"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

The Most Influential Man of the 20th Century

On a recent post I asked the question "The Greatest Man in the 20th Century is Who?" The post revolved around the practice of St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City, where church leaders chose the most influential man of each of the past nineteen centuries and honored them by placing a handmade statue underneath the communion table. Already knowing the men listed for the previous nineteen centuries, we called the church to ask them about their decision regarding the most influential man of the 20th Century. Reverend Harry Pritchett was the 8th Dean of St. John's in New York. He is now at The Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta. Barbara, my assistant, called Dr. Pritchett and disovered him to be a very gracious man who offered the following information.

At the turn of the century, Rev. Pritchett and his church committee chose to depart from listing a single person considered to be the most influential man of the twentieth century and decided instead to name individuals, male or female, whom they felt were the most humanitarian of that century. There was some disagreement on this departure, but eventually the committee came up with four names representing the greatest humanitarians of the 20th Century: Ghandi (advocation of peaceful protest for humanitarian rights), Susan B. Anthony (advocation of women's rights), Martin Luther King Jr.(advocation for peaceful protest for racial equality), and Einstein (for his contribution to technology and his writings).

These four individuals are memoralized like the men chosen for the first through the nineteenth centuries, with a carving near the others. This carving is approximately three to four feet high, just like the previous statues, but is unique in that four individuals are included in the single carving representing the 20th Century instead of each person being given their own figurine. Dr. Pritchett emphasized that the first nineteen individuals named were not necessarily chosen because of their faith, but for their influence in their respective century. Some were Christians, some were not. Of those who were Christians, sometime their influence was not necessarily due to their Christian faith. The same could be said of the four representing the 20th Century.

Many may not agree with Trinity's choice of individuals to represent the previous one hundred years, but nobody can fault the church's desire to recognize great men and women who have given of their lives to make our world a better place.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

130 comments:

Thy Peace said...

At least my choice of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) made it to the list. Thank you Pastor Wade for listing them.

I am also happy that they listed, Susan B. Anthony (Wow! a woman), Martin Luther King, Jr. and Einstein.

God bless them.

Thy Peace said...

Wiki: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Wiki: Susan B. Anthony

Wiki: Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wiki: Albert Einstein

Thy Peace said...

Here is the odd thing of their life times:

M. K. Gandhi: (1869 - 1948)
Susan B. Anthony: (1820 - 1906)
Martin Luther King Jr.: (1929 - 1968)
Albert Einstein: (1879 - 1955)

So Susan B. Anthony barely made it to the 20th century. But her accomplishments have done so much for women in the 20th century. God bless her.

Thy Peace said...

Since we have a woman selected as one of the Greatest Men of the 20th century, please check out this article by Cheryl Schatz:

1 Timothy 2, authority and the magical pulpit

Great post. God bless you, Cheryl Schatz.

< This will be my last comment for today :-) >

NativeVermonter said...

While it is admirable to set up a monument so that the world may know them, the ultimate question for whoever is chosen is thus: Does Christ know them?

Wanda said...

Thy Peace,

Thanks for the link to the article by Cheryl Schatz. I used to be a member of the same Southern Baptist church as Anne Graham Lotz. Unfortunately, there was great inner turmoil, and my family and Anne's family, among others, left the church on May 1, 2005. It was a very sad day.

I have been to one of Anne's Just Give Me Jesus conferences, and I love the pulpit she uses. I also love her explanation that when she is communicating with her audience, she is under the authority of Jesus Christ.

Anne Graham Lotz is one of my heroes, or should I say heroines?

Blessings,

Wanda

Anonymous said...

I still wonder why Anthony is there. Goodness, she was neither a man nor in the 20th century (practically). I don't understand the apparent obsession with getting her on the list. It seems they need to change the title name to "person" instead of "man" and then add her to the previous century (perhaps).

If they were so intent on putting a woman on the most "influential man" list, Rosa Parks or Helen Keller would have been better in so many ways.

Good question native. If we look for the fruit, one can only wonder. My judement? Okay, I'll play.

Gandhi certainly not.

Einstein most likely not.

Junior had so much baggage (around his "good works") it's really hard to tell.

And Anthony was a Quaker and Unitarian it appears.

What does all that mean? Did they "make it"?

I'll leave that up to the blogosphere to decide. :)

NativeVermonter said...

I suppose my main point is not analyzing whether they're "in" or not; however, we need to make sure that WE'RE "in." I have enough baggage to get charged hundreds of extra dollars for an airline flight but His Grace allows this vessel of mercy to persevere yet still.

Stephen said...

Wade, Thanks for this post. It is important to think about great people and the contributions they have made. I tend to think, however, of the less known, yet most important people - those who did the ground work. Granted, King was monumental, but he joined a movement that was already underway and had been for decades. Rosa Parks is a true hero, but what about Joanne Robinson and E. D. Nixon....Bob Zellner...the Freedom Riders, etc? There is an almost endless list of ordinary people who contributed and sacrificed for the Civil Rights movement. On the women's side the same is true - Alice Paul, Carrie Chapman Catt and others. As a historian, I tend to look from the bottom up first and not use the "Great Man in History" model.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it amazing how perspectives change? While it may be a stretch to list Susan B. as twentieth century I doubt if she would have been considered for such a list in the previous century. I'm glad she was chosen. All the women who are voting now can be grateful to her. Note that she didn't live long enough to legally vote. She did vote at least once, was arrested, refused to pay the fine, small though it was (I think it was $1) and never paid and I don't think she was prosecuted further for it.

At least three of the four were very unpopular in their time. (I don't know enough history of science to say one way or the other about Einstein.) Two were assasinated (another sign of being disliked!). Now they are being praised. That's good. It's just sad that all the bad things had to happen to the people trying to bring about what most now consider good changes.

Can we take that as a lesson to be careful what we fight against? Probably not.

Susie

Anonymous said...

Hey, whatever happened to the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin?

There is an interesting legal issue regarding Ms. Anthony, Cadie Stanton (sp?) and another woman's attempt to vote in Missouri, I believe. They attempted to vote, were denied because Mo. law did not allow women to vote. They filed suit. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the suit, and decided in favor of Mo. The Court held that under the U.S. Const, the states decided the qualifications for voters.

So, that's why there had to be an amendment to the U.S. Const. to allow women to vote.

Of course, this did not happen in the case of Blacks because the 15th Amendment had been passed after the Civil war.

Jurisprudence has changed so much since then. Since the mid 40s, the U.S. Supreme Court has been more activist. If Anthony, Stanton etc. had brough their lawsuit today, I am sure that the court would have found the right for women to vote somewhere in the Bill of Rights.

But one has to wonder. Was it better for the court to reject that earlier challenge, and put the issue back in the laps of the men voters, who eventually gave women the right to vote in the 1920s, or should the court have done that work by finding a right of women to vote in the U.S. Const.

Just an interesting bit of history and question.

As far as most influential people, they picked some that cannot really be argued against, though there are many more.

Our church would never put up statues or carvings like this. I am very uncomfortable with it.

Louis

Anonymous said...

Cheryl Schatz's article is so telling!

I am old enough to remember when key Southern Baptist teaching was that NO HUMAN HAD AUTHORITY OVER MY SOUL. That authority was vested in Jesus. And the pastor of any church was UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the local church. Baptists had and recognized no bishops or popes.

Now it seems every male with a seminary degree and ordination papers considers himself the pope. I suspect most secretly think they should be on any list of "most influential" or "most humanitarian."

And the sad fact is that those are exactly the folks that will not be there. Greatness is more likely to reside in the masses of quiet obedient humble servant hearts than it is in the "front man."

As I recall, Jesus spoke to this. Something about if you want to be the greatest, be servant of all. And not doing your alms to be seen. And not standing praying on the corner.

Wonder if we will ever listen?

Linda

r. grannemann said...

When Einstein arrived in the United States in 1921, he was met in New York harbor by a group of American journalist. They asked him to explain the essence of his famous theory of relativity in a single sentence. He said:

"If you don't take my words too seriously, I would say this: If we assume that all matter would disappear from the world, then, before relativity, one believed that space and time would continue existing in an empty world. But, according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time."

The remarkable corroboration of relativity by experiment, and experimental evidence for the creation of everything out of a point insertion of energy 13 billion years ago, has yet to be fully appreciated by theology (IMHO).

I listened on CD to part of Walter Isaacson's new book "Einstein" on a recent drive to New Mexico. Incredibly fascinating and excellently written.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin? It stopped being used. My theory is because it was made small. It was made dinky and so it didn't last. Can I be sexist and say that if they had put a man on it it would have been large and still be in use?
:-)

Susie

davidbmclaughlin.com said...

I think the committee wimped out. Why not pick just one?

Out of the four, I'll go with Einstein.

But my heart still says Reagan.

david mc

Bob Cleveland said...

One might also speculate about the influence, and its extent, of Bill Gates & Paul Allen.

B Nettles said...

One-third of our economy is based on quantum mechanics. Without Einstein, Gates and Allan wouldn't have the same job. Come to think of it, neither would Jobs.

And no Einstein, no internet, no blogs. :)

Okay, maybe Planck, Fermi or Bohr would have eventually developed the same ideas, but Einstein was bohemian enough to not care about traditional science. Planck didn't trust his intuition, Fermi and Bohr took the ball from Einstein.

B Nettles said...

Why is Churchill left out? Without his stamina and stubborness and political savvy, King's work would be moot, someone else would get credit for Einstein (he was Jewish), and who knows where women's rights would be.

One could also argue that, for good or bad, Gandhi wouldn't be known except for Churchill's policy on home rule for India.

BTW, HAPPY REFORMATION DAY! I'll keep my 95 questions to myself.

Anonymous said...

If you think about it,
NO SUSAN, NO SARAH

Progress, a step at a time. . . .

Anonymous said...

EINSTEIN wrote:

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Albert Einstein, physicist and professor (1879-1955)

Cheryl Schatz said...

Thy Peace,

Thanks for linking to my blog post and thinking it important enough to mention! The idea of a magical pulpit came to mind a couple of days ago when I was contemplating how we have been so deceived to think that an object (a pulpit) or an office can transfer the authority from the Word of God to the messenger. This is the thing that has hindered so many in serving the body of Christ with the gifts that they possess. It has also allowed us to disregard some of the most influential "men" (as in humans) of the 20th century because they didn't possess "pulpit" authority.

Anonymous said...

To PETER LUMPKINS,

Dear Peter, I overlooked a response you wrote to me two blogs ago. I'm sorry. Here is the response that I would have given, if I had seen your note:

"PETER:

I did quote you. But my latter comments were not directed at you PERSONALLY. I believe that you took it personally. Sorry if you did, it was not intended.

As far as caring for children, born OR unborn, what is the difference?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ????????

I know something. It doesn't cost a conservative a penny to say they do not believe in abortion.
It doesn't cost a conservative a penny to vote against educational and medical programs to support poor children.

AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILDREN, THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT MAY HAVE PUT ITS 'MONEY' WHERE ITS HEART IS.

Where is that? ? L's

Thy Peace said...

While we are on the subject of pulpits, please check out this article by Pastor Wade:

The Contaminated Pulpit and Other Weird Things

Anonymous said...

Hi CHERYL,

You wrote, a

"I like the way that Anne Graham Lotz ministers in her gift as an evangelist. She takes the authority God has given her to speak forth the oracles of God by saying “Just give me Jesus”. The podium she stands behind is in the shape of a cross with a small holder for her notes.

It symbolizes the power of the cross and the authority of the message. It is time that we come back to the way of the Master by seeing the authority in the message and in the Giver of the gifts."

What a beautiful way to teach the Gospel! You can see Anne Graham Lotz's father in his daughter.
There is something so compelling about the simplicity. Thanks to you for writing this and thanks to Thy Peace for giving us a way to find it. It focuses on the Message and on the Giver of Gifts. What more Authority is needed? :) L's

Anonymous said...

