundational for, and hence more important than, the definition of a valid sexual union as a lifelong commitment between two persons.
What we see in Matthew 5:31-32 is only the outcome of a reasoning that is more fully put forward in Matthew 19:3-9 (which parallels Mark 10:2-12). There Jesus bases his view of marital monogamy (the ‘twoness’ of the sexual bond) and marital indissolubility on two Scripture texts: Genesis 1:27 (“male and female [God] made them”) and Genesis 2:24 (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”). The “cleaving” text in Genesis 2:24 is obviously relevant to Jesus’ remarks about marital permanence, even as it presupposes a male-female prerequisite. But of what relevance is the terse quotation that God “made them male and female”? Apparently Jesus extrapolated from God’s creation of two primary sexes that sexual unions should be limited to two persons, whether serially (no divorce) or concurrently (no polygamy). The twoness of the sexes, their binary or dimorphic character, was for Jesus the foundation for limiting sexual unions to two persons. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have cited Genesis 1:27 and no basis for limiting marriage to two and only two persons.
Confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus’ remarks can be found among the Essene community at Qumran, the Jewish sect whose opposition to polygamy was closest to Jesus’ views. They rejected “taking two wives in their lives” because “the foundation of creation is ‘male and female he created them’ [Genesis 1:27]” and because “those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Genesis 7:9]” (Damascus Document 4.20-5.1). Once the two primary sexes came together in a sexual union a third party was neither needed nor desirable.
What this means is that Jesus thought the male-female paradigm given by God in creation was the foundation for the twin principles of monogamy and lifelong commitment. The foundation is obviously more important, not less so, than any superstructure predicated on the foundation. Since we don’t permit polygamy today, even between three or more persons with a polysexual orientation in a loving relationship of lifelong commitment, there is even less of a basis for permitting homosexual unions. Once the twoness of the sexes is rejected as a basis for extrapolating a monogamy principle, there is no nature-based or logical reason for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union to two persons at any one time.
Jesus and “born eunuchs”: no sex for them
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to “eunuchs who from their mother’s womb were born thus.” The former were people who did not get married, and thus abstained from sexual relations, out of a pragmatic missionary desire to further God’s kingdom (i.e., a single person would have greater freedom of movement and might be more willing to take risks than someone who had a family to worry about). The latter, the “born eunuchs,” were men who did not experience sexual desires for women, whether because they were asexual or, possibly, homosexual. Why does Jesus compare “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs”? Answer: Like the “born eunuchs,” the “eunuchs for the kingdom” are not having any sexual relations. If the “born eunuchs” included men attracted only to other men—a reasonable interpretation given the ancient evidence—then Jesus was presuming that men with exclusive homosexual attractions should not be having intercourse with other males. This is consistent with his argument from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 earlier in the same passage (Matthew 19:4-9), where the only link between the two creation texts is the insistence that marriage—and thus all sexual unions since Jesus permitted sexual intercourse only in the context of marriage—be between the two sexes, male and female, man and woman. Those who cannot find sexual satisfaction in such relationships, Jesus believed, were not permitted other forms of sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual activity. [This is fodder for further discussion, as this explanation seems to presuppose the idea that "sexual desires" are inborn, when actually sexual desires are of the flesh, can be "trained" (a learned behavior) and if not controlled they are driven by sin nature. "born eunuchs" should actually be translated "eunuchs from birth" the other could include those who are widows/widowers who chose not to re-marry, but to devote the rest of their life to the work of the Gospel. This agrees with Paul's later epistles.]
Other indications of Jesus’ embrace of a male-female standard for sexual unions
There are many other arguments to which one can point in order to establish Jesus’ embrace of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. These include:
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]
Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.
Full article and endnotes:
http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/23/theology-expert-says-obama-grossly-distorts-scriptures-to-support-homosexual-cause/
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu
October 23, 2008
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1] He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2] These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.
On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).
On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).
On Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount
Third, Obama’s remarks grossly distort the message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The Sermon on the Mount says nothing at all that intimates either support for homosexual relationships or opposition to the kind of view espoused in Romans 1, a view that would have been held universally by Jews and Christians of the period.
