“Marriage equality” and other wolf sayings

Here’s a recent example: Radical pro-abortionist and false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to use his church to mock God Romans 1-style (V. 32 - . . .they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.).

First, to state what will be obvious to people who don’t mock God and common sense, same-sex unions are not equal to real marriage.  By nature and design they can’t produce the next generation and they can’t provide a mother and a father to a child.  And they don’t meet the timeless definition of marriage: A union of a man and a woman.

I am not making this up: These pagans actually have a pre-LGBTQX pride parade “worship” service, where they are worshiping the god of this world and themselves.

Here are more examples of his blasphemy, via Marriage Equality Campaign In Oregon Kicks Off At Sunnyside Church.

Homosexuality is not a sin but bigotry and discrimination are.

Homosexual behavior is indeed a sin.  The Bible couldn’t be more clear.  Bible-believing Christians and even two out of the three types of pro-gay people* (religious or not) can see these truths:

  • 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.

Chuck & Co. meet the definition of bigotry far better than any authentic Christian: big·ot – noun - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

And did you notice how Chuck must also consider Muslims to be bigots?  Hey, why doesn’t he call them out specifically?

Holy Scripture is used to deny gays and lesbians the most basic of civil rights protection in many communities, including employment protections, but such use of Scripture is theological malpractice.

How ironic to hear the judgmental term “theological malpractice” from a “reverend” who says Jesus is not the only way to salvation (he is so lacking in biblical knowledge that he didn’t know the Bible teaches that over 100 times — he thought it was just John 14:6 and he insisted that John didn’t belong in the Bible!).

Just a generation ago people used the Bible to oppose inter-racial marriages in the United States.

Those people got the Bible wrong, just like Chuck is doing today.  Skin color is morally neutral.  Sexual behavior is not.

Today the same theological arguments are employed to oppose marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

No, those aren’t the same arguments at all.

But Jesus never spoke of this issue.

The wolf tips his hand again.  Chuck doesn’t believe that Jesus is divine, so he thinks he can dismiss the entire Bible.  But it all turned out exactly as Jesus wanted it to, and even the “red letters” are on record with him approving of all the Old Testament.

And the “Jesus never said anything” argument fails on many, many levels.  Short version: Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus is God and part of the Trinity that inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the “red letters” weren’t silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, 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, taxpayer-funded abortions, etc.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and homosexual behavior simply wasn’t a hot topic for 1st century Jews.  And Jesus never said anything about the “sin” of criticizing homosexual behavior, so it must be OK!

What he did command was that we love our neighbor as we love God.  Legal discrimination against gays and lesbians is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

If you love God you won’t teach the opposite of what He commanded.  If you love your neighbors you won’t encourage them to participate in spiritually, emotionally and physically destructive behaviors.  Those advancing the concept of “marriage equality” love the world and themselves more than they love God and their neighbors.

It isn’t discrimination to point out that “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron that doesn’t require the government to sanction their relationships.

Run, don’t walk, from any false teachers playing the “marriage quality” card.  They are ravenous wolves.  And like Chuck, they don’t just mock God on this topic.  They deny the exclusivity and divinity of Jesus, they are radically pro-abortion, they deny the authority of scripture, and more.

Study the Bible and encourage others to do the same.  These fakes would have been run out of churches a long time ago if people actually read the Bible for themselves.  But they trust people like Chuck to tell them the truth!

* 1. “The Bible says homosexuality is wrong but it isn’t the word of God” (obviously non-Christians) 2. “The Bible says it is wrong but God changed his mind” (only about 10 things wrong with that) 3. “The Bible is the word of God but you are just misunderstanding it” (Uh, no, not really.)

The “social gospel” vs. the real Gospel

False teachers must not read the Bible, or they are so jaded that they pretend that they can be Leopard Theologians and just pick the spots they like.  Those who preach a “social gospel” should know that by definition they are now accursed:

Galatians 1:8–10 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

That seems pretty clear.  Preaching a gospel of one’s choosing isn’t just a little different, it is the opposite and a profoundly bad thing.  People like Jim Wallis who say that “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” are mocking this passage.

