Divided

This documentary is definitely food for thought:

Modern Christianity's Confusing Message

God loves you.  Oh, he loves you so much.  You just need to know just how much he loves you!  (whisper)  Oh, and by the way, you really ought to accept His love by saying this little prayer here, or he will burn you for eternity in Hell.

Does this make sense to anyone?  Anyone at all?

Darwin Quotes

I don't personally like bumper sticker wars.  Some put an ichthys on their bumper, then others put a response, then others put a response to that response.  I personally find it all petty and missing the majesty and indescribable awe of an all powerful, omniscient, immanent, transcendent, holy and Righteous God.

But, all of that notwithstanding, the next time you see one of these:

...let it remind you of a couple of quotes.  These are excerpted from Darwin's book "The Descent Of Man" chapter 6:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."

And also from the same chapter:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” 

Such quotes demand a defense by those who cling to his theories.  They are weak, and they are here.

Picking Sides

In April 2008 Todd Bentley was invited to preach at a revival meeting that would become known as the Lakeland Revival. It would end six months later with an adulterous affair between Bentley and a staff member.  Bentley began an attempt at restoration with a committee made up of Rick Joyner, Jack Deere and Bill Johnson, but the committee abandoned the restoration when Bentley refused to comply with the process.

Bentley divorced his wife, left his children, and married the other woman.

Here are 4 Youtube clips.  The first one is of Todd Bentley being rebuked by several pastors during one of his meetings:

 

 Here are those who did the rebuking after they were ushered out:

 

Bentley has since moved to Fort Mill South Carolina where Joyner's Morningstar ministries are located.  Here is an interview with Bentley and his new wife conducted by Rick Joyner:


We are no doubt living in confusing times.

The name of this post is Picking Sides.  In the first video those two sides are shown.  Whether wittingly or unwittingly, we who consider ourselves Christians watch that video and take one side or the other.  If you pick Bentley's side, that would be an easy emotional decision as long as you don't think about it too much.  For sure you would not want to think about Bentley's forsaken wife, or his children and their view of this "Jesus" their Dad preaches.  On the other hand I find it striking how easy it was to make those rebuking Bentley look bad, like the angry ones, the haters, the unforgiving.  But does not love demand that someone do this?

Here is Bentley's new wife... "ministering":

Slavery And Abortion, Sisters In Revolution.

As the contemporary Christian reads Frederick Douglas's quote below, he will easily empathize with his words as Douglass levels his guns at the Church of his day. But depending on a person's worldview, he will either accuse with Douglass or empathize with him.  In the thinking of some, nothing has changed since Douglass penned these words long ago and racism remains the defining issue of our day.  Douglas was a radical against a real issue in his day.  There is nothing radical today about taking a stand against slavery and racism in our day.  There are no laws that sanction either.  But there are laws that sanction the killing of unborn babies, most of which are black.  In this quote Douglass addresses the Church of his day:

"What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the —slaveholding religion— of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.” I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me."  ¹

Douglass was a radical in his day dealing with the issues of his day by confronting a faux Christianity of his day. It was not necessary that he peer ever backward to the days of old to dredge up a bases for his complaint, indeed, as a man born a slave he lived it.

But what has happened to the issue of Douglass's radical stance?  Slavery has been outlawed and anti-racism amendments have been incorporated into our constitution.  Racism against those with black skin is no longer instituted by the laws of the land. Since then it has become a conservative, as in a desire to conserve those laws.  To be sure, there are politically based assertions that "political conservatism" is racist, but America's stance against racism is as American and conservative as apple pie. The fact that politicians are so ready to level the charge against their opponent in order to hurt their election chances is a testament to that fact.  If we were a nation of racist, it would seem to me that such charges would bolster their standing in the land of racism.  But it doesn't.

This is not to say that racism is dead.  No, it is alive, and given the sinfulness of man, like all other sins that plague man, it always will be. But corporately, and institutionally, the racism against which Douglass fought is on life support at best; kept alive by the likes of the Reverends, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jim Wallis, whose victim-factory enterprises have built a profitable industry of the sin.