The Sermon as a closing of remaining loopholes in the Law of Moses
Following the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11), Jesus contends that he has not come to abolish any portion of the law and the prophets but rather has come to tighten its demands and close remaining loopholes (5:17-48). Six “antitheses” are put forward, the gist of which is: You use to be able to get away with the following but I say ‘no longer’ (5:21-48). Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex: adultery of the heart (5:27-28), which extends God’s requirement for sexual purity into the interior life, and divorce/remarriage (5:31-32). In between them is a warning by Jesus that if your eye or hand threatens your downfall, remove them, for it is better to go into heaven maimed than to be thrown into hell full-bodied (5:29-30). This last statement—along with Jesus’ strong affirmation of “the law and the prophets”—does not fit well with Obama’s view that applying the adage “hate the sin but love the sinner” to homosexual practice is wrong because “such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”[3]
The two-sexes foundation for Jesus’ view of marital twoness
The remarks against both divorce and marriage to a divorced person are pertinent to the issue of homosexuality. While we permit both in our society it would be invalid to argue from this to acceptance of homosexual unions; first, because Jesus’ remarks implicitly forbade polygamy, which we continue to reject today; and, secondly, because Jesus regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage (and thus for any sexual union) as foundational for, and hence more important than, the definition of a valid sexual union as a lifelong commitment between two persons.
What we see in Matthew 5:31-32 is only the outcome of a reasoning that is more fully put forward in Matthew 19:3-9 (which parallels Mark 10:2-12). There Jesus bases his view of marital monogamy (the ‘twoness’ of the sexual bond) and marital indissolubility on two Scripture texts: Genesis 1:27 (“male and female [God] made them”) and Genesis 2:24 (“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh”). The “cleaving” text in Genesis 2:24 is obviously relevant to Jesus’ remarks about marital permanence, even as it presupposes a male-female prerequisite. But of what relevance is the terse quotation that God “made them male and female”? Apparently Jesus extrapolated from God’s creation of two primary sexes that sexual unions should be limited to two persons, whether serially (no divorce) or concurrently (no polygamy). The twoness of the sexes, their binary or dimorphic character, was for Jesus the foundation for limiting sexual unions to two persons. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Jesus to have cited Genesis 1:27 and no basis for limiting marriage to two and only two persons.
Confirmation for this interpretation of Jesus’ remarks can be found among the Essene community at Qumran, the Jewish sect whose opposition to polygamy was closest to Jesus’ views. They rejected “taking two wives in their lives” because “the foundation of creation is ‘male and female he created them’ [Genesis 1:27]” and because “those who entered (Noah’s) ark went in two by two into the ark [Genesis 7:9]” (Damascus Document 4.20-5.1). Once the two primary sexes came together in a sexual union a third party was neither needed nor desirable.
What this means is that Jesus thought the male-female paradigm given by God in creation was the foundation for the twin principles of monogamy and lifelong commitment. The foundation is obviously more important, not less so, than any superstructure predicated on the foundation. Since we don’t permit polygamy today, even between three or more persons with a polysexual orientation in a loving relationship of lifelong commitment, there is even less of a basis for permitting homosexual unions. Once the twoness of the sexes is rejected as a basis for extrapolating a monogamy principle, there is no nature-based or logical reason for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union to two persons at any one time.
Jesus and “born eunuchs”: no sex for them
In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to “eunuchs who from their mother’s womb were born thus.” The former were people who did not get married, and thus abstained from sexual relations, out of a pragmatic missionary desire to further God’s kingdom (i.e., a single person would have greater freedom of movement and might be more willing to take risks than someone who had a family to worry about). The latter, the “born eunuchs,” were men who did not experience sexual desires for women, whether because they were asexual or, possibly, homosexual. Why does Jesus compare “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” with “born eunuchs”? Answer: Like the “born eunuchs,” the “eunuchs for the kingdom” are not having any sexual relations. If the “born eunuchs” included men attracted only to other men—a reasonable interpretation given the ancient evidence—then Jesus was presuming that men with exclusive homosexual attractions should not be having intercourse with other males. This is consistent with his argument from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 earlier in the same passage (Matthew 19:4-9), where the only link between the two creation texts is the insistence that marriage—and thus all sexual unions since Jesus permitted sexual intercourse only in the context of marriage—be between the two sexes, male and female, man and woman. Those who cannot find sexual satisfaction in such relationships, Jesus believed, were not permitted other forms of sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual activity. [This is fodder for further discussion, as this explanation seems to presuppose the idea that "sexual desires" are inborn, when actually sexual desires are of the flesh, can be "trained" (a learned behavior) and if not controlled they are driven by sin nature. "born eunuchs" should actually be translated "eunuchs from birth" the other could include those who are widows/widowers who chose not to re-marry, but to devote the rest of their life to the work of the Gospel. This agrees with Paul's later epistles.]
Other indications of Jesus’ embrace of a male-female standard for sexual unions
There are many other arguments to which one can point in order to establish Jesus’ embrace of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. These include:
- Jesus’ retention of the Law of Moses even on relatively minor matters such as tithing, to say nothing of a foundational law in sexual ethics; and his view of the Old Testament as inviolable Scripture, which Scripture was absolutely opposed to man-male intercourse.
