Roundup

A terrific brochure: The Truth About Planned Parenthood.  Please read and share!

—

Great perspective on the most offensive verse in the Bible.  Use it when people try to play the “gotcha” game on politically correct issues.  You’ll not only be standing up for the truth (yes, homosexual behavior is a sin), but you’ll be using it to segue to the broader Gospel message.

“The most offensive thing I believe is Genesis 1:1, and everything it implies.

“That is, I believe in a sovereign Creator who is Lord and Definer of all. Everything in the universe — the planet, the laws of physics, the laws of morality, you, me — everything was created by Another, was designed by Another, was given value and definition by Another. God is Creator and Lord, and so He is ultimate. That means we are created and subjects, and therefore derivative and dependent.
“Therefore, we are not free to create meaning or value. We have only two options. We can discover the true value assigned by the Creator and revealed in His Word, the Bible; or we can rebel against that meaning.
“Any time you bring up questions about any of these issues, you do so from one of two stances. You either do it as someone advocating and enabling rebellion against the Creator’s design, or as someone seeking submissive understanding of that design. You do it as servant or rebel. There is no third option.

—

University shocked when Muslim espouses Islam’s view of homosexuals – they assumed that their enemy’s (Christianity) enemy (Islam) would be their friend.  Not so.  I think they are just afraid of criticizing Islam, so they go for the safe target, Christianity – even though we’ve done more to elevate women than any other worldview.

I guess the pass given to Islam shouldn’t surprise me.  The political left is just as willfully blind to the way Islam and Muslims treat women.  Women who are suspected of shaming their family’s name are beaten, maimed, or killed with the approval of their societies and even their own family.  But trying to prevent mothers from killing their pre-born children is somehow a war on women.

—

A couple links from Glenn’s Random Apostasies and Heresies . . .

Pat Robertson Claims Second-Hand Goodwill Sweaters Might Carry Demons — Thanks, false teacher Pat Robertson, for continuing to make Christianity look bad.

Tony Jones goes full-blown false teacher by denying the need for the cross (among other things).  The good news is that Jones got too warm and took off the sheep’s clothing. Now he is an unapologetic, open wolf and is unveiled for all to see.

Also note that false teacher Jay Bakker (son of Jim and Tammy Faye) said “Would you agree that the Bible is a flawed collection of writings?”  I love when false teachers out themselves like that.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

—

First Baptist of Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress’ Powerful Response to Tebow Controversy – this has turned out well for them and the proclamation of the Gospel.  I think Tebow is still a good guy but he wimped out here.  Hopefully he’ll do better next time. 

Folks, our response to Tim Tebow caving in to the “Gay Thought Police” is coming soon. Here is First Baptist Church of Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress’ wonderful response to the controversy Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013 at the church. It has been very encouraging to watch Jeffress (with God’s help) so effortlessly turn “lemons into lemonade” on this story. When even “TMZ Live” sides with Pastor Jeffress over Tebow on the story (a TMZ host said Tebow “wussed out on this one”), you know something interesting is afoot in the culture. My sense is that even as “gay power” grows in America — with all its accompanying intolerance and anti-Christian bigotry — there is also rising a societal disgust with speech-stifling political correctness. Maybe truly hate-filled homosexual militants like Wayne Besen (who smears Jeffress as a “hate pastor” HERE) are actually helping the pro-family movement. Let’s hope so.

—

Kind, loving, tolerant “reverend” says Al Mohler is just like a Muslim terrorist because he holds the same view about marriage that Obama did until just a few months ago.  Fortunately HuffPo allowed comments that eviscerated the wolf’s attack.

—

10 Reasons to Quit Soft Drinks – or at least only drink them sparingly.

—

This speaks volumes.  When business people have to cut expenses, they cut non-essentials first and minimize the impact to customers.  The government should minimize the impact to taxpayers, but instead Obama & Co. are deliberately and unnecessarily making our lives more miserable and dangerous simply to convince the masses that we still aren’t spending enough.

—

Southern Poverty Law Center Silent as Floyd Corkins’ Plea Agreement Confirms: SPLC ‘Hate’ List Guided Him to Family Research Council

 

Potential mass-murderer and deranged LGBT activist Floyd Corkins used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s spurious “hate” list to target FRC.

“Floyd Corkins II, 28, acknowledged in a plea agreement that he intended to kill as many people as possible during the August shooting at the Family Research Council. He also planned to target other organizations that oppose gay marriage if he wasn’t stopped.“

Corkins intended to smear the sandwiches in the faces of his victims to make a statement about gay rights opponents, he acknowledged during a hearing Wednesday.” — AP report on Corkins’ plea deal

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Should Christians seek to share the Gospel with Jewish people?

Of course they should, right?  What could be more obvious to believers?

Apparently it isn’t obvious to false teachers who write things like Can We Stop Trying To Evangelize Jews Now? (And make no mistake, most theological Liberals rationalize that we shouldn’t share the Good News with Jews.)

“I would argue that it inappropriate and deeply offensive for Christians to attempt to convert Jews or to misuse the Hebrew Scriptures and claim them as Christian writings.

- Rev. Chuck Currie

That’s odd, because Jesus tried to convert Jews, as did all the early Christians, including Paul. Should we listen to Chuck or to the early church and the Bible?

Does the apostate UCC and UMC, both served by Chuck, not include the Old Testament in their Bible? That’s what Chuck appears to be saying, but it is news to me. And I’ve seen Chuck (mis)quote the OT many times. I’m not sure why he is abandoning it now.

Paul was even willing to sacrifice his own salvation if it would save all the Jews:

Romans 9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ–I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit– 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Romans 10: 1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Chuck and other false teachers go wrong when they let fallacious illustrations like this trump the Bible:

Could you honestly tell a Jewish child being forced into the fires of a concentration camp that they are doomed to the fires of hell because they don’t accept Jesus as their savior?

They stack the deck by using the vague term child.  If we take that out so that we don’t muddy the waters with age-of-accountability questions, the answer is simple: Yes, I could honestly tell a Jew that they are doomed to Hell if they don’t repent and believe.  What was so hard about that? That is what the Bible teaches over and over, such as John 8:24 (“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”).  I realize that Chuck and the other false teachers sit in judgment of God and don’t like that truth, but it is still the truth.  Just because you die a tragic and unjust death doesn’t mean you weren’t a sinner in need of a Savior.  Only a non-believer could think that (allegedly) sparing someone a little angst about Hell right before they go there for eternity is some kind of good deed.

It is only in the perverse, God-hating world of theological Liberals that it is unkind to tell people how to avoid an eternity in Hell.

It is only the truly hateful, self-loving false teachers who would consciously deny the truth to people who desperately need it — Jews included.

A look at the sermon of a false teacher

Reading the sermons of wolves in sheep’s clothing so you don’t have to!

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to preach a “sermon” about John 18:33-37.  He is symptomatic of the theological Left and their anti-Christian teachings.

I wrote previously in Heretics ‘R Us about Chuck’s abuse of John 14:6 (Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”) and how Chuck’s key points were to claim that Jesus was not the only way to the Father (despite the Bible claiming that over 100 times), that other religions such as Islam should inform our view of the Gospel, and that the Bible is not accurate or reliable — specifically that the Gospel of John was written 100 years after Jesus was crucified for being such a nice guy.

