Whom can you marry? An exhaustive list of Biblical rules.

wedding-rings2.jpgA favorite updated for your reading pleasure.

According to the Bible, a Christian should only marry a person who is:

  1. A Christian
  2. Able to be married (i.e., of legal age, not married already, etc.)
  3. Of the opposite sex

Item 3 used to be self-evident (and still is, for most of us), but we had to add it to the list a few years back.

That’s it. Despite the stereotype that the Bible is just a giant rule book, many things are very simple.

The key constraint is usually item 1: The future spouse must be a Christian.  Ignoring God’s clear direction on this is a bad idea.  Just because God might ultimately bless it doesn’t mean He is obligated to.  That’s why it is called grace.  (Full disclosure: It is possible that my wife violated guideline #1 in marrying me.  Fortunately, she lost the receipt so she can’t return me now.)

“Missionary dating” (that is, dating someone in hopes of converting them) is un-Biblical, as it is based on false pretenses.  God might bless your relationship and your spouse might become a Christian, but there are no guarantees of that in scripture.  You just don’t want to start your marriage in clear violation of one of God’s commands.

Marrying someone outside your faith is problematic.  You will have vastly different views on what should be the most important part of your life.  It will send a horrible message to your children, namely that you and your spouse thought it was important to agree on where to live, how many kids to have, where to vacation, what to eat, etc., but it wasn’t important for you to have even a general agreement on who God is and how that should impact your lives.

A good Christian friend realized the error of his ways and broke off a relationship with a non-Christian.  It was pretty painful, but certain things validated why he needed to make the break: She specifically tempted him to deny his God, “Just this once” – proof enough as to why such relationships are a bad idea.

Sadly, I know countless church-going parents who don’t teach their kids to only date Christians, and who think little or nothing of their kids marrying non-Christians.  And countless pastors officiate at these ceremonies without ever counseling people about what God says.

Of course, just because it is moral to marry someone doesn’t mean it it wise.  There is a lot of wisdom and advice about how and whether to marry in the book of Proverbs and in 1 Corinthians 7, among other places.  These passages were directed to Solomon’s son but they apply to both sexes.

Proverbs 12:4 A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.

Proverbs 21:9 Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.

Proverbs 21:19 Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.

Proverbs 27:15 A quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping on a rainy day;

Proverbs 31:10 A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies.

“The Lord says . . .”

bible3.jpgIs the Bible the Word of God?

The Bible directly quotes God roughly 3,000 times and the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as the word of God 320 times.  Keep in mind that some of those references covered passages of scripture and not just one verse.

Also, Jesus claimed to be God, so all the “red letters” would be Biblical claims to be the Word of God.  And roughly 10% of the red letters quote the black letters.  As noted in “What did Jesus think of the Old Testament,” the references Jesus made to the Old Testament were varied and often cited the most controversial parts – Satan, Noah, Jonah, Sodom, etc.  Jesus made zero corrections to the Old Testament, and He quoted from the Pentateuch (the first five books), Psalms, Jonah and others.  He even said:

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

I did some searches in my Bible software on a few phrases to see how many times they occurred.  There were so many that I got tired after a while.  Watch for them when you read the Bible.  It is really quite amazing.

  • The Lord says 198
  • The Lord said 301
  • The word of the Lord 239
  •  . . . declares the Lord 266
  •  . . . oracle 47
  • I am the Lord 158
  • Lord instructed 3
  • Lord commanded 117
  • Lord had commanded 24
  • the Lord gave this command 1
  • Lord gave 42
  • Lord told 10
  • Lord has told 4
  • Says the Lord 103
  • The Lord almighty says 47
  • Says the Lord almighty 31
  • The Lord almighty, the God of Israel says 1
  • Lord spoke 25
  • Lord revealed 1
  • Lord then said 1
  • Lord answered 23
  • God said 54
  • Lord had said 31
  • Lord replied 11
  • Holy one of Israel says 2
  • Lord called 14

Then, of course, there is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.  (Yes, I know some people think that doesn’t apply to the New Testament.  I’ll address that in another post.)  And Peter referred to Paul’s writings as scripture.

So the Bible makes an extraordinary amount of claims to be the Word of God and that it was transmitted to us accurately.