Somewhere I read that Billy Graham said Ann Lotz is the best preacher in the Graham family.
Florence in KY

Thy Peace said...

There was an earlier article posted by Cheryl Schatz:

Anne Graham Lotz and 800 pastors’ shame

Thy Peace said...

There is also this article by Pastor Wade:

Homosexuality, Adultery, Sexual Immorality, a Woman Preaching Christ; Grave Moral Concerns

Thy Peace said...

One news article that is recent on Anne Graham Lotz:

Christianity Today: A Reverent Maverick

The other one in:

Washington Post: Jesus Calls Women to Serve and Lead

Thy Peace said...

Last link on a post by Anne Graham Lotz in Washington Post:

Bible Crystal Clear on Male-Female Equality

When you check the comments, you will appreciate the wisdom of Blogger and other blog sites, to check the validity of posters of comments to see if they are human or machines (spam bots).

Robert I Masters said...

Thy Peace,

The subject at hand is not Anne graham Lotz or her decisions, please try and speak about what this blog entry discusses. For the sake of the rest of us who want to read about the subject at hand.

Thanks in advance


From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Rex Ray said...

Hey!
Of all the names from all the centuries, what man besides Jesus was the greatest?

Hint. It was the first martyr killed by Christians. (I’ll bet that hint raises eyebrows or some feathers.)

Steve said...

Gandhi and King can be forgiven for being surrounded by fallible human beings, as was true of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Gandhi & King definitely belong, and would have been justified as being the two chosed instead of this foursome.
Too bad they couldn't be portrayed in the carving as playing golf!

Thy Peace said...

To Robert I Masters:

Thanks for the correction. I sometimes get carried away with my enthusiasm to share information.

I will try to do my best in the future to condense my many posts, and to some how limit my sharing of information to the post at hand. I have tried to not post these comments when there is a discussion taking place. I try to do it when their is a lull in the comment stream.

Wanda said...

Thy Peace,

I'm sorry Robert I. Masters objects to your recent comments. I have greatly appreciated the links you have provided about Anne!

Perhaps Wade could write a blog post so we can actually have a meaningful discussion regarding the theology of Anne Graham Lotz.

Blessings,

Wanda

Anonymous said...

Thy Peace - What an awesome attitude and reply to Robert's request! God bless you for that.

Wanda - Your request of Wade in your second paragraph is exactly Robert's point. Thy Peace understands and I agree with Robert's request and I commend The Peace for the appropriate reply.

Thy Peace said...

Rex Ray said ... "Of all the names from all the centuries, what man besides Jesus was the greatest?

Hint. It was the first martyr killed by Christians. (I’ll bet that hint raises eyebrows or some feathers.)"


Rex, I found this searching based on your hint. Though this person is not a man, but a woman. Also, she is not the first to be killed by Christians.

"But as I probed into events that occurred on this day in a world filled with events joyous and lamentable, I came upon the name of Mary Dyer of New England in mid-seventeenth century. She was a devout Christian, a Puritan. But she also believed, like some others, that the Holy Spirit was within every individual, and that one really did not need the intermediary of Church, priest, or minister to get into communion with God.

To the orthodox Puritans who then wielded power in Massachusetts, this was heresy. So Mary Dryer and her husband William were ostracized, and they moved to Rhode Island. They sailed back to England where they came under the influence of the newly emerging Quaker movement. They became Quakers themselves. When Mary visited Boston some years later to see friends who had been thrown into prison for their religious views, she was herself arrested in jailed. According to a law which was passed in Boston in 1658, Quakers were regarded as more dangerous than Communists in the 1940s: They had to leave the territory or die. It is hard to believe that Puritans had come to the New World to escape religious persecution themselves.

Mary Dyer's friends were executed, she was released and let go to Rhode Island. But she came back to Boston, determined to fight for the repeal of what she called the wicked law. "Was ever the like laws heard of among a people that profess Christ come in the flesh?" she asked rhetorically, and also said, "Search with the light of Christ in you, and it will show you of whom, as it hath done with me and many more. . ." Fights for justice may eventually be won, but not all fighters come out unscathed. Every victory for the righteous cause is paid for by the lives of many dedicated people.

So it was here. Mary Dyer was sentenced to death for refusing to recant her heretical views. On 1 June 1660 this fifty and odd year old woman was hanged in cold blood by a system which truly believed it was protecting the word and commandment of God. It is smal consolation to remember that she was not the only Christian martyr killed by Christians."


This is from Mary Dyer and Nicolas Sadi Carnot

Also, Wiki: Mary Dyer

Are you referring to Stephen the first Martyr? But he was killed by Jews then.

Give us one more hint.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous Who Wrote:
"It will take another generation before things change.
Sat Nov 01, 03:18:00 AM 2008"

There is much confusion in the church over 'what God wants' and 'what the leadership wants' and 'who decides'.

Women are their OWN agents for change. They are perfectly able to take in all the information out there, and weigh it and decide for themselves.

Women are experts on the subject of manipulation: having been 'manipulated' throughout the course of 'civilization' and having had to respond with their own variety of manipulation in order to survive.
But the time is coming, and may already be here, when the old ways pass.
When 'iron-jawed angels' come up against 'glass ceilings', something has got to give.
There is only so much repression of the human spirit that is bearable before a person begins to stop fighting AGAINST the repression, and start fighting FOR the freedom of their own spirit to exist in this world as it was meant to be.
Each woman must decide for herself when to make the change: to stop the 'reaction' against unfairness and to switch over to 'action' in support of what is right and just.
Then, there is nothing passive about such a woman: she is out there exposed to all vitriolic elements and she is using all her resources in the active battle for her right to exist as a full human being on this planet.
Perhaps Susan B. Anthony was such a woman.
We stand on the shoulders of those who come before us. We stand on the shoulders of giants.

John Fariss said...

On a very minor side note: don't blame the failure of the Susan Anthony dollar coin on sexism, although many did consider it to be an "ugly" portrayal. Dollar coins in the US have NEVER been popular. Although early issues are treasured among collectors, they were considered too big and bulky for everyday use in their day. When the price of silver has gone up, many are melted for their bullion content, making some even more scarce. Ninteenth century mill owners sometimes paid workers in silver, but only when the price of silver dropped so that they could purchase them "below par," i.e., for less than face value. Many of the earliest ones, when found today, have been holed to make a neckless, which both removed them from circulation and virtually destroys them as collector items. Ihe "Morgan" series, 1878-1903 and 1921, were coined in far greater numbers than any silver dollar before, but not because of popularity; rather it was a political decision pushed through Congress to enrich the silver mining interests. Regarding modern issues, experts have repeatedly said that the only chance they had/have for public popularity would be the elemination of the paper dollar bill, but Congress has consistently refused to take that step.

That having been said, Susan B. was an influencial figure, and her influence may have been greater after her death than before it.

Thy Peace said...

Since this topic originated with St. John the Divine Cathedral, please check out this article on the architecture of the cathedral:

Cathedral of Saint John the Divine

Anonymous said...

JOHN FARISS said, "That having been said, Susan B. was an influencial figure, and her influence may have been greater after her death than before it."

Question of the 'torch' being passed to a new generation . . .

Wanda said...

Anonymous,

Thanks for clarifying something of which I am well aware. I prefer that commenters stay on topic too, but I didn't mind a diversion because the comments have been slow on this post, as thy peace explained.

Blessings,

Wanda

Anonymous said...

You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

Wanda, I imagine things are slow on the blog because, in states where people can vote early, the lines are huge. We are going to vote on Tuesday, and we plan to get there about two hours before the polls open. We will probably be a the end of an already-long line. People seem to care this time. That's a good sign for our country. L's

Wanda said...

L's Gran,

You're probably right. There's a four letter word that describes what I plan to do between now and Tuesday night.

It's PRAY!!!

Blessings,

Wanda

Rex Ray said...

Thy Peace,
You asked for more hints who was the first martyr killed by Christians in my opinion.

More hints:
1. At the scene of a murder, he ‘drove the get-away car’.
2. He got caught by someone un-noticed.
3. For punishment he was compelled to join those he had helped murder.
4. He found this group had two sides: the majority and the minority.
5. He joined the minority and became a ‘thorn or hot-potato’ to the majority.
6. The majority heard stories from their leaders that he had committed crimes against their rules.
7. The majority wanted to kill him but their leaders wanted to win the minority to their side and were afraid if their hero was killed the minority would revolt.
8. These leaders got rid of the hot-potato by delivering him to the hands of the original murderers by a suggestion that led to his capture and death.

Thy Peace,
I’m sorry you were drawn in by my hint. Most people that know me, probably said, ‘Here he goes again.’

Thank you for the history of Mary Dyer. I had read of her, but not in such detail. Her murder was another example of religious hatred being the worst hate in the world and all in the name of God.

Last hint: His last recorded prayer reveals he had been ‘set-up’. “At my first answer no man stood with me…I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.”

I believe his reference of “no man” were the ones that had called him “Dear brother”, and his prayer was the same he had heard with the same crime being done.

Thy Peace said...

Rex Ray:

"Hint. It was the first martyr killed by Christians. (I’ll bet that hint raises eyebrows or some feathers.)"

You are talking about Paul [Saul]. But he was not killed by Christians. Was he? I do not think so. He died during Nero's persecution of the Christians.

You wrote: "8. These leaders got rid of the hot-potato by delivering him to the hands of the original murderers by a suggestion that led to his capture and death."

I do not think the people who handed him over to Nero were Christians. Were they? My understanding is they were Jews.

Wiki: Paul the Apostle

2 Timothy 4:16-18 (New International Version)
16At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. 18The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Rex Ray said...

Thy Peace,
You are right that the people that handed Paul over to Rome were not Christian Jews.

Brief outline (Acts 21:17-27)
1. Paul arrived in Jerusalem which gave the leaders one day to make their plans.
2. They gave him good news: “Dear brother”, and then the bad: Their congregation had been told (by whom?) that Paul was against the laws of Moses and forbid the circumcision of their children.
3. “Now what can be done? For they will certainly hear that you have come.” (Verse 22) Their warning implied his life was in danger.
4. They suggested he shave his head and take seven days of vows at the temple and everyone would know “that you obey the Jewish laws and are in line with our thinking in these matters.” (Verse 24) Notice from verse 20 to 25, they presented the problem, the warning, and the solution at one time which indicates it was prearranged.
5. “The seven days were almost ended when some Jews from Turkey…roused a mob against him.” (Verse 27) The temple may have had some of the 40 men who vowed not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. Did Paul look so different with his head shaved they and the high priest didn’t recognize him?

How did some people from Turkey recognize him? Maybe a ‘little bird’ told them. Maybe the leaders realized their plan was about to fail and on the last day they identified Paul to some strangers so their ‘pointing finger’ would not be traced back to them.

So, Thy Peace, who were the real killers? Their absence at his trial, and their absence through the years of imprisonment revealed to Paul he had been betrayed by the ones he thought were helping him.

Paul did not expect Romans or lost Jews to stand for him. He expected Christians that gave him advice to come to his rescue. But their silence was loud.

Anonymous said...

Coach Mike Leach of Texas Tech University. Watch out Sooners!

Anonymous said...

Since this the stream has lost it's compass, I thought I would add this. Tom Parker, who offered a gracious apology earlier (thank you Tom) did get me to thinking about one thing. Tom seemed to always ask others if they were "one issue voters" if that person said they were voting for McCain simply due to the horrible position that Obama states he holds regarding abortion.

I thought to myself that I guess I was a "one issue voter" also. But I didn't like that. Tom put me on the spot. I think he was right about me and I didn't like being pegged a "one issue voter".

