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.

When false teachers get preachy on sin . . .

. . . you know they are rebelling against God in some politically correct way.  They never preach on what the Bible calls sin, but on some politically correct made-up “sin.”

Hateful, libelous, pervertedradical pro-abortionist, false teaching, race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie is upset that some people in Arizona are fighting for the religious freedom not to participate in anti-God “same-sex marriages.”  Via Arizona’s SB1062 Is A Matter Of Sin:

Arizona’s SB1062, a law which would allow religious people to discriminate against LGBT people, is a legal decedent of Jim Crow.  This is not about religious freedom but about bigotry.

They were not born that way, and even if they were, sexual preferences do not warrant special civil rights. Skin color is morally neutral but sexual behavior is not.  The facts are that “not only is sexual orientation fluid, but many instances of change occur without any therapy or intervention. For example, a study from the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 68% of 15 year-olds with same-sex attraction had opposite-sex attraction (OSA) by the age of 21.* Again, these changes occurred spontaneously.”

But Chuck is a Romans 1 poster boy, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and encouraging people to rebel against God via homosexuality and other perversions.

A generation ago people used the Christian faith to justify discrimination against African-Americans and interracial couples. That was a misuse of the faith and only possible because white supremacists superimposed their beliefs over those taught by Jesus.

But those marriages were of one man and one woman.

If Chuck really cared about blacks he’d oppose the genocide of abortion, which kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites.

Using faith today to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians is just as twisted.

By “twisted” he means “biblical” and “in accordance with the 1st Amendment.”

. . . I applaud faith leaders in Arizona, like The Rev. Dr. John Dorhauer, conference minister of the Southwest Conference of the United Church of Christ, who have spoken out against this moral travesty. Love your neighbor, taught Jesus.

I’ll bet Dorhauer is also a pro-abort who claims to “love” his neighbor.

Discrimination is not love nor is it a hallmark religious freedom. Reach out to friends and family in Arizona and tell them that as a person of faith you oppose discriminate and embrace God’s love – a love that extends to God’s gay and lesbian children.

More bad theology from Chuck: God’s children are those who have repented and trust in Jesus: John 1:1 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.  If “Reverend” Chuck actually read his Bible he’d know that.

The Tiny Bible of the Theological Left: Read it all in 5 minutes!

I came across this from 2011 and wanted to re-post it.  It started off as a tongue-in-cheek exercise, but I just kept thinking of more and more examples until my fingers cramped from typing so much.  Seriously, the more you think carefully about what they teach and claim to believe about the Bible the more obvious it is that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.  

—–

There used to be a video store near us that rented movies with objectionable parts removed so the whole family could watch them.  I remember thinking, “What a time saver — you can watch Pulp Fiction in 5 minutes!”

In the same way, you can read the Theological Liberal Bible in about that time, and that is barely an exaggeration (although in this case there are no objectionable parts — at least to believers!).  Thomas Jefferson famously made his own religion with his “Jefferson Bible.” Theological Liberals just go many steps further.  I’m pretty sure this post is longer than their Bible.  Seriously, think about all the things they have to leave out:

First, they must delete the many warnings against false teachers.  There are loads of those, even in the Sermon on the Mount that they think they like but don’t really understand.

Matthew 5:17–18 has to go from the Sermon on the Mount because it shows how Jesus fully supported all the Old Testament.

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.

Then they need to delete various passages that warn not to add or remove anything from the word of God.

They must cut the 100+ passages passages explicitly or implicitly teaching that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  You can’t have that while you’re busy teaching that all religions lead to the one true God.

They must delete the ~3,000 verses and surrounding texts that claim to directly speak for God.  In their hypocrisy many will claim that God is still speaking to them – such as with the UCC slogan “God is still speaking;” – but they don’t believe the original claims made in the Bible.  They treat it as a purely man-made book.  Why should we believe He is speaking to them in a reliable way?  Are we to believe that God has always been a 21st century far Left politician and was just waiting until the culture drifted his way before He was brave enough to speak?