What’s the point?

Now before any skeptics or Liberal Theologians choke on their own rage yelling, “circular reference!,” let me point out that I’m not referring to these as my only proof that the Bible is God’s Word.  I understand that claiming that the Bible is God’s Word because it says it is God’s Word wouldn’t be an adequate argument.  We have other evidence for it being God’s Word.

Still, there are a couple important points one can draw from this huge amount of references.

If the Bible is God’s Word then wouldn’t you expect it to make that claim?  In fact, if it didn’t make that claim wouldn’t you view that as a reason for it not being God’s word?  And if it said it wasn’t God’s word then it obviously wouldn’t be God’s word.  So the claims to be God’s word are a sort of necessary occurrence.

The second and main point of this post is only for Christians who claim the Bible isn’t all inspired by God, or that it was just what the Jews and Christians thought God was saying, or that it is somehow incomplete.

If you really think the Bible has upwards of 3,000 errors / lies in it, why pick it up?

How do you discern which parts belong there and which do not?  You appear to believe in Leopard Theology, where the Bible is only inspired in spots and that you are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.

Why should I trust your “inspiration” more than I trust the writings of the Apostles or their close companions, especially considering that every word they wrote has been scrutinized by believers and non-believers for 2,000 years?  Why should I trust your views when you deny many of the essentials of the faith and often claim that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection aren’t necessary for people to be reconciled to God or to go to Heaven?

The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament make multiple warnings about sound doctrine and Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their false doctrines.  And sound doctrine is found in the Word of God.  Otherwise, what doctrines were the writers referring to?

From beginning to end, the Bible claims to be the Word of God.  Is believing that a requirement for salvation?  No.  The criminal on the cross wasn’t a Bible scholar but he went to Heaven because he put his faith in Jesus.

But how even marginally educated Christians can hold a view other than the Bible being the Word of God is beyond me.  The educated theological liberals who deny God’s word tip their hands that their beliefs are really just politics disguised as religion.  I love Charles Spurgeon’s comment about these types and how he has “no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy.”

Authentic believers are expected to trust that it is the word of God:

1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Read it and enjoy it, knowing that the original writings turned out just as God and the human writers desired and that they have been accurately transmitted to us.  It will accomplish all that God promised it would.

Isaiah 55:10-11 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

False teachers and converts and the parable of the sower

There is a reason you won’t hear theological Liberals preach on this passage — or at least not accurately.  The message is clear:

  • The seed is the word of God.
  • Only those who accept the word of God are genuine believers.

Therefore, if your “pastor” is telling you that the Bible is not the word of God, or if in Leopard Theology style he only considers the parts he agrees with to be inspired by God, then you should find another church.  False teachers are notorious for attacking the authority and accuracy of the Bible.

Mark 4:1–20 Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land. And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them: “Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.” And he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

Why the Left really wants immigration “reform”

*False teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis have a steady stream of pro-amnesty pieces pretending that illegal immigration is a good thing (they tip their hands by never acknowledging that the immigration they are advancing is indeed illegal).  They even try to prop it up by saying that the church needs it.  But the Holy Spirit does not require illegal immigration to do his work.

The article in bold conflated legal and illegal immigration. I shouldn’t have to point out the difference. The immigration “reform” is basically an open borders policy deliberately pushed by the Left to create what they hope will be a permanent Democrat voting block. Don’t take my word for it, listen to what the former head of ACORN and an SIEU union executive have to say via Left-Wingers Push Immigration Reform to Create Permanent Voting Block & ‘Boost Black Power’

Many in the media and the left claim that it is absurd when people say that the only reason Democrats care about amnesty is so that they can get millions of instant Democrat voters, but not every leftist tries to hide behind that lie. Some leftists, Like ACORN’s Bertha Lewis, are telling the truth.

Lewis spoke to last week’s Congressional Black Caucus conference and noted that immigration reform should be used to “boost black power.”

Lewis, the former head of the criminal group ACORN, told her audience that all the new minorities that will be sudden citizens with amnesty will become a new, permanent governing majority that she and the black power structure can control.

“[Minorities] need to get together because if we’re going to be [part of the non-white] majority, it makes sense for black people in this country to get down with immigration reform,” Lewis insisted keeping her attention only on non-white Americans.