So I did a little research and want to share my labored results with you all, my friends.

2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE COMPARISON:

JOHN McCAIN = M
BARAK OBAMA = O

1. Favors new drilling offshore US
M = Yes
O = No

2. Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it
M = Yes
O = No

3. Served in the US Armed Forces
M = Yes
O = No

4. Amount of time served in the US Senate
M = 22 YEARS
O = 173 DAYS

5. Will institute a socialized national health care plan
M = No
O = Yes

6. Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy
M = No
O = Yes

7. Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately
M = No
O = Yes

8. Supports gun ownership rights
M = Yes
O = No

9. Supports homosexual marriage
M = No
O = Yes

10. Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase
M = No
O = Yes

11. Voted against making English the official language
M = No
O = Yes

12. Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals
M = No
O = Yes

13. CAPITAL GAINS TAX

McCAIN
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax.

OBAMA
Supports a 28% tax on profit from ALL home sales.

How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes.

14. DIVIDEND TAX

McCAIN
15% (no change)

OBAMA
Raise to 39.6%

How will this affect you? If you have money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president.

**The experts predict that 'Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.' (**sources listed below)

15. INCOME TAX

McCAIN (No changes)
Income Tax

Single, 30K $ 4,500
Single, 50K $12,500
Single, 75K $18,750
Married, 60K $ 9,000
Married, 75K $18,750
Married, 125K $31,250

OBAMA

(Supports reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single, 30K $ 8,400
Single, 50K $14,000
Single, 75K $23,250
Married, 60K $16,800
Married, 75K $21,000
Married, 125K $38,750

**Under Obama, your taxes would almost double. (**sources listed below)

16. INHERITANCE TAX

McCAIN
0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)

OBAMA
Restore the inheritance tax.

**Many families lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will lose them to these taxes.(**sources listed below)

NEW TAXES PROPOSED BY OBAMA (**sources listed below)

17. New government taxes proposed on homes more than 2,400 square feet.

18. New gasoline taxes (that's right, NEW!)

19. New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)

20. New taxes on retirement accounts

and last but not least....

21. New taxes to pay for socialized medicine

Although there are many other examples, I saw the pattern so I stopped.

I feel much better now that I am at least a 21 issue voter. :)

**You can verify the above at the following web sites:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/election/2008/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.taxes.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/?s=proposed+taxes
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/mccain_ob ama_offer_different_visions_on_taxes.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/barack_obama/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/candidates/john_mccain/

Wanda said...

Anonymous,

Thanks so much for your "off topic" information. You won't get a complaint from me because this is perhaps the most crucial election in the history of the United States. I greatly appreciate what you have shared!

I will be fasting and praying the day before the election, and I hope others will join me.

Blessings,

Wanda

Thy Peace said...

To me it was surprising that Martin Luther was left out for the 16th century's most influential man.

What a great mistake.

October 31st, Reformation Day came and went. I do not know if Baptists owe their heritage from What Martin Luther did, but ALL Christianity benefited from his works (including the Catholics). If we ignore his rage against the Jews at the later part of his life and his last sermon, he did much good.

Compare his time to ours. The printing press vs. bloggers. The questioning of authorities and their practices.

What we are experiencing as Southern Baptists is nothing compared to what Martin Luther faced. He was only 34 y.o. when he posted his 95 theses on the church door. The printing press enabled him to spread his ideas so quickly.

I can not to justice to his great work.

Wiki: Martin Luther

The above article is surprisingly good.

Thy Peace said...

Rex Ray said ... "So, Thy Peace, who were the real killers? Their absence at his trial, and their absence through the years of imprisonment revealed to Paul he had been betrayed by the ones he thought were helping him.

Paul did not expect Romans or lost Jews to stand for him. He expected Christians that gave him advice to come to his rescue. But their silence was loud."


My understanding was that they deserted him, as it happened to Jesus Christ, when all the disciples fled.

It's probably mostly human nature. Most of us (including me) would try to shun the victims and try to not get in trouble. We are mostly seeking or going after successful people or "glitz" or popular people. No one wants to do the dirty work of helping Paul when he was in chains and prison. I am assuming, very few people came to minister to him.

Oh, how much Jesus talked about this. Giving one cup of cold water to the least of us, you have ministered to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thy Peace said...

It's very funny that when the IMB action against Pastor Wade was taking place, no one seemed to recollect what Martin Luther did in 1517. Of course, I am not trying to compare the caliber of Pastor Wade to Martin Luther. But I am looking at the similarities.

It always helps to learn history, especially Church or Christian history, before they compare blogging to internet pornography.

You should check out some of the language Martin Luther uses. What Pastor Wade did is small potatoes and was graceful.

Look at Martin Luther's writings and his later work On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
"The work is angry in tone, attacking the papacy. Although Luther had made a link tentatively in the address To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, this was the first time he forthrightly accused the pope of being the Antichrist. It certainly heralded a radicalisation of Luther's views — only a year before he had defended the validity of the sacraments, yet was now attacking them fiercely."

Maybe it was the style of writing at that time (which I doubt), but he was very forceful in his opposition to the Papacy and their teachings and practices. Check out the [bad] language he used in some of his writings. I was shocked. But again, the whole time during Martin Luther was a time never seen in history. So many changes caused by his thinking, writings and opposition to Papacy.

Anonymous said...

So what happened to the first 200 comments on this post?

Thy Peace said...

Anon: This post is a follow up to this post The Greatest Man of the 20th Century Is Who?

All the 217+ comments are there in the above link.

Christian Thinker said...

Rex Ray,
You have consistently put forth the notion that early Christianity was corrputed by the Judaizers, all the way back to the times of the apostles. If I understand comments you've made over time correctly, you even see this corruption at play in the Jerusalem Council, where you believe that James' letter to the Gentile believers at Antich was not the message of the Holy Spirit.

It appears that this belief has it colored your view of Paul's writings, the book of Acts, church history, Catholocism, theology, and even Southern Baptist politics. Please correct me if I am mistaken, as I do not wish to misrepresent your position.

I'm not sure where you got hold of this idea, but, frankly, it seems like a fringe view, and you come across as obsessed with it. It even appears to cast doubt on the reliability of the Scriptures as our source of right doctrine, because one has to decide in each passage whether its teachings are insired by God or if they reflect some incorrect view of the Bible's authors.

No offense intended, brother Rex, but it seems as if you've put a lot of stock into a highly speculative position.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Thy Peace, I didn't realize this was a separate post from that one.

Wanda said...

thy peace,

Thanks for bringing up one of my great heroes of the faith -- Martin Luther! Wade made this blog post on October 31, and I did remember what happened on that day in 1517. In hindsight I should have mentioned it in this forum as you have done.

I continue to be inspired by this fearless man of God, and I am so thankful for leaders like Wade who speak out against what is becoming a religious system, rather than Christianity.

I hope you have seen the movie Luther that came out in 2005. It is excellent!

Blessings,

Wanda

Anonymous said...

http://elections.foxnews.com/

Fox news has said that McCain is ahead in the polls. Has anyone seen this?

Stephen Pruett said...

In developing an opinion about the most influential person of the 20th century, it might be useful to consider what has been the biggest and most consequential change in the 20th century. I would suggest that there are two changes of equal but opposite impact. First was the elimination of legal segregation (which I witnessed as a middle school student), which is being followed by a slow decrease in residual racism. There are still some racists out there, but we are likely on the eve of having an African American president of the US. Second is the breakdown of the family. The statistics are genuinely remarkable. A change this large is probably unprecedented in history. We do not yet know the full outcome, but even scientific sociological studies suggest that a variety of outcomes tend to be worse without a mother and a father in the home. So, who is the most influential person. It would have to be a tie between Martin Luther King and the person who most influenced the breakup of families. Who would that be? No single person comes immediately to mind. what do you think?

Anonymous said...

This is the reason that St.John the Divine Cathedral did not choose Martin Luther:

"three years before his death. He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were "the devil's people." They were "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."

This is a Wikipedia quote so you may have to confirm it. But, if true, it gives insight into the Episcopalian faith that they turn away from anti-Semitism. The quote above was no doubt inspirational to another 'leader' of the 20th Century: Adolf Hitler.

Another thought: Archbishop Cranmer was an Anglican, not a follower of Luther. The Anglican faith (Church of England) and the Lutheran Church of today do not share some important doctrines.

Anonymous said...

Which presidential candidate has consistently been a model husband and father?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Which presidential candidate has consistently been a model husband and father?

Sun Nov 02, 05:17:00 PM 2008


Sarah Palin, of course!

Anonymous said...

I know that Martin Luther King has inspired many people. But, I would have thought that, instead of him, they might have chosen the WOMAN who first inspired the men to stand up for their rights.
And she did it by REFUSING to stand up. :)
Can you guess HER name? L's

P.S. In the light of what could have happened to her, I think she was a very courageous person, or at least, a very hard-working and very tired person.
She is one of my heroines.

Indigenous Blogger said...

Stephen Pruett,
Not saying it is right or good, but there is an unfortunate connection between desegregation and the breakdown of the family. With desegregation came mandatory busing to force school integratation, and with that came increased "white flight" and the suburbanization of America's cities, and with that came the increased separation of schools from local communities, and with that came isolation of families from traditional communal influences ... combine that with the rise of television as the primary familiy "activity" and the increase of working mothers of preschool children, and a host of other congruent influences, and the family as we once knew it didn't stand much of a chance. JMO.

Thy Peace said...

Here are articles posted by Pastor Wade on "Martin Luther" (as a main topic or related to):

Which Pastor Is Actually Preaching the Gospel [Posted on 04/21/08]

A Biblical Primer On Women in Ministry (Part 2) [Posted on 03/17/08]

Reformation the Goal of Every True Child of God [Posted on 10/31/07]

Preachers Who Act As If They Have No Personal Sin Preach a Milquetoast, Powerless Gospel [Posted on 08/17/07]

Proud Toward Sinners? You Are Utterly Damned
THE CONDUCT TOWARD SINNERS THAT IS CHRISTIAN AND PLEASING TO GOD
An extract from a sermon entitled "The Lost Sheep" by Martin Luther [Posted on 01/16/07]


The New Baptist Covenant [Posted on 01/12/07]

Imputed Righteousness or Imputed Nonsense? [Posted 06/19/06]

The King Is Already Here: An Analogy from Air Force One and President George Bush [Posted on 05/07/06]

Anonymous said...

INDIGINOUS BLOGGER said: "combine that with the rise of television as the primary familiy "activity"

One of our presidential candidates has told parents that they must accept responsibility to turn off the television so that children may study and read.

Thy Peace said...

"I know that Martin Luther King has inspired many people. But, I would have thought that, instead of him, they might have chosen the WOMAN who first inspired the men to stand up for their rights.
And she did it by REFUSING to stand up. :)
Can you guess HER name? L's"


Rosa Parks?

Sheri Klouda is "Rosa Parks" of Southern Baptists.

Thy Peace said...

Off topic:

apod: Spicules: Jets on the Sun

"Imagine a pipe as wide as a state and as long as half the Earth. Now imagine that this pipe is filled with hot gas moving 50,000 kilometers per hour. Further imagine that this pipe is not made of metal but a transparent magnetic field. You are envisioning just one of thousands of young spicules on the active Sun. ..."

Anonymous said...

Hi THY PEACE,
Good Sabbath to you.

YES, Rosa Parks. (now, that wasn't so hard, was it.:)

I very much agree with your idea that Dr. Klouda is the 'Rosa Parks' of Southern Baptists.

I would have thought that Southern Baptists would have rallied to her cause, when they heard of her trouble.

Dr. Klouda certainly showed the courage of a Rosa Parks.
Will the Southern Baptist people be able to summon the courage to
throw off the chains of the 'B.I.' leadership?