All the claims that the Bible is the word of God have to be cut.  Psalm 119?  Gone.  2 Peter 3:16?  Gone.  And so on.

The beginning of Genesis must go, because they worship Darwin more than God and they “know” how we really came into being.

The countless passages in the Old Testament commanding us not to worship other gods.  For those of you who have actually read the Bible, you know how hard it is to go more than a couple pages without that warning or without reading about the horrible consequences of disobeying it.

The whole book of Joshua, because they think it would have been genocidal for God to clear out the promised land — even if the Canaanites had sacrificed babies and committed other atrocities for 400 years.

The messages about Adam & Eve, Sodom & Gomorrah, Noah and Jonah have to go, of course — as well as Jesus’ unapologetic commentary on them and his treatment of them as real events.

The whole Exodus passage, because they can’t believe that those miracles happened or that God would judge Pharaoh and the Egyptians.  And most of the wilderness experience and the Tabernacle creation must be removed, because they don’t think God really did miracles like providing manna or gave guidance to the Israelites.

The whole book of Judges, because they think God wouldn’t really punish Israel for cycle after cycle of turning from him and worshiping false gods.

Psalm 139 is out, because it teaches how we were knit together in our mother’s wombs by God.  And the same goes for all the other passages acknowledging the humanity of the unborn, such as when John the Baptist kicks in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, comes to visit.

All the do not murder / do not shed innocent blood passages have to be cut to support unrestricted abortion rights.

The book of Daniel, plus all other prophetic works, because their stunning accuracy leads theological Liberals to say they must have been written after the fact.  They seem to think that the proper Christian worldview is that Bible writers were big liars, so how could you possibly include those books?  After all, their god could never know the future like the God of the Bible.

Most or all of Paul’s letters, because they think he was a homophobic misogynist who could not have spoken for God.  There goes nearly half the books of the New Testament plus a big chunk of Acts.

The story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac, because they think God wouldn’t do that.

All the animal sacrifices, because PETA opposes those and God wouldn’t really command blood to be shed as payment for sins.

All the passages about God having the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern Kingdom taken into captivity for disobeying him and worshiping other gods, because the god of liberal theologians would never do that!

The beginning of the book of Acts, because it has Jesus there after a physical resurrection.

All the passages about judgment and Hell (that’s a whole bunch of the red letters, btw).

All the Gospel presentations in Acts, because they never mention how much God loves us unconditionally but they continually mention that Jesus died and rose again for our sins and that we are commanded to repent and believe.

1 Corinthians 15, because it claims that Jesus was physically resurrected.

Most of the passages about the crucifixion being God’s idea, because that would be divine child abuse.

All the claims for Jesus’ divinity.

All the claims for the virgin birth.

All Jesus’ miracles, because they “know” those couldn’t have really happened.

All the Gospel accounts of Jesus rising from the dead.

All the passages saying Jesus died for our sins.

All the passages about sinners and how humans can’t be good on their own.

All the passages about Satan and demons (there are more than you might think).

Most of the passages about human sexuality, marriage and parenting, because they view that version of God as homophobic, misogynistic and hopelessly politically incorrect.

All passages about God’s wrath.

They even have to take out Leviticus 19:18 (” . . . love your neighbor as yourself”) because they dismiss the rest of Leviticus with their flawed “God hates shrimp”argument.

Pretty much all of Revelation, and especially chapters 2-3 where Jesus addresses the faults of many churches.

And so many more!  Truly, they are the original Dalmatian Theologians, claiming that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Dalmatian Theologians, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.

Leave a comment with others I missed and I’ll update the post.

