Tag Archives: jim wallis

Bible, Christian worldview, False teachers, Favorites

The Tiny Bible of the “Christian” Left: Read it all in 5 minutes!

3 Comments

This 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 the “Christian” Leftists 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.” The “Christian” Left just goes many steps further.  I’m pretty sure this post is longer than their Bible.  Just 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 Leopard 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.

If you love him you should agree with him about the Bible.

Uncategorized

Why did Leftist “evangelical” Jim Wallis lie about taking money from pro-abortion atheist George Soros?

2 Comments

If you want to get banned from any Sojourners sites, just ask about Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis hiding donations from extreme Leftist George Soros.  See Liberal evangelical Jim Wallis admits to $$ from pro-abort billionaire George Soros.

Wallis has posed as a centrist but aligns himself with extreme Leftist causes: Obamacare — including its taxpayer-funded abortion, same-sex marriage (he just “happened” to switch sides when it profited him the most), race-baiting, etc.

He initially said he didn’t know about Soros’ contribution, but that is a lie.  There is no way you don’t know if someone is giving that much money to your organization.

Why does the “Christian” Left pretend that only the Koch brothers donate to political causes?

Institute for Religion and Democracy President Mark Tooley commented:

 

Wallis’ initial denials and then ultimate confirmation of Soros funding for Sojourners is a revealing turning point for the evangelical left.

Long insisting he represents a mysterious Christian ‘third way’ more enlightened than the old Religious Right, Wallis now stands exposed as what he always was: a man of the political left. From his days 40 years ago as a radical Students for Democratic Society activist, to his championing of the Marxist Sandinistas in 1980s’ Nicaragua, Wallis has always allied himself with secular leftist groups hostile to the historic Church.

Religious leftists may freely tout their views no less than religious conservatives. But Wallis and his Sojourners, as Soros-funded religious leftists, should heed truth in advertising.

Oddly, I haven’t seen a good explanation on Wallis’ blog.  Then again, why would you expect someone like him to tell the truth?

False teachers

The “Christian” Left and their Ayn Rand obsession

9 Comments

One of the recurring themes of the visitors from the “Christian” Left Facebook page was their obsession with Ayn Rand.  Their basic guilt-by-association fallacy goes like this:

  • You agree with Ayn Rand
  • Ayn Rand was a super-evil atheist
  • Therefore, you worship money and are anti-Jesus

A sample:

Your theology is based on “The law of the jungle,” “every man for himself,” “survival of the strongest,” “survival of the fittest,” “kill or be killed,” “dog eat dog,” and “eat or be eaten.” It’s as old as the hills and it comes from the pit of Hell. Actually it’s Satanism pure and simple. Maybe you and your buddy Paul Ryan, who is a big fan of Ayn Rand, can start a Satanic Sunday School class together. Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, had this to say about Rand: “I give people Ayn Rand with trappings.” Ryan says he’s not a fan of Objectivism, but he loves Rand’s books and he formed his views of economics from reading them. Never mind that her blasphemous books drip with Objectivism on every page. You and your flock have been deluded by Satan himself! 1 Timothy 4:1-2 describes you well, but you are so delusional and blind you can’t see it. Let that one through for your readers.

The counter to that is pretty simple.  Just note how Rand was pro-abortion, like them, so using their logic they are equivalent to her.  You can also point out that they are the ones pushing the Darwinist philosophy, not us.

In their zeal to demonize their ideological foes (i.e., real Christians), they use any fallacious memes they can.  They repeat them a lot in their echo chambers, then go into full freak-out mode when their sound bites are so easily refuted.

To state the obvious, agreeing with someone about one thing doesn’t mean you agree with them on everything.  Did I really have to spell that out?  Apparently so, because that is the premise of their argument.

Rand was eerily accurate about the motives, behavior and results of Leftists.  As the joke goes, Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

But  just because she diagnosed the problem doesn’t mean she had the right solution.  As an atheist, she misunderstood key parts of human nature.  And of course, her pro-abortion views were anti-Christian.

Unfortunately, the Leftists I explained this to just ran away.  Hopefully it planted a seed with them, but in my experience they’ll use the same bad arguments again if they think no one is looking.

Prove me wrong, “Christian” Left!

Update: Captain Obvious forgot to point out another example: Ask the Leftists what they think of Karl Marx’ philosophies.  Because he was a devout Christian, right?

Christian worldview

Why don’t Obama and the other race-baiters say what Charles Barkley did?

3 Comments

Via Charles Barkley Totally Goes There – ‘We Are Brainwashed To Think, If You’re Not A Thug Or An Idiot, You’re Not Black Enough’:

As I tell my white friends, we as black people, we’re never going to be successful, not because of you white people, but because of other black people. When you’re black, you have to deal with so much crap in your life from other black people. It’s a—It’s a dirty, dark secret; I’m glad it’s coming out. It comes out every few years. I wrote a big chapter in my book about it, to be honest with you.