“Everyone, even all white folks in this country, acknowledge that in a minute, [the] United States of America will be a new majority, will be majority minority, a brand-new thing,” she said.

Working up her best hatemongering, race baiting, Lewis went on saying, “for the first time ever in history, African-Americans outvoted white Americans. Oooh. That’s the fear of the white man. That could change everything. That’s why [immigration] should matter to us…”

There is something a bit self-delusional about this elation from Lewis. The millions of sudden new American voters that will be created by amnesty are Latinos. Lewis imagines that her black caucus will be able to control those new millions.

I think she may find that her black “leaders” will be eclipsed by new leaders from the Latino community. Why does she think they will all just file in behind the moribund black leadership? I think she’s fooling herself.

. . .

Don’t let anyone lie to you folks. Immigration “reform” means a permanent Democrat majority.

It is hard to believe that the Congressional Black Caucus would look at black unemployment rates — which have gotten disproportionately worse under Obama’s policies — and think that bringing in millions of Mexicans to consume jobs and benefits will help blacks.  Of course, if they really wanted to help blacks they wouldn’t vote for Democrats.

You’ve read John 3:16. Why not finish the chapter?

Really, it will only take a few minutes.

John 3:16 is a great verse, of course (aren’t they all?), but sadly too many people read it in a universalistic sense:  “Hey, if God loves the world, and world sometimes means everybody in it, then it must mean He loves me and would never punish me.  That’s all I need to hear!”

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

But even reading that verse carefully shows the obvious inference: Those who don’t believe in Jesus will not have eternal life.  It is symptomatic of spiritually dead people that they read the verse and miss that.

If people would just read the next couple verses it would be more clear:

John 3:17–18 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Better yet, read to the end of the chapter and think about this truth, which restates much of verse 16.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

What?!  The wrath of God is already on those who don’t believe?!  Now why don’t the false teachers ever mention that?  Oh, right, because they’re false teachers.

As my most excellent Sunday School teacher likes to say, you won’t see that verse on many coffee mugs or t-shirts.  Maybe people should start holding up John 3:36 signs at football games . . . or at least preaching it in church.

Men wrote the Bible, so it must have mistakes?

bible.jpgThe original writings of the Bible turned out exactly as God and the human writers wanted them to, and, as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other evidences have shown, have been transmitted to us in a highly reliable fashion.

But a common objection to the assertion that God inspired the writings of the Bible is that men wrote it, so it must have mistakes.  Sadly, I have often heard this from committed Christians.

The argument usually goes like this:

Premise 1: Men wrote the Bible.

Premise 2: Men make mistakes.

Conclusion: God didn’t write the Bible.

But note that premise 1 is just another way of stating the conclusion.  If you are trying to determine who ultimately authored the Bible, your first premise can’t be that men were the sole authors.  So this “argument” doesn’t prove that God didn’t write the Bible, it assumes it.

Here is another syllogism you may have heard:

Premise 1: Men wrote the Bible.

Premise 2: Men make mistakes.

Conclusion: The Bible has mistakes.

This one has a major problem as well.  It assumes that just because people can make mistakes that they will always make mistakes.  But lots of things get done without mistakes – perfect scores on tests, 300 games in bowling, diseases cured, etc.  If God was the author then an error-free Bible would be expected. And if they always make mistakes, then the statement that the Bible has errors must also be a mistake.

Of course, this doesn’t prove that God did inspire the Biblical writings, just that these are bad arguments to use against the inspiration of the Bible.  We have separate, robust reasoning for why we can trust that it is God’s Word.  More on that another day, or just peruse the Apologetics links to the right.

Keep in mind that claims of inerrancy relate to the original writings, not to copies or translations.  If making a copy error invalidated the inerrancy claim, then any atheist could make a deliberate “mistake” and claim that it disproved the Bible.

And note that those claiming the name of Christ and insisting that it wasn’t all inspired by God have made a large claim that they must back up.  They adhere to Leopard Theology, where they claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Leopard Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding and removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.

This is one of the more common but easier objections to refute, so please watch for it!