But the conservativeness of standing against racism makes it safe, acceptable, and even popular to do so.  In the day of Douglass it was not unifying nor popular to stand in the midst of a pew filled church and decry slavery and racism.  Douglass is a historical figure because he did just that.  Now Douglass is dead as is the slavery and racism against which he, and his brothers of every skin color, took their valiant stands.  It is now warm, cozy and safe to stand in their shoes and decry what they decried.

But this raises another question.  Where is the battle being waged today?  What is the Devil up to these days against which the Christian must make that unpopular stand?  The modern radical knows that the answer is to stand against the slaughter of the unborn.  The conservative clings to the glory days of former radicals as he safely rails against the straw men of slavery and racism while remaining silent on the less safe but current issues.

Try this.  Go back and reread the words of Douglass.  Except this time exchange "slave holding" with "abortion defending".  This should cause a light to come on.  Liberal, or progressive Christianity, such as that preached by the Rev. Jim Wallis and other progressives, is becoming increasingly conservative.  That is, the passage of time and their success in making the murder of the unborn corporately acceptable in the land has morphed them from radicals fighting for acceptance, into defenders hoping to "conserve" their gains in the American mindset.

But the more one knows about abortion, the more one realizes that it is indefensible.  A strategy of distraction is therefore employed to avoid having to defend it.  We are distracted away from the body of the baby to the body of the mother.  We are distracted from the beating heart by claims of personal choice, or privacy.  We are distracted by strawman arguments and name calling.  And, we are distracted, interestingly enough, by counter-charges of racism; I say interestingly enough because the founder of planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger, saw abortion as a means to rid society of blacks. And also interestingly enough because of the staggeringly disproportionate rates of babies with black skin that are having their lives legally blotted out by the abortionist's knife.  Sanger must smirk.  And, lest we forget, some of the same person-hood arguments used to keep slavery legal are used to keep abortion legal.

I admire Douglass because he did not reject Christ because of fake Christians.  He knew enough of the Christian religion to know that the religion was real and the fakes were hypocrites.  He also did not shrink back from pointing out that some claiming to be Christians were in fact fakes.  In fact this excerpt is taken from an appended message to his book entitled "Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass".  It seems that, after reading his own finished work, he felt it necessary to insert a disclaimer stating that he was in fact a Christian.  But he painted a logical and clear delineation between his Biblical Christianity and the "Christianity of this land" that accepted the legal ownership of humans:

"...[b]etween the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked."

I've seen this very quote used in these days as a stick with which to beat over the head political conservatives after baseless assertions that they are racists.  But it only serves to distract from the blood laden hands of the pro-abort "Christians" that so expertly wild that club.

Unfortunately for the cause to outlaw the crushing and dismemberment of the unborn person, we have very few Douglasses in our day.  We do not fight slavery, which was generally survived, we fight the murder of the innocent, which is rarely survived... but some do.  Gianna Jessen is one.


Please take the time to watch this video to see the handy work of those who preach love and tolerance, and, oh yes, abortion.  Like the stripes worn by the ex-slave, this young girl wears cerebral palsy caused by the saline solution used in her failed abortion.  If our current, self-professed Christian president had his way, this young lady would be dead, legally murdered outside the womb because she was unwanted.  For such reasons I oppose Barack Obama, who happens to be black.  But ironically enough, because he is black, and I am white, I find myself being judged a racist because of that opposition.  Better for his ilk that I defend myself against a strawman charge than point out, as Douglass unashamedly did, that his "Christianity" is bad, corrupt and wicked.

There are perhaps other ways in which we might gain new insights from the interchange of historical issues and perspectives with current ones.  One of those ways is to project modern action onto historical times. One of the tragedies of our day concerning abortion is the response from the pro-life Church, which is mostly silence.  To be sure we have our abolitionist equivalents at work today, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, James Dobson and National Right To Life, to name a few, but these sorts of organizations are stop-gap at best.  Like their historical counterparts, such as the underground railroad, they are only able to save a few.  What is needed, as Gianna Jessen pointed out earlier, is a national reformation of mindsets concerning the sanctity of life.  That can only happen through the transforming work of the true Gospel.

