Should you believe the authors of the Bible or the “Christians” who claim the writers were blasphemous pathological liars?

The way the “evangelical Left” talks, you’d think that the authors of the Bible were just like Tommy Flanagan, John Lovitz’ Pathological Liar character from Saturday Night Live.

The title may seem bold, because the Leftist Christians making those claims don’t use that specific wording.  But their comments on the Bible — whether cursory or in-depth — reveal that is their view of scripture.  They routinely dismiss what the authors wrote as being different than what God really wanted there.

For the writers didn’t just claim once or twice that God spoke to them, but in literally thousands of verses — not to mention passages claiming that the entirety of scripture is from God.  So if it wasn’t truly from God then they weren’t just stretching the truth or telling a few white lies, they were committing non-stop blasphemy throughout the entire Bible.

This raises two questions:

1. Why would the theological Left claim the name of Christ if they think the Bible has literally thousands of blasphemous lies in it?

2. Why would anyone consider people holding those views to be authentic Christians and go to their churches, buy their books, etc.?

The answer to question 1 is that being a Leftist Christian can be highly profitable.  You get to have the approval of the world and sell lots of books without the cost of real discipleship.  Also, 2 Corinthians 11:13–15 explains them:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

The answer to question 2 is similar: People get to feel “spiritual” yet completely conform to the world when they follow Leftist false teachers. That’s demonstrated in studies showing that churchgoers who support “same-sex marriage” have nearly identical views as non-churchgoing people.

Here’s an example from false teacher Mark Sandlin, where he desperately tries to rationalize away the clear commands of Leviticus 18:

Whatever the reason, the perspective in these clobber verses were based on an understanding of sex and sexuality that was just as misinformed as their understanding of the earth in relationship to the sun, of fish, of pork and of reasons for stoning children. In our scientific age . . .

But that would mean that Leviticus 1:1 and the rest of the book were pure lies from Moses, or whomever Sandlin claims wrote the book: The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them . . . More specifically, see the beginning and end of chapter 18: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not . . . I am the Lord your God.”

If you claim a direct quote from God, you are either right or you are wrong.  There is no middle ground.  So who is lying, the original author of Leviticus or Mark Sandlin, who claims to be a pastor while explicitly denying Jesus’ divinity, mocking the Bible, and more?

Here’s another example from false teacher Rachel Held Evans, who supports Peter Enns version of God’s command to take over the Holy Land:

“God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Canaanites.”

So they think that the writer of Joshua and other books were completely mistaken or liars when claiming to speak for God, but that we should totally trust Evans, Enns et al.  (Evans, notably, tries to rationalize away the child sacrifice element of the story of Abraham and Isaac, even though she is pro-legalized abortion.)

Remember what the Bible says about those who falsely claim to speak for God: Deuteronomy 18:19-20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. So the Israelites obviously didn’t think it was no big deal to be mistaken about what God really said.

How can these people claim that the human authors were complete idiots and/or liars and then pick and choose the few verses they think they agree with and build “ministries” on those?* I call this Leopard Theology (aka Dalmatian Theology), where people claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. Then there is Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding and removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological Leftists and “Progressives.”  There are no good reasons to trust them.

Oh, and don’t forget to point out how the theological Left has a wildly different view of the Old Testament than Jesus does.  You know, the Jesus they claim to follow.  Even after they’ve rationalized away all the verses about him that they don’t like, they usually claim to like the Sermon on the Mount.  And does Jesus flinch about the OT?  Not at all. In addition to quoting the most controversial parts without apology in the rest of the Gospels (Adam and Eve, Noah, Sodom, Jonah and more), He says this:

Matthew 5:17–18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Run, don’t walk from churches and “Christian” false teachers who mock the Bible.  Trust the human authors and, more importantly, the divine author.  The original writings of the Bible turned out exactly as the Holy Spirit and the human writers wanted them to, and they have been faithfully transmitted to us.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Leftist “Christian” logic: If people give less, it is OK to take it from them by force

From the “I am not making this up category,” a Leftist false teacher insists that if people give less than before then the Christian thing to do is to take it from them at a point of a gun.  Via The Richest Cut Giving:

During the Great Recession the poorest Americans increased their charitable giving 17%.  Much of that money went to relgious group providing faith based social services.  The wealthiest Americans?  They cut their giving by 4.6%.  Unlike their wealthy fellow citizens, middle income Americans joined those with lower incomes in giving away more.