Never minding that even Liberal scholars concede a date around 100 A.D., and the case for a pre-70 A.D. dating is very strong, Chuck is now claiming that it was written 200 years after the crucifixion.  (Note that his dating is relative to the crucifixion, not the resurrection, because “Reverend” Chuck and other theological liberals don’t believe the resurrection really happened.  We have a name for those who hold that view: Non-Christians.)

Via Thy Kingdom Come:

In our on-going Sunday night adult education group we’ve come to know that the Book of John was written nearly two hundred years after the death of Jesus and far from recording historical accounts of his life it reflects theological understandings of his ministry and existence.

Well, there you have it!  Chuck now says it was 200 years, not 100 years.  So his view is that the author(s) were complete liars, because the Gospel of John explicitly claims to contain eyewitness accounts and evidence for believing that Jesus rose from the dead and is the source of eternal life.

Chuck seems to make up things as he goes along, kind of like Benny Hinn.  But even if Chuck was right, why on earth would he do an entire sermon on a book he “knows” is thoroughly fraudulent?

Sadly, as the latest of the Gospels, it also reflects the reality that by this point in history the early Christian community is becoming separate from the Jewish community that Jesus was apart of.  With this separation comes persecution of early Christians and the narratives of Jesus death change in ways that blame the Jews more directly as a people for the death of Jesus, when the Romans where truly responsible.

Knowing all this we can sit back from our vantage point and see how it was that Pilate must have been confused about Jesus.

This lowly son of a carpenter was actually wildly popular with the Jewish people and word had reached Pilate that some referred to Jesus as King.

So Chuck seeks to absolve the Jews of blame for the crucifixion, even though all the Gospels record that Jewish people were the cause of Jesus being killed.

Luke 23 18 But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”– 19 a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. 20 Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, 21 but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” 22 A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.” 23 But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will.

Chuck & Co. will claim that is anti-Semitic, but there is another more accurate term: Fact. No one claims that all Jews killed Jesus or that Jews should be persecuted.  We just point to the obvious truths of the Bible.

The church too quickly forgot the lessons of Jesus.

But wait — Chuck & Co. insist that the documents containing Jesus’ words are hopelessly flawed.  He and his (apparently former) employer the “Jesus Seminar” insist that Jesus only really said a small fraction of the words attributed to him — and of course they deny that He is part of the Trinity and on board with the entire Bible.

We spend too much time in the Christian church debating what happens to us after we die and not enough time talking about how to improve the world we live in.  Jesus was never obsessed with death and salvation the way he was obsessed with building up the Kingdom in the here and now.

Again, Chuck refers to a Jesus that he made up.  The real Jesus spoke plenty about eternal matters:

Mark 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

Back to the false teacher:

We pride ourselves on being places where all points of view are accepted.

Uh, sure — views like pro-real marriage and pro-life?

But I also agree with Martin Luther King, Jr. who once preached at Riverside Church that: “…I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.”

Wait — does Chuck actually believe in Hell?

There are too many great moral issues being debated in our community today – in our state and the world – that require the attention of the church.  These issues – whether it be the coming debate over marriage equality or more life threatening issues concerning global climate change – that demand that we not be silent but take stands, not just as individuals but as a church community.

“Marriage equality” is a fiction.  ”Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.  Unions that can’t produce children or provide a mother and a father to children are not equal to unions that can.

As a play on the favorite line of pro-gay theologians, “Jesus never said anything about marriage equality,” so their pet issue must not be very important.

Global climate change = made-up Leftist power grab.

What would Pilate think of us?  This is a serious question.  If we dropped Sunnyside Church and University Park Church through a time warp and into Pilate’s time would we been seen as a community that was at all threatening?  Or could we easily be ignored?

He’d probably think they were a bunch of fake Christians, especially since their #1 issue in the election was forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions, because Chuck & Co. think our biggest problem is that not enough babies are getting killed in the womb.

We need to be marching alongside workers at Wal-Mart calling for livable wages. We need to be demanding of our President and our Congress a carbon tax and other measures to dramatically shift the way we all live to save God’s creation.  We need to be demanding of our local community permanent funding sources to create affordable housing and standing with those facing foreclosure.

“And we need to do it by taking the money of other’s by force!  Because Jesus would never expect us to use our own money!  And it would take way too much work to open businesses ourselves to compete against Wal-Mart and pay those “livable wages.”  And besides, we don’t have any business skills!  We just need Caesar to solve all of our problems!”

And Sunnyside Church and University Park Church should be the first churches to Oregon to publically endorse a ballot measure calling for marriage equality in 2014.

Well, sure, go ahead and make your Romans 1 Poster Children picture complete.

If we do these things and more, we can stop being the church of Constantine and start being the movement of Jesus.  We’ll be controversial.  New people will come to worship with us and others will mock us.

Yes, some people will worship (Satan) with Chuck & Co., but not many.  Just look how much Chuck’s apostate employers (the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church) continue to shrink.  Why get up early on Sunday to go hear what MSNBC tells you  for free 24×7?

Here’s the final irony of Chuck’s “sermon.”  The last line of his text — you know, from the book Chuck says was full of lies and not written by John and adopted by the early church — says this:

John 18:37 Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”

Chuck & Co. explicitly do not listen to Jesus’ voice, and they miss the self-parody of quoting that verse. By their own words they do not belong to the truth.

Make no mistake: If you follow people like this you are lost. You are like the people in Romans 1 who God gave over to their sinful desires. You are like Pharaoh, who continually hardened his heart until God finished hardening it for him. Get out of those fake churches while you still have time.

Responding to religious pro-choice arguments

Pro-choice arguments by religious types, many of whom claim the name of Christ, are generally similar to those offered by pro-choicers.  Nearly all of them ignore the innocent but unwanted human being destroyed by abortion.  The difference with the religious types is that they insist that God is also pro-legalized, unrestricted abortion.

Here’s a prime example by a false teacher named Chuck Currie, who preaches at both UCC and UMC denominations: People Of Faith Must Defend Choice.

The title itself is a tipoff: As usual, pro-choicers can’t finish a sentence.  A choice to do what?  Where to go to college, whom to marry, what career to choose?  Of course not.  He means “People of faith must defend the choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being.”  Sounds different, doesn’t it?

Todd Akin’s recent comments about rape were reprehensible

Hey, that’s what Mitt Romney and countless other Republican leaders said!  Welcome to the club.

- and so is the GOP platform, modeled after legislation put forth by Akin and Paul Ryan that would ban all abortions…even in the case of rape – but it is clear that Akin isn’t alone.

Just because Akin said one dumb thing doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings from being destroyed.

Chuck goes on to insist that women can get pregnant from rape, which is what all of Akin’s critics concede.  The irony is that Chuck was acting as if his side had a monopoly on science, when they are the ones who ignore the scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.

And Chuck seemed oddly hostile to the children of rapists and fights aggressively for the right to kill them.  I’d entertain the death penalty for the rapists, but I can’t see how that is just for their children.

Abortion is often used to hide the crimes of rape and incest. If they really care about rape, then they should protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …

Note how they ignore the well-being of the unborn human being.  Just because killing a human being appears to improve the well-being of another human being it still isn’t justified.

Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

That sentence is gibberish.  First, it doesn’t define “social justice.”  Did the government give unwanted artificial insemination to these women?  What injustice made people have sex?  Being relatively poor compared to those in your country (not to mention being simultaneously very wealthy compared to the rest of the planet) is not an excuse to kill unwanted human beings.

And what could more unjust than destroying an innocent human being merely because she is unwanted?

