RSS

Category Archives: politics

In The News 23

Just an overview of different news stories

#1. http://www.christianpost.com/news/massacre-in-las-vegas-our-father-is-grieving-with-us-201305/

One last word: When the shooting occurred, Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman tweeted, “Pray for Las Vegas.” Please do so, right now.

Yes when tragedy takes place then they want God. But when times re good they have no time for him and even deny he exists. There is sense to this event and the Bible tells us that we struggle not against flesh and blood but  with principalities etc., from the spiritual world. Let’s keep things in perspective as you pray for Las Vegas. Suffering and evil are going to continue until God calls time but before he does that, he still wants more people saved. Conduct the battle for souls under the right context and remember that our fellow humans are ot the real enemy.

#2. http://www.christianpost.com/news/4-christian-reactions-to-hugh-hefners-death-the-mansion-is-a-myth-200906/

Here are the thoughts of some of the leading Christian leaders and writers about Hefner’s life and what he left behind.

It would have been nice if they completed the article and included those 4 thoughts. Hefner was nothing but a dirty old man. He was not a hero just a person who led many to sin and destruction.

#3. http://www.christianpost.com/news/returning-to-pastor-led-prayer-in-public-worship-services-200910/

Prayer led by the pastor of the church used to be a normal part of worship services. What was deemed in the past as a part of public worship, has now been minimized, eliminated, or delegated. This is not acceptable or good for the church.

We agree with his thinking. Pastors need to return to being the spiritual leader of the church and not be seen as some business executive who knows how to delegate. True pastoral leadership goes a long ways in keeping a church spiritually healthy.

#4. http://www.christianpost.com/news/tennessee-church-shooter-motivated-by-revenge-for-dylann-roofs-massacre-at-black-church-201332/

Emanuel Kidega Samson, 25, the ex-member of Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch, Tennessee, who shot eight people including one fatally at his old church, was motivated by revenge for the nine churchgoers who were killed by Dylann Roof in 2015.

How is it revenge when you attack innocent people who had no connection to Roof?

#5. http://www.christianpost.com/news/tearful-hope-carpenter-begs-for-forgiveness-from-multiracial-megachurch-says-shes-ignorant-about-discrimination-201325/

A tearful Hope Carpenter, who co-founded the 21,000-member Redemption Church in Greenville, South Carolina, with her husband Ron Carpenter Jr., apologized to their multiracial congregation Sunday for slamming NFL players protesting social injustice during the national anthem as wrong.

In these days it doesn’t matter what you say, someone will always be offended or upset. If you followed scripture when you framed your remarks then don’t apologize unless you are truly in error. Everyone is allowed an opinion even when it disagrees with black people. Speak the truth in love and always stick to the truth. Those who are offended may need to learn a lesson themselves.

#6. http://www.christianpost.com/news/chinese-scientists-create-human-life-for-dna-experiments-christian-bioethicist-disturbed-201026/

A Christian bioethics lecturer has spoken out against new DNA surgery carried out by Chinese scientists who are reportedly creating lab-grown human embryos in order to test disease-removing techniques.

“What concerns me and actually quite a number of bio-ethicists and those who are looking and researching in this field is that what we here have is scientists who are deliberately creating human life, deliberately creating embryos. These are not embryos that have been left over as spares from fertility treatments from IVF,” Dr. Trevor Stammers, Bioethics lecturer at St. Mary’s University in Twickenham, told Premier.

“They’ve been specifically created to be experimented upon and then destroyed, which is why there are no children who were cured that the Chinese are bringing out. It’s just a proof of principle and it’s been gained in a way that many people would regard as being unethical.”

Are those embryos actual human life? That is the question that must be answered first.

Advertisements
 

Telling The Truth With Love

Of course it is very difficult to communicate love through binary communication so be careful not to read in your own ideas to these words. This post will address the following article: Nashville Statement Is Biblical But Lacks Pastoral Wisdom, Further Alienates LGBT Persons: Scholars found at http://www.christianpost.com/news/nashville-statement-is-biblical-but-lacks-pastoral-wisdom-further-alienates-lgbt-persons-scholars-198029/

The response to the Nashville Statement continues with some scholars now saying it damages the church’s already negative reputation with homosexuals, and lacks pastoral wisdom even though they agree with the document theologically.

There is a problem with that quoted statement. Not the Nashville one which we are not really going to address here but the one that says it damages the church’s already negative reputation with homosexuals. If one sticks with the spiritual truth then reputation is not their chief concern. Telling the spiritual truth in love means that someone is going to be offended,upset or view the church negatively.  Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword and the church must remember that the truth is not going to unite everyone.  Someone will always decide not to accept the truth and then make derogatory comments about the truth teller. This is a given.

Believers also need to be aware that maintaining their reputation does not mean that they alter the truth just to get someone to like them, the church or sit in an empty pew seat. We cannot alter the truth just because some people will not accept it and want to continue to practice their sinful ways. The church cannot support such decisions nor say the truth is wrong in light of the supposed evidence. Just because supposed homosexual activity takes place in the animal kingdom does it mean that homosexuality is natural. All it means is that the corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin affects the animal world just like it does the human.

“I do believe that [the signers have] gone about this all wrong and it will tarnish the church’s already tarnished reputation with LGBT+ people,” Sprinkle wrote, saying that the statement came across as “one-sided” and that it “fails to own up to the many—MANY—mistakes that theologically orthodox believers have made in this conversation.”

Don’t care. The LGBTQ community already has a dim view of the church because they are reminded every day that their chosen preference is sinful and wrong. They are trying to bully the church in order to escape that reality. There is no reason to help them in that quest. Disobeying God in order to have sinners think well of you is not an intelligent thing to do.

[T]here are many original signers of the NS that have taken a very hard line against ever adopting the term ‘gay Christian’—even if the person believes in a traditional view of marriage,” Sprinkle said.