He forgot to mention that the top 17 states who gave more voted for Romney.

. . . Many wealthy Americans clearly understand that great economic disparity is not good morally or economically.

Keep in mind that the guy preaching about morality is a pro-abortion extremist.

Yet the majority of the wealthiest Americans are forgetting that it is better to give then to receive.

Jesus said it was better to give than receive, and of course He was right.  But did Jesus say it counted as giving your part if you beg Caesar to confiscate the wealth of others?

Billionaires like the Koch brothers give hundreds of millions to candidates who promise to further cut taxes on the rich.

Like other wolves in sheep’s clothing, he has the Democrat talking points down.  That’s a good little tool!  No mention of George Soros et al.

For people of faith, called to create just systems, it is imperative that we continue the work of building up the common good of this nation and the world.

Again, this is a pro-abortion extremist talking about the “just systems” and “the common good.”

That work must include raising taxes on the weathiest 1% so that we can create living wage jobs, improve public education, further improve health care, and do everything possible to make sure that every child born today has opportunities to thrive well into the future.

That is, for those who aren’t crushed and dismembered in the womb with this wolf’s blessing.  Those children would thrive farther into the future if you didn’t do this.

And on what planet does raising taxes create any jobs, let alone “living wage” jobs?  Capitalism would do that if you would reverse 99% of what the Left has done.

And what does “improve public education” mean?  Spending tax dollars on things like this won’t help — Educrats Attempt to Impose Polysexual Androgyny on Innocent Schoolchildren.

As usual, Leftists fail at basic economics. And Leftist false teachers fail the worst of all.

Pro-abortion extremist “Christian” leaders preach about protecting the “most vulnerable”

After noting that I’m all for limiting civilian casualties, please let me translate this monstrous piece of hypocrisy: Nearly 200 Faith Leaders Condemn President’s Lifting of Civilian Protections in Syria Strikes.

“Our faith traditions argue that civilians must be protected in war,”

But not in the womb.  If that is your location, or even if you are 90% out of your mother, you can be killed.

said Rev. Chuck Currie, a United Church of Christ pastor and Director of the Center for Peace and Spirituality and University Chaplain at Pacific University.

That’s radical pro-abortionist and false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie of the UCC (Unitarians Counterfeiting Christ) who takes little girls to gay pride parades to you.

“We are at our best as a nation when we live up to our highest ideals. It is our sacred responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. The president must order U.S. forces to resubmit to his original policy regarding the use of drones.”

Uh, yeah, about the most vulnerable . . . you mean like this and this?  Those are the human beings who people like Chuck insist that Jesus was on board with killing in the womb.

Chuck & Co. could not be reached for comment, as they were too busy dancing around their Asherah pole.

Mark Sandlin = false teacher

Mark Sandlin is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who often blogs at Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis’ Sojourners blog.  A friend sent me a link to Jesus Is Not My God, where Sandlin loudly and proudly claims not to believe in the deity of Christ.  He is welcome to his opinions, of course, and I respect his right of religious freedom.  We even have a term for people like him: Non-Christians.

I’ll start with one of his closing comments, because it typifies the approach of these “progressive Christians.”

I’m not trying to say I am right and others are wrong.

I find that kind of statement as revolting as his claims to be a Christian.  It is a completely wimpy, passive-aggressive postmodern lie.  He has a pulpit, blogs and Podcasts in place to teach these things, so he obviously thinks he is right.  Why not grow a pair and own it?

This is the first post in a series called:“This Collar Is Too Tight: Heresies From a Southern Minister.” Most institutionalized Churches define who is and who isn’t a Christian far too narrowly. There is an increasingly long list of tenets to which a person must dogmatically adhere in order to be in the club. The thing is… I don’t believe a whole lot of them. I even find many of them to be biblically inaccurate.

That’s an odd thing for him to say, because he sits in judgment of the Bible and decides for himself what “really” belongs.

I’ve decided to address them one by one because I’ve discovered that there are a lot of people who feel the same way — even other ministers.

The fact that there are many false teachers — especially within his circles — proves nothing.

I hope that this will give us all a little support and encouragement as we try to cling to our Christian-ness while others try to take it from us.

We aren’t trying to take anything way.  But words mean things, and based on the Bible and thousand of years of history it is incorrect to call people like him Christians.

I am a believer. Mostly.

I believe that there is probably a god — something bigger than us. I have a very hard time believing that there’s not something larger than humanity.

Wow, that’s bold apologetics.  Preach on, “minister.”

