Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Gay Agenda Watershed issue for Christians

A discussion that I brought up at EvC about incidents where Christian business owners refused to take photographs of a gay wedding or make a wedding cake for such an event, because they would not put themselves in the position of validating something the Bible calls sin, the prevailing opinion came out loud and clear:  Biblical Christians are no longer welcome, this is a matter of "civil rights," homosexuals are an oppressed class and Christians are among the oppressors, or perhaps ARE the oppressors. 

Christianity is regarded as a "bronze age" mentality which is being transcended by more modern progressive thinking, and they are all very happy about that.  If they don't want to off us right away, they like the idea that we will simply die out (little do they understand the power of the word of God).  The level of vitriol directed against Christians there these days seems to me to be above and beyond what I've seen there before, but in any case it's scathing and implacable.

Even some "Christians" there share that point of view, the idea being the usual idea that "Christian love" is violated by taking a stand on the Biblical definition of homosexual acts as sin and that marriage is a God-ordained institution given to unite the sexes.  So I followed their logic with the simple observation that Christians who do take such a stand will therefore have to be punished by a society that thinks the way they do, and here's the sort of answer that got:
One way or another if we want to stand for our Biblical beliefs we'll have to take some kind of punishment.
Is it really a "Biblical belief" that you can't sell cakes to gay people for their event?

Is this in the Bible or are you concluding this based off of an already existing dislike of gays?
(And then read this poster's following post too, where he ratchets up his accusation to quite the hysterical accusatory pitch. You feel the hate? Kind of like what the Nazis did to set up the Jews it seems to me, with their lying plays on emotion.)

See how they think? See how Christians are being set up to be persecuted in the last days? Unbelievers who don't know any better can't help but misconstrue what's going on and Christians are going to be the ultimate targets. Perhaps other groups too who refuse to give in on this, but certainly Christians first and foremost.

So let's answer this charge. There's no point in answering it there because they refuse to believe me about most of what I have to say, which is evidenced by this question whether the objection to gay marriage is REALLY based on the Bible: aren't I just lying REALLY because isn't it just my own dislike of gays? That's how they think. I can't take that sort of treatment any more, really can't. But I'll give it an answer here:

I'm as fallen as anybody else in my unregenerate state, I'd probably be just as likely to defend "gay rights" as they are if I hadn't been born again and didn't know what the Bible says.

And to answer the first question: Yes, the whole point here is that Christians don't want to do anything that treats sin as acceptable, which would be denying God and His law. Yes, making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, or taking official photographs of such an event, would be felt as such a denial of God. Yes. And as I already said there, there is no objection to their buying a cake out of the display case and using it however they want, but hiring the baker to make a cake specifically for such an event would be to engage the baker's conscience against his Biblical beliefs.

That thread at EvC brought up all kinds of anti-Christian opinions. But here's one in particular I'd like to answer, where the poster is saying we Christians are just going to have to adjust to changing societal norms:
Just like Christians of the past had to adjust to societal acceptance of interracial marriage, ending slavery, women voting ...
My answer to that there was that this is bad history, that none of these things violate Biblical standards, and that any Christians who held such views were in the wrong, AND that it was Christians who led the charge for those rights in those cases.

None of those things violate Christian standards, but the Gay Agenda does. And as I've said before, it is clear this particular issue is being set up to be the watershed issue that leads to the persecution of Christians. I don't know how far it will go but I do believe we are in the last days of the last days and I suspect it's going to be THE issue that cuts us out of society.

And how could I fail to take note of the fact, as I've reported earlier here, that the Pope, the head of the Antichrist system, seems to be gearing up to support this gay agenda that may be the excuse for such persecution of his old enemies, us Bible-literalist Protestants.  The Office of the Inquisition is still very much in force and just waiting for the opportunity to go into action.  Watch and see. Ten years? Twenty? Tomorrow? I think a lot sooner than we can imagine, unless God wakes up His people.

Last point: Those "Christians" -- and I put it in quotes because I'm not entirely sure they ARE Christians, but if they are they need to listen up -- those who side against us "fundamentalists" (meaning "literalist" Bible believers) on such an issue as the sinfulness of homosexuality and the God-ordained institution of marriage, along with the other issues so challenged at EvC such as the clear reading of the first chapters of Genesis as incompatible with evolution (no death before the Fall) or an ancient Earth (count the years of the genealogies from Adam to the Flood) need to realize that Christians are called to die for our beliefs when punch comes to crunch. Wake up.  Better to lose your head than your immortal soul. 