You have to be hard lined because there is no such thing as a ‘gay christian’. That label is a lie and contradicts scriptural truths talking about how the old man is changed into a new man. That label is telling the world that the people who use that label identify with their old self and not the redeemed person Christ turned them into. If the people who want to hod on to their old identity then it is they who have the spiritual problem and not those who disagree with them.

Documents like the Nashville Statement, which by their nature demand adherence, unnecessarily exclude these faithful Christians, he went on to say. He has spent many hours reading on sexuality-related topics and speaking with friends who identify as all sorts of things and concluded that “this specific conversation is ten times more complicated than most people realize

If they are faithful Christians then they need to adhere to the spiritual truths the Bible teaches. This conversation is not complicated; all it takes is discernment to make sure that we identify those who are only spiritually immature who hold such thoughts and properly correct their thinking. We teach them the truth and in this issue, homosexuals do not have to marry an opposite gender person to be a new person in Christ .They just cannot return to their old lifestyles.

“While we absolutely need to celebrate and promote Christianity’s historic view of marriage and sexual expression,” Sprinkle reiterated, he emphaized that “we need to do so much more thoughtfully and much more holistically—pounding the pulpit for truth and grace

When people say this you know that they do not celebrate or promote traditional Christian views on marriage, etc. If he wants truth then he needs to abide by God’s word and not seek exceptions or alterations.

“This statement reminds me of a married couple that constantly has arguments,” McKnight wrote on his Patheos blog Tuesday, noting that as a conservative evangelical pastor he had “no qualms with the individual tenets” of the statement but, like Sprinkle, objected to some of the language used in it. And, he continued, the Nashville Statement was crafted mostly by academics and scholars who are mostly sealed off from people who do not think like them and that the document ultimately impedes the Great Commission.

This is a sad trend. People place the Great Commission above learning and obeying the rest of God’s word. The Great Commission is not the only command or instruction God gave and it is not superior to any other command or instruction God gave. It is on the same level.  Yet people continue to place it above every other word God spoke in the Bible. You CANNOT evangelize if you are not truly obeying God’s word. If you alter God’s word and try to convert a non-believer then you are not converting them to Jesus but your own version of who you want him to be.

The people who do this will make many excuses to justify why they elevate the Great Commission over every other teaching and ignore the truths of what God said throughout the rest of the Bible. They also focus on relationships but how can you have a relationship with someone if you are always changing the words that they say?

We have not read the Nashville statement and it may have some problems but those problems do not justify making more problems by ignoring the truth of what God has said.

 

Doing What is Right

The other day we were able to view the following short film

Symbol: Should We Still Fear the Swastika? Films On Demand. Films Media Group, 2010. Web. 22 Dec. 2014. <http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=44870>.

and it depicted the conflict over the swastika symbol embedded in a Roman Catholic Church in St. Cloud Minn.  The we read the following story

62 Nebraska Pastors Sign Anti-Racism Statement Calling White Supremacy ‘Blatantly Sinful’

http://www.christianpost.com/news/62-nebraska-pastors-sign-anti-racism-statement-calling-white-supremacy-blatantly-sinful-196277/

And while white supremacy (or any supremacy) is wrong believers need to be careful in these types of actions. For the symbol issue, the swastika has enjoyed thousands of years of peaceful meanings applied to it yet far to many people get caught up in the 20th century application applied to it by the Nazis. In that video, the Rabbi and a few others claim that the swastika was forever corrupted by the Nazi use of that symbol and that it can never stand for anything good. But the problem with that view is that those people are letting their own personal views distort their perception of the swastika, it isn’t the symbol that is influencing them in any way. Despite all the education concerning the swastika’s history and use they will not get down off their pedestal and accept the fact that the swastika is not restricted to only the 20th century and the Nazis.

Having lived in a country where the swastika is prevalent and on almost every corner due to the Korean Buddhist use of the symbol, we take a more relaxed view of the symbol because the 20th century meaning never made it to Korea shores. The Nazis did not make it that far east. We are well aware of what Hitler and the other Nazis did but their actions do not make the symbol guilty nor the use of it evil or representing hate. If the swastika represents anything in the 21st century. other than the applied meanings from the Hindu, Buddhist and Navajo worlds, then it is a reminder of the depravity of humanity without Christ and how low men and women will go when letting evil lead them to sin.

The swastika did not tell Hitler and the other Nazis to use it for their despicable agenda. It is an innocent victim in that portion of 20th century history not an active participant. It should no more be considered evil than the buildings that were used to torture so many prisoners.Evil is not done by symbols or structures, that activity is the sole domain of humans and the devil. Symbols are the innocent bystanders used to further an evil agenda that brings destruction on other human beings.

AS for the latter article on the statement signed by 52 pastors, their statement is fair at best and does not go far enough in promoting Christianity but is far too broad in nature. That broadness allows for other sinful actions to take place in the  name of God or goodness or equality and so on. Yes Neo-Nazism is not a biblical teaching and should not be adopted nor supported by believers in Christ but so is Black Lives Matter as that ideology promotes the superiority of one group of people over other people of color (white included).  Such statements in their naive thinking sound good but in reality are far from the biblical message that Jesus brought.

As a group, we hope that racial inequality along with other sins would be eliminated by our churches working together,” said Martin.

AS an example, if one is going to teach that supremacy is wrong then they must teach that the idea of race is wrong as well for the Bible does not teach that there are 4 different human races. It only teaches that there is 1. If pastors and believers are going to talk about what is right and wrong then they need t make sure their complete message is correct or they are just wasting everybody’s time with their public rhetoric. They sound like they are just being political and trying to look good to those around them in hopes of getting more seats filled in their churches.

The only side pastors, church leaders and believers are to take is Christ’s side and making statements like those 52 pastors is not taking his side at all but the politically correct side which is also not included in biblical teaching. You cannot represent Christ when you do not represent his side and his views but distort his perspective by compromising it with secular teaching or looking political.