Yes, the real Gospel will lead to all sorts of good deeds.  But the good deeds aren’t the Gospel.  If you tell people that they must be good to be saved, that’s the bad news, not the good news, because we will always fail.  Without Christ, our good deeds are like polluted garments to God (Isaiah 64:6).

The real Gospel is Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead.  If we focus on sharing that, then transformed lives and cultures will follow and you’ll get all sorts of authentically good deeds.

1 Corinthians 15:1–11 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So if you really want to improve the world, share the real Gospel.

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.

False teachers want to reduce abortions by increasing abortions. Or something like that.

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie took a break from taking little girls to gay pride parades to spread disinformation about how Contraception Reduces Abortion Rate.

It is a classically disingenuous move on his part.  Pro-aborts like him pretend to want to reduce abortions, but everyone who supports the Democrats is explicitly in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions that will obviously increase the number of abortions (duh).  So if they really wanted to reduce them then why take the money of pro-lifers by force to increase them?

And he ignores that half of abortions occur while women are on birth control.  The rate of failure is highest for teens.

Reducing the number of abortions is a cause most people of faith share but not all people of faith believe women should have access to contraception – some believe such access should be difficult or even illegal.

That is a straw-man argument.  Just because we didn’t buy Sandra Fluke’s nonsense doesn’t mean we want birth control to be illegal.  She’s a 31 yr. old law student managing to finance a $50,000 /yr. education and she can’t get her boyfriends to pool $10/month for birth control?  It was one of the most Prozac-inducing parts of the campaign watching so many people side with her.  Is it so hard to see the difference between access and forcing others to pay?

And isn’t it just possible that all the great pro-life laws (ultrasounds, informed consent, parental notification, etc.) put into place have helped reduce abortions?  Remember that pro-aborts strenuously oppose all of those.

Such thinking increases the need for abortion.  Groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice work to promote contraception.  We need more voices joining with RCRC.

The RCRC is all about abortion.  “Reproductive Choice” is a fallacious term, as all abortions kill humans who have already been reproduced.

At the same time, faith communities need to be fighting hard for quality sex education in our public schools and to be providing such education in our churches.  A great resource for churches is the Our Whole Lives curriculum developed by the United Church of Christ and Unitarian Universialist Association.

I can only imagine what perversities that Chuck and the Unitarians have cooked up for these poor young people.  Remember, Chuck is so eager to show how “progressive” he is that he uses his 6 yr. old daughters as props to take to gay pride parades.  That’s sick, but he is a perfect picture of the “Christian” Left (Read: Wolves in sheep’s clothing).

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like this and the denominations that support them.

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.

Free birth control in schools? What could go wrong?!

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie uses his usual trick of telling you something is a moral obligation, even though he has no grounding for that — as if the Bible was full of advice on how to get sinners to (allegedly) sin more safely.  See Birth Control In The Schools? Providing Contraceptives Is A Moral Obligation:

The Oregonian tonight has posted a story about two Canby High School seniors, Hunter Mead and Peter Schultz, who are pushing a proposal to allow their school based health care clinic to provide “birth control in the form of pills, patches, rings or the Depo-Provera shot.”

As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I want to applaud this proposal and thank the students who have put it forward.

Then he tries the “abstinence doesn’t work” canard, ignoring that the advent of Planned Parenthood philosophies overlaps the exponential rise in out-of-wedlock sex, STDs, poverty and abortions.

The thing that false teachers and other liberals like Chuck miss is simple human nature: Giving taxpayer-funded birth control to teens is an implicit and explicit message that you expect them to have sex. And guess what?  They’ll listen to the “we expect you to have sex” part and ignore the “but you must use protection” part.

And of course, these methods won’t protect children from many STDs and the emotional damage they’ll get.  But Chuck & Co. will be too busy releasing endorphins over how “loving” they are to care about that.