Monday, March 31, 2014

Popespeak: jesuitical papal gobbledygook: Gay rights on the agenda?

So it looks like "gay rights" -- the normalizing of homosexuality and the legalizing of gay marriage -- is shaping up to be a pivotal issue drawing around it many of the major end times players.

This issue is even involved in the Ukrainian conflict, as one of Putin's objections to the Ukrainian push to become part of the EU is the EU's promotion of the gay agenda. This of course doesn't make Putin right, but it underscores the prominent influence of this political agenda.

World Vision had a new policy on gays  (That page shows what a hot topic it is too) , until some Christian leaders put pressure on them and they backed down.  Won't be any surprise if after some time elapses we find them reinstating the policy. 

And now we have this masterpiece of doubletalking Popespeak in a Newsmax Story [Later: Wondering why the Pope got such prominent treatment at Newmax, I looked up the publisher, and no surprise: he's a Catholic.]:
 Pope: Church Should Tolerate Some Civil Unions
The Catholic Church could tolerate some types of civil unions as a way of protecting healthcare and property rights, Pope Francis said.

"Matrimony is between a man and a woman," the pontiff told the Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera in an interview published Wednesday and translated by the Catholic News Service.

But moves to "regulate diverse situations of cohabitation [are] driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care … It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety."
Nearly incomprehensible Jesuitical gobbledygook here, suggesting that perhaps some important RC doctrinal change is in the works which is being tested before launching?

Am I getting it that the Pope thinks the RC Church should tolerate homosexual sin under some circumstances?  That's what "tolerating some types of civil unions" implies, isn't it?   The focus here is all on the "civil union" in comparison with "matrimony" but what happened to the Biblical condemnation of homosexual acts as sin?  Even the traditional RCC condemnation of homosexual acts as sin for that matter.  That's not discussed at all.  Just "diverse situations of cohabitation" whatever on earth that is supposed to refer to.  And "the need to regulate economic aspects among persons..."   All this pompous awkward language is obviously designed to HIDE the fact that the only context in which we ever discuss "civil unions" is the political push for gay marriage as a right.  What "diverse cases" are there to consider?  They're ALL about homosexual relationships.
...Francis also defended the church's response to the clerical sex abuse scandals.

He said the crimes had left "very profound wounds," but noted that beginning with Pope Benedict, the church has done "perhaps more than anyone" to tackle the problem.

"Statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also clearly show the great majority of abuses occur in family and neighborhood settings," Francis said.

"The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No one else has done more. And yet the church is the only one attacked."
How many read such stuff and can't see through it?  It's scary to think anyone could.  Does "violence against children" convey the actuality of sexual molestation of children by RC priests?  And he lies when he implies that Pope Benedict did anything but cover up the offenses, which many suspect is the reason he retired from the papal office.  And if all that isn't enough lying, then he claims that statistics "show the great majority of abuses occur in family and neighborhood settings."  Oh really?  Well, maybe, if you mean the parish priest is the guilty party, the parish priest who visits the families.  "The only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility?"  Well, since no other public institution is guilty of molesting children that I know of, no other public institution has any reason to act transparently as the guilty institution ought, and the RCC has been shown over and over again to have covered up the crimes of their priests.

KEEP IN MIND:  It is the RC Church that has COMMITTED the crimes against children, sexual molestations of both boys and girls.  And over and over it has been reported that priests guilty of these crimes have simply been moved to new parishes where their crimes are not known. 

The RCC is guilty of covering up their OWN crimes.  Transparency and responsibility?  "No one has done more?"  But who SHOULD do more?
Francis also brushed off those who believe he is a superhuman being. "To portray the Pope as a kind of superman, a type of star, strikes me as offensive. The Pope is a man who laughs, weeps, sleeps soundly, and has friends like everybody else. A normal person," he said.
Um, Francis, you really need to read up on the official RCC doctrine of the papacy. You are "God on earth" and rightful ruler of the whole world. Oh I know you know that, you just don't want to let anybody else know it yet.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

A movie that destroys the meaning of the Biblical Noah

UPDATE April 3: There are things about the movie I'd like to see, as shown in the trailers, mostly the special effects. It looks like they may have done a good job with the design of the ark for instance, and the rain and things like that. But those things are incidental and overall I really do have to conclude that it's such an anti-Biblical anti-God project that I shouldn't support it by paying to see it. Even when I heard Olasky and Cal Thomas favoring it I felt their discernment is faulty, but there are others in favor as well so it seems right to give them a hearing -- if I had the motivation which right now I don't, I'm preoccupied elsewhere. For now I go with the critics.