What point this all brings us to is that it is wrong to remove old signs or symbols, just because a few people distort the value and meaning of a particular symbol. Yes the stars and bars are included in this as they are not a symbol of hatred or slavery but a reminder of what humans do to others when they do not correctly follow Christ (so many modern believers also do not follow Christ correctly).. Part of the problem in these type of issues is that believers are not properly biblically educated to be involved in these issues let alone comment upon them. Christians are to lead others to Christ’s ways not to a mixture of Christ and the secular world.

This means that tearing down old symbols or statues is not a Christian thing to do or to support. The Christian thing to do is bring the truth to the issue and show how people need to think instead of trying to agree with them and let them have their sinful way. Slavery was a human choice not a symbols decree. Adding sin to sin is not doing what is right and tearing out old symbols, placing upon them your own subjective perspectives is adding sin to sin. it is not promoting Christ or his love but just changing who is getting the love and who is getting the hatred.

Christians need to think first then act by following the Holy Spirit to the truth so that they then can lead others to the truth and this is the actual truth not someone’s personal belief that it is truth. Christ’s view is often different from the world’s and his human followers’ ideas.

 

Controversial Issues 3

#2. http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-gay-christian-celibacy

You really have to wonder why someone who claims to be a Christian who has the word of God and knows what God says about certain topics, would seek to ignore God’s warnings and  alter his words all because they want to see unrepentant people be included in the church and the Christian faith. They are not doing the homosexual any favors by doing this and why they would want to bring sin into heaven is not logical.

Ms. Evans is one of these people. It boggles the mind that such fallible humans would attempt to go against the mighty God in this manner? Since I cannot participate in her ‘discussion’ she will have to visit this website to read my side of the issue.

#1. So, both Matthew and I are affirming, in the sense that we do no consider monogamous same-sex relationships to be inherently sinful

Her confession to supporting sin and calling it good.  God disagrees with her and Vines and it is God’s opinion that counts here. This is just an end run around scripture, trying to make a loop-hole where none exists.

#2. The predominant view among non-affirming Christians regarding gay and lesbian Christians is that if they wish to remain faithful to Scripture, they must pursue celibacy

This idea is probably a product of misunderstanding the work of Christ and the teaching on becoming a new creation. The option to marry an opposite sex mate is still there, as I said in point #1. above. They should not be forced to be celibate nor should they be forced to marry someone from the other gender.

BUT they cannot go back to their old lifestyle as clearly taught by Peter. There is no permission from God for believers to practice same-sex relationships.

#3. Non-affirming Christians generally argue that the creation of Adam and Eve reveals the limits of God’s blessing for sexual relationships: one man and one woman. As an opposite sex couple, Adam and Eve were best suited to fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.”

So in Evans’ and Vines’ mind it is okay to be homosexual now  because there are enough people on the earth to keep the world full. The logic illustrated above is just dumb and makes no sense for no other book or passage later in the Bible provides instruction or permission for same-sex relationships.

There is no foundation for Evans or Vines to build their opinion upon. If they were correct, then God would have made that very clear in Leviticus and he would have given out instructions on how same-sex couples are to carry out their relationships just as he had heterosexual couples.

Every relationship passage concerns itself with heterosexual couples only. Not one word for the homosexual couple to guide their lives by.

#4. Celibacy is a gift, Matthew argues, and those who do not have the gift should feel free to marry.

The bad logic continues. It is amazing how much gymnastics Vines does to twist the word of God in order to support his decision to disobey God and pursue  a same-sex relationship. Just because you are not given the gift of celibacy doesn’t mean you have permission to ignore the passages of scripture barring same-sex marriage.

Vines is very desperate here as he looks for any fragment or silence that would open the door to his sinful desires, even it is just a crack. The rules of God still apply even if you are not given the gift of celibacy. Those rules do not change–homosexuality is an abomination to God and those practitioners are not welcome in heaven.

#5. It is better,” Paul writes, “to marry than to burn with passion.”

Their appeal to Paul is as illogical and naive as their appeal to Jesus was. They are taking a generic word forgetting Paul’s context for the word and applying their own ideas to his words.

Paul is not granting permission for same-sex couples to marry if they can’t be celibate with those words. His context has been and always will be God’s definition of marriage–between a man and a woman. There is no room in Paul’s words to shoehorn in same-sex ideologies.

#6. Matthew works in some solid research here, which suggests the tradition teaching on celibacy, for most of Christian history, is that it was a calling, not a mandate.

Appealing to church history is even more desperate as those men were not talking about same-sex unions but heterosexual ones. Also, even if they were including same-sex unions, that doesn’t mean that God changed his mind about homosexuality. The people in church history are fallible and make mistakes about God’s word just like modern people do.

They do not have greater access to God or his intent than anyone else and they do not have the authority to change what God has declared as sin and an abomination. The people in church history are not writing new scriptures. Their words are not inspired like the words of the Bible. We need to be careful about how we use their words, checking with the Holy Spirit to see if they are in line with what God has taught in the Bible.

#7. Matthew makes the case that— though broken and imperfect—“creation is good. The body is good. Sexuality, as a core part of the body, is also good.” Therefore, any doctrine that teaches Christians to detest their sexual desires is unorthodox, contrary to the most central teachings of the Church.*

If you want a good example of how a deceived mind works when it comes to scriptural issues, the above quote is it. Sexual desire is good only if the people abide by God’s rules. Adultery is not good because it violates God’s rules on how people are to have sex.

Homosexual desires and practice are not good because they violate God’s rules. The criteria for what is right and wrong do not include the idea that this is good, that is good thus everything is good.

We could go to the absurd and use his logic in this manner–man is good, woman is good thus rape is good. It is not what is good that makes something right or wrong. The rules determine right and wrong.

His conclusion is also off the wall and the mark.  He is saying that all sexual desires are good thus they all should be practiced. But I do not hear him make a case for polygamy, bestiality, incest and so on. He only wants HIS sexual desire to be included in Christianity and what is good.

He does not understand the word perversion at all or if he does he does not want that word applied to HIS sexual desire. The doctrine that says homosexuality is wrong and to be detested is not contrary to ‘the most central teachings of the church’. it is part of the central teachings of the Church and of God.