Hat tip: Stand to Reason

Your job description as a Christian

Well, at least part of your job description.  As I like to remind Christians, some, but not all, are called to be evangelists.

Ephesians 4:11 (ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers . . .

So you may or may not be an evangelist.  But all are called to be ambassadors . . .

2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

. . . and all are called to be defenders of the faith (“apologists”).

1 Peter 3:15–16 (ESV) but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

So if you claim the name of Christ you may or may not be an evangelist, but you are definitely an apologist and an ambassador.  The only question is whether you are doing a good job.  You will be very glad when God uses your efforts to be able to share his truths with someone who is seeking them.

As the Wintery Knight asks, Can you dispense with apologetics and just preach the gospel when evangelizing?  I think they are intertwined, especially in our culture.  If you don’t subscribe to his blog you should start.

See the Apologetics links to the right for some great resources.  If I could only recommend one site it would be Stand to Reason.  Scour the site, listen to the Podcast and read Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions and you’ll be in great shape.  CARM.org is, great, too.

Also see these PowerPoint slides that I have used for a class at church called Defending Your Faith.  You are welcome to use or adapt them.  Now get to work!

If a tragedy led you to atheism, then it wasn’t really a tragedy.

This was a comment from a (drunk) atheist (although you’ll get the same thing from lots of sober people):

. . . he repeatedly said he knew God didn’t exist because of life’s general tragedies.

If atheists say they disbelieve because of tragedies, then they weren’t really tragedies. That is, they have no logical grounding to refer to them as truly tragic. They would just be purposeless and meaningless results of Darwinian evolution. That he calls them tragedies is evidence for God, not for the absence of God.

Atheist Bertrand Russell said, ”No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God.”  But that proves nothing.  The Christian worldview has answers for that situation, no matter how difficult.  But what does the atheist say?  Tough luck?

Of course we know that many things really are tragedies.  But pretending there is no God fixes nothing.  You are consciously abandoning the only one who could make sense of the tragedies and provide eternal solutions to our problems.

Ray Comfort defined atheism as:

My own definition of the word “atheist” is someone who pretends that there’s no God. Atheism therefore is the delusion that God doesn’t exist.

I would tweak that this way, a la Romans 1 below: An atheist is someone who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and pretends that there is no God.  

Make no mistake: Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The perfect solution to those awkward “I don’t know, wherever you want to go is fine” conversations

When you are dealing with people who are overly polite* and won’t tell you what they really want to do (dinner location, what movie to watch, etc.) just try saying, “If I strapped a polygraph on you and asked you to give me your top three choices, what would they be?”

I have tried this a few times and it works perfectly.  Seriously.  The polite people will pause, as if to say, “Touche’.  You got me.” Then they will tell you what they really wanted, because they don’t want to lie.  But it seems that deep down they are happy, because they get what they wanted without having to appear selfish.

The system works.

I’m pretty sure that Miss Manners would love this idea.

* Full disclosure: I tend to be one of those overly polite people.  Although I usually really don’t care.  I usually use the “veto power” answer, and say, “I’ll eat anything except Thai or Indian food” then let the other people choose.

Roundup

Why is Obama Ignoring the Beheading, Rape, Murder, and Oppression of Syria’s Christians & Alawites?

In other words, any barbarity committed by various al-Qaeda affiliates, the FSA and other terrorist groups in Syria is either welcomed, swept under the carpet or it means the same forces will obtain more funding and training from the enemies of this country. All in all, so-called opposition forces can gang rape Christian girls, use chemicals, behead people, cut open Syrian soldiers, murder Alawites, kill pro-Sunni Muslim clerics, kidnap Christian bishops and other brutal realities. After all, the red line only applies to the side which is protecting minorities therefore Gulf petrodollars can openly support barbarity – while NATO Turkey is a conduit for military arms and international jihadists.

See Stan’s reminder not to play the victim card, especially when we aren’t really being persecuted.  Having said that, I think it is worthwhile to preserve religious freedoms and protect others from evil where we can.

Randy’s novel Safely Home and Opening Our Eyes to the Reality of the Persecuted Church – A great work on real persecution.

Happy anti-theist PZ Myers takes issue with pitiless Richard Dawkins over pedophelia – Even the atheists are criticizing him – though neither they nor Dawkins have any logical grounding to say that pedophilia is always wrong.