Does Chuck favor passing out clean needles because it is important to be safe when using drugs?  Is he one of those moronic parents that gives alcohol to kids and lets them  get drunk in his house because “they’ll do it anyway?”

Do these people think the parents have any right to know that their children are being given powerful drugs?  Would these schools let the children bring even an Advil with them to take on their own?

Also see “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and die.”

Chuck Currie of Westar Institute breaks irony meter

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie was correct in pointing out the wrongs of those protesting Mars Hill church in Portland, but he misses the irony. See via The Mars Hill Church Portland Protest UnChristian:

About 20 protesters lined Southeast Taylor Street carrying banners and shouting obscenities as church-goers left when the service ended.

That’s business as usual for the pro-gay groups.  Emboldened by false teachers like Chuck, gay domestic terrorist groups are getting violent.  They know that politicians and police fear doing anything in response because they’ll be called “homophobes” and possibly lose their jobs.  Many gay pride parades — and presumably those that Chuck took his 6 yr. old daughters to — exhibit behavior that should result in arrests, but police look the other way.

And that:

The protesters, some of whom wore kerchiefs to cover their faces, shouted profanities at adults and children.

There could not have been a more ugly and inappropriate display.

Mars Hills Church preaches a messed up and warped version of the Gospel, no question.

LOL at false teacher Chuck calling Mars Hill’s Gospel warped just because they believe, correctly, that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Remember, Chuck is the guy who says Jesus is not the only way to salvation (despite the 100+ verses that disagree with him), the Bible is hopelessly full of errors, that Jesus is pro-abortion, etc. — and we’re supposed to care about his definition of the “real” Gospel?  (He’s part of the non-Christian Westar Institute that represents the “Jesus Seminar.”)

A quote from the newspaper:

“Shame on you bigots,” one woman yelled at worshippers as they left. “Shame on you homophobes. You’re not welcome here. You’re going to burn in hell.”

Sounds like Fred Phelps to me!  I wonder if the woman is a Democrat like Fred and Chuck?

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.

JohnHuntsman

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 teachers think Jesus taught to borrow money to give away

No, it is actually worse than that.  False teachers* 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.  And the others can’t vote or may not have been born yet.  Call that what you like, but it isn’t Christianity.  Here’s the latest example: Raise the Debt Ceiling & Protect our Communities.

Friendly reminder: Jesus taught to give your own money, and to do it cheerfully and not under compulsion (2 Cor. 9).   Run, don’t walk, from “Christians” who teach otherwise.

*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

Why don’t false teachers use the “argument from silence” on their favorite issues?

Hint: Because they are false teachers.

False teachers* love the argument from silence that I blogged about yesterday, where they justify homosexual behavior and abortion because they think Jesus didn’t specifically forbid those.**  Therefore, they reason that those issues can’t be important.

But I’ve noticed they don’t use that line of thinking on their pet solutions, such as wealth redistribution or universal healthcare.  After all, Jesus never said to ask Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B and call it generosity on your part.  Yet here is false teacher Chuck Currie, claiming to care about the “least of these” (when not endorsing their destruction in the womb): Paul Ryan Tries To Spin Letter From Roman Catholic Archbishop; Religious Leaders Remain Opposed To GOP Budget.

Yes, budgets are moral documents.  And it is immoral to borrow from those who can’t vote or haven’t even been born to sooth your guilty, selfish conscience.

If these fakes want to use the argument from silence on issues like homosexual behavior and abortion, then show them how it applies to their issues as well.

On what other favorite issues do they fail to use the argument from silence?

*False teachers are people like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.

** That argument 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 these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, 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.), He didn’t specifically mention child abuse and other obvious sins though that wouldn’t justify them, and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren’t hot topics for 1st century Jews.  See What Jesus didn’t say for more.

