We Need to Repent FROM the National Day of Prayer: It Can Only Bring More of God's Judgment Down on the Nation

May 1st this year is the National Day of Prayer. I used to be all in favor of this event, even went to a few of the public gatherings.  Sounds like a good idea, but I've become sadly aware that organized prayer on behalf of this nation is usually ecumenical and that isn't going to do the nation any good at all

George Bush's prayer meeting in the National Cathedral to pray for the nation after 9/11 brought together Christians and Catholics and Muslims and Jews, NOT a formula for success at getting the ear of God.  Anybody want to know why the prayers have done us no good, there's your answer.  People pray their hearts out for the nation and things get worse.  Some good ministries and good solid Christians form these groups or join these groups and don't seem to notice that even their best efforts are going unrewarded.  There were a couple of prayer meetings on the day of Obama's inauguration to his second term.  Things gotten any better?  Why aren't we paying attention to this simple cause and effect?  If we appeal to God surely things SHOULD get better. But we have to do it right. We can't pray with antiChristians and be doing it right.

Well, sure enough, the National Day of Prayer is also ecumenical, calling "people of all faiths" to pray together for the nation:

The National Day of Prayer is an annual observance held on the first Thursday of May, inviting people of all faiths to pray for the nation. It was created in 1952 by a joint resolution of the United States Congress, and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. Our Task Force is a privately funded organization whose purpose is to encourage participation on the National Day of Prayer. It exists to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, to create appropriate materials, and to mobilize the Christian community to intercede for America’s leaders and its families. The Task Force represents a Judeo Christian expression of the national observance, based on our understanding that this country was birthed in prayer and in reverence for the God of the Bible.

It talks about the "Christian community" and mentions "reverence for the God of the Bible" but that would include Catholics and even Muslims and Jews depending on how the phrase is understood, because the Jews are of course the people of the Old Testament, and the Muslims revere the Bible along with the Koran.  It would also include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, cults that consider themselves to follow the Bible.

Also, we are NOT, or were not originally, a "Judeo-Christian" nation.  If we are, GOD WILL NOT BLESS US!

It also mentions "personal repentance."  Sounds good, sort of, if you don't think too much about it.  What we need is God's true people not only repenting personally but repenting on behalf of the nation, and the best place to start is by repenting of the abomination of ecumenical prayer!

How does any Christian think that God would honor prayer by people who deny the essentials of the Christian revelation?  This is like calling for prayer to Molech or Dagon along with God, but God clearly denounced all the deviations by His Old Testament people into worshiping both God and the false gods of the nations around.  Simply worshiping God without following His instructions is condemned. Yet I've never heard any pastor even mention this offense concerning the National Day of Prayer.

Although certainly the nation could be said to have begun with the original Pilgrims and Puritans who were definitely Christians, and there were many true Christians among the founding generation as well, and at that time and for some time to come the citizens of the nation were at least culturally steeped in the Christian faith, this disaster may actually go back to five of the main Founders who were NOT Christians:  Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine.  I'd recommend Chris Pinto's film "Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers" if you want to see the evidence.

There's plenty of history we could delve into, and the inauguration of this day in 1952 may have been ecumenical from the beginning, and may even have had a worse effect on the nation than the ceasing of prayer in the schools some ten years later, in fact it may have been why that happened. 

But all we really need to know is that God will not hear the prayers of those who deny Him or do not worship Him according to His revelation.  That's enough to tell us that participating in this event can't possibly benefit the nation and may actually hasten its destruction.

YOU WANT TO SAVE THIS NATION? START BY THROWING OUT THE IDOLS! STOP CONSIDERING CATHOLICISM TO BE CHRISTIAN, THAT'S THE BIGGEST MISTAKE WE MAKE.

START BY REPENTING FOR THE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER AND OTHER ECUMENICAL SLAPS IN THE FACE OF GOD.

UnChristian "Christian" movies

Lots of movies out recently that are supposedly "Christian" in orientation. Yahoo has a story on this Faith-Based Wave that comprises four recent productions. 

They made a movie out of "Heaven Is For Real" about the boy who supposedly went to heaven during a near-death experience, which has been the subject of many of my own posts here and an amazing number of reader comments on those posts.  Apparently it did well at the box office, which isn't really a surprise since the book has been popular and the majority of the comments I've been getting strenuously object to my criticism that it's unbiblical.    From the trailer at that link I get the impression that the movie is well done, with good acting, and true to the book. 

Then of course there's "Noah" which managed to pervert the Biblical story into a sci-fi horror flick that makes God and Noah into monsters, though Noah gets humanized in the end. 

Then there is "Son of God," which is based on the TV series "The Bible" produced by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, of which I saw bits and pieces and gave up in disgust because it too rewrote the Bible, subtly reversing the Biblical meanings in some cases, removing the homosexual element from the story of Lot.

The only production out as part of this wave that apparently doesn't violate Biblical truth is "God's Not Dead," and I know many Christians have been enjoying it.  I don't get to movies so it will be a while before I see it if I do, but my impression is that it attempts to make a case for God that isn't primarily Bible-based, but one of those typical arguments about how a good God wouldn't let people suffer.  It doesn't seem to be appealing much to unbelievers anyway.

The culture just celebrated the usual paganized Easter, all of a piece with three of these movies celebrating a paganized "Christianity."

All in all what does this wave of "faith-based" films amount to?  Not much for true Christianity I'd say, more for the antichrists and Bible debunkers unfortunately.  It's a religious but not Christian wave that will no doubt fit in well with the apostate World Religion that is forming behind the scenes, which may emerge in the near future headed by the forces of the final Antichrist.

Happy Resurrection Day!

This is the day we celebrate the central event of Christianity, the day the Lord Jesus rose from the grave having defeated death and the devil, and forged a way for us to follow.

  I don't think there should be a huge problem if you want to call it Easter, if the main celebration [I think I meant by this phrase the most visible cultural expression] uses some paganisms like eggs and bunnies to symbolize new life, at least the whole world knows SOMETHING happened on this day even if they have no clue what. Hardly anybody has even heard of the pagan holiday anyway, they know not what the whole thing is about, either pagan or Christian. Now and then, however, some will learn -- and believe -- that this is the day that the Lord of Glory won eternal life for those who believe in Him, victory over death, by paying with His own death for our sins against God. O happy day!

Thanks to happening to hear part of a sermon on the radio yesterday by Peter Masters, the current preacher at Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, I feel especially fond of the Body of Christ today. The part I heard was about how there are so few genuine believers left in the UK, how the Anglican Church is apostate, and the Methodist and others, and yet there is always a remnant of true believers even in those congregations. They shouldn't be there under false teaching, but some are, and there are others elsewhere, but such a small number. That's certainly the case in the US as well. Somehow his emphasizing our small number made me love us more.

I salute you, Holy Remnant of God, brothers and sisters in Christ, and every day I'm more and more eager for us to be together with Him.

  Come Soon, Lord Jesus!

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. 

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.

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

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.