I am going to borrow a motto from British law and suggest this motto for the future of the SBC:
LET RIGHT BE DONE .

Once the choice is made about what IS the right thing to do;
then all that remains is to do it.

Do you not agree?
L's

P.S. And, when right has been done, I hope that the SBC will do all that can be done to do right by Dr. Kouda and the 77 missionaries who have been so badly treated. If I can trust my instincts about many of the bloggers here, I think that may very well be a possiblility. I am, of course, an ETERNAL optimist. :) L's

Anonymous said...

THY PEACE said, "If we ignore (Luther's) rage against the Jews at the later part of his life and his last sermon, he did much good."


Martin Luther's rage against the German Jews was because they would not be converted by him. It was a pride-thing.

The Dominionists of today have a plan: to herd all Jews to Israel and to convert them. Some Dominionists have suggested that, if the Jews do not convert, that they should be exterminated. I wonder where 'christian dominionists' might have gotten THAT idea?

We cannot ignore the strident anti-Semitism of Luther, nor its affects on the German people and on Hitler centuries later. Nor its potential effects on a present-day group called 'christian dominionists', not to mention the 'skin heads'.

Ignore history and it WILL be repeated.

What we can do is to recognize that ALL MEN, including ourselves, harbor prejudices and hatreds, and that we must try to overcome these evils within ourselves, with the help of God.
We can accept the good that Luther did, because he did try to begin his work hoping to rid the Church of evil practices. The Devil must have targeted him in latter life, for him to become so hate-filled towards the children of Israel.
It's a shame, especially for the six million in the 20th Century, whose extermination can partially be laid at the door of Luther's influence. Or shall we say, the Devil's influence on Luther?

No. We can NOT afford to ignore anti-semitism anywhere it is found. We have already learned that the cost is too high.

Thy Peace said...

This is the last paragraph from Martin Luther: Luther and antisemitism

At the heart of the debate about Luther's influence is whether it is anachronistic to view his work as a precursor of the racial antisemitism of the National Socialists. Some scholars see Luther's influence as limited, and the Nazis' use of his work as opportunistic. Martin Brecht argues that there is a world of difference between Luther's belief in salvation, which depended on a faith in Jesus as the messiah — a belief Luther criticized the Jews for rejecting — and the Nazis' ideology of racial antisemitism.[98] Johannes Wallmann argues that Luther's writings against the Jews were largely ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that there is no continuity between Luther's thought and Nazi ideology.[99] Uwe Siemon-Netto agrees, arguing that it was because the Nazis were already anti-Semites that they revived Luther's work.[100][101] Hans J. Hillerbrand agrees that to focus on Luther is to adopt an essentially ahistorical perspective of Nazi antisemitism that ignores other contributory factors in German history.[102][103] Other scholars argue that, even if his views were merely anti-Judaic, their violence lent a new element to the standard Christian suspicion of Judaism. Ronald Berger writes that Luther is credited with "Germanizing the Christian critique of Judaism and establishing anti-Semitism as a key element of German culture and national identity."[104] Paul Rose argues that he caused a "hysterical and demonizing mentality" about Jews to enter German thought and discourse, a mentality that might otherwise have been absent.[105]
Since the 1980s, Lutheran Church denominations have repudiated Martin Luther's antisemitic views.
Among Luther's antisemitic writings in On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), Chapter XI is the most vitriolic.


Please also check Luther and antisemitism

Anonymous said...

All evil finds its origin in Satan; Who among us then, is to be blamed?

All goodness flows outward from God. Who among us then, is to be praised?

The Eternal Battlefield:
Are we sometimes useful pawns, or do we willingly choose to play the game? And, to what end?

As Christians, we are heirs to great power and knowledge; but most of us have hardly begun to use it.

"Judge not lest ye be judged."
There is so much left that we can neither know, nor understand.

Thy Peace said...

This post by Wade Preachers Who Act As If They Have No Personal Sin Preach a Milquetoast, Powerless Gospel is interesting.

All his usual critics (you know who they are) agree with Pastor Wade on this post.

Amen.

Thy Peace said...

Same with this post too.

Proud Toward Sinners? You Are Utterly Damned
THE CONDUCT TOWARD SINNERS THAT IS CHRISTIAN AND PLEASING TO GOD
An extract from a sermon entitled "The Lost Sheep" by Martin Luther


Amen.

Anonymous said...

From M.L.'s The Lost Sheep:
'If you are proud toward the sinner and despise him, you are utterly damned.'

That warning 'do not judge' must be honored. Our salvation demands witness to this command of God.

Anonymous said...

Have you noticed that the 'you know who's' will often bully, judge and criticize without hesitation AND THEN, WHEN CONFRONTED, WILL CLAIM THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT NOT TO BE JUDGED THEMSELVES. Such a contrast, they ignore the command; yet hide behind it, when confronted.
Very immature. (Am I judging? :)

Anonymous said...

Wade had written, "in order to remind everyone that Christ died for sinners -- not saints."

An old song by Judy Collins has these words about Jesus: 'and He spent a long time watching from a lonely wooden tower. And when He knew, for certain, only drowning men could see Him, He said 'All men must be sailors then, until the sea shall free them . . . "

Sinners can see Him because they are suffering and in bondage.
He is their Vision.

The prideful will never see Christ: they only see themselves as better than others.
They are blind to Him.

Thy Peace said...

I would encourage all "new comers" like myself and others to read the links I posted here. They are Pastor Wade's articles where "Martin Luther" is referenced.

I think they are ALL great posts. Even when the critics agree with Pastor Wade, you too have to say, they are great posts.

Thy Peace said...

Since my name is mud anyway, with all my comments here ... I might as well get more dirty. I know, I know ... This post is almost over. Soon Pastor Wade will post a new article.

Here are two great posts:

Debbie Kaufman:
I Can’t Do This…I Always Fail Miserably.

I feel Dr. Akin is sometimes in a dream world. May be there are couples like that in his imagination, but at least in my view they are not common.

Ingrid Schlueter:
Real Men Go to Barber Shops

This is a funny article.

Kevin M. Crowder said...

"Soon Pastor Wade will post a new article."


Yeah! And hurry it up already!


!!!
!!
!

~K

Robert I Masters said...

Here is a great Christian women. Check out her newscast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9ueIqwMvs

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Rex Ray said...

Christian thinker,
Thank you. Thank you. The things you said about me could not have been clearer if I’d written them myself.

You have a keen way of connecting the dots about me. I’m sorry you don’t do the same with early Christians.

I’d like to hear you explain if all early Christians were Baptists in their thinking, why they changed to Catholic thinking.

If you don’t want to explain to me, how about explaining to Paul?

“Did you receive the Holy Spirit by keeping the Jewish laws..have you gone completely crazy?” (Galatians 3:2-3)

“You are following a different ‘way to heaven’ that doesn’t go to heaven at all.” (3:1-6)

“...now that God has found you, how can it be that you want to go back...to another poor, weak, useless religion of trying to get to heaven by obeying God’s laws? You are trying to find favor with God by what you do or don’t do on certain days or months or seasons...I fear for you.” (Galatians 4:9-11)

“If trying to obey the Jewish laws never gave you spiritual life in the first place, why do you think that trying to obey them now will make you stronger Christians?
(Galatians 3:3)

“Watch out for those wicked men--dangerous dogs who say you must be circumcised to be saved.” (Philippians. 3:2)

Christian thinker,
Would you explain the ‘thinking’ of the men that made this statement:
“Then everyone will know that…you yourself obey the Jewish laws and are in line with OUR THINKING in these matters.” (Acts 21:24)

Hint: “…Jewish believers MUST continue to follow the Jewish traditions and customs.” (Acts 21:20)

You wrote: “You even see this corruption at play in the Jerusalem Council, where you believe that James’ letter to the Gentile believers at Antioch was not the message of the Holy Spirit.”

Let’s see…Peter said they could correct God if they put a burden on Gentiles.

Do I believe the Apostle Peter’s words, or do I believe the hero of the Pharisees (Foxes Book of Martyrs):

“For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—to put no greater BURDEN on you than these NECESSARY things.” (Acts 15:28 Holman)

I believe James used the name of the Holy Spirit to give authority to his faulty judgment, and the letter omitted the words of Peter.

Christian thinker, I believe you are trapped by believing every word in the Bible comes from the mouth of God. I believe only Scripture (truth) comes from the mouth of God.
The ignorant writing (untruth) of man does NOT come from God, and to know the difference a Christian must rely on the Holy Spirit to teach him as Jesus said He would.

If you made a comment on the last post (Wednesday October 29), I’ll bet you did not believe Paul spoke with his ‘tongue-in-cheek’ in 1 Corinthians 11:19.

I base my belief on your saying: “It [my idea] even appears to cast doubt on the reliability of the Scriptures as our source of right doctrine, because one has to decide in each passage whether its teachings are inspired by God or if they reflect some incorrect view of the Bible’s authors.”

No. It’s not Bible authors; it’s the words of men Bible authors quote.

Another example of ‘tongue-in-cheek’:
Jesus said, “You would think these Jewish leaders and these Pharisees were Moses, the way they keep making up so many laws!” (Matthew 23:2 Living)

That’s what James did, and that’s what the SBC is doing today.

ezekiel said...

Martin Luther had apparently been reading his bible....

Jeremiah 8, Zec 12-14 and Romans 11

True believers today are the real Jews. (Romans 2:28-29) God's chosen people. The church. Those that believe in Christ and Him risen.

The challenge for us today is to avoid the same mistake Israel did and suffer the same judgement.(Romans 11:21)(Hebrews 3:7-19)(Jude 1:5)

In reality, God's favor is on those of whom He has poured out His Spirit, those that are in Christ and those that have Christ in them.

That doesn't happen to Israel until Zec 12:10. Zech 12:13 and 14 follow that. Then some will be grafted back in. (Romans 11:23)

Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

I don't think Luther got it all that wrong.

""three years before his death. He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were "the devil's people." They were "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..." and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."

I take the "expelled for all time" comment to be more in line with Matthew 18 and 1 Cor 5 in removing the evil from among the fellowship of believers.

Modern day Israel and "Jews" still deny Christ. I don't count them as part of our fellowship but as enemies of God. Not unlike an apostate church today.

Some have commented about the age old "judge not" scripture. I have devoted a post to that and would encourage anyone to comment.

Here

ezekiel said...

Rex Ray,

I am having some of the same problems Christian thinker is having with your comment.

That is more or less where I got lost in our discussion the other day. Yoiu keep saying James erred or had faulty judgement and I just don't see it. James ruled the way the Holy Spirit guided him and the rest of the group. Peter made the point that to rule any other way would be in fact correcting God or judging His gift of the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised people.

I don't really understand the point you are making. Are you trying to justify a less than inspired, holy, innerrant view of the bible by concluding that James erred?

Rex Ray said...

Ezekiel,
I’ve admired your quoting Scripture to back up what you say. Without doing that, all someone is doing is giving their opinion.

My uncle, Hez Ray, lived till he was 95, and all his life he believed that Saul did not kill himself because the BIBLE said someone else did. “Don’t you believe the Bible?”

Ezekiel, don’t you believe that just because the Bible records what someone says, does NOT make it automatically true?

Since God cannot tell a lie, any words less than truth does not come from him. Do you believe this?

The Bible is a camcorder that tells what was said and done. Most of the time, the Bible does not tell when a person is telling the truth, lying, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

Example: In Deuteronomy, Moses puts the blame on the people for God not permitting him to go to the Promise Land, while in Numbers, God tells him it was HIS lack of faith.

Without Numbers, we would think Moses got a raw deal with his ‘pity-party’.

Back to James.

Peter said a burden put on Gentiles would be “correcting”, “temp”, “correct”, “challenging”, “testing” God. (depending on the translation)

James puts a burden on the Gentiles and said it was a decision by the Holy Spirit.