The “birthers” and the race card

I never cared about the birther issue.  I find it unproductive and annoying.  But Stan had a good post about motives. It reminded me of how quick the race industry*used the “birther” issue to paint Obama’s critics as racists.  But that means Hillary Clinton’s supporters, Michelle Obama, and the ambassador from Kenya were racists first.

group of disgruntled Hillary Clinton enthusiasts started the “Was Obama born in the United States?” question thing. It was fed by comments from people like the president’s grandmother who said he was born in Kenya and Michelle Obama who referred to Kenya as his “home country“. It wasn’t helpful when the ambassador from Kenya said that the president was born there. All of this fed the “birther” idea. Now, let me say up front that I am not a “birther”. To me it’s a moot point. I just don’t care. But what has fascinated me in this whole discussion has been the claims of motivationfrom the president’s supporters. You see, even though it was people from his Secretary of State that started the question and even though it was people like his wife, grandmother, and the Kenyan ambassador that fueled it, it appears that the only possible motivation for “birthers” is racism. That’s right. No one could suggest this stuff if they weren’t racists at heart. And without even batting an eye, the secret motivations of the heart have been easily and cleanly extracted and shown for all to view.

Anyone using the birther issue as a claim of racism against Republicans is ignorant of the origins and/or the real racist, who uses race to divide people.

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

Why aren’t the ACLU-types going nuts over Lawrence O’Donnell?

See Respecting Lawrence O’Donnell : The Other McCain – O’Donnell is mad at Rush Limbaugh and claims to know the Bible better than him (I don’t look to Rush for biblical interpretation, but that’s another story).

But O’Donnell thinks that Jesus’ commands to his followers to give is equal to asking Caesar (aka the government) to take everything from us.  Wow.  It is the same awful biblical distortions you get from other false teachers*.

Here’s a very clear New Testament teaching on giving.  You may notice that there  is not mention of government.  And if O’Donnell & Co. want to claim that this is “just” Paul speaking, then they tip their hands.  Jesus is God and the whole Bible is his word.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Beyond his abuse of scripture, wouldn’t the Left be alarmed that he wants to force his religious views on all citizens?

P.S. to Lawrence and other false teachers — Jesus also claimed to be God and the only way to salvation and that marriage was designed from the beginning to be a union of one man and one woman.  Is that part of the message you preach?

*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

False teachers worship government instead of Jesus

False teachers* continue to whine and fast** over the U.S. budget, ignoring that their plans involve taking from others — most of whom can’t vote and who may not even have been born yet (and won’t be, if these pro-aborts have their way).  It is illuminating how the Democrats gave up billions of dollars in spending rather than lose a few hundred million that goes to Planned Parenthood.

Their “churches” aren’t giving themselves because they are too busy with their #1 priority of advancing the anti-biblical gay agenda.  Therefore, they must ask the government to take from neighbor A to “give” to neighbor B.  How generous of them!  And how un-biblical!

There is no greater concern among the churches of Christ than for those in this nation who live in poverty. This could hardly be otherwise because Jesus himself lived among the poor: loving them, eating and drinking with them, healing them, and speaking words of justice and assurance that God’s own love for the poor is unsurpassed.

via GOP Sets Fire To Matthew 25; Will President Obama Put Out The Flames?

Note the hyperbole: If you don’t force future generations to pay for your wish list now, then you are burning the Bible.  What hyperbole. And as usual, the ones pretending to care about the least of these also want your tax dollars to pay for the destruction of the true least of these, the unborn.

More importantly, notice the non sequitur: Jesus spent time with the poor and loved them, therefore the government needs to redistribute money from producers to non-producers.  These false teachers parrot these sound bites so much they don’t even realize there is no logical connection — or they know and don’t care, and the media lets them get away with it.

And even though these false teachers don’t even understand Matthew 25, shouldn’t the ACLU be alarmed about that whole separation thingy?  After all, why would anyone expect Obama to advance that passage?

The motto of the United Church of Christ and other apostate denominations should be: “Caring for the least of these — or destroying them — with your money.”

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

** Normally I’d never comment on anyone’s weight, but unless the camera adds 90 lbs. I’d say that false teachers like Chuck and Jim are pretty fast-resistant.