So what’s left? Roughly a dozen verses, which they take out of context or just plain misinterpret.  Examples:

  1. Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged. They don’t have time to read the next 4 verses that explain how He meant not to judge hypocritically – which, ironically, is exactly what they do when they use that verse in isolation to judge you.
  2. Matthew 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. They use that to oppose capital punishment, among other things, even though it is hard to turn the other cheek if you are the victim of murder and to apply it would mean you’d oppose not only capital punishment for murderers but any punishment at all.
  3. Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ They love mentioning the least of these to justify asking Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B, but of course that isn’t what Jesus meant.  And they ignore the other language of eternal judgment in the passage.  Oh, and they are pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion, which means they are pro-abortion.  I can’t reconcile that with helping the “least of these” or with loving your neighbor.

Seriously, we have a precise, highly technical theological term for people who hold those views about the Bible: Non-Christians.  Run, don’t walk, from their “churches.”  Highlight their errors until your throats are raw and your fingertips are calloused.  It is the loving thing to do for scores of their church members headed towards Hell.  Jesus didn’t die on the cross for us to ignore those who claim his name then lie about him.  He didn’t call us to be politically correct.

Spotting false teachers based on what they preached about today

I’m not a fan of letting Hallmark tell churches what to preach about (i.e., Mother’s Day / Father’s day sermons).  Just preach the word and the right themes in the right balance will come through.  But I certainly don’t object to anti-abortion sermons on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  The don’t murder / help the weak / forgiveness is possible themes are throughout scripture and are legitimate topics any day.  Taking a human life without adequate justification kills God in effigy and attempts to usurp his role as the author of life.  People who have been involved in the abortion process need to hear the good news that they can be forgiven for those deeds.  And we should always strive to help the “least of these” (and if the unborn about to be killed aren’t the least of these, then who could be?).

Not surprisingly, pro-abortion false teachers not only skip the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday theme, they worship man instead of God by preaching about Martin Luther King Jr. instead of Jesus.  Here’s a prime example by pervertedradical pro-abortionist, false teaching, race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” CurrieAnswering The Call: A Homily For MLK Sunday On Isaiah 49:1-7.  They didn’t worship Jesus (they never do), they worshiped MLK.  Did he do some good things?  Sure.  But he also did some very bad things.  And either way, he should not be the object of worship.  (Then again, neither should Charles Darwin, who the wolves also worship on an annual basis.)

Of course, Chuck left out the fact that King thought homosexuals could and should change.  The Left is busy trying to pretend that King would have changed his mind.  Isn’t that a great way to do history?!

Here’s a sample (you can go to his blog and see the program that actually had a picture of MLK).

In churches and synagogues and mosques…in schools and our houses of government…in community centers and union halls…the people of our nation gather this weekend to honor once again the legacy of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

No, in real churches we gathered to worship Jesus.  My pastor had a fantastic sermon on Hebrews 10 this morning.

And who cares what they do in mosques and synagogues?  Oh, right, Chuck spreads the lie that all religions lead to God, in direct contradiction to what the Bible says over 100 times.

. . . Leading a non-violent revolution of social change, his words shaped the history of our time.  The walls of white supremacy could not withstand the reading of the Gospel message when preached by Dr. King.  Jim Crow, so powerful and full of pride, crumbled when confronted with the weapon of love unleashed by Dr. King and all those who participated in the civil rights movement.

King would probably never stop throwing up if he knew what wolves like Currie had done to make abortions legal.  Despite what Currie has falsely claimed, King never supported abortion, which kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites.  And that rate will go up if Currie’s dream of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions becomes real.  Rich, mostly white, mostly male abortionists kill more blacks in a week than the KKK ever dreamed of.  As morally reprehensible as they are, the KKK is pro-life, so they are better than people like Currie.

. . . Those who are called to prophetic ministry often run from the task.  Moses did.  He argued with God.  I think you have the wrong person, he said.  There must be someone better.  Jesus himself was burdened deeply by his calling.  Like King, he knew his path would end in death.  At times he became frustrated and other times required solitude for reflection.

That would be funny if it weren’t so blasphemous.  Only a fake like Chuck would say that Jesus ran from his task.  Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Even if we are not called to be a Moses or a King we are still called to be followers of Jesus.

Chuck’s Jesus is not the real Jesus.