I said, you know, when young black kids, you know, when they do well in school, the loser kids tell them, ‘Oh, you’re acting white.’ The kids who speak intelligently—

They tell them, ‘You’re acting white.’ So it’s a dirty, dark secret in the black community.

One of the reasons we’re never going to be successful as a whole, because of other black people. And for some reason we are brainwashed to think, if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent, and don’t break the law, you’re not a good black person. And it’s a dirty, dark secret, Anthony.

Most, I—I heard Stephen A. [Smith] talkin about it, and it, listen, I hate to bring white people into our crap, but as a black person, we all go through it when you’re successful. Uh, you know it’s like one of the reasons, you know, one of the reasons a lot of black players go broke is because when you’re successful your friends say to you, ‘Oh, you ain’t cool. You ain’t down with us anymore.’

And you end up giving up all your money to these damn losers, and you end up broke again.

But it’s a dirty, dark secret in the black community. There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have, uh, success. It’s best to knock a successful black person down because they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful. And they don’t..if you think about it—

Anthony Gargano: Well it’s crabs in a barrel, right?

It’s crabs in a barrel. The thing that’s hap—we’re the only race that tell people if you don’t have street cred, with like, that means you been arrested—

Like, like that’s a compliment. We’re the only ethnic group who say, ‘Hey, if you go to jail, it gives you street cred.’ It’s just typical BS that goes on when you’re black, man. But don’t waste a lot of time on it please.

Those are great, but politically incorrect, points by Barkley.  He’ll be labeled an Uncle Tom and worse, of course, for speaking the truth.  This should be must-reading/watching in public schools.  Why don’t false teachers and people like Obama say things like this?  It’s obvious: They’d be out of jobs if blacks followed the advice of Barkley instead of the race-baiters. Hacks like Jim Wallis are too busy profiting from the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin to care about the facts or to actually help black people.

Bible, False teachers, Favorites

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

6 Comments

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

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

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

This raises two questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that would mean that Leviticus 1:1 and the rest of the book were pure lies from Moses, or whomever Sandlin claims wrote the book: The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them . . . More specifically, see the beginning and end of chapter 18: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. 3 You shall not . . . I am the Lord your God.”

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the book of Daniel, the prophecies of which are so amazing that even Leftists concede that accurately describe hundreds of years of history.  But the “Christian” Left says the book was written after the fact.   So their claim is the author of Daniel was a blasphemous liar.

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

Jim Wallis is a pathetic drama queen

1 Comment

Via Arrested in Ferguson in Act of Repentance, professional race-baiter Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis got himself arrested (probably for a whole 15 minutes!) so he could play the martyr and pretend to care for black people.

Meanwhile, he continues to support the Democrats’ dream of increasing the ratio of black abortions to white past its current three-to-one figure.

Taxpayer-funded abortions — which the Democrats want so badly that they almost lost Obamacare over, and that which their official platform calls for — would take that rate even higher.

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

Wallis is a ghoul who profits over the deaths of black people.

Bible, False teachers

Mark Sandlin = false teacher

10 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a believer. Mostly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When he worshiped, he worshiped that same god.

He did not worship himself.

Jesus never called himself God.

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

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

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

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

He did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Christian” Left doesn’t agree with the beginning of the Gospels (virgin birth, claims of divinity (John 1)). Or the end (physical resurrection). Or the middle (miracles, Hell, teaching against “same-sex marriage” and evolution, claims to be the only way to salvation, claims of divinity, etc.).

Yet they claim to follow Jesus. They reflexively add and take away from scripture. Wolves like Mark “Jesus is not my God” Sandlin deny things like the virgin birth, which is clearly taught in scripture, then make up things about the Magi tipping off Joseph about Herod’s plans.

Here are a couple of their life (er, uh, death) verses:

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Jude 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Run, don’t walk, from the “Christian” Left and false teachers like Mark Sandlin.

grumpy cat

False teachers

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

1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncategorized

False teacher Jim Wallis milks the Left-manufactured border “crisis”

1 Comment

Leftist policies deliberately caused the massive influx of illegal immigrants, but false teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis are unrepentant.  They just double down with nonsense like The Moral Failure of Immigration Reform: Are We Really Afraid Of Children?

This is political obstruction of the common good, and it is a moral failure. This week, in a meeting with President Barack Obama, faith leaders asked the President to do everything he can, within his Constitutional authority, to “relieve the suffering” of all the families and children who will continue to be devastated. Let me say this very clearly: Those who have morally failed to fix this broken system must dare not now try to prevent executive orders to protect the people we love, who have become part of “us,” and whom Christ asks us to protect. If Republicans continue to ignore and cause the suffering of all “the strangers” among us, they will have to answer to the faith community.

The moral failure is practically begging people to enter our country illegally so that our neighbors will have to fund them, be victims of their crimes and catch their diseases.

Politics

The deadly law of unintended consequences, illegal immigration style

1 Comment

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.