Does parenting under “highly stressed circumstances” justify killing children outside the womb?  Of course not. So why is it valid inside the womb?

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

That is the biggest and most disingenuous lie of all.  Again, it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization, so under no circumstances can they claim to “affirm the sacredness of all life” while justifying the destruction of over  3,000 lives in the U.S. each day.

Worse yet, these people advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions, which means they think that one of our problems is that there aren’t enough unwanted human beings destroyed each day.  And they claim Jesus is on their side!

encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;

That is where they talk in circles.  They want to act as if abortion is sort of bad — not bad enough to be illegal, but bad enough to want to consider other options.  But if it doesn’t kill innocent human beings, why would they prefer other options?

upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services,

Watch out for their deadly euphemisms like “family planning” services.  If you are pregnant, then that human being is part of your family.  Killing her doesn’t change that.

and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others; . . . People of faith must stand up and defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.

Another deadly phrase: “health care decisions.”  That is right up there with “reproductive rights,” but remember that abortion kills a human being that has been reproduced.

 It shouldn’t be left up to Todd Akin, Paul Ryan or other politicans.

The lives of the unborn shouldn’t be left up to fake Christians like Chuck, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

It is morbidly ironic that Chuck’s most frequently quoted verse is from Matthew 25: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”  Yet he opposes any restrictions to abortions and thinks we need more of them via taxpayer-funding.

Finally, consider how this is one of the rare topics where Liberals don’t play the race card (there is a recent notable exception that I’ll post about separately).  Why is that?  Perhaps because the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites, and for Hispanics it is two times that of whites.  And they know that taxpayer-funded abortions would increase those rates.  Actively supporting policies that kill minorities at such incredibly higher rates seems kinda . . . I don’t know . . . racist.

Jesus is the author of life (Acts 3:15).  False teachers like Chuck deny the divinity of Jesus (and therefore the Trinity), the exclusivity of Jesus (He is the only way to salvation and they teach the opposite), the authority and accuracy of scripture, and so much more.  Their position on abortion is just one more example of them being wolves in sheep’s clothing.

People of real faith should be anti-abortion.

Liberalism and poverty: The cause, not the cure

False teacher Chuck Currie’s piece on How To End Homelessness: Fight Poverty reminded me of when Homer Simpson said, “Beer: The cause of . . . and cure for all life’s problems.”  Only in this case, Liberalism just causes poverty, it doesn’t cure it.  If people graduate high school and don’t have sex outside of marriage their odds of being poor are very low.  Yet Chuck et al are the cheerleaders for the anti-God Planned Parenthood-style sexual mores that are destroying this country.  If you really want to fight poverty you’ll spread the Gospel.  Transformed hearts and minds lead to a more moral society, which reduces poverty.

Ending homelessness, Currie says, will take a massive push on curbing poverty . . .

So there is a connection between people not having money and being homeless?  Who knew?!

– including not only creating jobs, but also preparing workers for those jobs –

So why do Liberals oppose all the ways we could create jobs in this country?  Why don’t they support more oil drilling and the Keystone Pipeline, which would reduce energy costs for everyone and make homes more affordable and provide jobs that would increase tax revenues?  Or how about merely not aggressively killing the coal industry? (Sadly, that is one promise Obama is keeping.)

and on making huge investments in affordable housing

Details, please.  What are these “huge” investments and how do they make housing affordable?  Is that code for taking from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B?

and building up programs for in-home support of the elderly, those with physical disabilities and those suffering from other health, mental health and addiction problems.

Yes, many homeless have mental problems and will never be able to maintain a residence in their current state.  But try to institutionalize them and watch the lawsuits fly.

. . . The Half in Ten Campaign is advancing progressive economic policies to reduce poverty that stand in stark contrast to the budget proposal put forward by Paul Ryan and adopted this week by the U.S. House that would increase poverty and homelessness, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And you can totally trust that source, especially when it is proven that Liberals fail at basic economics.

President Obama’s budget proposals move us in a much better direction.

Yes, and that’s why his budget didn’t get one single vote from Republicans OR Democrats.  I repeat: Not a single vote from Democrats!

I remain strongly convinced from the polls and my own experiences that we Americans are a compassionate people who want our government to advance policies that promote the common good over the needs of the special interests or the wealthiest and most powerful among us. We can end homelessness. We simply need to make the moral investment.

And we should all take seriously the moral claims from someone who thinks that one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions in this country. You see, fake Reverend Chuck is pro-taxpayer funded abortions.  As with most liberals, he thinks that killing unwanted human beings reduces poverty.  While pretending to oppose the powerful they think people should have the power to destroy the unwanted.

Pro-abortion “Reverend” shocked that people could be callous towards the unwanted

This is soaked with irony, and the saddest part is that false teacher Chuck Currie doesn’t even realize what a self-parody he is.  See Statement On Ash Wednesday Shootings Of Homeless Portlanders.

I urge all Oregonians to pray today for the two men experiencing homelessness who were shot early this morning under Portland, Oregon’s Morrison Bridge in what police are calling a random attack.

I think we would all agree that you shouldn’t harm homeless people.

Violence against those who are homeless is a national epidemic, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH).

Violence against the unborn — over 3,000 crushed and dismembered human beings per day — is a larger epidemic.  Yet unlike the shooting of the homeless, which everyone except the shooters knows is wrong, we have “Reverends” like Chuck who think one of our problems is that we don’t have enough abortions (he advocates for taxpayer-funded abortions).

But this is a spiritual crisis as much as a political or economic crisis.  When we allow people living on our streets to become invisible we begin the process of dehumanization and thus we see the increase in hate crimes against the most vulnerable in our society – those Jesus would have called the “least of these.”

Just replace “people living on our streets” with “unborn” and watch your hypocrisy meter explode.  Yeah, Chuck, if you ignore the homeless pretty soon people will kill the unborn simply because they are unwanted. Oh, wait, they do that already, and you think that is a moral good.

Ash Wednesday begins the Lenten season of reflection and prayer.  Let our prayers this Lent be with those children, women and men living on our streets in the most prosperous nation on earth.

Any prayers for those human beings living in the womb, “Reverend?”

The attacks today were nothing short of a terrorist attack.  The crisis of homelessness is nothing short of sin.

The far, far bigger sin is fake Christians advocating for abortion.

As always, remember that forgiveness and healing are possible for those who have participated in the abortion process.

Case study: How the administration uses false teachers to manipulate “religious” people

False teacher Chuck Currie* offers us a glimpse into how the President manipulates useful idiots into advancing his agenda in President Obama Will Announce Contraception Accommodation That Expands Coverage.

President Obama will speak at 9:15 am to announce an accommodation that expands contraception access for women and meets the needs of religious employers with objections to offering coverage.  I’ve been briefed by senior White House officials and the plan is sound.

It has been obvious that much of what Chuck writes is simply a copy/paste job from Obama talking points, but I’m surprised he admitted it.  He appeared to do that with the Giffords shooting, ghoulishly and falsely blaming Sarah Palin before the bodies were cold, and he does it regularly on whatever the latest topic is.  I’m surprise he outed himself, though.

The parallels to the Nazis are so creepy: Fake Christians being mouthpieces for the culture-of-death government.

Religious employers will not be required to offer insurance plans that cover contraception. But those insurance companies will be required to provide free contraception to women.

A fact they never mention: This “contraception” includes abortifacients that kill human beings after fertilization.