His reasoning and research is not very honest.

#8. Mandatory celibacy for gay Christians does not fulfill that purpose. It undermines it, because it sends the message to gay Christians that their sexual selves are inherently shameful. It is not a fulfillment of sexuality for gay Christians, but a rejection of it.”

He really does not understand the meaning or idea of sin. No one is to support sexual fulfillment for the gay Christian if it means that they return to pre-conversion sinful practices.

He just doesn’t get what sin and repentance are all about. He has a personal agenda and in pursuit of that agenda he refuses to look for the truth but ways to get around the truth. He has no desire to be honest, objective or even fair when he handles God’s word or this issue.

He appeals to teachings about celibacy but those teachings do not open the door for monogamous same-sex relationships. His work is called ‘doing eisegesis’ and that is reading into the scriptures what one wants to see and it is the  opposite of exegesis which is taking out of scripture only what is actually there.

In none of the teachings on celibacy is same-sex unions addressed or being alluded to as a correct option for the believer. None of those teachings even refer to same-sex unions or grant permission for them to be conducted. God does not say in one part of the Bible that same-sex relations is an abomination to him, then in another part of the Bible and another topic say same-sex relationships are okay, especially if they are monogamous.

God is not inconsistent. He doesn’t change what is sin because the nature of the sin is practiced like those actions he approves. Sin is sin no matter how it is practiced.

#9. Of course, let’s face it. There are also no examples in Scripture (or, to my knowledge church history) explicitly supporting same-sex relationships.  So it seems these are the two uncomfortable realities we hold simultaneously…at least for now.

Ms. Evans ends her article with these words. So we must ask, why is she supporting sin, calling it good and demanding that unrepentant homosexuals be allowed into the church? She ignores the truth because it suits her.

This chapter may say its issue is the act of celibacy but no one is forcing celibacy on any converted homosexual. At least they shouldn’t be. The option to marry an opposite gender mate is still available to them BUT the homosexual doesn’t want that option. They want their own sexual desires not the one that God says is good.

It is not the Bible’s nor the Christian’s fault that the homosexual refuses to embrace the truth. It is the homosexual’s  because they refuse to do things God’s way. I want to end my piece with the following words from 2 Peter 2

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (NASB) (bold mine)

I think you get the meaning of those words and how they apply to today’s subject

 

Controversial Issues

#1.  Tattoos

There are many people in the church today who think that many of the laws God gave to Moses for the Israelite people do not apply to today’s New Testament World and church. They consider themselves under a new covenant which releases them from many of the laws recorded in the Old Testament.

This attitude allows them to pursue different sinful activities and not feel like they have sinned or in need of repentance. One of these activities is the act of getting a tattoo to mark a special occasion, person or to simply adorn some sort of ‘art’ on their bodies. They think that since the word tattoo is not mentioned in the NT and only in the Old that the law governing tattoos is now null and void.

But these people error in their assessment of scripture as they fail to grasp the fact that while God does not use the same word more than once in scriptures he still talks about the topic and has not changed his mind about it.

For example in Leviticus 19:28 we read the following:

28 You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD. (The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Le 19:28). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

I placed the bold and underlining to emphasize the words being examined and which are very clear about the issue of having tattoos on your body. God’s words are very clear there and there is no mistaking what is meant by them.

The people of Israel were not to place any tattoos on themselves and the reason given is simple—God is the Lord. He said it thus it needs to be obeyed. Does this mean that the tattoos placed upon the Jewish people by the Nazis made them sinners or disobedient of this law? No. The Jews were not the ones seeking the tattoos nor were wanting them placed upon their bodies.

They did not sin in receiving those marks. But if they willingly got those marks then they would have sinned and been disobedient. Now many people today would look at that verse and conclude that since the law was found in the Torah it no longer applies to them and they are free to get as many tattoos as they desire.
#2. Owning Weapons

This is another issue that can bring out the emotions in people as many are for owning weapons and just as many people are against gun ownership.  For some in the latter category owning guns leads to mass shootings like the many school massacres that have taken place across America in recent years.

They blame guns when in reality they should be blaming the sin nature found in every person and the ability to choose freely what one wants to do. This issue is also vulnerable to the distortion of scripture as each side wishes to make their viewpoint the biblical one. They misuse scriptures in hopes of convincing others of the legitimacy of their position.

A look at these different scriptures is warranted so that we get a clear view of what the Bible is actually saying on this issue.

1. Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” ( All the scripture references will be taken from the article “What Does The Bible Say about Gun Control” by Larry Pratthttp://www.gunowners.org/fs9902.htm)

While Jesus was teaching a non-violent response in support of ‘a soft answer turns away wrath’ this passage does not indicate that a believer cannot own weapons. It is telling us to not use our weapons or fists to respond to certain actions carried out by other people.

2. The reference to “an eye for an eye” was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime (Ibid) This passage reads: 23But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (NKJV)

Again we see a list of punishments corresponding to a list of crimes but this passage does not support gun ownership or gun collecting nor does it mean that pacifism is to be practiced or denied. Mercy doesn’t mean that we exact a pound of flesh for every crime committed but that we have leniency when it is warranted.

3. Exodus 22:2-3 tells us “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” (Ibid)

Again we see nothing about supporting owning any type of weapons here nor does this passage indicate that we should let people harm our loved ones when they force their way into our homes.

4. King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God “Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle” (Psalm 144:1). (Ibid)

Training for war and to learn how to fight just simply means one gets to defend their own country from invaders and to do that a person needs to know the art of war and how to combat the strategies used by their enemies.

This passage, like the rest, makes no implications on owning weapons nor is it saying that it is or it is not okay to own weapons. The weapons for war can be stored by the government in a central or strategic location ready for use when the time comes.

5. This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, “is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” (Ibid)

The word ‘sword’ here most likely does not imply a weapon but the authority to punish lawbreakers. I would have to double-check that but in any case, the fact that the government is allowed to punish and wield weapons does not grant anyone permission to collect or own weapons.