Here's a page from Eric Barger's ministry. Here's one of the main ones that Barger and others have recommended on the subject: Pastor Joe Schimmel

UPDATE April 2: Maybe I should try to see this film. There are strong Christian opinions both for and against it. Cal Thomas and Marvin Olasky have positive things to say about it for instance.  Maybe I'll be able to say more later.   

========Earlier post:

I can't really blog on the movie "Noah" because I haven't seen it and don't expect to, but from everything I've heard it's a horrible travesty that Christians shouldn't support by paying to see it, and I should at least pass on that information. 

Apparently its main message is that God wiped out humanity because we were abusing the environment, making it basically the Green Agenda projected onto the Biblical story.  Animals are good, human beings are bad.  "Noah" thinks God really wanted to save only the animals, and wants ALL people dead including himself and his family.  So after they are in the ark it sounds like he becomes a version of the father in The Shining, terrorizing the family as he thinks he's supposed to kill them, or at least the grandchild his daughter-in-law is soon to deliver.  He can't go through with it in the end, but the impression that gives is that God is evil and "Noah" at least has a spark of humanity left in him. 

So there isn't even a pretense of telling the actual Biblical story, in which Noah is a foreshadowing of Christ, chosen by God because of his faith, to save a few out of a desperately sinful humanity.

What's really distressing is to think some Christian ministries have recommended this mangling of the Biblical message.  According to some reviewers it doesn't even have the mitigating factors of being well done with a good script and exciting story, as characterized Braveheart and Gladiator,  movies the advertisements falsely compare it with.

It's no surprise that the Pope gave it his blessing of course, since he's not interested in Biblical truth.

Chris Pinto did a lengthy radio show review of it HERE

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Gay agenda watershed. So maybe this is the start of the shaking

How absolutely astonishing that it's now considered by many to be a violation of civil rights to object to the legalization of something that was never before in history legalized in any culture, that it's regarded as an act of "hatred" against a "class of society" that was never before regarded as a class of society, to object to gay marriage.  That it's an act of hatred to be concerned about their eternal destiny if they don't know that homosexuality is a sin.

That's the way the world has gone.  We knew Christians would be marginalized and hated in the end, but who knew it would be around such an issue as this?  We were killed for denying transubstantiation during some long period of history, now we're being set up to be killed for denying that homosexuality is normal and that marriage is their natural right?  The world has gone mad but we've seen it coming for a long time.  It's hard to imagine it could get much crazier, or at least I don't want to think it.

Come soon, Lord. 

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Are There Any American Ian Paisleys in Congress Willing to Shout Down the Pope?

UPDATE: A friend emailed me the question, "What about the separation of church and state?" Good question. Since that principle got the revisionist treatment in the last few decades, we can no longer have prayer in the schools, we can no longer have Christian Christmas displays in public places, we can no longer have the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse, but let me guess: Nobody is going to protest the presence of the abomination of the Pope in the Congress.

==============================================Earlier post:

The answer to my title is "Not that I know of."

Here's the context: Catholic members of the US Congress, Republican John Boehner and Democrat Nancy Pelosi, have invited Pope Francis to speak to a Joint Session of the Congress. I heard about this as I often do from Chris Pinto, who spent a few minutes on it toward the end of yesterday's radio show on The Crimean Vote for Russia. He mentions the invitation to the Pope starting at 29:00. Since this new Pope is a radical even by comparison with earlier Popes, Pinto wonders why the supposedly conservative Boehner should be so willing to have him speak. Being Catholic apparently trumps other allegiances.

This would be a first, a hideously shameful first. No Pope has ever been invited to speak to Congress before.

Here are a couple of articles on the invitation to the Pope:

Huffington Post

ABC News Blog

What immediately came to my mind was the incident in 1988 when Irish Protestant Pastor Ian Paisley, a member of the European Parliament, angry at the invitation of the Pope to speak to the Parliament without the consent of members such as himself, shouted out that the Pope is the Antichrist just as the pontiff began to speak.