Also not mentioned: Those sentences contradict each other and thus mean nothing.  It is still a requirement of making employers pay the costs.  Only in the fantasy world of Liberal economics is there such a thing as “free” health care.  Let’s see: The insurance companies “have” to give “free” health care in the form of contraception, but they would never, ever make up the costs anywhere else, would they?  Because that would mean the employers were still paying.

Fact: Either Chuck & Co. are failures at economics (that is what studies show) and/or they think you are an idiot.  It really shows how much contempt they have for people who value life and freedom of religion, when all they did was repackage the same mandate into allegedly more flexible language.

Note how they can — and probably will — do the same thing with abortion funding (“You don’t have to pay for it, your insurer just has to give it for free.  And they will gladly do so because it is cheaper than childbirth.”)

The religious angle is part of it, but I think what they are really trying to do is conflate contraception (very popular) with abortion (increasingly unpopular).  They know they are losing the stand-alone battle on abortion, as young people (i.e., Roe v Wade survivors) are becoming more pro-life.  But those same people want there to be access to birth control.

By merging the issues they think they have a better shot at winning the abortion battle.  And they may be right.  Like I say, Satan is evil but not stupid.  The end game is taxpayer-funded abortions, because they truly believe that one of our problems is that people are killing enough innocent but unwanted human beings.

Insurance companies would prefer to offer free contraception than to cover the costs of an unwanted pregnancy or diseases that contraception can help prevent.

This is creative thinking by President Obama and his staff.

Really?  Then why don’t those businesses do that already?  Why does the government have to force them to do it?

Creative?  Evil?  Whatever.  There is no right to health care.  A right to health care would mean that someone else has a moral obligation to provide it.

And people can buy all the contraceptives they like.  No one is proposing that they be illegal.  The cries about “access” are simply lies.

And the disease reduction bit is nonsense.  Graph the growth and Federal funding of Planned Parenthood and the exponential increase in STDs and don’t be surprised at the correlation.  Condoms prevent some diseases, but give a false sense of security on others.  And most other contraceptives increase the spread of disease because they perpetuate the sex-without-consequences fantasy.

Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association, and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise.

The CEO of the largest baby killer in the country supports it?!  That’s all I need to know.  Read all about the founder of Planned Parenthood here, and how her dream of eliminating blacks and other “unfit” people is being fulfilled by people like Chuck and Cecile.

Many Christian denominations – the United Church of Christ included - strongly support contraception and have applauded the president’s efforts to expand coverage.

Many apostate denominations, that is.  You know, the ones that think they don’t need religious freedoms because their views are indistinguishable from those of the world.

Any opposition to this new proposal will be partisan politics, pure and simple.

Wow, what an amazing preemptive rhetorical move!  Now why doesn’t it ever occur to us to just start debates by saying that.  We’d win every time, right?

Finally, note the hypocrisy in all this.  Why aren’t the ACLU et al blasting religious people like Currie and Obama for forcing their religious views on others?

More on this at Jill Stanek’s blog

———-

* Some views of the “reverend” Chuck Currie and nearly all other theological liberals:

• Jesus is not God (so he denies the Trinity).
• Jesus is not the only way to salvation.
• Jesus is pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion.
• The original writings of the Bible were not inspired by God, but you should believe. that the Holy Spirit told him and the other Liberals in the UCC that God has changed his stance on marriage, parenting and homosexual behavior (now that’s blasphemy!).  But it is still OK to quote any verses out of context if they seem to support your case for expanded government.
• Asking “Caesar” to take by threat of force from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B counts as charity on your part and really pleases Jesus.
• It is acceptable to take 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades.
• The book of John doesn’t belong in the Bible.  Actually, most of the Bible doesn’t belong in the Bible.
• The Gospel of Thomas does belong in the Bible.
• It is more exciting to do sermons on Charles Darwin more than Jesus.
• It is acceptable to lie and libel people on blogs as long as you think you won’t get caught.
• It is acceptable to try to “out” commenters on public blogs as “haters”  to their employers when they point out how bad your arguments are.
• Christians have as much to learn from other religions as they do from Christianity.
• and so much more!

But he’s totally a Christian, because he’s a “reverend!”  And you know that because — unlike nearly every other reverend I see blogging — it is in his blog title and everything he writes.  It is almost as if he thinks you wouldn’t “know” he’s a reverend if he didn’t keep reminding you . . .

False teacher follow up

As I noted in The Westar Wolves broke my irony meter, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie used the Huffington Post to market the false teachers at the Jesus Seminar in The Bible Seminar: Rescuing the Text.  I made a comment that actually got through the far-Left leaning editors there.  I was merely pointing out that Chuck’s group believes the opposite of what authentic Christians do:

Just check out what Wikipedia says about these “Christian­” Jesus Seminar scholars: They deny the resurrecti­on, the deity of Christ, the exclusivit­y of Christ for salvation (even though the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation)­, the inspiratio­n of the Bible (they claim it is just written by men, though it claims to speak for God over 3,000 times), and more.

They are welcome to their views, of course. I respect religious freedom and wouldn’t want anyone to stifle that. But I find it completely dishonest for Chuck and the Jesus Seminar to claim to be Christian when they disagree with so many essentials of the faith.

And then there is the hypocrisy: Their politics-d­isguised-a­s-religion is the same thing they claim to oppose. They twist the Bible to say that Jesus is fine with abortion, same-sex marriage, having the government take from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B and calling it charity on your part, etc.

Usually Chuck knows enough to ignore me, because he can never back up his points and can only resort to personal attacks.  But he slipped and actually responded to me.

Note how he completely ignored my assertions and just resorted to personal attacks.  (BTW, I know that he probably thinks I attack him, but if you read carefully you’ll see that I always point to his content and errors and I back up my claims.  I don’t just say, “Chuck is ignorant.”  If I say he lied, I show where and how he lied.  If I say he got a Bible verse wrong again, I show what he got wrong.)

Perhaps the biggest symbol of ignorance is using Wikipedia as a source of informatio­n on theology. There is a reason middle school and high school teachers won’t let students use it as a source for papers.

But I’m not surprised this reference showed up here. It happens all the time. We need more than a third grade theologica­l education to debate these important issues and that is what is clearly missing in theologica­l debates over the meaning of the Bible.

You’ve illustrate­d the point that Biblical literacy is important.

- Rev. Chuck Currie

That was sweet of him.  Note how he implied that Wikipedia was wrong and used the entire comment to just attack me.  Here’s my response:

Chuck,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I’m puzzled by the content.  I’m familiar with the limitations of Wikipedia, as most people are (including the fact that it leans Left), but I wouldn’t personally attack someone who referred to it as being the “biggest symbol of ignorance” and implying that he is biblically illiterate.  I would tend to dig deeper before making such claims.

Since you are an Associate Director at Westar, I figured you would be interested in what Wikipedia said about your organization and would want it to be accurate.

I think most readers will see that you implied that the Wikipedia information was incorrect.  Therefore, perhaps you can clarify a few things for us:

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the physical resurrecti­on of Jesus?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the deity of Christ?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the exclusivit­y of Christ for salvation?   (Note: It is public record that Chuck directly denies it.  He did a whole sermon on why Jesus is not the only way to salvation, even though the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation­.  I’m sure he’d be glad to link to the sermon here.)

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the divine inspiratio­n of the original texts of the Bible, just as the writers claim?