I can very well assume that the silence that plagues the modern American church concerning this somber issue is very similar to the silence that plagued the 19th century Church.  It was well enough to be anti-slavery, I can imagine, but who wants to discuss divisive political issues.  "I can't end slavery" I can hear a pastor say.  "To take a stand will cause a Church split", or "there are people in this congregation who have owned slaves, we must be mindful of that".  But these were conservative stances, in the Twainian sense of conservative, just as those who have no problem being all about diversity today take their "valiant" stands against dead straw-men are Twainian conservatives of today.

Lastly, perhaps we might garner some insight into future events and maybe get a glimpse of our own times from the perspective of the future.  I grow weary of hearing Christianity blamed for slavery, and a host of other evils.  Any group of people, whether it be a nation, political party, religion or so on can be cherry picked to death by focusing on infractions committed by rogue or fake constituents.  And, the larger the group the larger the cherry tree.  It is better to look at the group's charter if possible, as in the instance of religion.  Does the evil committed make the person committing it a rogue member in contrast with the rest of the group or their charter, or does it make him a devout adherent?  Are the actions that you are aware of seen through the hazy distance of time, or are they recent?  Are the channels through which you received your knowledge objective, or are they hostile cherry-pickers?

With this in mind, should the Lord tarry, and should He grant America revival and reformation, I have no doubt that Christianity will one day be blamed for the horror of abortion.  "What!", you say?  "How can that be?"  That's easy.  One need only to look at the voluminous writings of so-called "progressive" Christians.  Those writings will not go away, and, may well be used in the future in attempts to prove that Christianity is evil.  In my mind now those writings fall under the same description leveled by Douglass: "[It] is of necessity to reject [them] as bad, corrupt, and wicked."  But wicked hearts are our make-up.  And those same wicked hearts might one day easily point to those very writings, and based on them blame Christianity for abortion.

Do you think this is far fetched?  If so read the first paragraph of this site concerning a more recent history:

To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

Talk about ignoring history, that is one plump cherry right there.

Finally, those who frequent this blog know that I am a proponent of studying history. ³ To not; to be ignorant of what occurred before, in the words of Cicero ² "is to remain always a child".  History gives us wise perspective, wisdom in general, and knowledge, without which our minds might well be herded like cattle into any kind of foolish thinking. It should not surprise us therefore that the majority of the Bible reads more like a history book than a law book, for indeed it is God's history of His glorious Acts among men, and deserves study above all others.

______________________________

Note 1: Narrative Of The Life Of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, (appendix page 93-94)
Note 2: Marcus Tullius Cicero
Note 3: When I advocate the study of history, I do not mean watch the History Channel.  The only true way to study history is to read historic writings and then endeavor to understand the historic mindsets that led those of history into their future, our present.  Man is hopelessly biased.  Even reading old books only gives you a view of history through the biases of the writer's own times, yet one can hope and endeavor to escape the powerful biases of his own time, and even perhaps getting a glimpse of history by examining the biases of the historic author's work on history.

Facebook

For those of you who know me on facebook,  I have deactivated my account.

Thanks

Danny

A Few Simple Tips To Help Make Sure That What Happened To Trayvon Martin Does Not Happen To Your Child

From my Facebook Friend, Michael Johnson: 

Here are a few simple tips to help make sure that what happened to Trayvon Martin does not happen to your child... 

1. Don't raise a thug.

2. Teach your children to be polite and respectful to the people they may encounter.

3. Know where your kids are, and what they are up to.

4. If your child is already a thug, has his own burglary tool kit, has been suspended from school, and your neighborhood is experiencing a rash of burglaries, take him around and introduce him to the local Neighborhood Watch members, and give them your phone number.