(Huh?) Did the Holy Spirit correct God?

Besides God, everything has a beginning. I believe the roots of Catholics, and the roots of non-Catholics began at the first Church Counsel.

Ezekiel, you use the term “inspire, holy, inerrant view of the Bible…”

I use the term “inspired holy, inerrant view of the Scripture…”

All Scripture is true, while all Bible is not.

Those with a blindfold over their eyes must look at James’ words as an “illusion” that will someday be explained according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
Well, almost 2,000 years have gone by, and they haven’t been explained yet.

Without James’s words that got the ‘foot in the door’, there would never have been Catholics, and the early Christians would have dropped their Jewish laws and look at salvation as a “gift” just as Peter said. (My opinion)

BTW Catholics say Peter was the first pope, but they quote Saint James for most of their doctrine.

Anonymous said...

EZEKIEL says "Modern day Israel and "Jews" still deny Christ. I don't count them as part of our fellowship but as enemies of God"

Shhhh! don't tell god .

Anonymous said...

The Epistle of James is a book in the Christian New Testament. The author identifies himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ", traditionally understood as James the Just, the brother of Jesus (see Authorship and Composition).

Framed within an overall theme of patient perseverance during trials and temptations, the text condemns various sins and calls on Christians to be patient while awaiting the Second Coming.

The epistle has caused controversy: Protestant reformer Martin Luther argued that it was not the work of an apostle.[1] Roman Catholicism[2], Eastern Orthodoxy[3] and Mormonism[4] claim it contradicts Luther's doctrine of justification through faith alone (Sola fide), which Luther derived from his translation of Romans 3:28.[5] The Christian debate over Justification is still unsettled, see also Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Biblical law in Christianity.

Anonymous said...

KJV Luke 10:25-37


And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?


26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?


27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.


28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.


29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?


30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.


31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.


32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.


33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,


34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.


35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.


36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?


37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Anonymous said...

"Go, and do thou likewise."

Spoken by the Word Incarnate.

Anonymous said...

First Corinthians Chapt. 13

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.


2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.


3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.


4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,


5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;


6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;


7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.


8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.


9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.


10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.


11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.


12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.


13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Anonymous said...

"and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

ARE THESE THE WORDS OF PAUL ??

ezekiel said...

Rex Ray,

I think if you will take a careful look at the references I have included that you will see that the "yoke" of abstaining from sexual immorality, blood, and idolatry that you feel James placed on the gentile believers has been there long before the levitical law and is there today. We see it in Genesis and Revelations. Before and after the law. Paul preached and taught much around this doctrine. To not believe James was following the guidance of the Holy Spirit when he made his ruling sets you up to not believe Genesis 9:4 or Rev 2:20among a host of others. James basis for his ruling came from scripture. Just like it did from Acts 15:15-18. Jesus said his yoke was light, not that it didn't exist. As a Christian, shouldn't it be easy to abstain from idolatry and sexual immorality?

Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
Act 15:12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Act 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.
Act 15:14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
Act 15:16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,
Act 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things
Act 15:18 known from of old.'
Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.





Act 15:20
from pollutions: Act_15:29; Gen_35:2; Exo_20:3-5, Exo_20:23, Exo_34:15-16; Num_25:2; Psa_106:37-39; Eze_20:30-31; 1Co_8:1, 1Co_8:4-13, 1Co_10:20-22, 1Co_10:28; Rev_2:14, Rev_2:20, Rev_9:20, Rev_10:2, Rev_10:8
fornication: 1Co_5:11, 1Co_6:9, 1Co_6:13, 1Co_6:18, 1Co_7:2; 2Co_12:21; Gal_5:19; Eph_5:3; Col_3:5; 1Th_4:3; Heb_12:16, Heb_13:4; 1Pe_4:3
things: Act_21:25; Gen_9:4; Lev_3:17, Lev_7:23-27, Lev_17:10-14; Deu_12:16, Deu_12:23-25, Deu_14:21; Deu_15:23; 1Sa_14:32; Eze_4:14, Eze_33:25; 1Ti_4:4-5


As to your comment about Hez Ray.

"My uncle, Hez Ray, lived till he was 95, and all his life he believed that Saul did not kill himself because the BIBLE said someone else did. “Don’t you believe the Bible?”

No disrespect to Mr. Ray but it appears he might have been reading it in error.


I don't know what bible he was reading but mine says Saul killed himself.

1Sa 31:4 Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me." But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.

Anonymous said...

Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church.

Anonymous said...

Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.
John 16:33 "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

John 20:19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."

Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. (NASB ©1995)

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Peace I leave. 16:33 20:19,21,26 Nu 6:26 Ps 29:11 72:2,7 85:10 Isa 9:6 Isa 32:15-17 54:7-10,13 55:12 57:19 Zec 6:13 Lu 1:79 2:14 10:5 Ac 10:36 Ro 1:7 5:1,10 8:6 15:13 1Co 1:3 2Co 5:18-21 Ga 1:3 Ga 5:22 6:16 Eph 2:14-17 Php 4:7 Col 1:2,20 3:15 2Th 1:2 3:16 Heb 7:2 13:20 Re 1:4

not. Job 34:29 Ps 28:3 La 3:17 Da 4:1 6:25

Let not. 1

afraid. Ps 11:1 27:1 56:3,11 91:5 112:7 Pr 3:25 Isa 12:2 41:10,14 Jer 1:8 Eze 2:6 Mt 10:26 Lu 12:4 Ac 18:9 2Ti 1:7 Re 2:10 21:8

Anonymous said...

An abiding reverence and care for every person without exception: that is the peace that Jesus offers us. There is no other.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who is wasting all their time quoting verses, but we all have bibles so you can stop.

And go get in line to vote McCain!!!

Anonymous said...

I don't know who is wasting all their time quoting verses, but we all have bibles so you can stop.

And go get in line to vote McCain!!!

So who takes orders from YOU?

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICAN: we can still vote for the person of our choice.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who is wasting all their time quoting verses, but we all have bibles so you can stop.


SO NOW IT IS A 'WASTE OF TIME' TO QUOTE THE BIBLE?

Very telling comment.

ezekiel said...

And what a choice..

Moses????

Anonymous said...

What a choice. Good one Zeke. Sadly true statement.

These people that just throw around scripture like it's their grandma's cookie recipe all the while giving no weight or scale to the context of the verses crack me up. They are the reason we have so many cults. Taking verses out of context and making it say anything they want to. Or taking verses out of context and making themselves feel better about voting for someone like Obama.

And it's so easy to get under their skin. Easily stirred up and an Obama supporter. I wonder what verse they have to support those two views.

I have one. How about "Jesus wept"? That one will work for them.

Anonymous said...

Two democrats, husband and wife, standing in line waiting to vote. After four hours, the husband says, "Give me a good reason not to walk out of this line. His wife turned to him and said,
"George W. Bush"

The husband waited without further complaint.

Four years ago and eight years ago, it was "G.W.Bush is Jesus' man." Now, McCain doesn't want to be around Bush. Has McCain rejected JESUS?

Like, get real. The 'Bible' isn't going to help this time. It was abuse of the Bible that got that idiot elected the last eight years.

This last eight years did a number on the credibility of the 'Bible-believers' Choice'. People aren't buying it. No one has any money left anyway.

John Fariss said...

Anony,

"Or taking verses out of context and making themselves feel better about voting for someone like Obama."

What???????????

Re: entries that quote verse after verse after verse: I rarely read them, or at most, I may skim them to see if the verses seem relevant, and especially to see if the person makes a cognizant comment after the quote. I feel that such long quotations do little good, sometimes because they are out of context, sometimes because of my failure to understand, sometimes because I do have my own Bible and I can look verses up if if find the need, and sometimes--oftentimes--because so many comments have been entered between the comment to which they are responding and the comment they enter that I have trouble seeing the conection. A simple citation with ample reference to the comment being addressed, and maybe a summary is good for me. But that's just me.

And BTW, I don't need to quote scripture out of context to feel good about casting my vote for Obama tomorrow. I do so because the man is a natural leader, something I have earnestly desired to see in a Presidential candidate for many years, because the poverty & health care issues I believe he will address are indeed Gospel issues, because abortion is a non-issue in this election (no matter who wins, the law of the land will not change, as much as I wish it would), and because I am disgusted with the last 8 years of Republican administration.

Anonymous said...

BRAVO John Fariss. Well said. :)

Christian Thinker said...

Rex Ray,
I understand that not everything recorded in the Bible is truth, in the sense that it includes records of falsehoods (such as Rahab's lie about the location of the Israelite spies) and even theological misconceptions (such as Job's friends ideas about the cause of suffering). Even so, the Bible is a true record of those events. I think it likely we are in agreement on that.

Yet one need be no great scholar, nor even a particularly mature believer, to see that passages clearly intended to teach true doctrine are indeed teaching true doctrine -- we need not always be questioning whether each passage is an inspired word from God or merely some man's mistaken opinion. The situations in which the Bible is making an inerrant record of a human error are easy to spot because they are identified as such either by the immediate context or by the clear teachings of the Bible in general; such instances are self-evident.

I believe James' message to the Gentile Christians in Antioch was indeed what James claimed it to be -- the message of the Holy Spirit to those believers. I believe you are in error in your belief that that James was in error in his letter to the Christians at Antioch, and in your belief that Catholocism can be directly associated with the Judaizers of Paul's day. I believe those views are mere speculations, without theological or historical warrant. I further believe that you have put far too much weight on those speculations.

But we can disagree and be brothers in Christ. Time (or at least eternity) will tell which of us is right, and I would not be as humble as I ought if I didn't realize I may be mistaken and you may be correct. And, as Wade points out so often, we can set aside our differences in such matters to cooperate in ministry and missions around the truths of the gospel. May God grant us the grace to do so!

stan said...

John Fariss,

Please forgive me when I find it odd that you would support anyone that seems so determined to vote as they have on this legislation. Didn't Jesus say something about mill stones and harming children?

Here

Given Obama's voting record and your apparent support of him, is Romans 1:28ff, in your judgement, in context?

Rex Ray said...

Ezekiel,
My uncle, Hez Ray, was a conscientious objector in World War II, but then there were no allowances made for that belief.

He was a strong man that could pull a bailing wire apart with his bare hands. At 85, he chopped down a three foot diameter tree with an axe.
In hand-to-hand combat a large German drew his rifle back to run him through with his bayonet. Hez was standing at ‘attention’ with his rifle by his side. Their eyes locked and maybe the German saw ‘you can kill me, but I won’t kill you’ because he lowered his rifle and passed him by.

An Amalekite told David that Saul was mortally wounded and had asked him to kill him. He had obeyed the king’s request and had his crown for proof. David killed the Amalekite. (2 Samuel 1:1-16)

Later, David learned the truth of how Saul died as shown: “When a man came to Ziklag and told me that Saul was dead, he thought he deserved a reward for bringing good news. But I grabbed him and killed him.”

I believe if the Amalekite had killed Saul, David would have said he had him killed because he killed Saul.

My uncle believed when Saul fell on his sword it didn’t kill him because the Bible said the Amalekite killed him.

Ezekiel, do you see what I’m saying? Just because the Bible says something, it may not be Scripture.

Paul was one of the most educated men of his day. He knew all the Bible long before he met Jesus.
So why did Paul turn ‘against’ the Jewish laws for salvation that he had believed in all his life? Paul tells why:
“I conferred not with flesh and blood.” (Galatians 1:16) “…by reading the Scriptures, I came to realize I could never find God’s favor by…obeying laws.” (Galatians 2:19)

The key here is the Holy Spirit and study.
Some may cry and say, “I don’t want to study. I just want to open the Bible, put my finger on a sentence, and that’s God talking to me.” My reply to that is ‘good luck.’