Dawkins can’t find it in himself to condemn adultery (in fact he promotes adultery and lying about it) or mild pedophilia. He ignores the terrorism of animal rights activists in his own back yard, but he’ll fume over someone accepting the idea of a Designer.

Former ‘Satanic Drag Queen’ Finds Love in Jesus, Hatred From Gay Community

Having found a new life, McNutt said he considered himself done with the gay community, but the gay community wasn’t done with him.

“I received death threats,” he recalled. “One guy told me that he was going to put a bullet in my brain because I was a traitor to my people.”

If you’re Black and support Democrats, you’re lucky to be alive…literally – Powerful and true.  Their policies are so anti-Black that if you are Black you are lucky to be alive whether you support them or not.

Let’s recap.  The political left:

  • Rabidly supports unrestricted access to abortion which overwhelmingly takes the lives of Black children.
  • Supports the curtailment of legal gun ownership, which would raise (or at least make no difference in) the level of violent crime in America, which affects Blacks at a significant disproportion.
  • Opposes laws which allow the victim of a violent crime in progress to defend themselves (stand your ground) which have shown to benefit Blacks more than any other race.
  • Supports economic policies which have disproportionately hurt Black families and hindered their ability to be financially stable.
  • Will claim that presenting this data is racist.

Why the Media Will Never Treat Conservatives Fairly – The revolving door of Democrat staff people and media representatives is well documented there.  Don’t be fooled into thinking they are unbiased.

Examples: Why aren’t stories of Post-Trayvon Wave of Anti-White Terrorist Violence Continues Every Day running 24×7?

Top 10 Healthy Snacks for Kids – or for me.

Colorado Democrats lose recall elections over gun-control votes – Sweet!  This is a huge victory, as Leftists who want to get reelected will be more reluctant to take away gun rights.

Colorado voters stunned the nation Tuesday night by ousting two heavily funded Democratic state legislators in a recall election that was cast as a national referendum on gun control. Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron lost their seats in the state’s first-ever Legislative recall election, despite the support of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hundreds of ground troops from groups like Organizing for America, and a 7-to-1 spending advantage.

Facebook, Homosexuals Try to Shut Down Boy Scouts Alternative – You know you aren’t surprised.

Why is Obama Ignoring the Beheading, Rape, Murder, and Oppression of Syria’s Christians & Alawites?

Of course, President Obama is all upset that the Syria rebels–many of whom are al Qaeda terrorists–are being attacked by Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and he’s touted his famed “red line” that will cause him to consider US military intervention in the civil war. But Obama and his crew have not mentioned one thing about any “red line” for the beheadings, rapes, murders and oppressions of Syria’s minority Christians by the very rebels he claims to want to support.

Tags: ,,,

Dear Francis: Please pick a lane.

Pope Francis made the news again with an incoherent message on sin and salvation.  Via Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences: 

“Given – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,” the pope wrote, “the question for those who do not believe in God is to abide by their own conscience. There is sin, also for those who have no faith, in going against one’s conscience. Listening to it and abiding by it means making up one’s mind about what is good and evil.”

That is a profoundly bad and anti-biblical idea.  See Jeremiah 17:9, among others: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

But after giving false hope (and what else could it have meant?) he not only backtracks but implies that you have to be Catholic to be saved.  Make no mistake: When the Pope says “the church as founded by Christ” he means the Catholic church.

In May, however, relaxed remarks during a homily, which appeared to imply that non-believers could be “saved” if they did good, prompted a swift clarification from the Vatican that he meant nothing of the kind.

The pope had had “no intention of provoking a theological debate on the nature of salvation”, it said, adding: “They cannot be saved who, knowing the church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

The Reformation happened for a reason.  Actually, 95 of them, and they are still valid reasons to avoid the Catholic church.  I deeply respect their positions on abortion, real marriage and various other topics, and I think that many Catholics are indeed saved — but in spite of what Rome teaches on sanctification, Mary and other topics, not because of what they teach. They are “bad Catholics” who hold to the Protestant (i.e., biblical) view of justification and other key matters.