The permission for a country’s citizen’s to own and collect guns, or other types of weapons, is up to the discretion of the government of that nation.  They have been granted authority to govern by God and that authority extends to all areas of life. Governments get to say of their citizens get to own and collect weapons or not.

Such ownership is not a right unless the government makes it a right.
#

#3. Against Homosexuality

It is hard to know exactly where to start when talking about this issue as there is so much ground to cover. This article will not discuss the definition of homosexuality for everyone already knows what the word means and how it is practiced. Nor will it discuss whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it is a given that we all know that it is wrong and sin and that is the position of this magazine.

What will be discussed here will be key points made by Matthew Vine in a discussion on the legitimacy of homosexual relations made in a series of discussions on Rachel Held Evans website (rachelheldevans.com). There is no particular order to the points and we will start with what is probably the main point of Matthew Vine’s argument

1. Our question is not whether the Bible addresses the modern concepts of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage,” he writes. “We know it doesn’t. Instead, our question is: can we translate basic biblical principles about marriage to this new situation without losing something essential in the process?” (http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-and-the-gay-christian-discussion-week-6-conclusion )

This is a very good question and all we have to do is take a close look at the passage of scripture in question to find the answer. The verse most often quoted in this issue is found in Leviticus and it is the one verse which provides us with a definitive description of homosexuality.

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death (20;13 NASB)

The key words are in bold and if we examine those words we will see how a man lies with a woman. First, men lie with a woman in one night stands, casual sex, affairs, and other pre-marital and adulteress instances.

Second, men lie with woman in long term relationships, common law situations and they lie with a woman in a monogamous committed relationships, which include being married to the woman.

So yes, the Bible does address all forms of homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage in those few words. The homosexual preference is prohibited in all circumstances and there is no leeway or escape clause making any exceptions

2. In marriage,” writes Matthew, “we are called to reflect God’s love for us through our self-giving love for our spouse.” This is something same-sex couples can do just as well as heterosexual couples, he says (Ibid)

Same-sex couples may express a ‘love’ for their partner but they are not expressing God’s love because God has called us to repent and give up our sinful practices. Same-sex couples are not expressing God’s love because they are participating in sin and accepting sin as normal, healthy and wonderful. God hates sin

The main problem with same-sex unions is that they ignore what the Bible says about this love–30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. (Eph. 5 NASB)

It is impossible for same-sex couples to become one flesh and even though one of the members of those couples calls themselves ‘a wife’ they are not truly a wife in any definition of the word. The only way for a homosexual couple to meet the standard laid out by this verse is if they give up their same-sex partner and marry an opposite sex mate.

3. Matthew points out that the two terms consider here are malakoi [sometimes translated “effeminate”] and arsenokoitai [sometimes translated “abusers of themselves with mankind” or, more recently, “homosexuals” or “men who practice homosexuality”]…New Testament scholar David Frederickson has argued that, given the context, malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is best translated, “those who lack self-control.” (http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/god-and-the-gay-christian-discussion-part-5-i-corinthians-6 )

This point illustrates the extent that homosexuals and alternative believers go to  in order to get their non-biblical ideas and practices accepted by the church and to be considered normal. It doesn’t matter if the topic is same-sex marriage, women in ministry or church leadership or some other alternative the action of those alternative supporters is always the same—they seek to change the Bible in order to legitimize their false teaching and preferences.

They cannot produce alternative ancient texts with a legitimate textual record to support their point so they try to retranslate key words in order to make the Bible say something it has never said. Their work never succeeds because they have no historical foundation to build upon, only their modern sinful desires.

4. But here’s the key point to remember,” writes Matthew. “Even if Paul had intended his words to be a condemnation of all forms of same sex relations, the context in which he would have been making that statement would still differ significantly from our context today.” (Ibid)

We know this is not true because as Solomon wrote in Ecc. ‘nothing is new under the sun’ ancient homosexual preferences were the same as they are today. Yes some ancient authors wrote about experimentation, sexual excess and other forms of homosexuality that did not include same-sex unions or orientation but those writers did not write about all of the ancient world or its practices.

They simply documented only one part of the same-sex activities that was occurring at the time. To take a minute amount of written record and extrapolate that to the whole of the ancient civilization that those authors wrote about is dishonest and making an argument from silence.

Paul’s context came from God, who, as we saw earlier, addressed all forms of homosexual activity not just bits and pieces of that unnatural desire. We may not have ancient writings about all forms of homosexual practice in Paul’s time because, unfortunately for us, they did not survive the ravages of time.

Needless to say, even if experimentation and sexual excess alone were practiced in Paul’s time, it is still homosexual activity, it is still prohibited by God and it does not mean that Matthew Vine’s idea of committed, monogamous same-sex relations is permitted. Silence on the issue does not mean a prior prohibition has been lifted.

5. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about a threatened gang rape, not an intimate companionship. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were grounded in cultural concerns about patriarchal gender roles and religious ritual purity. Romans 1:26-27 refers to excessive sexual desire and lust and uses “natural” and “unnatural” to refer to customary gender roles, just as those words are used to describe men with long hair and women who cover their heads (Ibid)

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about one single, solitary episode of gang rape and we know this because that action of the citizens of Sodom came after God had come with his angels to destroy the cities.

The citizens of S & G, and the other cities included in the destruction, had long practiced homosexuality and other sins. They had worn out the patience of God by this time and one act of gang rape would not have done this.  There was a long history of homosexuality taking place in these cities and most likely a multitude of gang rapes had taken place.

We know from modern examples that homosexuality breeds the practice of other sins, not godly behavior thus other passages of scripture do not need to specifically mention homosexuality, although Ezekiel does say ‘other abominations’ which would include that preference.

As for Mr. Vine’s reference to culture and patriarchal influences, those are weak excuses to justify modern practice of what God says is an abomination to him.