Example: Why did Moses wear a mask over his face? The Old Testament says because the people could not stand to see the brightness caused by being with God.

That was the truth for awhile, but it did not stay true as shown by the New Testament:
“His face was shining, but he covered it to keep the people of Israel from seeing the brightness fade away.” (2 Corinthians 3:13)

Back to Acts 15.

History records James was raised a Nazirite. I guess Joseph decided since Mary was having the Messiah, he wanted to give his firstborn to God.

So James grew up as Sampson…never eating meat, long hair, etc. His part time job was pastor as his fulltime job was being a Nazirite in the Holy Place praying forgiveness’ for the people.

James fulfilled his job described in Numbers 6:21-27:

“These are the regulations concerning a Nazirite…they are to give this special blessing to the people of Israel: ‘May the Lord bless you and protect you…and I myself will personally bless them.”

Many thought God’s wrath caused the destruction of Israel because God was angry for James being killed.

No wonder James was picked as the pastor over the Apostles. No wonder he assumed authority to give ‘judgment’ that was accepted by the multitude.

Ezekiel, you mentioned the private meeting of the apostles and the elders. Do you think the pastor would have been included?
I’m sure he was, but I don’t believe he voiced his “judgment” in the meeting. If he had, I believe Paul and Peter would have jumped all over him.
He waited till the roar of approval from the multitude would drown out any objections. Peter had shamed them into silence, but James made their day by not letting the Gentiles have salvation as a gift.

The purpose of the Counsel was to settle how Gentiles were SAVED, and NOT how they should behave.

Baptists tend to switch it around to accommodate James’ rules.

James’ rules were based on tradition: “For these things have been preached against in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.” (Verse 21)

What did Jesus think about tradition? “You are trampling under your feet God’s laws for the sake of tradition.” (Mark 7:9)

BTW Catholics gave tradition equal authority with the Bible in 1545 AD.

Did James know his Brother did away with his three food laws: “The food you put in your mouth doesn’t make you unclean…the bad words that come out of your mouth are what make you unclean.” (Mark 7:18)

No. James didn’t know because he missed three years of college by the greatest teacher that ever lived, and people today, take up for his ignorance and try to twist his words into truth.

The book of James matches his words and actions in Acts 15. We need to study his book to know how Christians should act but not how they became one.

To study James on how to become a Christian, I’ll agree with Luther: ‘it’s a book of straw’.

Anonymous said...

Check out the comment at 7:58am on Nov 2 that is above us.

If you want to forget about Jesus, God and all that other biblical and Christian stuff in order to cast your vote how YOU want to, then fine. But you still can't get past the information noted in that comment above.

Enjoy the bandwagon ride. For me, I'll "avoid evil and the appearance of evil" even though it's not popular.

Hey! Isn't that what the bible says to do?

Oops! Sorry. There I go again interjecting that "bible stuff".

John Fariss said...

Stan and others,

I have yet to see a politician with whom I agreed 100% on everything, 100% of the time. By "agree," I refer to what the individual says as well as what he or she does. And the conventional evangelical hope that a Republican President will somehow nominate enough "stealth" judicial candidates to change Roe v. Wade I find ridiculous.

I remember one prominent pol back home, way back when, whom my father thought the world of. He was a prominent member of FBC in my hometown, was an usher there, and I think a deacon. His theology was as conservative and solid as anyone you could name in today's SBC. He rarely missed a Sunday--at least until a Grand Jury indicted him of taking bribes, and after that, the church couldn't find him with a telescope. My point is simply that there is and will be no one running who is perfect. Consequently, each of us has certain criteria we use to make the decisions we make. This morning, I have no intention of getting into who claims to be for what and who claims to be against what. I will simply say that Senator Obama meets more of my criteria than does Senator McCain, and the Spirit has given me peace about my decision.

And by the way, if I sounded as if I had no interest in Scriptural justification for one's position, please attribute that to the fact that I made the comment late, when I was tired. My point was simply that given the way God made me and my mind, long Scripture quotations tend to be a distractions rather than the help that a short reference would be.

Anonymous said...

Good Morning, JOHN FARISS and others,

John wrote, "I will simply say that Senator Obama meets more of my criteria than does Senator McCain, and the Spirit has given me peace about my decision."

I concur with this statement and I just voted for Barack Obama upon my honor and my conscience. I am totally at peace about my decision. In religion, I look forward to the time when children who are living have medical and dental care and a chance for an education. For the sake of this nation's children (ALL OF THEM), I am sure that my vote was the right one for me to make. My vote reflects my love for ALL children: there is NO difference between the born and the unborn. The born deserve our Christian care: they have NOT received it. Those who have been so out-spoken for the unborn have not risen to speak and care for the born. Maybe, today, that will change.
Concerning the "Bible" argument: I heard that argument eight years ago. I hear it now. This argument has backfired against John McCain. People are more wary of this argument now: we don't trust the motives of the 'God Party' anymore. Sorry, if offense is given to anyone, but, for many, these feelings are deeply felt.
From now on, a candidate must stand to serve ALL the people. The time for fear and division may come to an end today. For the sake of ALL of our children, I sincerely hope so. L's

Anonymous said...

Even if we "all" get medical insurance for free, we all get pretty teeth and braces for free, and we all get a free education ---

(when I say "all", I mean all except the ones that are aborted. They don't matter, right? It's only about me and you, right? Aren't you glad that people cared more about you than they did about their insurance or dental plan?)

--- it doesn't change the FACT that:

"It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around the neck than to face the punishment in store for harming one of these little ones."

Congrats on your vote.

Jesus wept.

ezekiel said...

Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Anonymous said...

The 'sympathy' for the unborn is cheapened when there is NO SYMPATHY for living children.

And, believe me, I am witness to some of the worst of the neglect.
We are not talking about shiny braces, here, but relieving the suffering of innocent children.

If you are active in helping the living, then your 'argument' for the unborn becomes a testament of faith. Otherwise, it's just an argument.

By the way, to work with these children you will be exposed to those with AIDS, you will find that you give up much of your 'free time', you will find that you willingly part with, sometimes, an immoderate amount of money to help the children. And you will find that seeing their suffering breaks your heart. NOW, do you still want to turn your 'argument' into a 'testament of faith' in service to LIFE? Think about it. L's

Anonymous said...

L - We couldn't have more opposite views. And in my opinion you could NOT be more wrong.

You said, "The 'sympathy' for the unborn is cheapened when there is NO SYMPATHY for living children."

That is so odd that you say that because I think the exact opposite is true. How can you have sympathy for any children (outside the womb or inside the womb) and yet have NO SYMPATHY whatsoever for the "helpless and defenseless one's".

WOW!

You also said, "If you are active in helping the living, then your 'argument' for the unborn becomes a testament of faith. Otherwise, it's just an argument.

Again, I would say that if you are willing to accept the mutilation and murder of defenseless babies and / or vote for and support those who do (Obama), your statements about caring one whit about ANY child rings hollow from here to the ears of the God of creation.

***Install cricket noise here***

Truly unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Dear Truly Unbelievable,

I suppose we see things differently. I don't think that you can subdivide LIFE into categories and respect only those of your choosing:

I have never 'supported' abortion. It is not my belief. But I have never pushed my belief on anyone in our free nation. I do not understand an individual who is shouting and screaming about the sin of abortion, but will support politically a party that rewards the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor: placing terrible hardships on children involved. Yes, I have problems with that. At the core of my Christian faith is to respond to Christ's call to 'help the least of these'.

If you feel contempt for poor children, and glorify a political party that has shown its comtempt for the poor, that is for you to live with. I won't have that on my conscience. As John Fariss said, abortion is a non-issue in this election. I agree with that. L's

Rex Ray said...

I can’t believe I’m switching to politics, but just for the record, I want to say for the most of you that ‘dislike’ Liberals in religion, how can it be that you will vote for the most Liberal person in government?

Does anyone dispute Obama is a Liberal?

It’s been said he wants to level out the playing field by taking more from the rich and giving to the poor. Sort of like a modern day Robinhood.

That thinking will lead America to a socialistic country that has never worked.

I agree that Americans are tired of a hot skillet, but jumping into the fire will not help.

Not only does Obama want to ‘help’ the poor in America, he extends it to the world by sponsoring the GLOBAL POVERTY ACT (S.2433).

Read here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

The bill is designed for everyone in the world that makes less than one dollar a day to get money.

Where will the money come from? How much ‘pork’ and graft will be involved?

Well, if it passes, we will find out in ‘more taxes’.

On another point that’s not so important to me, but it’s the law: If Obama has nothing to hide, why won’t he produce his birth certificate?
A lawsuit to make him show his was just lately thrown out of court by a judge that was appointed by Clinton.

Read here:
Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor

There are three locations where Obama may have been born. Two hospitals in Hawaii and his grandmother tells everyone she was in the delivery room when he was born in Kenai.

All this fuss would be done away with if Obama would produce his birth certificate. Why won’t he do it?

And for the record, you can’t trust Scopes.com about what they say about Obama.
While you can find Global Poverty Act S.2433 on Google, Scopes say “No match can be found.”

When Wade predicted Hillary would become president, I replied, “Beam me up Scottie”, but with Obama, I’ll say, ‘Lord, I’m ready’.

Rex Ray said...

Sorry, I don't know how to make things stay 'blue' in color. This is the way that last one starts off:


ELECTION 2008
Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document

Posted: October 26, 2008
9:54 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii

HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Anonymous said...

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church subsumes critical observations made about the current or historical Roman Catholic Church, in its actions, teachings, omissions, structure, or nature; theological disagreements would be covered on a denominational basis. Criticisms may regard the concepts of papal primacy and supremacy, or aspects of church structure, governance, and particular practices. Since the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian church representing over half of all Christians[1] and one sixth of the world's population,[2], these criticisms may not represent the majority view of all Christian believers.

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church in previous centuries was more closely related to theological disputes. The Protestant Reformation (16th century in Europe) came about in no small part due to abuses of church practices by corrupt clergy in addition to these same theological disputes.[3]

Political disputes compounded the theological grievances between Protestants and Catholics and to this day the debate begun at the Reformation has been reflected in the diversity of Christian denominations. Contemporary criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church have tended to come from outside of Christianity,[citation needed] relating more to concepts in philosophy and culture e.g., Christianity vs. humanism. For this sort of criticism, see Criticism of Christianity.

Contents [hide]
1 Criticism of Roman Catholic beliefs
1.1 Opposition to teaching on Biblical grounds
1.1.1 Roman Catholic position on Scripture and tradition
1.1.2 Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide
1.1.3 Religious exclusivism (One true Church)
1.1.4 Protestant sects
1.2 Opposition to teaching on modern ethical grounds
1.2.1 Proselytism
1.2.2 Interactions with other religious groups
1.2.2.1 Position on Jews
1.2.2.2 Position on Islam
1.2.2.3 Position on Freemasonry
1.2.3 Separation of church and state
1.2.4 Human sexual behavior and reproductive matters
1.2.4.1 Opposition to contraception
1.2.4.2 Restrictions on homosexual behavior
2 Criticism of Roman Catholic prayer and worship
2.1 Saints
2.2 Marianism
2.3 Use of Latin
2.4 Traditionalist and sedevacantist Roman Catholics
3 Criticism of Roman Catholic organization
3.1 Papal infallibility
3.2 Clerical celibacy
3.3 Ordination of women
4 Criticism of Roman Catholic actions in history
4.1 Persecution of Heresy and Heretics
4.2 Crusades
4.3 The Inquisition
4.4 Persecution of Jews and conversos in Spain
4.4.1 Anti-semitism elsewhere in Europe
4.5 Persecution and killing of Protestants
4.6 Post-Reformation wars of religion
4.7 Asian subcontinent
4.8 Anti-communism
4.8.1 Russia and Eastern Europe
4.9 Sexual abuse controversy
4.10 Pope John Paul II's apology
5 See also
6 Notes and references
7 External links



[edit] Criticism of Roman Catholic beliefs

[edit] Opposition to teaching on Biblical grounds
Some Protestants charge that some Catholic teachings are unbiblical.[4]


[edit] Roman Catholic position on Scripture and tradition
Protestants critical of the Roman Catholic Church have attacked its reliance on what was referred to as "tradition" by the Church.