The Pope is communicating two extremes, both of which are horribly wrong.  I view his misstatements on this and other topics, such as indulgences via Twitter, as unusual gifts from God.  Far too many people in Catholic churches don’t know what the mother ship really teaches.  Francis is using turning the volume up to 11 so you can’t miss it.

Sure, those gears in living organisms just happened to “evolve”

insect gear

It takes a lot of blind faith to believe that the universe came into being from nothing without a cause, that life came from non-life and that it evolved into everything we see today, including having highly ordered information in DNA that could not have been brought about by chemical reactions.  Oh, and highly functioning gears.

Via Mechanical gear fund in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism | Uncommon Descent.

With two diminutive legs locked into a leap-ready position, the tiny jumper bends its body taut like an archer drawing a bow. At the top of its legs, a minuscule pair of gears engage—their strange, shark-fin teeth interlocking cleanly like a zipper. And then, faster than you can blink, think, or see with the naked eye, the entire thing is gone. In 2 milliseconds it has bulleted skyward, accelerating at nearly 400 g’s—a rate more than 20 times what a human body can withstand. At top speed the jumper breaks 8 mph—quite a feat considering its body is less than one-tenth of an inch long.

This miniature marvel is an adolescent issus, a kind of planthopper insect and one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. As a duo of researchers in the U.K. report today in the journal Science, the issus also the first living creature ever discovered to sport a functioning gear.

How does selection arrive at such coordination? What good is one gear without the corresponding gear? The challenge of IC for Darwinism remains.

There has never been a valid reason for denying God’s existence.  How much more so is this true with the vast amount of evidence we have today?

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

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

Obama and the Left are so desperate that they are having their media cronies like CNN show videos of victims (allegedly killed by Assad).  They are doing it reluctantly, of course.

Hey, does that mean they’ll start showing photos and videos of abortions?  That would change things in a hurry.

Bill Whittle had a great speech about conservative principles and how to win elections.  We’ve let the Left dominate with their lies and there are specific ways to fight back.

The idea is to stop letting moonbats use control of the media to ram through the same three concepts again and again until people mistake them for the truth: 1) wealth is unearned, 2) everybody is special (therefore achievement and individuality are meaningless), and 3) authoritarians just want to help you. These lies need to be replaced with three simple countermoonbat principles: 1) freedom, 2) private property, and 3) virtue. Just don’t tell anyone these values are conservative.

Chicago sex-ed will begin in kindergarten, promote gay lifestyle – Something about millstones comes to mind.  I remember predicting this when I first started blogging and being told it wouldn’t happen.  But it is an obvious consequence of pretending that the government should recognize same-sex unions.

“Comprehensive sex-ed dogmatists believe it’s appropriate for kindergartners to learn about families that are headed by homosexuals, whereas many parents believe that no child in early elementary school should hear anything about homosexuality,” Higgins said. “What’s worse, comprehensive sex ed proponents will present these disordered family structures positively.”

Higgins said the Chicago schools curriculum is part a National Sexuality Education Standards curriculum liberals are pushing around the country, developed by groups including the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and the National Education Association.

Air Force sergeant who disagreed with homosexuality faces court martial – Silence isn’t good enough.  You must affirm them, or else!

The truth about “the truth about Keystone” – The only environment Obama cares about is his wallet.

I attended Ottawa’s Gay Pride parade. Here’s what I saw. – From everything I’ve read about these parades this is a typical account.  Some people sacrifice the innocence of their children by subjecting them to these parades.  For example, false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie bragged about taking his 6 yr. old daughters to a gay pride parade. The Gaystapo has persuaded civic leaders and businesses to join in and support these.

I think the general impression of Pride among Christian activists is that it’s a lewd celebration of sex. Certainly that’s the takeaway from the photos you find online. But I’ve always harboured some suspicion that that might just be a caricature – that the photos are just rare aberrations, people picking out the most sensational pieces. So part of my reason for attending was just to see it for myself.