. . . We still need that sense of revolution today.  Some use that term and think of violence but we are called to non-violence.

Chuck & Co. are pro-abortion, the ultimate violence.

We need to be revolutionaries to make sure that everyone is free.  We know this is not the case.  The very voting rights that Dr. King fought for are under attack.

That is a lie.  Voter ID is one of the most common sense measures of all time.

Gun violence and domestic violence and political violence threaten too many the world over.

Especially in places with Leftist politicians putting restrictions on guns.

People are enslaved by poverty the world over.  Climate change threatens existence.

Another lie.  What really threatens existence is abortions, to the tune of 3,000+ per day in the U.S.

. . . At the same time, all of us should examine how we are living our lives.  Do our lives in this moment of history serve God fully?  If not, what changes can we make in what we do and how we act to better live out our Christian faith.

Maybe Chuck could start with not taking taking little girls to gay pride parades.

The only good news is that based on the pictures Chuck shows of his combined churches, there appear to be a couple dozen very old people attending.  Hopefully the UCC will continue to shrink (must be the ejector seats!).

Praise God that there are real churches for people authentically seeking Jesus and the Gospel!

P.S. Via An Addendum to my Pastor’s Sermon Today:

Despite the enormous work Martin Luther King Jr. did to free African-Americans, black babies are being murdered at an alarming rate under the guise of freedom.  Abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans.  I believe The Radiance Foundation puts it best when they say, “The inhumanity of slavery has been replaced by the inhumanity of abortion.”  79% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

Do false teachers ever get any verses right?

I ask that in all seriousness.  No matter how simple the passage, they always seem to miss the most obvious truths.  A recent example is from false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie in Duck Dynasty Crew Invited To Church.*

No one should be using the name of the Prince of Peace to intentionally tear us apart.

But where does the name Prince of Peace come from?  This is the only reference in the Bible:

Isaiah 6:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Jesus came to bring peace between sinners and their God.  It wasn’t the kind of peace Chuck and other false teachers allude to.

And how can Chuck quote this verse while explicitly denying Jesus’ deity in this passage?  And to Chuck, this had to be a false prophecy, but he thinks Jesus is dead.  How could He then reign on the throne of David?  So why quote the prince of peace portion?

As usual, nearly every biblical reference that these wolves make is theological train wreck.

And even if the verse referred to the kind of peace Chuck thinks it does, how could a radical pro-abortionist like him use it with a straight face?  Crushing and dismembering innocent human beings is as opposite of that kind of peace as you can get, yet Chuck supports the Democrats’ official policy of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions.

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like him.

* Of course, Chuck’s views on Phil Robertson are completely wrong as well. But that is to be expected, as Phil knows that the Bible is the word of God and Chuck thinks it isn’t.

The theological Leftists are like the Nazi “German Christians”

I realize that is a strong statement, but I really don’t mean it as hyperbole.  As I’ve been reading a biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the impact of the Nazis on the German churches I see so many similarities with the Leftist shills in the U.S. today.  The “German Christians” were the sanctioned “church” in Germany but obviously led by non-believers, just as the Leftist “churches” deny the essentials of the faith while reflexively propping up the current administration.

It is fascinating how quickly false teachers like Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie come out with the Democratic talking points.  Obama’s mishandling of the Syria situation has been so severe that people have seriously wondered if he was doing it on purpose to reduce our standing in the world.  Yet until Russia bailed him out, this is what we got from false teachers like Chuck:

There is a legitimate moral imperative for the international community to take limited military action that disrupts Syria’s ability to use weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets.

via Lines Must Be Drawn In Syria

But after Putin “solved” the problem (assuming you are naive enough to trust Putin . . .and Assad . . .and that even if Assad gave up all of his WMDs that he couldn’t re-arm in 15 minutes . . . and that they couldn’t kill countless civilians with traditional means . . . and so on) we immediately get an about face from false teacher Chuck that just happens to have all the Democratic talking points.