Others countered that the notion of "church tradition" did not mean custom. Traditio is that which is handed down — Roman Catholics believe that the whole "deposit of faith" was given by Christ to the apostles. Tradition, the written part of the larger tradition, are the scriptures which, the Church says, must be interpreted in the context of the community founded by Christ.

The Roman Catholic notion of traditio refers to what is passed down, and it is generally considered that the Church predates the Bible in written form.[5]


[edit] Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide
Protestants who have attacked the Roman Catholic Church's reliance on tradition cite the doctrines of sola scriptura (Scripture only) and sola fide (faith only). These scholars have held that the position of the Reformers regarding justification was pronounced as anathema by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1547.[6][7]

Some opponents of Sola Scriptura argued that, rather than being a return to fundamental Christianity, it was actually more of an innovation than traditional Roman Catholic belief. For example, the "salvation through faith alone vs. faith and works" controversy depends on how one reads the Epistle of James. Roman Catholics hold the Epistle of James as important. In the earliest edition of his translation of the Bible, Luther wrote his now famous comment: "The St. James Epistle is really an epistle of straw compared to [St. Paul's letters], for it lacks this evangelical character."

In response to these charges, Dave Armstrong argued that, far from straying from the Bible, Roman Catholicism is biblical. He asserted that Roman Catholicism is the only Christian denomination that is in full conformity with what the Bible clearly teaches. To demonstrate this, Armstrong (a former Protestant campus missionary) focused on those issues about which Roman Catholics and Protestants disagree the most: the role of the Bible as a rule of faith, whether believers are justified by faith alone, whether doctrine develops, what the Eucharist really is, veneration of Mary, requesting intercession of the saints, the existence of [purgatory], the role of penance in salvation, and the nature and infallibility of the papacy. (See "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" by Dave Armstrong with foreword by John A. Hardon, S. J.)

Protestants including Confessional Lutherans respond by claiming that the Bible, including the whole context of the Epistle of James, clearly teaches that "good works are a result of justification, not a cause"[8]. Protestant apologists further states that:

“ "It would also be correct to say that Catholics teach salvation by works since in Galatians Paul makes it clear that salvation by faith and works is really a form of salvation by works since salvation does not happen without the works...No Protestants that I am aware of say works don't matter. They do say that works do not have a role in obtaining forgiveness."[8] ”

Lutheran apologists elaborate that according to the verses in the Epistle of James, "we are justified/declared righteous by people when they see the good works we do as a result of our faith and they conclude that our faith is sincere."[9]

Confessional Lutherans conclude:

“ "The Lutheran church strongly teaches good works, but not as a cause of our forgiveness. We do works not to be forgiven, but because we have been forgiven. St. Paul strongly teaches the importance of good works, but he also clearly says that salvation is by faith not by works. The Catholic church denies this and teaches that salvation is by faith and works. This teaching denies the most important teaching of the Bible. This is another teaching for which the Council of Trent damned the Lutheran church. Read Paul’s letters to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. All of them clearly teach salvation is by faith not by works"[10] ”

Other Protestant apologists examine:

“ "Paul clearly teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works (Rom. 1:17)....James declares, 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works' (2:21)....James and Paul would be contradictory if there were speaking about the same thing, but there are many indications in the text that they are not. Paul is speaking about justification before God, while James is talking about justification before humans. This is indicated by the fact that James stressed that we should 'show' (2:18) our faith. It must be something that can be seen by others in 'works' (2:18-20). Further, James acknowledged that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not works, when he said, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousnes' (2:23). When he adds that Abraham was 'justified by works' (v. 21), he is speaking of what Abraham did that could be seen by people, namely offer his son Isaac on the altar (2:21-22)....Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith); James is stressing the fruit of justification (works)....works as the proof of faith."[11]

Anonymous said...

If anyone still thinks that the radical end-times "prophecy" movement is not a threat to peace and stability, think again. At the popular level, in terms of the TV preachers and the hot-selling prophecy books, the dispensational pre-trib stuff still reigns supreme. Most conservative-leaning Evangelical churches in America today are heavily influenced by popular dispensational theology to some extent. Even churches and pastors that don’t teach pretribulationalism still are influenced by dispensationalism to varying degrees.

The most dangerous element of this prophetic paradigm, however, is its doom-and-gloom view of the world. And in most cases, those who have a fascination with the end of the world have a particular fascination with war and militarism as well. More problematic, it assumes that their wars of choice are not just their own foreign policy preferences or personal opinions. Rather they are ordained by God. In 2003, more than a few pastors and influential Christian figures basically said that opposing the Iraq war was opposing God’s end-time plan. According to Evangelical end-times enthusiasts, if you opposed the Iraq war, you didn’t just hate your country and the troops, now you were opposing God and the Bible as well.

An even bigger obsession for dispensationalists has always been Israel. For the average dispensationalist, modern-day secular Israel is going to be the focal point in the end-times. Therefore, if the Bible really does teach in Daniel 9:27 that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is going to be torn down for a rebuilt Jewish Temple, why should any of us seek to prevent it? Sure, it very well might ignite a regional war and even ignite tensions around the world, but it's all part of God’s prophetic plan. Not to worry though, things might not get really ugly until after the "rapture," so the Christians today who are cheering for events that would bring about World War III won’t have to worry about it anyway. Unless of course, they are wrong about the whole thing.

Enter the Rev. John Hagee. Hagee is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas, where he has 18,000 followers right in his own congregation. He also has a global television ministry and has sold scores of prophecy books over the years. John Hagee is perhaps the most powerful and influential Christian Zionist figure in America. Hagee has a long history making strange predictions about world events that are almost always wrong. His books in the late 90’s trumped up Y2K hysteria to ridiculous levels. He inaccurately predicted that the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was the "Beginning of the End" in the book of the same name. In every book he writes, he is constantly warning of catastrophe in various forms right around the corner. According to one of his fans, he supposedly just preached a sermon predicting that 2007 would be a "significant" year in Bible prophecy and that his prophecy claims can be "mathematically" backed up by the Biblical text.

Given Hagee’s prior success rate in making predictions, don’t be shocked if 2007 doesn’t shape up to be all that "significant" after all. As with all popular prophecy teachers, they are immune from making inaccurate predictions and false prophecies. Their followers simply forget or forgive them. Maybe they’ll even claim that God changed His mind. Most don’t even pay attention though and don’t even realize their superstars are constantly revising their predictions and end-times charts

Anonymous said...

If anyone still thinks that the radical end-times "prophecy" movement is not a threat to peace and stability, think again. At the popular level, in terms of the TV preachers and the hot-selling prophecy books, the dispensational pre-trib stuff still reigns supreme. Most conservative-leaning Evangelical churches in America today are heavily influenced by popular dispensational theology to some extent. Even churches and pastors that don’t teach pretribulationalism still are influenced by dispensationalism to varying degrees.

The most dangerous element of this prophetic paradigm, however, is its doom-and-gloom view of the world. And in most cases, those who have a fascination with the end of the world have a particular fascination with war and militarism as well. More problematic, it assumes that their wars of choice are not just their own foreign policy preferences or personal opinions. Rather they are ordained by God. In 2003, more than a few pastors and influential Christian figures basically said that opposing the Iraq war was opposing God’s end-time plan. According to Evangelical end-times enthusiasts, if you opposed the Iraq war, you didn’t just hate your country and the troops, now you were opposing God and the Bible as well.

An even bigger obsession for dispensationalists has always been Israel. For the average dispensationalist, modern-day secular Israel is going to be the focal point in the end-times. Therefore, if the Bible really does teach in Daniel 9:27 that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is going to be torn down for a rebuilt Jewish Temple, why should any of us seek to prevent it? Sure, it very well might ignite a regional war and even ignite tensions around the world, but it's all part of God’s prophetic plan. Not to worry though, things might not get really ugly until after the "rapture," so the Christians today who are cheering for events that would bring about World War III won’t have to worry about it anyway. Unless of course, they are wrong about the whole thing.

Enter the Rev. John Hagee. Hagee is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas, where he has 18,000 followers right in his own congregation. He also has a global television ministry and has sold scores of prophecy books over the years. John Hagee is perhaps the most powerful and influential Christian Zionist figure in America. Hagee has a long history making strange predictions about world events that are almost always wrong. His books in the late 90’s trumped up Y2K hysteria to ridiculous levels. He inaccurately predicted that the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was the "Beginning of the End" in the book of the same name. In every book he writes, he is constantly warning of catastrophe in various forms right around the corner. According to one of his fans, he supposedly just preached a sermon predicting that 2007 would be a "significant" year in Bible prophecy and that his prophecy claims can be "mathematically" backed up by the Biblical text.

Given Hagee’s prior success rate in making predictions, don’t be shocked if 2007 doesn’t shape up to be all that "significant" after all. As with all popular prophecy teachers, they are immune from making inaccurate predictions and false prophecies. Their followers simply forget or forgive them. Maybe they’ll even claim that God changed His mind. Most don’t even pay attention though and don’t even realize their superstars are constantly revising their predictions and end-times charts

Anonymous said...

If you ask a sane, calm born-again American why Catholics aren't Christians, he'll say "Because they don't ask Jesus into their hearts" and/or "Because they don't have a personal relationship with Jesus." Those are dumbed-down versions of "Because they seek salvation through good works rather than through sincere faith," a point which goes all the way back to Luther, and "Because their church is an intermediary between them and God.

Anonymous said...

Several of the New Testament epistles are known as "Catholic" because there is no pretense that they are correspondence to an individual or even an individual church. They are addressed to the "whole church". Many authorities regard these seven works as "pseudepigraphical" (in plain English, fake). Put aside the distorting lens of Christian faith and it becomes obvious why: they belong in that period of fractious debate that characterised Christianity of the 2nd not the 1st century.

Anonymous said...

Catholics are unsaved! So when we test a person, we should START by asking them what they believe concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.

The tests we should give to a person's faith, based upon the Word of God, to determine whether or not they are a legitimate Christian, is, but not limited to:

Do they believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven? (John 14:6)
Do they believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ? (Isaiah 7:14)
Do they believe that Jesus is God Almighty? (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-3,14; 10:33, 1st Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9; Revelation 1:8)
Do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God? (John 3:16)
Do they believe that Jesus died upon the cross? (John 19:23; Hebrews 12:2)
Do they believe that Jesus was buried, and rose again physically after three days? (1st Corinthians 15:1-4)
Do they believe that Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven after His resurrection? (Acts 1:9)
Do they believe that it is Jesus' blood which takes our sins away, and not just the death of Christ? (Colossians 1:14; 1st John 1:7; Revelation 7:14)
Do they believe in the Godhead (Trinity): God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? (Romans 1:20; Matthew 28:19,20)
Do they believe that Jesus is a member of the Godhead, equal in every capacity? (Colossians 2:9)
Do they believe that Jesus is perfect, never having sinned even once? (2nd Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15)
Do they believe that Jesus existed in Preexistent form, before He came to the earth? (John 8:58; Revelation 1:8)
Do they believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ upon the cross, Who died in our place? (1st Peter 2:21)
Do they believe that Hell is a literal place that burns with fire, to punish all Christ-rejecters? (2nd Thessalonians 1:8; Revelation 20:8,11-15;)
Do they believe in a literal Heaven, for the saved to go to? (John 14:1,2; 2nd Corinthians 5:8)
Do they believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of the universe? (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16)
Do they believe that Jesus Christ always existed? (Revelation 1:8; John 5:58; Hebrews 7:3)
Is Christ's work of atonement completely finished? (Hebrews 9:26)
The answer to every question above should be a confident "YES!"