Now, as a witness, I can say that the impression is entirely accurate. While the majority of parade watchers are dressed rather normally, among those walking in the parade it was not odd at all to see semi-nudity and hyper-sexualized dancing. There were loads of people in nothing but underwear, dozens in leather bondage gear, and I saw at least a dozen topless women. I took everything I was handed, and walked away with a dozen condoms. Having now attended, I would describe Pride as a large-scale, state-backed celebration of kinky sex.

liberal-logic-101-500

only-allies

NALT (“Not All Like That”) Christians = Not Christians

John Shore is a false teacher who has started a group perpetuating the false dichotomy that everyone claiming the name of Christ is in one of the following categories:

  1. Aligned with their pro-gay theology, where homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, etc. are gifts from God and it is sinful to say otherwise.
  2. Someone like Democrat Fred “God hates fags” Phelps and his Westboro “church”

That is transparently ridiculous, of course.  There are countless Christians who believe the Bible and agree with God’s views yet can still reach out to gays with truth and love.  The message is simple: We don’t have to make people straight before sharing the Good News with them.  You can tell them that even if homosexual behavior wasn’t a sin they would all have plenty of other sins for which they need forgiveness, just like straight people.  But if you really love them then you won’t lie about God’s truths and you won’t affirm them in physically, emotionally and spiritually destructive behavior.

Here is more about the NALT group:

(Notalllikethat.org) – The purpose of the NALT Christians Project is to give LGBT-affirming Christians a means of proclaiming to the world—and especially to young gay people—their belief and conviction that there is nothing anti-biblical or at all inherently sinful about being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

It is a train wreck of bad theology, and to make things worse they “especially” target to young people.  Something about millstones comes to mind.

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 describe 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).planned
  • 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 of any kind.

The more you read about this group the creepier it gets.  When John Shore plugs himself on Amazon, his top three quotes reveal what he is all about.

One is from Rob Bell, a false teacher.  I can see why Shore would use him given Bell’s popularity, but Bell is still awful.

Then there is Shelby Spong, the fake Christian who always wears a clerical collar so people don’t confuse him with the head of the National Atheist Association.  That’s how anti-biblical he is.

But the first reference Shore uses in every site I’ve seen is from Dan Savage, an on-the-record Christ-hating atheist bully, the guy who coined the phrase “Santorum” to describe a disgusting by-product of gay sex**.

Dan Savage (“Savage Love”; It Gets Better) calls John Shore “America’s preeminent non-douchey Christian.” Rob Bell (“Love Wins”) has declared Mr. Shore “awesome,” and “a brilliant writer.” “John Shore is a gadfly,” wrote famed theologian John Shelby Spong, “calling the Christian Church everywhere to act the way it says it believes about love and justice, which of course makes him an uncomfortable presence in those churches that do not like to be forced to face reality. So were the prophets of old. So was Jesus of Nazareth.”

If Dan Savage likes your theology then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.  That would be something to be ashamed of, not to be used as your top reference.

Not surprisingly, Spong compared Shore to the prophets and Jesus.  But Jesus and the prophets were wildly unpopular with the world, while Shore is loved by the world and those who hate God and his word.

I can’t think of a single person who pushes pro-gay theology that isn’t off the rails on the essentials of the faith.  Peel back the layers and you’ll find that if they are pro-gay then they deny most or all of the following: Jesus’ divinity, Jesus’ exclusivity for salvation, the authority of scripture, etc.  They pretend to like the Bible while undermining it at every turn.

My favorite tactic with them is to point out how the Bible teaches over 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation, so of course it is a view that every Christian must hold.  Then I ask if they agree with it.  Of course, they don’t.  That helps expose them for what they are.

You can comment on Shore’s NALT project here.  Here is another good response to these frauds.  

Run, don’t walk, from people who claim to follow Jesus yet talk like Shore, Bell and Spong. It is beyond parody that a Christian would consider an endorsement from Dan Savage to be a good thing.  The only thing worse would be an endorsement from Satan himself. 
—–

* The three general types of pro-gay theology people: 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 and is only telling theological Liberals” (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.)

** In a spectacular irony, Savage infamously led to the coining of the term “Santorum” to describe the disgusting byproducts of a gay sex act: “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.”

He was trying to get back at former Senator Santorum for labeling homosexual acts as sinful, but Savage didn’t realize the net result of his name-calling.  After all, it is Savage’s disgusting byproduct that is the problem. Assigning someone else’s name to your filthy output doesn’t demean them, it demeans you.  What self-mockery!