#4. Divorce: It Is NOT the Unforgiveable Sin

When you mention the word divorce, certain bias and attitudes invade the conversation. Believers tend to look upon divorce and divorcees with a certain degree of hatred, dislike, or look upon the people who are suffering through a divorce proceeding or have endured one as abnormal or that they are carrying some sort of disease like leprosy.

Divorced people are often deprived of Christian fellowship because they have broken their marriage vows for whatever reason they may have had. This prejudice against divorce and divorced people often comes from read Malachi 2:16 where God states he hates divorce.

Or it comes from reading Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:3ff where he says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Or these attitudes about divorce simply come from the personal perspectives taught by the pastors or church leaders of the church.

The source doesn’t really matter here as the problem lies in not trying to be biblical about a difficult subject and in trying to obey and honor the wishes of God but in the failure to read these passages correctly and apply their whole meaning to the divorced person and their situation.

If you read the passages in Malachi or Matthew you will see both God’s and Jesus’ attitude concerning divorce but if you stop at the printed words then you will miss out on the complete picture being painted by them.

Yes God hates divorce and yes Jesus made getting one very strict and difficult but there are things they did not say that believers add into their views and words. When people stop the words ‘ God hates divorce’ or Jesus’ words in Matthew they are missing out on the whole divine point of view.

At no time do either God or Jesus state that divorce is the unforgiveable sin, that divorcees should be excluded from Christian fellowship that divorce is a sin in perpetuality or that the  verses talking about loving thy neighbor as thyself, or treat others better than yourself, (and similar passages), exclude divorced people.

Neither God nor Jesus say to make divorced people second class citizens, inferior to others, or lepers where they are to be separated from church fellowship and need to walk around stating that they are unclean. Divorce may be hated and banned in all but one instance but that does not make divorcees unbelievers or people trying to import sin into the church and get the members to adopt and accept sin.

Divorce happens for a number of reasons and we need to be discerning of those reasons in order to know how we are to act towards those who have to go through this painful procedure Bob Mayo in his book Divorce: A Challenge to the Church asks,

“The question I am asking is how the church might best be able to provide a consistent, well-informed, and pastorally sensitive response to those of us who have been divorced (pg. 17)

and

Is it possible for the church to be accepting of those who are dealing with the consequences while still being clear about the inherent wrongness of divorce? (pg. 17)

The answer to the second question is a simple yes and we can answer both questions with the following words. It is possible to be accepting of those going through divorce or have been divorced and the church can provide a sensitive response because we look at the reasons surrounding the divorce, the response of the parties involved, their perspective of divorce and so on.

If the people are using divorce in order to pursue sinful desires then we know that we need to respond with the message of repenting of their sinful actions and try to turn people away from committing sin. If the divorce has one innocent party then we know from biblical instruction how to provide compassion, comfort and so on.

Divorced people are not excluded from those passages which tell believers how to treat each other. For example, the Bible states that we ‘do unto others as we want to be treated’, it does not say ‘do unto others as you want to be treated except in the case of divorced people.’

or ‘treat others better than yourselves except in the case of divorced people.’  God does say he hates divorce but he does not say exclude divorced people from love, forgiveness, wise counsel, understanding and so on. As Jesus said:

12When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

13But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ £ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, £to repentance.”

The church is full of people who are spiritually sick and in need of a physician and divorced people fall into that category.  If we look at how Jesus treated the woman at the well, a person who have been married 5 times and living in sin with a 6th man then we get an idea of how we should be treating a divorced person.

#5. Abortion: It Is Not Just the Woman’s Body

Just the mention of the word abortion can spark the most extreme emotions from normally kind and peaceful people. It drives them to acts of protest ranging from walking picket lines to lying to people to actual murder. It is also one of the most distorted issues we face today.

The anti-abortion groups would have everyone believe that they are defending the innocent and while they are defending innocent babies, the term innocent is not restricted to just the unborn child. There are many other innocent people involved in this issue.

For example, many of the fathers of those aborted children do not want the procedure done yet are given no say in what happens to their child. Yet we see none of these groups defending the rights of these men.

Then there are many women who are forced to have an abortion, not only by the fathers of the unborn baby but also by their parents. These women want no part of abortion yet their wills are over-ruled by others more powerful than they. Yet again we see no defending of these women, just a blanket hatred by these groups towards all who are led to the abortion clinic.

Then the pro-abortion groups would have people believe that the decision to have an abortion is solely up to the woman because it is her body and hers alone. That is very unbiblical teaching as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 that the bodies of the man and women belong to their mates once they have been joined together.

No Christian, man or woman, should be accepting the secular argument that it is the woman’s body thus it is her choice. The unborn baby is not the sole product of the woman but also the man’s and since her body now belongs to her mate’s it is his choice as well and not just the expectant mother’s.

Yet in all of this debate there is one forgotten fact that no one dwells upon nor mentions which upends the pro-abortion groups’ argument that abortion is up to the mother because it is her body that is affected.

What people do not realize or they simply ignore is that the unborn baby’s body does not belong to the mother and the mother has no authority to harm it. It is not hers to dispose of as she sees fit. That body belongs to the baby and not one scripture gives ownership of that body to anyone else.

There is no permission granted in the Bible to any parent to harm that unborn child thus the mother, or others, cannot decide to end that baby’s life. God has not granted them that right. While secular governments have made the decision to allow that choice to be made, secular governments do not trump God and his rules.

If you need another scripture to help you decide which side of the abortion issue you should be on, then we turn to the commandment, ‘thou shalt not kill’. No matter how you describe the unborn child, whether it is called a fetus, a virus, germ or whatever hate-filled term you want to or is used, one is violating that commandment because abortion is killing another human being.

We can label the unborn baby a human because humans do not produce any other type of baby and the unborn child is not magically transformed from a blob into a child seconds before birth. The born child is a human being from conception to birth and till it dies. No matter how the secular world addresses this issue, abortion is still a violation of God’s word.