Here's an article on the event from the New York Times .

Paisley was one of a kind then and I suspect he has no representatives in America today.  I'd like to be proved wrong about this.

What good would it do?  You may ask.  Just as Dr. Paisley was summarily escorted out of the European Parliament, anyone today attempting such a statement would meet with a similar response.  We've got a Congress full of Catholics, and the few Protestants haven't the perspective to know that the Pope is the Antichrist.  Forget the unbelievers of the nation.  Too many have been brainwashed to think the Pope represents Christianity and that to object to him is to be "unloving," just as to object to gay marriage is now considered to be "unloving." And besides, they LIKE his radical antiChristian anticapitalist stance. 

So, again, what good would it do?  Maybe nothing pf any note in this fallen world, but God will reward those who stand up for the truth against the Antichrist, and it might even wake up some blinded "Protestants" and bring some backbone into the churches. 


Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Pulling Down the False God of Catholicism to Save America

Chris Pinto's latest program Tearing Down the Idols is about how to get America out of the devil's clutches, what the Church needs to do, and the message is of course "repent" and that means starting with the Church, as "Judgment begins at the House of God."

 But what does the Church need to repent of? Where are we to start?  He boils it down to the jmessage "Pull down the idols." This is what Gideon did, and the good Kings of Israel. It's where Reformation has to begin.  And God blessed those who threw out the idols and restored the true worship of the true God. 

 So what idols need pulling down?  I wondered where he would go with that, and he went straight to the ecumenical movement, the acceptance of the false god of Catholicism in the Churches.  THAT's what needs to be pulled down first.  Yes! 

I would argue for reinstating the woman's head covering too of course, that would be tearing down the idol of feminism;  and at least praying about throwing out all of the Bibles that have anything from the Westcott and Hort revision in them. Getting any belief in evolution out of the Church is another biggie; at least churches need to be praying against it. And the false theology of the Charismatic Movement the Strange Fire Conference exposed.

But if we start with throwing out the wolf in sheep's clothing known as Roman Catholicism we'd be on the right track for sure. 

Chris has had a lot of good shows lately and I've been remiss in not giving them the notice they deserve.  Go sign up for his Resource Room.   It's worth it.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Obama declares himself Pope of the US and the End Times keep rollin along

The Pope's peace doves were summarily routed in front of a great crowd of witnesses, most of whom probably just rationalized it away, but I can always hope some were jolted awake by it.

Now we have Obama as good as declaring himself Pope of the United States so that he can take to himself the power to enact his own will no matter what the people want or the Congress wants.  This was a Yahoo headline yesterday:   Obama Vows to Flex Presidential Powers.   Except of course they aren't Presidential powers, they're usurped powers.   I guess we can hope there will be some against him who have enough spine to interfere with his power grab, but can we hope much?

Fox News as it often does has the best insight into all this although I hate to agree with such a Catholic organization as Fox News. And today they are quoting a Law Professor at Jesuit Georgetown University, and I tremble to have to agree with him, but he makes a good case against Obama's usurpation of power. Jesuits play all sides of every issue, however, but sometimes there are good Jesuits who just need to have their eyes opened. I hope that for him and for the Catholics at Fox News.
Has President Obama OVERSTEPPED his Constitutional authority?  

Conclusion The President has a personal obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”44 The word “faithfully” is, perhaps, a broad grant of discretion, but it is also a real and important constraint. The President cannot suspend laws altogether. He cannot favor unenacted bills over duly enacted laws. And he cannot discriminate on the basis of politics in his execution of the laws. The President has crossed all three of these lines.
The paragraph is unfortunately a tad Jesuitical in saying that the word "faithfully" grants any discretion whatever rather than underscoring the obvious meaning that he's bound to conscientious effort to execute the law. Only to be expected I suppose. Depressing though in an otherwise good analysis.

Then I found it interesting to read that Rolling Stone approves of this Pope: Pope Francis on Rolling Stone cover which ought to go a long way to taming him for atheists and gays and all others who hate Christianity. Which I'm sure is the whole aim of his service as Antichrist and surrogate of the ancient Roman pagan pontiff (that WAS the title of the pagan high priest of Rome, it's certainly not a Christian title).