The answer to every question below should be a confident "NO!"

Does a person have to be baptized to go to Heaven? (1st Corinthians 1:17; Acts 16:31)
Do you have to do any good works to go to Heaven? (Romans 3:20; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5)
Do you have to join a church to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Psalm 118:8)
Do you have to confess your sins to a priest or a minister to go to Heaven? (1st Timothy 2:5)
Do you have to keep the sacraments to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:5)
Do you have to endure or persevere to the end of life to be saved? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Romans 5:15; Romans 6:23; Romans 4:5)
Do you have to earn your way to Heaven? (Romans 3:20; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5)
Do you have to pray the Rosary to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Matthew 6:7)
Do you have to recognize the Virgin Mary to be saved? (1st Timothy 2:5; Exodus 20:4,5)
Do you have to be religious to go to Heaven? (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; Mark 7:6-13)
Do you have to forsake your sins to be saved? (Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8,9)
Do you have to "be willing" to turn from your sins to be saved? (Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8,9)
There are other questions as well; but, these are the main questions. You'll find that 98% of the people in this world DON'T pass the above tests.
"Many actual Christians are so deceived by the liberals. the unbelievers, that they quote and defend the modernists, supporting them in Christian schools--so some born again Christians compromise until it is hard to tell the scabby, dirty sheep from the wolf in sheep's clothing"

Don't believe it? It gets even worse. Many of today's professed Christians are even supporting the witchcraft of Harry Potter!!! Christianity Today magazine actually endorses Harry Potter's witchcraft. This is apostasy! Who would have imagined a day in America when we would actually see churches promoting abortion.

It is becoming increasing difficult to determine who's really a born again Christian; BUT, it's easy when you KNOW the Word of God. The best way to expose Satan's works of darkness is by shining the Light of God's Word upon it.



There is no way a man can be saved and DENY the very precious blood of Jesus Christ that saves. These men are deceptive, and will say that the blood of Jesus is very important; but, the truth is that they believe Christ's blood is only REPRESENTATIVE of His death. These are the type of modernists which we need to avoid and expose.

Anonymous said...

The Catholic Church has departed from truth and now are an apostasy. The entire denomination from the Pope to the youngest member, if they stay Catholic will die and go to hell. The Catholic Church has completely departed from the Christian faith and is a wicked tradition. If you are Catholic you are going to burn in hell.

Anonymous said...

Luther indeed believed that scripture must be interpreted in light of its witness to Christ. As a result he did not consider all books of the Bible to be of equal value. The gospel to Luther does not consist in books of the New Testament or in doctrines, laws or regulations. Such things are beneficial and necessary, but to know these things is not the same as knowing the gospel. In the books of the New Testament may be found the proclamation of Christ–the proclamation of the gospel.



Thus in his Preface to the New Testament, which he placed in his 1522 German translation, Luther stated, “You are in a position now rightly to discriminate between all the books, and decide which are the best. The true kernel and marrow of all the books, those which should rightly be ranked first, are the gospel of John and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans, together with St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther advised every Christian to read these books first and most often, since in them one will discover accounts of “how faith in Christ conquers sin, death, and hell; and gives life, righteousness, and salvation.” He believed that in these books one finds “the true essence of the gospel.” He concludes that these are “the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any other teaching.” Then he adds, at the very end of the Preface, “In comparison with these, the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.”





Luther also included Prefaces to introduce certain New Testament books as an aid to understanding them. One of these was a Preface to the Epistles of James and Jude. In that Preface Luther stated that he regarded James as valuable in its emphasis on God’s law. However, he rejects its apostolic authority for two reasons. The first reason is that, in opposition to Paul and the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works. “This defect,” he states, “proves that the epistle is not of apostolic provenance.” The second reason Luther gives is that “in the whole length of its teaching, not once does it give Christians any instructions or reminder of the passion, resurrection, or spirit of Christ.” “The true touchstone,” Luther declares, “for testing every book is to discover whether it emphasizes the prominence of Christ or not.” He further states, “What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, not even if taught by Peter or Paul. On the other hand, what does preach Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod does it.”



Luther read the entire New Testament in the light of the Pauline message that the just shall live by faith and not by works of the law — or rather in the light of his own understanding of Paul’s teaching. Should any particular passage of scripture appear to stand in opposition to this interpretation, then it simply does not have the authority of the word of God. This is the principle Luther applied to the teaching of James 2:21ff. He wrote in 1542 that he had been accustomed to interpreting James according the rest of scripture, but since some did not accept his interpretation of this passage, he simply said, “Then I shall make rubble of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did” (quote in Althaus 81, f.n.31). Luther wrote in 1543, “His [James’] authority is not great enough to cause me to abandon the doctrine of faith and to deviate from the authority of the other apostles and the entire Scripture” (quoted in Althaus 81). Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul

Anonymous said...

Whether or not a Catholic is familiar with Catholicism's destructive heresies, the Catholic is nonetheless following a "stranger" (i.e. Catholicism) and not Christ (John 10:5). Roman Catholicism is a false religion with deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3), a false gospel, a false Jesus, idolatry, and damning lies.

Anonymous said...

L - The fact that we view things differently regarding protecting all children (me) and most children (you) is the least of your troubles as a catholic from what I can tell by these other comments.

We remain parted throughout.

Anonymous said...

1. We are to be separated in our beliefs. The heathen (Catholics)have their own system of beliefs. As believers, we should meditate in the Bible day and night as David did in Psalm 1:2. We must not fall into the foolish sayings, beliefs, and inferior values of the godless world. Such statements as "Only the strong survive" or "You deserve a break today" or "If it feels good, do it!" surely are not based upon the Bible, but rather humanism. We all deserve to burn in hell, nothing better. We are to rely upon the Lord's strength and not our own. The Apostle Paul said he was strong when he was weak, because his weakness caused him to rely upon God more. We must obey the Bible, whether it feels good or not. We must constantly be on guard against adopting worldly quotes and reasoning into our mind. Since we have a tendency to repeat what we hear, we must analyze everything we hear using the Bible as our measuring stick. Carnal thinking is completely backwards from the Bible.

2. We are to be separated in our lifestyles. We should not go to the taverns, nightclubs, and other heathen establishments. No Christian should ever spend a dime at Disney World, most of their movies are no better than Hollywood's vomit. We should not support anything produced by the godless world (including rock music, country music, rap music, videos, etc). We are surrounded by Satan. Television is hellivision, I rarely watch TV except some news hear and there. It makes me angry that the devil is trying to corrupt my mind and Christian walk through the TV. The remedy is to avoid watching TV. I really hate the television. The technology is not sinful, but the way mankind uses it certainly is. Technology simply allows mankind to go further down the road he is already traveling on, and it's the road to hell. Here's a song that my pastor taught us to sing.
(Sang to the tune of, "If You're Happy and You Know It")
Oh be careful little feet where you go,
Oh be careful little feet where you go,
For the Father up above is looking down in love,
Oh be careful little feet where you go

Oh be careful little eyes what you see,
Oh be careful little eyes what you see,
For the Father up above is looking down in love,
Oh be careful little eyes what you see.
Oh be careful little ears what you hear,
Oh be careful little ears what you hear,
For the Father up above is looking down in love,
Oh be careful little ears what you hear.

3. We are to separated in our fellowship. Christians should have little dealings with homosexuals other than ministering the gospel to them. The Bible commands us to be blameless and harmless as believers, not rendering evil for evil.
"That ye may be blameless , the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" -Philippians 2:15
The Apostle Paul warns us about making friends with covetous and scornful people (1st Corinthians 5:11). We are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers or heathen believers (2nd Corinthians 6:14). Christians should associate with other God-fearing believers who are living an upright life for Jesus. Christians must decline invitations to join non-Christian groups which will draw us away from the Lord and holy living. Promise Keepers is a heathen organization, Catholic friendly (ecumenical), and draws much money away from the churches. No surrogate organization can replace the church. Jesus certainly was not a companion of those living in sin.

4. We are to be separated in our conversation. From listening to many professed Christians, you'd never know that they were a Christian. I have always been saddened in the workplace when I hear a professed "Christian" take God's name in vain (or anyone for that matter). I used to work for a boss who claimed to be a Christian. I heard him curse loudly in God's name one day in the main office in front of everyone. If we are worldly, others may miss heaven because of our tarnished testimony. We should be very careful what we say. God tells us to "season" our words with grace (i.e., look for opportunities to include God in our conversations). Sadly, many people look for opportunities to make sexual innuendos because their mind is continually in the gutter. This should not be the testimony of a child of God. If nothing else, keep your mouth shut.

5. If you marry an unsaved person, then you will have the devil for a father-in-law. God forbids us from marrying an unsaved person. We should also be careful about the type of person we marry, even if they do profess to be a Christian. Listen carefully friend...love may be blind, but marriage is a real eye-opener. Would you be willingly to escort that person around in a wheel-chair for the rest of your life if their health fails?
6. We are to be separated from the world in music. The same boss I mentioned above came strutting in the door one day at work, listening to some heathen "Christian" rock. He asked me to listen to it. It certainly didn't sound very Christian. The average believer is very immature in the Lord. I can sadly say that I have only met a small handful of truly mature Christians in my life. Listen folks...there ain't no such animal as "Christian" rock. All "rock" is straight from hell. Any music that makes people want to sin is evil. Country music and divorce go hand-in-hand. Do you know what you get when you play a country song backwards? You get your job back, your wife back, your home back, your truck back, your dog back, etc.
All Catholics are going to hell: if you don't love Jesus, go to hell. We all deserve to burn in hell, nothing better.

Anonymous said...

people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. This is primarily to be achieved by converting our people to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. Therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to God’s creation mandate of kind after kind. It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking.

White Christian Israelites are under God’s law and covenant. The other peoples of the earth are under nature’s law, which God also created. One good example of this would be the Japanese or Asian people. The Japanese have always practiced racial separation and have always taught against race mixing. In fact the Japanese have stated that America’s biggest problem is due to integration of the races. The Japanese or Asian people are not directly under the law’s of God as the Israelites are, they are how ever under the law of nature and they have segregated themselves to maintain their racial purity and national sovereignty.
Nature’s law, which is a creation of YAHWEH, dictates that kind reproduce after kind. The different people of the world were never supposed to mix. Even the different animals and species of our world practice natures law of reproduction "Kind after Kind".

Integration of America is a key component in the destruction of our race and nation. If one were to merely look at the economic structure of America and Japan you would recognize our biggest failure has been our interracial policies.

This is the reason why the Japanese economy far exceeds America’s. While the Japanese have kept their markets restricted, thus maintaining their high lifestyle. America has opened our markets to international trade which has cost us jobs and is lowering our living standards. The Federal Government is constantly attacking Japan for restrictive trade policies failing to understand that the Japanese are more concerned about their people’s economic national sovereignty. On the other hand the Federal Government is more concerned about the international economy than our U.S. national economic sovereignty.

If this treason continues the American people will suffer because of lowering labor standards and lowering wages. America is on the road to racial and economic destruction. In the near future the term "Third World Nation" which is a code phrase for a non-White sub-standard nations, will fit America.

John Fariss said...

Where did all these anti-Catholic diatribes come from? I thought this was a discussion on "the most influencial man of the 20th century"? I recognize that some of us--including me--veered from that into the topic of the day, i.e., the Presidential election, and I appologize for my part. But the latest rhetoric is worthy of someone influenced by either the KKK or the John Birch society. Those who made those entries, one question: WWJD? Or WWJS(ay)?