- The fact that the man who baptized Jesus, John the Baptist, was beheaded for defending Levitical sex laws in the case of the adult-incestuous union between Herod Antipas and a woman who was both the ex-wife of his half-brother Philip and the daughter of another half-brother. The rejection of homosexual practice in the same two chapters of Leviticus from which the incest laws stem (18 and 20) is the closest analogue to the incest laws inasmuch as both types of law’s reject sex between persons too much alike in embodied structures, whether in terms of kinship or in terms of gender.
- Early Judaism’s univocal opposition to all homosexual practice—no exceptions anywhere within many centuries of the life of Jesus.
- The early church’s united opposition to all homosexual practice. This completes the historical circle and underscores the absurdity of positing a homosexualist Jesus without analogue in his historical context: cut off from his Scripture, from the rest of early Judaism, from the man who baptized him, and from the church that emerged from his teachings.
- Jesus’ saying about the defiling effect of desires for various forms of sexual immoralities (porneiai, Mark 7:21-23), which distinguished matters of relative moral indifference such as food laws from matters of moral significance such as the sexual commands of his Bible and connected Jesus to the general view of what constitutes the worst forms of porneia in early Judaism (same-sex intercourse, incest, bestiality, adultery).
- Jesus’ affirmation of the Decalogue prohibition of adultery, which in early Judaism was treated as a rubric for the major sex laws of the Old Testament, including, prominently, the laws against homosexual practice.
- Jesus’ saying about Sodom which, understood in the light of Second Temple interpretations of Sodom (Matthew 10:14-15, with parallel text in Luke 10:10-12), included an indictment of Sodom for attempting to dishonor the integrity of the visitors’ masculinity by treating them as if they were the sexual counterparts to males.
- Jesus’ saying about not giving what is “holy” to the “dogs” (Matthew 7:6), an apparent allusion to Deuteronomic law (Deuteronomy 23:17-18) and texts in 1-2 Kings that indict figures known as the qedeshim, self-designated “holy ones” identified as “dogs” in Deuteronomy for their attempt to erase their masculinity by serving as the passive-receptive partners in man-male intercourse.
- The fact that Jesus developed a sex ethic that had distinctive features not shared by the love commandment (love for everyone does not translate into having sex with everyone); reached out to tax collectors and sexual sinners while simultaneously intensifying God’s ethical demand in these areas; insisted that the adulterous woman stop sinning lest something worse happen to her (i.e., loss of eternal life; compare John 8:3-11 with John 5:14); appropriated the context of the “love your neighbor” command in Leviticus 19:18 by insisting on reproof as part of a full-orbed view of love (Luke 17:3-4; compare Leviticus 19:17: you shall reprove your neighbor lest you incur guilt for failing to warn him); and defined discipleship to him as taking up one’s cross, denying oneself, and losing one’s life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39; Luke 14:27; 17:33; John 12:25).
Obama claims that his advocacy for homosexual unions receiving full marriage benefits is in keeping with Jesus’ own views in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere. As an assertion about the Jesus of history or even about the living Christ (assuming significant continuity between the two), this claim is preposterous. It is nothing but a fantasy, a figment of Obama’s imagination imposed on the text of the Sermon. The Sermon does speak about loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and about not judging others over relatively minor matters while ignoring larger problems in one’s own life (7:1-6). However, these themes provide no more support for homosexual unions than they do for loving, committed polyamorous or polygamous unions or for adult-consensual incestuous unions, both of which Jesus obviously opposed. If in the Sermon Jesus warned against men marrying divorced women, even women divorced by their husbands on invalid grounds (i.e., on grounds other than adultery), the idea that Jesus would have opposed “hurting the feelings of gays and lesbians” by not treating such unions as the functional equivalents of a valid marriage represents revisionist history at its worse. Obama’s argument, carried to its logical but absurd conclusion, would force Americans to provide full marital benefits for adult-committed polygamous unions and incestuous unions, since such persons too deserve to have hospital-visitation privileges, health insurance coverage, and all the other benefits of marriage every bit as much (and more so) than homosexual unions.[4]
Obama’s image of Jesus is that of a person who, rather than lovingly calling sinners to repentance so that they might be reclaimed for the kingdom of God that he proclaimed, tells others to stop judging them. This is not the picture of Jesus’ mission to “sinners and tax collectors” in the Gospels. Instead, we find a picture of a Jesus who aggressively reaches out in love to the biggest violators of his ethical demands while simultaneously maintaining that demand; a Jesus who encourages offenders to “go and no longer be sinning” lest something worse happen to them, namely, exclusion from the kingdom of God. Obama does not love more or better than Jesus. That would be carrying a messianic complex a bit too far.
Full article and endnotes:
http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/2008/10/23/theology-expert-says-obama-grossly-distorts-scriptures-to-support-homosexual-cause/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)