 . . . When I worship, I worship that God who is all-at-once bigger than me and might not be at all.

It’s the same god I believe Jesus was trying to teach us about.

In calling God “Father,” Jesus tried to teach us about the nurturing nature of this god. In saying that he and the “Father” were one he was trying to teach us about how we are all one in this god-thing that is larger than us. In telling us that in loving other people (everyone) we were loving God, he was trying to teach us about the connectedness of us all being created in the image of God.

I am a Christian because Jesus, for me, is the teacher who best helps me understand this god-thing.

How can one claim to be a Christ-follower and reject so much of what He taught?

When he worshiped, he worshiped that same god.

He did not worship himself.

Jesus never called himself God.

Here the cheating starts in earnest.  He’ll ignore what he doesn’t like from the synoptic Gospels, then dismiss the Gospel of John and the rest of the biblical claims about his divinity with a wave of his hand.  He starts with the assumption that the Bible isn’t the word of God, and concludes that the Bible isn’t the word of God.  Convenient.

Read through Matthew, Mark and Luke. You won’t find him saying it. Sure, there are a few places where you can interpret what Jesus says to possibly suggest he is God, but it isn’t stated outright.

Maybe if he didn’t go to the text with his preconceptions he’d come to a different conclusion.

You have to ask yourself: Something that important, don’t you think he might have mentioned it? And, if he did mention it, don’t you think somebody would have decided it was important enough to jot it down?

He did.

The Gospel of John does have Jesus mentioning the whole being God thing – a lot. The difference is a bit striking, isn’t it? The first three Gospels, all written before the Gospel of John, without Jesus saying he is God… and then John, after many years have passed, with Jesus saying he is God.

Does anyone else think it sounds like dogma slipped in there during those in-between years?

Thus begins the “progressive Christian” approach which isn’t new at all.  There are countless solid answers to objections like that but Sandlin doesn’t even pretend to have attempted to understand them.

Actually, yes, they do. Most modern scholars agree that John has some new theological perspective into its accounting of the life of Jesus. It may or may not be right, but because of the other three Gospels, I’m going with the idea that it is probably an addition.

Translation: “Most modern scholars” = “people I agreed with when I went opinion shopping.”  So Sandlin knows more than the early church?  Indeed.

For me, Jesus not being God is a good thing – a very good thing.

If what I hope to get from Jesus is an understanding of how to be the people God created us to be and to develop a closer relationship and understanding of God through that, it is much more helpful to see a person who is actually a person and not a god doing it. It’s hopeful even.

This “minister” doesn’t even understand the hypostatic union.

. . . I am saying that if you, too, believe Jesus is not your God, no matter what people tell you, you can still call yourself a Christian.

The Bible, the early church, common sense and 2,000 years of church history say otherwise.

Sandlin does what most pagans do, only they are more honest than he is and don’t make a living off their lies.  He finds a handful of verses he likes and claims to be a Christian.  But he doesn’t even hold to his professed belief of just believing Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Even those have Jesus speaking of Hell extensively, and Sandlin certainly couldn’t support that. And Jesus said that marriage, from the beginning, was just a union of a man and a woman.  Sandlin actively denounces biblical sexuality so once again he disagrees with Jesus.

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like Mark Sandlin.

grumpy cat

If black lives matter to Sojourners, why are they pro-abortion?

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ Sojourners group is behaving as ghoulishly with the Ferguson case as they did with Trayvon Martin.  They’ll be milking his death for months.  Here’s their latest: #BlackLivesMatter: Gathering for Solidarity in Washington, D.C. – Brandon Hook | God’s Politics Blog | Sojourners.

Last night, Washington, D.C., residents young and old gathered in the Columbia Heights neighborhood to protest the shooting of Michael Brown, stand in solidarity with those on the front lines of continued protests in Ferguson, Mo., and let our governmant and law enforcement officials know that #BlackLivesMatter. The protest was organized by a Howard University student who hails from St. Louis and “needed to do something” given the reports she received from friends and family on the ground in Ferguson.

Yes, black lives matter.  Go ask all the families in Chicago — you know, they place with the extremely restrictive gun laws supported by Wallis et al.

Abortion rates in the black community are 3x that of whites. Taxpayer-funded abortions — which the Democrats want so badly that they almost lost Obamacare over, and that which their official platform calls for — would take that rate even higher.  If you want to save black lives, make abortion illegal.