If you can confirm that the Jesus Seminar affirms all those things and point to documentation of it, I will gladly retract my reference to Wikipedia.

This is a great opportunity for you to clear up some confusion.  After all, if all the Wikipedia claims are in error, as you implied, and if Westar is all about increasing biblical literacy, wouldn’t you relish the opportunity to set the record straight about Jesus being divine, the only way to salvation, etc.?  I know the Bible teaches those things to be true.  I’m encouraged that your response implies that you do as well.

After a day he hadn’t responded, even though he was very active on an Oregon Live thread (so I know he was at his PC).  So I left this comment:

Chuck, are you going to respond? As a Westar Associate Director on a mission to “rescue the text” of the Bible I figured you’d welcome the opportunity to clear things up.

To recap, you implied that Wikipedia was incorrect about the Jesus Seminar beliefs. Wouldn’t this be a great place to clarify those?

You ignored my comment and insisted that I was ignorant for daring to refer to Wikipedia. Of course, I just used that reference out of convenience, because it mirrored everything I have ever heard from the Jesus Seminar.

So I ask again:

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the physical resurrecti­­on of Jesus?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the deity of Christ?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the exclusivit­­y of Christ for salvation, even though you preach the opposite?

Does the Jesus Seminar affirm the divine inspiratio­­n of the original texts of the Bible, just as the Bible writers claimed?

If you can confirm that the Jesus Seminar affirms all those things and point to documentat­ion of it, I will gladly retract my reference to Wikipedia. You’ll want to set them straight as well. That’s how Wikipedia works.

Three days and still no reply from Chuck.

Kudos to HuffPo for not censoring my comments.  Yet.

The Westar Wolves broke my irony meter

The Westar Institute is home of the Jesus Seminar, the group of fake Christians who literally voted on which things Jesus “really” said in the New Testament and which He did not. Not surprisingly, the “Jesus” they ended up with looked remarkably like contemporary liberal culture — in other words, just like them.  They deny his divinity, his miracles, his resurrection and more in making him out to be an early Occupy Wall Street-type rebel.  In other words, no one holding their views should claim to be Christian.  They may have degrees but they speak nonsense, such as what Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg said here.

Now here’s some news from their new employee Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie: The Bible Seminar Set To Increase Biblical Literacy – Just In Time.

It is hard to imagine a more ironic title.  These “Christians” can’t go three sentences without creating a god in their own image but they think they are going to increase biblical literacy?  Sure.  Just like their spokesman did a whole sermon explaining why Jesus isn’t the only way to salvation because he insisted that John 14:6 didn’t belong in the Bible but that the Gospel of Thomas did (yeah, what did the early church know, anyway?!).  And he didn’t even realize there were 100+ additional verses to rationalize away to make his point!  He insisted that the Gospel of John was written after 130 A.D., even though atheist textual critics like Bart Ehrman and others place it at 90-95 A.D.  (I think it was written before 70 A.D., but that is another topic.)

The Westar Institute – home of the Jesus Seminar and Polebridge Press – will be launching a new initiative called the Bible Seminar this month to promote Biblical literacy and the timing couldn’t be better.

I agree that biblical illiteracy is rampant.  But looking to the Westar Wolves for assistance is like asking Jerry Sandusky to fight pedophilia.  I mean, he appears to know a lot about it, but there is a difference between a cause and a cure.

You have to feel bad for White House Press Secretary Jay Carney who made the unfortunate mistake recently of attributing the phrase “the Lord helps those who help themselves” to the Bible.  It’s a common mistake.  In fact, pollster George Barna has found that 75% of Americans believe this phrase, most likely from Benjamin Franklin, comes from Scripture.

Again, let’s remember that Chuck distorts every verse he touches.  How can someone get a seminary degree and not know that the New Testament claims countless times that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that Jesus is divine?  That isn’t what makes those true, of course, but they are obviously positions every authentic Christian should hold.

Carney’s mistake isn’t very worrisome.  What is truly concerning are how many Americans, for example, would claim that Jesus is opposed to gay marriage.  Jesus never uttered a word about homosexuality as far as we know – for or against – but people will claim that he did.

Predictable.  Of course Chuck hasn’t read where Jesus reiterated who God made marriage for: One man and one woman (Mark 10).  And yes, that statement was in response to the issue of divorce, but it still indicates God’s plan for marriage.  You can’t get away from it.

And Chuck offers no evidence and uses the “what Jesus didn’t say” argument from silence, which fails on many levels: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on this topic in the sense that they reiterated what marriage is, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally “silent” on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), His failure to mention bestiality, child abuse and other obvious sins wouldn’t justify them, and homosexual behavior simply wasn’t a hot topic for 1st century Jews.  Other than that, it is a great argument.

More importantly, note how this false teacher tips his hand by saying Jesus never addressed homosexuality.  Remember, the clear claim of scripture and an essential of the Christian faith is that Jesus is part of the Trinity.  Jesus is God, the Bible is the word of God, therefore the Bible is the word of Jesus.  The original writings turned out exactly the way He wanted them to.  Therefore, all the verses about human sexuality turned out exactly the way Jesus wanted:

• 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
• 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
• 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
• 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Also, Chuck is implying that Romans and other writings addressing homosexuality aren’t the word of God.  That’s a peculiar thing for a Christian to say.

There are three types of pro-gay theologians, and Chuck and the Jesus Seminar are in the most explicitly anti-Christian group, the one that believes that the Bible is either not the Word of God, or that most parts of it aren’t.

Our level of Biblical literacy is low in the United States.

Twenty five years ago, The Westar Institute started the Jesus Seminar to bring Biblical scholars out of classrooms and into the public square to discuss the life and ministry of Jesus in new ways.  The project largely focused then on the historical Jesus and sought to set Jesus within his own historical context and to explore the meaning of his life and death free from dogmatic constraints that had for centuries limited our understanding of who Jesus was.  For many Christians the work of the Jesus Seminar was liberating – for the Religious Right is was blasphemous.

Not just the religious right thinks it is blasphemous.  Chuck & Co. are so comfortable in their little Western Liberal religious cocoon that they don’t know what real Christians have believed for 2,000 years and around the world.  I know lots of Christians outside the U.S., and I assure you that Chuck and Westar do not speak for them.

Dr. Stephen Patterson, director of The Westar Institute and George H. Atkinson Professor of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University in Salem, Ore., notes that the mission of Westar is to “facilitate collaborative, critical scholarship and bring it before the public for the common good.  Lately, however, we have not been heard.  Our evangelical friends are well-organized and well-funded and consequently can raise their voice above all others.  Our new project, The Bible Seminar, is our attempt to re-ignite the fires of the Jesus Seminar and raise once again the voice of critical scholarship in a conversation that has veered far to the right.”

I can’t wait to see their content!

Groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council and figures like Albert Mohler use Scripture to justify all kinds of conservative causes:  oppression of women, opposition to environmental protections, support for U.S. military intervention in places like Iraq, opposition to marriage equality, etc.  But are these Biblical positions? Plenty of scholars who study the Bible would say no and argue that these are political position cloaked in religious language.

Eek!  Bible-believing Christians!  Wait . . . what do they mean by “oppression of women?”  Oh, if you are opposed to crushing and dismembering innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb then you want to oppress women . . . even though gender selection abortions are used almost exclusively to kill females for the sole reason that they are female.

“Marriage equality” = tired sound bite.  ”Same-sex marriage” is not, and never will be, equal to real marriage as outlined in the Bible.