5. Keep Skittles in your house at all times.

If you are a teenager, and you want to avoid Trayvon Martin's fate yourself, here are some tips for you... 

1. Don't be a thug.

2. Be polite and respectful to the people that you may encounter.

3. If you are walking around alone in the dark, and someone is following you, go home.

4. If a person confronts you while you are walking around alone in the dark and asks you where you are going, politely tell them where you are going,and then go there.

5. Under no circumstances should you ever start beating on random people you know nothing about. You could get yourself shot.

6. If you live in a neighborhood that has been plagued with a rash of burglaries, you are suspended from school, have your own burglary tool kit, and you are out of Skittles, try to get by with Raisinettes, or M&Ms, or whatever else you may have in the house until you can go to the store in the daylight. 

By following these simple tips, you can help to avoid a repeat of the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and if this saves even one life, then it will have been worth the time it took me to write it.

Teaching Our Children Well

While our times are especially harsh for the young--our airwaves being filled with filth, immorality, and iniquity--we also have at our disposal a great tool for teaching our children: the internet.

YouTube, besides the fact that the owners are no friends of Christianity, is a great resource for showing in real life footage the hand of Satan in politics, entertainment, and the news media.

Below is a great example.  The slaughter of babies advocated by the Democrat party is Satanic. Below is a great video that will help you to indoctrinate your children against evil while they are still young and open to your instruction.

The pro-abort Dems are chanting "Hail Satan" as the pro-lifers are singing Amazing Grace.  'Nough said.


H/T Wintery Knight

"Tolerance", The Horse Through Which Acceptance Was Invited Through The Gate

Amazing video. Amazing because the anchor actually notices the irony. I'm convinced that she is actually shocked at the lack of tolerance. A couple of things to note.

1. The victims were preachers, not protesters.

2. One of the most fascinating quotes comes at 2:20.  The anchor quotes someone as saying: "[I know] society has come a long way tolerating different lifestyles, but I think this video shows we have a ways to go".

How does one interpret that statement.



3. And, speaking of tolerance and hate, who are the tolerant ones, and who are the hateful ones the above video, and video below?



4. Remember, Christianity is about tolerance, as it has historically been defined.  The Christians in these videos are examples worth following of, not only love, but tolerance.

John 3:19-21
"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.  "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
NASU

What Does The Modern Day Pharisee Look Like? The Answer Might Surprise You.

When Jesus came preaching the Kingdom Of God, he was opposed by the religious community; the Pharisee, and Sadducee. For those who preach the Kingdom Of God today, they are opposed likewise by the religious community.

The Pharisees opposed Jesus with a mixture of their traditions and some scripture.  But it wasn't their use of scripture that made them His enemy and He theirs, indeed Jesus used scripture as well. It was their hearts that he looked at.  They were comfortable with things the way they were and had no intentions of letting this prophet change anything.

Jesus, on the other hand, had compassion for the lost souls who he said were condemned unless they turned to Him, and believed on Him. (John 16:18).  They were sinners and were under God's wrath. That was their state, and they desperately needed a Savior to escape that wrath.

He was not trying to win a popularity contest, nor was he being pragmatic by looking for something that "worked".  He  was clear to those who would follow Him, that they, the unbelievers, hated Him and the Father without cause, (Jn 15:25)  and that they would hate them also... without cause. (Jn 15:18)


Below is a video. This poor soul doesn't oppose the street preacher with an appeal to scripture but rather with appeals to emotion and pragmatism.  She even asks those who are heckling the preacher to support her in her opposition to the Gospel he is preaching.   The enemy is crafty, and always glad to tell us how we may best be His enemy.

The preacher, on the other hand, responds to her every point with sound scripture, logic, reason, and compassion.  But she is not swayed from her emotional and pragmatic positions.  This woman is a product of the modern American Church.  She knows no better.  She has been "loved" into oblivion  by our more sensible, pragmatic, and peaceful times and preachers.  But these are not peaceful times. These are radical times.