President Obama addressed the nation regarding the on-going crisis in Syria tonight.  He spoke in deeply moral terms about the world’s responsibility to protect civilians from the use of chemical weapons and other WMD.  Barack Obama is no George W. Bush.

So as long as Assad kills the children with knives, as Obama and Chuck support via unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions, things are fine.  Or guns.  Or nearly anything else.  Just don’t use chemicals!

And it wouldn’t be complete if you didn’t blame Bush — several times!

The current president has argued that a military response is needed to deter Syria from further attacks against civilians using chemical weapons but at the same time we now know the president and Secretary of State John Kerry have been negotiating with the Russians on a proposal to place all of Syria’s WMD under international control so they can be destroyed – a long sought goal.

Oh, it was totally a long sought goal — provided that you consider Russia’s several days old offer “long sought.”  It was so long sought that Chuck forgot to mention it when calling for war less than two weeks ago and it was never mentioned by Obama until after Russia made the offer.

President Obama is seeking with intention to avoid military conflict as a first resort whereas President Bush used the pretext of 9/11 to invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with those terrible terrorist attacks.

More Bush-blaming.  Hey, champ, Obama has been in office almost 5 years now.  Time to take responsibility.  Oh, and Bush has been proved right on all his reasons on Iraq, and he had the support of the UN, and dozens of countries and loads of Democrats like Hillary on record denouncing Hussein.

At the same time, President Obama is honoring the democratic institutions of our nation by calling on Congress to debate the path forward in Syria.  Balance is being restored between the three co-equal branches of government – balance under assault since the start of the imperial presidency.

Yes, once he realized that even most people on the Left (except fake Christian leaders like Chuck) opposed him he punted over to Congress.

And what hypocrisy to pretend that Obama hasn’t run roughshod over the balance of powers!  Once again, it is Bush’s fault.

The worldwide Christian community has been nearly unanimous in arguing against military action in Syria.

Uh, except for Chuck, in his editorial above.

 There are many good arguments not to engage in this conflict but  I believe very seriously that the world does have a responsibility protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Unless they are in their mother’s wombs or even 10% left in side the mother (i.e., “partial-birth abortion,” aka infanticide), in which case Obama and Chuck want the government to fund the destruction of the unwanted human beings.

And it would be fascinating for Obama and his “German Christians” to explain why we need to arm Syrians (not to mention Al Qaeda, but that’s a different issue) with assault weapons to protect them from their own government but they want to impose gun restrictions here in the U.S.  Presumably the answer is that we can totally trust our government and they would never turn on us with the power of the IRS, or eavesdropping, or more . . .

Don’t be fooled by the politics-disguised-as-religion fake churches led by people like Chuck.  Study the Bible all you can and follow the real Jesus, and stand up for the truth.

Side note: A great analysis of Obama’s speech: As confused as his policy.  Too bad he isn’t as eager to get to the truth on Benghazi.

And then almost in the same breath, Obama then acknowledged that a diplomatic solution had arisen, despite two weeks of beating the drums for war. Just after arguing that only the US military could solve the problem, Obama said that he was turning to Russia for a potential solution. Not only that, but he also announced that he had asked Congress to hold off on a vote to authorize military action until the Russia and UN track played itself out.  This change was necessitated by the fumbling of his Secretary of State, even though Obama himself had just called the UN “hocus pocus.”

So what was Obama asking of the American people? Nothing. What new and convincing information did Obama bring to the American people?  None.  What new argument did Obama make to shift the strong momentum against military action? He had none.  There was nothing new in this speech from Obama that hadn’t been argued at length in his six broadcast-network interviews the day before, or that his White House and State Department hadn’t offered in the previous week before the speech.

And most oddly, despite having the attention of the nation on the eve of 9/11, Obama never bothered to mention either the devastating terrorist attacks from twelve years ago or the sacking of the Benghazi consulate on the previous anniversary, which took place on Obama’s watch.

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

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

Wolf

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” CurrieThe 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.