The Bible Seminar will help equip those scholars to better engage in public debate and enter into discussion and dialogue with clergy and lay Christians (and non-believers as well) to liberate the Bible from those who would misuse it for their own partisan political purposes.

Yeah, because people would never misuse the Bible to rationalize the government taking by force from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B and calling it “Christianity,” and they would never use it to justify abortion and teaching 5 yr. olds how “normal” LGBTQ behavior is.

Like the Jesus Seminar before it, the Bible Seminar won’t answer all the questions.  What this project will do, however, is allow the questions to be asked and in the process solicit diverse voices that often aren’t even invited to the table to be part of the discussion.  We can expect the work to be controversial but always exciting.

I used to feel sorry for people taken in by fakes like Chuck Currie and the Jesus Seminar.  Now I tend to think that they get what they deserve: a false god to worship.

Westar is a poster child for Leopard Theology, where they claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, as well as Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling Western theological liberals and progressives.

Jesus warned us many times of false teachers, and He was right.  My guess is that those passages were the first ones jettisoned by the Westar Wolves.

Please note how their “biblical literacy” campaign immediately self-destructs with respect to their anti-Christ mission. Their main point in the past has been dismissing the verses they don’t like as not being of Jesus, or dismissing whole books of the Bible as not belonging.  But they can’t deny what is actually in the Bible.

For example, Chuck can try and deny that Jesus spoke the words of John 14:6, but he can’t deny that it is in the book.  So if they want to debate what the Bible really says — whether they think Jesus said it or not — they are going to lose badly.  They used to cheat by pulling out verses that opposed their made up religion, but if they are going to point to what is in the whole book then they can’t play that game any longer.  

This will be fun.  

Did Hermain Cain lie about Planned Parenthood?

Consider Cain’s words here:

Schieffer also pushed Cain on his history of comments attacking Planned Parenthood as an organization that favors “genocide” in the black community — comments Cain said he still believes.

“I still stand by that,” Cain said. ”If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from … What I’m saying is, Planned Parenthood isn’t sincere about wanting to try to counsel them not to have abortions.”

Those words are 100.00% accurate.  No lies there.  It is a fact that abortion rates in the black community are three times that of whites, and pro-legalized abortion voters and Planned Parenthood deeply desire taxpayer-funded abortions that are certain to increase that rate.  Therefore, the policies most dear to them result in the black population shrinking as a percent of the total.  Just imagine the outcry if Republicans supported policies that killed more blacks in a week than KKK has done since their inception.

But false teacher Chuck Currie says that  Herman Cain lied about Planned Parenthood Lie (and Chuck would know lying, I suppose).  But what of Cain’s claims?  PolitiFact quotes Cain here:

“When Margaret Sanger – check my history – started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world,” Cain said during a talk in Washington, D.C., at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.

“It’s planned genocide,” Cain added. He wants the U.S. Congress to yank funding for Planned Parenthood, which receives about $75 million a year to provide non-abortion health services.

Technically Cain may have been wrong on the precisely worded original goals of Planned Parenthood (although it it easy to see how proud Sanger would be of how many blacks PP aborts).  But even PolitiFact notes this, though they water down Sanger’s evils:

The supposed evidence that Sanger supported black genocide is a loose collection of her most objectionable statements, her ties to the disgraced eugenics movement, and her work on what was called the Negro Project. That effort, started in 1939, brought birth control services (but not abortion) to black communities in the South.

That’s not “supposed evidence,” that’s evidence.

And speaking of lies, why don’t Chuck & Co. criticize Planned Parenthood for their serial lies in hiding statutory rape?  Or their lies about offering mammograms?  Is lying bad, or not?

Truths: The greatest killer of black human beings in the U.S. is abortion.  The abortion rates in the U.S. mean the black population is a smaller part of the whole than it would be otherwise.  Democrats support this 100%.  Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, aggressively worked to decrease the black population.

I’m going to side with Herman Cain over a false teacher and Planned Parenthood on this one.

—–

More things to consider

Here’s one time when Planned Parenthood didn’t lie and when I agreed with them: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Sadly, that was their view in this 1964 advertisement but they changed it when they realized how profitable abortions would be and how they could fulfill Margaret Sanger’s vision.

Regarding genocide: A pro-abort on Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution“ Wallis‘ blog tried to insist that as a conservative and pro-lifer I was just trying to keep my majority.  I enjoyed pointing out that if I wanted to do that I would be just like her and fake Christians like Chuck: I would support Planned Parenthood, I would oppose crisis pregnancy centers and I would vote for Democrats.

Also see Group of 99% whites raises money to destroy group of 76% blacks. Anyone else find that creepy?

Weekly roundup

The Doctrine of the Trinity: No Christianity Without It – a superb overview of the Trinity — read and enjoy!

—

This is great news: Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood: What to expect

—

Abortion proponent “thrilled” by an abortion on “Grey’s Anatomy” – great analysis of the moral schizophrenia of the pro-abortion movement.

One of many problems abortion proponents have is sending mixed messages about getting one.  Whether to act glib and risk offending normal sensibilities, or to act serious and risk humanizing the baby, that is the question.

. . .

And then the abortion. It ends up only looking sick and pathetic for a father to go so far as to willingly watch the baby he loves and wants being killed, all to support that child’s mother. And why all the drama if it isn’t human children being killed by abortion?

—

Scott Klusendorf is one of the world’s best pro-life apologists.  He had a good analysis of Ray Comfort’s 180 movie (go watch it if you haven’t yet).  You can only put so much in a 30 minute movie, so here are some things to be aware of if people have questions about the movie.  (Scott had lots of good things to say as well.  I just included the critiques here.)

My concern: The film overlooked some important distinctions:

1) The distinction between people in the film (Venice Beach?) and the public at large—The sample used in the film is not only small; it’s not where most people are in terms of historical knowledge. . . .

2) The distinction between shouting a conclusion and establishing one–A sharp abortion-choicer could easily say, “Ya, I value human life. What Hitler did to Jews was wrong, but the unborn are not valuable human beings, so the comparison fails.” To succeed, pro-lifers must first establish that the unborn are indeed human (which the film does through images rather than scientific evidence), but then show that none of the differences between the embryos we once were and the adults we are today justify killing us at that earlier stage of development. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, are not value giving in the way that abortion-advocates need them to be in order to make their case. In short, jumping from killing Jews for bad reasons to killing the unborn for those same reasons leaves out important premises in the pro-life argument.

3) The distinction between killing a “baby” and unjustly killing human beings—Perhaps I am nitpicking here, but I think Comfort asks the wrong question when he points to a 6-week fetus and says, “Doesn’t that look like a baby?” What if the critic says “no?” End of discussion. . . .

4) The distinction between voting for pro-life candidates and voting pro-life–Put simply, what does it really mean to vote pro-life? . . .

5) The distinction between intentional killing and killing that is merely foreseen–Is it always wrong to kill an innocent human being? What about ectopic pregnancy? . . .

Despite these concerns, the film is worth seeing and Comfort gets huge accolades for his courage in confronting abortion head-on. Say what you want, at least he’s doing something about it and for that I am immensely grateful. Before ripping him, his evangelical critics need to ask themselves what they are doing to stop the bloodshed. Are they taking this holocaust as seriously as Comfort does? I can only pray that one day they will.

—

The dealth penalty and deterrence: what the research shows – contrary to myths, the death penalty is a deterrent.  The question is whether it is appropriate as a deterrent (I think it is).  After all, capital punishment for speeding would be a deterrent, but perhaps over the top.

—

Random thought about evolution by Glenn — good stuff!  My favorite, which the Darwinists typically gloss over or ignore:

DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different types of protiens.  But these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA.  Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.  Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously.  This implies Creation. (Walter T. Brown, Jr., In the Beginning, p.6)

—

False teacher Chuck Currie named Associate Director of False Teacher (Westar) Institute

—

San Francisco Values: White ‘Master,’ Black ‘Slave’ Adorn Cover of Folsom Street Fair 2011 Program Guide – This goes on in Nancy Pelosi’s district.  The police do nothing to stop it.  The Left doesn’t protest it.

—

False ‘it gets better’ promise claims a victim

Homosexual activists Dan Savage and Lady Gaga should be brought up on charges of murder for issuing wholesale false promises and lies to young people confused about their sexuality.

Play False Teacher Bingo with false teacher Chuck Currie!

Fisking the posts of  false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie and similar Democratic shills gets repetitive, so I thought I’d make a handy list of bingo-type items to make it more fun.  You better pay attention, though, because there will usually be a winner before you get past the first paragraph.

The politics-disguised-as-religion of false teacher Chuck and others is pretty predictable.  Here’s a sample from his latest post – Jon Huntsman’s Crazy Tweet.

1. Faux attempt at agreeability: Check

There is a lot you can disagree with GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman on.  After all, debate is what campaigns are all about.

Of course, Huntsman is from the Obama team and is as much of a true conservative as Chuck is a true Christian.  And Chuck usually prattles about civility before making vicious and unfounded attacks.

2. Straw man about Christians being anti-science: Check

But I appreciated his “crazy” tweet this week for two reasons:  he embraced science (while the rest of the GOP field seems to be afraid of science and the role it plays in society) and he demonstrated that there are issues on which Republicans and Democrats can and should find common ground.

Of course, he shouldn’t blindly trust scientists on global warming or anything else.  If Chuck knew about original sin he’d realize that everyone is capable of putting their interests over the truth.  Sort of how Chuck is a serial, unrepentant liar himself.

And of course, everyone believes in some form of evolution.  It is part of the Leftist game to act like we don’t realize that micro-evolution exists.  That is a real tip-off to whether your opponent is being disingenuous like Chuck and Huntsman.

And do Chuck and Huntsman trust the scientists worried about how global warming will tip of space aliens?  Now that seems crazy to me.  I keep thinking that must be fromThe Onion, but apparently not.

3. Pretend that Republicans only care about themselves and not the country, while slamming those who question Obama’s patriotism: Check.

 You’ll remember that the GOP’s Senate leader was asked after the 2010 election what his party’s #1 priority was:  beating President Obama in 2012, he replied.  He didn’t say fixing the economy or creating jobs.

Did Chuck miss where Obama’s economic counsel noted that he needed to do something about jobs so he could get re-elected but not because they should actually do something about jobs?

4. Ridiculous hyperbole:  Check.

The only goal the Republicans have is defeating President Obama and in the debate over the debt ceiling they proved they were willing to drive the country over a cliff to do so – no matter what happened to the American people.

Pointing out that spending 60+% over what you take in is bad for the health of the nation is not “driving the country over a cliff.”  Spending 60% more than what you take in is driving the country over a cliff — and saying it is all Jesus’ idea is just blasphemy on the part of the religious Left.

5. Repeat the “Tea Party downgrade” sound bite like a good little fake reverend political shill: Check

And thus we received the Tea Party downgrade of our credit rating as a nation.  All because of politics.

Oh, yes, because people like Chuck are never just about politics!  And the S&P documents were clear in saying that a $4 trillion reduction would have saving the rating.  And who had the $4 trillion reduction in the plan?  The Tea Party.  But Chuck is just reading from his script.

6. Pretend that the Republicans should pick the candidate that the Democrats and the mainstream media (a redundancy, I know) like best: Check.

Huntsman is running a campaign that seems to be based on the idea that the country is more important than any one election or political party.

This is like E.J. Dionne’s article this morning fawning over Mitt Romney and bashing Rick Perry.  Uh, isn’t Dionne a serious Liberal?  If he likes a Republican candidate that much shouldn’t I be a bit wary?  Same thing with Chuck pushing Huntsman.

But hey, letting the Left pick McCain in 2008 sure turned out well, didn’t it?

7. Work in the “hate”/ “homophobe” theme: Check

The Tea Party GOP might hate him for it and he might drop out before a single vote is cast but it will be to their lasting regret.

OK, that wasn’t Chuck’s typical abuse of the “hate” card, but most of his posts have it.  He typically plays the Liberal game of quoting some group that has classified another group as a “hate organization.”  How do they define hate?  Merely stating that homosexual behavior is a sin or that Islam is a false religion (so technically they think all authentic Christians — and Jesus, of course — are haters).  But Chuck & Co. never offer real evidence, they just quote the 3rd party as being authoritative.

And of course, those like Chuck are the real homophobes, as they are so scared of the LGBTQ lobby that they’ll deny their (alleged) God, holy book and common sense to please them.

8.Work in terms like extremist, radical right, etc. – preferably multiple times: Check

Huntsman is a conservative, no question about it, but he is a principled American first and a candidate like that could win a general election (maybe not against President Obama, who is also a principled man) but the GOP today doesn’t seem as interested in principle as they do extremism.

Chuck was lazy today, but he usually works in the “extremist” theme several times.

Seems to me that the extremists would be those who think that:

• it is OK to crush and dismember innocent but unwanted human beings
• marriage should be redefined to include men marrying men and women marrying women.
• you should tell the government to take from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B and call it charity on your part.
• you can call yourself a  Christian reverend but teach that Jesus is not the only way to salvation, you can’t trust the Bible, and that Christians have as much to learn from Islam and other religions as they do from us.
• it is good parenting to take 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades.

9. Play the race card: Whoa — he forgot one of his favorites!  Maybe he’ll update the post later.  If you’ve seen Chuck at his blog or when he posts elsewhere, he has a little routine where as quickly as possible he makes some sort of KKK or other racist reference.  My favorite example of his race-baiting was when he didn’t realize that the pastor he was criticizing was black and and he accused him of being a racist.  Oops!

Here’s your list.  What am I missing?

1. Faux attempt at agreeability

2. Straw man about Christians being anti-science

3. Pretend that Republicans only care about themselves and not the country, while slamming those who question Obama’s patriotism

4. Ridiculous hyperbole

5. Repeat the “Tea Party downgrade” sound bite

6. Pretend that the Republicans should pick the candidate that the Democrats and the mainstream media (a redundancy, I know) like best

7. Work in the “hate” /”homophobe” theme

8. Work in terms like extremist, radical right, etc. – preferably multiple times

9. Work the race card

False teacher ignores Biden’s real violent rhetoric, makes up Perry issue

Race-baiting false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is a pathetic political hack.  Does the UCC pay him for this nonsense?  It is fascinating how someone could be that bad at theology and politics and still be on HuffPo (oh, wait a minute, that’s not surprising at all).  Chuck’s hypocrisy is so reflexive that he probably revels in the irony of him demonizing Perry for political gain, all the while pretending to be the civil one.

Completely ignoring Joe Biden describing Tea Partiers as terrorists, Currie tips his hand at his pants-wetting fear that Rick Perry will annihilate Obama the way Reagan whipped Carter in 1980.