The woman’s body is not the only body that is affected by this act. A part of the father dies along with the baby when the decision to abort is fulfilled. The woman does not have permission or the right to destroy part of the man either.

One of the biggest problems in solving this issue, on the church’s part, is the fact that people let their emotions distort their implementation of biblical verses. Many seem to stop at those passages which tell believers to protect the innocent and fail to include other passages of scripture which guide the believer to a better course of action.

We read in Matthew 5 the following:

44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, (NKJV)

or

8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be 2courteous; 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing (The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Pe 3:8–9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)

Many anti-abortion groups, those that claim to be Christian, do much damage to the cause of Christ by ignoring these passages of scripture and only letting their emotions restrict their biblical adherence to those passages which direct one to protect the innocent. They also only apply those verses to the abortion issue and not the rest of life, which is included in each verse charging us to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.

#6. Racism

In my work I use a little book called Where To Find It In The Bible by Ken Anderson and for the most part it is a handy little tool to use as it speeds up the process of finding specific verses for each topic. But when it came to this topic, not one of the verses listed actually dealt with racism.

One label said ‘racial marriage forbidden’ but when one got to Genesis 28 all it talked about was Isaac giving instructions to Jacob on where he needs to go to find a wife. Another label reads ‘request to marry heathen’ but the passage in 1 Kings is only talking about Solomon’s half-brother making a request to marry a certain woman and we do not even know if she was a heathen or not. She was just of a different nationality.

These little errors and a host of articles reporting how Pastors talk about race tells me that the church really doesn’t know much about the Bible and how it speaks about race or how race applies. They tend to use modern secular ideas like ‘anti-semitic’ when such ideas were not present in the ancient or biblical world.

The Bible does not really talk about race as the idea of different races was a human invention due to the difference of color of skin and the difference in the features of many humans. Darwin opined that there were about 4-5 different human races yet he made this observation without any scientific aid or historical foundation.

Though science now demonstrates that there is no such thing as race

“Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,” said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corp. in Rockville, Md.” {http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/race-myth.html}

“It’s an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of “racial stocks” anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist.”  {http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/}

and

“The billions of pieces of human genetic code sequenced thus far are most notable for what they do not appear to contain—a genetic test to tell one race of people from another. All scientific finds point to the conclusion that race doesn’t exist” {http://www.africanbynature.com/newsletters/raceissocial.html}

this fact doesn’t stop evolutionists from saying that Darwin was correct or keep scientists from claiming that there were different human species in previous eras:

Earlier this month, scientists working in South Africa made an exciting announcement: They had discovered a new species of human ancestor. The species, which they named Homo naledi, may be among the first of the genus Homo, what the project’s lead scientist, paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, described as a “bridge” between more primitive species and humans. National Geographic called it “one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century.” (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/do-neanderthals-have-souls/406246/?utm_source=yahoo&ref=yfp )

In spite of the secular world’s best efforts to ignore the truth and the facts about race, the church cannot. It must speak the truth and declare to the world that there is only one race of humans, and that there has only been one race of humans in all of time.

When the Bible speaks about race it only talks about there being one race of people and that the human race descended only from Adam and Eve.

#7.  Criminals & Their Records

When I first went to Korea to teach all that was required of the applicants was a university degree, a valid passport and a pulse. It was great as the situation gave people a chance to see if they were cut out to be teachers or not.

Then a few years later, due to the antics of many of those who came to teach, more regulations were added, one of which was the criminal record check. You now had to have a clean criminal record if you wanted to be in the Korean classroom.

I fought against the implementation of that regulation because I thought it was unfair and unjust as the criminal record only gave evidence of past deeds that could not be changed. The criminal record spoke nothing of the person’s desire or changed attitude in the present and for the future.

It also could not provide any guarantee that the person with the clean criminal record would not offend sometime in the future (which did take place many times in subsequent years after the implementation of the regulation).

Many people lose out on good opportunities to rehabilitate their lives and live as good citizens after learning the lessons that come from making criminal mistakes. This is because of the current attitude concerning those who offend and break the law. It is not fair, it is not just, it is not right to categorize people because of one or a few errors in judgment nor is it fair, just or right to remove opportunities or their rights simply because they committed a crime.

I am old enough to remember the days when the prevailing attitude was that once the person had did their time, they had paid their debt to society and were free to pursue a good life free from prejudice and discrimination. That attitude has mostly disappeared now as it is considered to be the right thing to hold a person’s unchangeable actions over their heads for the rest of their lives and deprive them of the chance to change and live like a good citizen.

This means that this magazine even considers the sexual offenders’ lists that governments employ these days are unjust and unfair as they make the person pay for their crime long after their sentence is over and their debt paid.

Forgiveness is no longer part of the equation nor is a second chance and for the believer we need to ask ourselves, ‘Where would we be if God did not give us second, or third or even fourth or more chances?’ or, ‘How would we feel if God held our sins over our heads throughout our lives?’

I am going to leave you with those questions to answer for yourselves and let you ask God to help you apply the answers to those who have committed crimes. The Bible tells us, as you have freely received, freely give’ and that verse (Mt. 10:8) does not exclude those with criminal pasts.

We are guilty of many crimes yet God says that when we repent, he will not remember our sins thus we cannot make ourselves greater than God by holding the sins of others over their heads when they repent of their crimes.

We need to emulate God’s attitude and make a better impact for God in this area of life by bestowing upon our repentant criminal element dignity, rights and another chance or three to get it right.

 

Issues of the Day

#1. https://www.mail.com/int/news/world/5388504-lgbt-outrage-trump-ban-transgender-military-servic.html#.1272-stage-set2-6

Leaders of major advocacy groups depicted Trump’s Twitter pronouncement as an appeal to the portion of his conservative base that opposes the recent civil-rights gains by the LGBT community. “His administration will stop at nothing to implement its anti-LGBTQ ideology within our government — even if it means denying some of our bravest Americans the right to serve and protect our nation,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of the LGBT-rights group GLAAD.