If the situations were reversed and conservatives supported abortion in the same way and liberals opposed it, we’d be hearing nonstop about how racist and genocidal conservatives are.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers save more black lives in a day than Wallis & Co. will in their lifetimes.  

The deadly law of unintended consequences, illegal immigration style

The law of unintended consequences often turns deadly, as it has with illegal immigration.  Via If I Were Marco Rubio:

Senator Marco Rubio spent the better part of last year joining together with Democrats to make a bipartisan push for amnesty and comprehensive open borders.  The message to the third world was clear and unambiguous.  We have not learned the mistakes of the past and we will continue granting amnesty because we lack the stomach to leave any illegals behind.Not surprisingly, starting late last year there was a surge in border crossings.  Now, there are rampant rumors throughout Central America that as long as you come here with children, you will never be turned down.  How uncanny that the rumor tracks almost identically with the statements put out by politicians in both parties propagating a desire to care for the world’s poor and place their needs over those of Americans.If I were Marco Rubio, I would hang my head down in shame for helping engender this new wave of illegal immigration.  At the very least, I would have issued the following statement:“Although I have previously expressed support for amnesty, it is now abundantly clear that calls for amnesty before the enforcement measures are implemented will always spawn endless cycles of illegal immigration.  The approach I pursued last year was deeply flawed and I am now committed to shaming and embarrassing this administration into following the laws and preserving our sovereignty.  I still wish to deal with some other immigration-related issues, but none of that can be addressed until the lawlessness ends and this country is shielded from the harmful effects of illegal immigration.”Instead, Rubio put out this ambiguous statement . . .

Rubio is just one of many ignorant and/or malicious Republicans, Democrats and false teachers whose language on immigration has motivated millions of people to cross our borders.  Many are just children whose parents thought this was a way to help them, but in addition to committing felonies they have put these children in great danger.  The blood is on the hands of those who speak so irresponsibly and can’t see 15 minutes into the future.

People respond to incentives, and talk about DREAM Acts, immigration reform, etc. provide a gigantic incentive.  We need to close the borders and enforce immigration laws.  That won’t cure the problem, but it will make a marked improvement.  When jobs dry up people return to their homelands (it has happened before).  And it will reduce the demand for people coming to the U.S.

The morbid hypocrisy of pro-abortion peace advocates

Abortion is murder.  It is the opposite of peace.  Yet the most vocal of those advocating for peace are often pro-abortion*.

Here’s a recent example.  Chuck “Jesus is not the only way but He sure is a bigot” Currie of the UCC (Unitarians Counterfeiting Christ) is radically pro-abortion yet doesn’t recognize his hypocrisy when writing A Brief Word About Peace:

A Just Peace is grounded in God’s activity in creation. Creation shows the desire of God to sustain the world and not destroy. The creation anticipates what is to come: the history-long relationship between God and humanity and the coming vision of shalom.

Just Peace is grounded in covenant relationship. God creates and calls us into covenant, God’s gift of friendship: “I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore” (Ezekiel 37:26). When God’s abiding presence is embraced, human well-being results, or Shalom, which can be translated Just Peace.

Note the references to creation, humanity and multiplying people.  Yet this guy supports the legal killing of any human being up through infanticide (i.e., partial-birth abortion) for any reason — and he wants pro-lifers to pay for it here and around the world with their tax dollars.

They also deny the Bible and naively think that we can completely prevent wars.  They deny original sin and every conclusion they draw gets progressively worse from there.  This is just one of many reasons that they are non-Christians.

More hypocrisy:

1. Support nonviolent direct action.

Abortion is extremely violent, literally crushing and dismembering innocent human beings without anesthetic.

5. Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.

Abortion violates the primary human right: The right to life.

My default position is always non-violence. My own belief is that even with the best of intentions that use of violence always falls somewhere in the category of sin.

How ironic that a pro-abortion “reverend” could label others as sinful for knowing that the best hope for peace is through strength.

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide).  The references to the Hyde Amendment are a joke, of course, and Obama has proved beyond all doubt that he will look you in the eye and lying dozens of times.  From their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

It gets worse: Obama overturned the Mexico City policy so the Abortion President could increase abortions around the world with taxpayer funds.  That’s pro-abortion.

And Obama & Co. oppose the choice of medical professionals not to participate in abortions.  That’s anti-choice pro-abortion extremism.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion.  If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

Oh, and you the worst kind of racist, because those taxpayer-funded abortions will take the 3-to-1 ratio of black abortion rates to that of whites even higher.