What was Perry’s “violent rhetoric” that Chuck boo-hoo’d about in Presidential Candidates Should Reject Violent Rhetoric; Embrace Church Call For Civility?  Just this:

. . . Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke “print more money” between now and the election. Speaking just now in Iowa, Perry said, “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.”

So Perry said that something would be “almost treasonous,” and that qualifies for a sermonette from Chuck?  Here is Chuck’s hyperbole:

He needs to acknowledge his error, apologize, and find ways to communicate his vision for the nation that bring people together instead of tearing the fabric of our society apart.

No, Chuck needs to acknowledge his theological errors and hate-driven agenda then repent and believe in Jesus.  Just because he quotes the National Council of (apostate) Churches (which gets non-religious funding, not surprisingly) it doesn’t mean he is making a biblical point.

Will the Libs at Huffpo lap this up?  Of course.  It will help them sleep at night, hoping that this miserable failure of a President is running out the clock.  The good news is that the independent voters will realize what a fake shill Chuck is and realize that they should vote for Perry.  I mean, if that is the best the Left can come up with to demonize him, that’s pretty bad news for them.

Also see Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry.  That list will come in handy when Chuck & Co. are making up lies about why you shouldn’t vote for him.

P.S. You can tell that Chuck still fears Sarah Palin, because he brought her up again.

Fact: More economic freedom in a country = higher quality of life

Watch this 2.5 minute video. Do you really want to help people? Push for the rule of law, free trade, sound money and smaller government. Note that the U.S. ranking has fallen and is projected to keep falling.

Liberals and false teachers* will tell you that involuntary wealth redistribution is the solution.  They are still wrong.

Via Think economic freedom, think higher quality of life « Hot Air.

*False teachers include people like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution“ Wallis and race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie

Epic fail on ending homelessness

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie wrote an op-ed in The Onion (oops, I meant the Oregonian) about Ending Homelessness.  While I appreciated his concession in the title (“Plan after well-meaning plan in the region misses the mark, failing to address root causes”), the piece reads like a self-parody.  Here’s my paraphrase: ”We’ve had several expensive, decade-long programs to end homelessness and the situation keeps getting worse, but the programs really helped a lot, and we just need to spend lots more and then everything will be fixed!  Oh, and we need to take other people’s money by force to make that happen, because Jesus said to!”

Read it yourself and see what I mean.

He appealed to our need to be our “brother’s keeper.” But does that apply here?  That term occurs in Genesis 4:9 (Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?”).  Most people will note that Cain was referring to his literal brother, not all of humanity. Also, he didn’t say it in reference to being his brother’s caretaker. He had murdered Abel and was basically giving the original version of the smart-aleck response, “It wasn’t my day to watch him.”

So once again Chuck mangles the Bible to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion agenda.  He picks a verse that he thinks backs up his point, but he has already mocked the Bible in whole and in part, so why should we take him seriously when he takes a verse out of context to use as a trump card?

This comment seemed a bit hypocritical, considering how Chuck mocks the traditional (read: real and biblical) view of marriage and is pro-legalized abortion:

This rhetoric has found expression in the tea party movement, which rejects traditional religious understandings of justice and compassion and has left even progressive politicians timid.

Yeah, theological liberals are all about traditional religious understandings!  Didn’t the early church fathers take their 6 yr. old girls to gay pride parades, just like Chuck describes on his blog?  Weren’t they pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer funded abortions, just like Chuck & Co.?

I’m all for helping widows and orphans and the truly needy, but I prefer to do it with my own money (We’ve supported the Star of Hope homeless ministry for years, among other things).  And if I cite Bible verses to support my views, I use them in context, and I don’t force them on non-believers. Chuck did the opposite of all of that.

Chuck’s version of Jesus has him telling us to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A by force (i.e., taxes) to “give” to neighbor B, even if it puts neighbor B and his descendants in semi-permanent bondage to the government.

One of the common sound bites pro-legalized abortionists like Chuck use against pro-lifers is this: “You shouldn’t complain about abortion if you aren’t going to adopt all the kids!” That argument fails on many levels, but it only seems fair to ask Chuck how many formerly homeless people he is currently housing.

I wonder why Chuck doesn’t apply the “brother’s keeper” line of thinking to the unborn?

If Chuck really wants to solve homelessness he needs to switch political parties. One example: We need to drill for more oil. That not only provides lots of high paying jobs but it lowers energy costs and the costs of nearly everything else people buy — thus helping them stay in their own homes!

Also, the increase in the minimum wage always reduces jobs for young black men, whose unemployment rate sits at 40%. Thanks, Chuck & Co.!

We also need to teach comprehensive sex education, but not in the way Chuck & Co. use that term. I mean telling kids that if they don’t have sex out of wedlock and get a high school degree, their chances of being poor or homeless are very, very low. But if they do the opposite their odds skyrocket. But the Left is too busy supporting Planned Parenthood’s failed program of encouraging kids to have allegedly consequence-free sex when they are “ready,” which, shockingly enough, is right about the time when they want to have sex!

Oh, and you could teach the Biblical model — again, the opposite of what Chuck teaches — and tell them that God designed sex for one man and one woman in a life-long commitment. The odds of that resulting in homelessness is also very, very low.

Side note: I like Oregon Live for allowing an actual discussion. Chuck also writes at the Huffington Post and they censor opposing views, regardless of how politely they are expressed.  I was very encouraged by how the other commenters took Chuck to task — there is hope for Oregon!

We’d all like to reduce homelessness.  The question is whether we’ll come up with adult solutions that actually improve the situation, or whether we’ll ignore those and just tell the government to fix it — with someone else’s money, of course.

Yet another passage that theological Liberals ignore or don’t understand

I often point out how false teachers abuse scripture to advance their religion-disguised-as-politics agenda.  Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution“ Wallis likes to point out how there are over 2,000 verses about money in the Bible.  That may be true, but it doesn’t mean he understands them.  False teachers like him and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie think that Jesus taught to ask “Caesar” (i.e., the government) to borrow from others to give away in the name of the oh-so-generous false teachers.

Here’s another verse they ignore or don’t understand, courtesy of  The Servility of the Religious Left « runlevel five(pointer).

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. Proverbs 22:7 English Standard Version

Chuck Currie and the United Church of Christ want to make a lot more slaves. In fact, if they have their way,  the entire nation will become further enslaved to foreign lenders, by insisting that we continue to raise the debt ceiling. Moreover, in response to calls for increased fiscal responsibility, they are demanding an increase in taxes.

The problem is, Currie is not alone in his views. He is joined by a host of other advocates for fiscal irresponsibility that reaches the level of forced servitude for the American people. Such deluded individuals consider spending beyond our means as a nation a good thing. Even elected officials such as Pete Stark go so far to say that the bigger our national debt, the wealthier we are.

Currie should know better. What is truly alarming is his willingness to sacrifice future generations, including his two children, on the altar of the idol of Entitlements and the long-discredited Social Gospel.

Indeed, people who can’t vote or haven’t been born yet will be saddled with the debt that these false teachers advocated in the name of Christ.  Just as God points out in Proverbs, they will be slaves to their lenders.  But at least the borrowers Solomon had in mind were directly responsible for their actions.  No one borrowed in their name and without their approval.

Worse yet, the false teachers’ use of the borrowings is nearly always counterproductive.  It is lose-lose with these guys.