The only thing stopping LGBTQ community members from serving in the military are their own demands and desire to force their preferences upon others. There are many believers serving in the military who accept the rules and adjust their behavior according. They do not usually make outrageous demands nor force other servicemen to adhere to their rules or even accept them s they are. They simply obey the rules set out by the military. This is the major problem with the LGBTQ community. They cannot accept the rules demanding that everyone one bow to their perversion or else.

The LGBTQ community is not going to make friends under their current modus operandi. In fact they should expect a backlash as their chosen preference is not accepted as good, normal, etc. by a vast majority of the people. We agree with Trump’s decision here as it is high time the LGBTQ community be told ‘no’ and it is about time they realize that they are not normal, but sinful and violating God’s rules.

#2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ken-ham-sells-ark-encounter-land-to-himself-for-10_us_596e9e95e4b05561da5a5ba9

Creationist Ken Ham, the notorious owner of The Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum, has once again found a new way to swindle the good people of Kentucky out of their money.

Knowing HuffPost’s great dislike for and bias against Christians so here is another link to the same story

http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentucky-suspends-ark-encounter-18-million-tax-break-deal-192930/

While there is a lot we agree with that Ken Ham does and says there are a lot of public statements and actions we do not agree with and this is one of them. There is nothing wrong with a church or Christian theme park in investing in the community they reside. They should be setting the example how to be involved correctly with the community they are trying to reach not setting the example of how to screw the community out of much-needed revenue. The latter sets up stumbling blocks to Jesus while the former would knock those stumbling blocks down before they got started. The church is to reach the community not to make it more difficult to reach that objective. Paying property tax is not a big deal if the church or theme parks etc., are assessed correctly.

We disagree with Ham’s move here and feel that he is taking advantage of the community’s good graces. His actions are not Christian and we could point to the lack of biblical instruction that says avoid paying taxes to bolster our argument but  Ham and others already know that those do not exist. Being Christian does not mean escaping one civil responsibilities even when they are a church or christian organization

#3. http://www.morethancake.org/archives/29412

Does history prove science and Christianity are incompatible?

We have written long on this in other articles so we won’t delve into a long discussion here. Suffice it to say that the only way for science and Christianity to be compatible is for the former to repent of its sins and get to the truth. Since most of the scientific world does not believe God nor in God it is not God who is in error and lacking the truth. You can’t have the truth if you kick the only one who possesses it out the door and ban him from entry.

#4. http://www.ministrymatters.com/all/entry/8304/is-the-bible-fake-news

The point here is actually not that God has changed or that there really was a flood or that we have to figure out how Noah’s family repopulated the world without committing incest. The compilers of Genesis included the flood story to change our minds about God.

What is fake about the Bible are all those people who forget when different rules were implemented.Incest was not banned by God till long after the flood. What is also not fake news are the different historical accounts starting with creation, moving on to the flood, then Sodom and Gomorrah and so on. You cannot have fake news if you are holy

#5. http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-wont-be-punished-as-long-as-they-do-what-we-say-rolling-stone-reporter-responds-lgbt-193200/

Kroll’s attitude seems to be, “if those conservative Christians just become like those liberal Christians, they have nothing to worry about; so what’s the problem?”

In other words “do as i say or else’. It seems absolute power has corrupted this guy absolutely, absolute power over his money that is.  He needs prayer.  But this is the way it is with the LGBTQ community. They have spent decades whining and complaining about abuse, intolerance, hate crimes and many more negative things BUT when they get an opportunity to be different, to set the example of how they want to be treated, they opt to do to others as has been done to them. They will abuse others, they will be intolerant, they will commit hate crimes and on it goes.

The LGBTQ has no sympathy nor argument because they cannot do unto others as they would like to be treated. You cannot win friends and influence people when you are sinning to achieve your demands. Nor can you expect people to accept you when you act like the bully or be hypocritical. We all know that this guy attacks Christians but he does not attack any other religious group who defy his agenda. His actions and words undermine everything he says and does and makes him a laughing-stock. So he has money, whoopee, all he demonstrates is hatred, intolerance, and acts like a bully. He is just one more rich guy in a long line of rich guys who do the exact same thing for their individual agendas. He isn’t new, unique or even smart.

When will the LGBTQ community grow up and realize that there are more people in the world than them, all of who have rights and freedoms along with free choice to exercise those rights and freedoms as they see fit.

 

Governments Going Too Far

You have probably heard about this story already– Oregon Seizes Children From Parents Who Have Low IQ– and you may already taken sides on this issue. You can read about it here:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/oregon-seizes-children-from-parents-who-have-low-iq-192929/

While governments have a certain amount of rights guiding them concerning this issue there is a point where they can go too far.  I am not going to make this a Liberal thing for conservatives have been known to do the exact same thing here. They all think they get to decide for other people on different issues. That is not right. No laws were being broken here, the children were not in danger and no matter what opinion to the contrary any one holds, these people have the right to have and raise their own children.

We feel strongly that Christians should stand up for these parents because they are innocent people. Being mentally slow is not a biblical criteria to deprive anyone of having and raising their own family.  It i snot what the government thinks, it is not what some people think it is what God thinks that matters most and there are a host of verses that tell the believer how they should respond in this situation and those verses do not tell them to side with the government.  Obeying the government does not mean we ignore God’s words , commands or instructions. The government has to be held in account for their actions. If they are not then there is no telling how far they will go. One bad example is found in Ontario, Canada where the ruling administration has decided that it can pull children out of a home simply because the parents will not support the child’s misguided gender feelings.

That is evil at work not God’s government and we are to oppose evil not support it. The government does not have a divine right to go too far, even though they do. It was once said evil abounds if good men do nothing or something like that. Good people do need to stand up and oppose the government follow God’s leading when they do so. Not like the do in the emotional issues like abortion where they do picket lines and violent acts but with God leading the way. People like that couple need intelligent Christians to stand up for those parents’ rights and fight for them.

Christians have to lead the way to what is right not to blindly supporting the secular government who does not care about God, his people or his ways.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: