Saturday, November 21, 2009

Who Paid Bishop Carton Pearson $100,000 To Speak At Azusa In 1990? Pimped & Being Pimped Pt. 1

The Lexi Show Strikes Again


In what was one of the most spiritually diverse interviews between African American leaders of the church, Lexi allowed the founder of modern Pentecostalism's Azusa Conferences, Bishop Carton Pearson a former pentecostal turned Universalist, to share the stage with Dr. Jamaal "Intellectual Orgasm" Bryant, Bishop George Bloomer and Rev. Dr. Van Gayton President Of Logos Bible College & Seminary and, you guessed it, there were some significant claims and statements made.

For those who don't know, or maybe just unaware, Bishop Pearson came through the ranks of the Church Of God In Christ to become one of the most charismatic television evangelists and ministers ever associated with Dr. Oral Roberts and The Oral Roberts University. He managed to woo almost the entire Pentecostal world with his recounting of holiness as taught by many of the early 1900's pentecostal church leaders along with his dynamic singing voice and inviting personality. All of this seems to have concluded and been brought to a screeching halt with his acceptance of the message of inclusion also known as the doctrine of universal reconciliation, which states that men and women everywhere and without repentance from sin or even the acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord or his atoning work, are already saved because Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world. Initially, Bishop Pearson reluctantly promoted this doctrine, along with it's many other caveats such as no hell or penalty for sin, lost almost all of his former ministry associates because of it and rocked the Charismatic wing of the church in the United States.


In recent times, he has not only been reflecting on what he believes,  and it is heretical and anti-biblical to say the least, but he has also been reminiscing and telling seemingly all that he knows about the flaws of the church and those of leaders within the church. Believe me the Bishop espouses heresy and doctrines that the Christian church has rejected long ago, but one of the most interesting comments that Bishop Pearson made was that during the original Azusa Conference in 1990 he was under a tremendous amount of pressure from a particular unnamed minister who paid him $100,000 in installments to speak at the 1990 gathering.

During the interview Bishop Pearson about 4:47 seconds into Part 3 Clip 2, said the following:

"I believe the gifts are without calling [meaning repentance]we got babies stretched across this country-preachers...I know "stuff". I had a man offer me $100,000 to preach on the Azusa stage. And I took the first $10,000...(pause-5 FULL second-pause); Not personally, I gave it to the people that handled the finances."

"When I went home that night...and this was way back...he said, do for me what you did for somebody else...and he gave me the first (inaudible) he said here's the first installment...shocked me...I went home that night and cried myself to sleep because I realize I had just prostituted the whole meeting. And I'm not talking about Jakes, because I didn't know Jakes at this time, it's somebody else. This was in 1990...and I just realized that they were pimping me and I was pimping them and I knew the Conference...the Conference was going in a direction that you don't know about what I had to deal with behind closed doors with ambitious preachers."
This is the segment of that panel discussion:



I became interest for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was because I am a preacher and know that not everyone is in ministry to really help their community or the body of believers. For some it's all about self-promotion. As I noted in "Preachers, What Will You Do For A Soul?" at times, even those considered to be the most straight line and fundamentally sound preachers can suffer from the disease of self-promotion, fame and self exaltation and loose sight of real ministry and the needs of the people and the demands and requirements of God. One of the key identifiers of this syndrome is when a leader refuses to listen to any one's council or for some grand spiritual purpose decides that he will only listen to whom he or she wishes to listen to...That was an interesting occurrence within bishop Pearson, as he refused to listen to the council of fellow ministers EXCEPT for the one's he choose at the time. That's never a good thing.

Then of even a greater interest was the revelation of scripture that seems to be coming to pass now more than ever. Those scriptures are as follows:

Numbers 32:23~ "But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will FIND YOU OUT."

Luke 12:3 ~"Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the HOUSETOPs."

Whatever is done in the dark will come to the light. God will allow the secret councils of the enemy to come to light. I would encourage every minister to clean their hands because what has been said in the dark will be repeated in the light.
Who Was The Culprit Or Need We Ask?

Although that may not be as important as what we're about to look at, I began to wonder who was one of the main ministers in the 1990 Conference. I found the clip below and watch closely a man under pressure, pimping and being pimped:


Did you notice that the clip opened with a prophetic and apostolic word being delivered to then Pastor Carlton Pearson by none other than the Master/Arch Prophet himself, Bishop Bernard Jordan?...Even more so, the key speaker that year was none other than Dr. Myles Munroe.


What a combination. A prophetic utterance from someone who SELLS prophecies and diverts when he gets a prophecy wrong or talks over it to make you think you didn't hear what he said...evidently he had something going for himself during this meeting and took the lead prophesying that Carlton was being raised up and that this is what he was supposed to do:
"Move in the designed and designated part of the body that I've called thee, The one is not greater than the other but there is a distinction of parts"
Carlton followed up by telling the crowd that his primary speaker WOULD NOT attend the service (Obviously Myles Munroe was his stand in) and that the people were unaware that he (Carlton) had been afraid to pronounce some things about himself and his ministry that he had known for the last 20 years. He stated "Never wanting to turn the people off that God had brought me to and through" and that what he was going to do...he said "it will be understood by the people who will understand it, and we will be a people of God." 

Now, I hate conspiracy theories and I may well be joining the ranks of them that ask questions when there is no real or clear answer, but can an ye see what's wrong with that picture?

We have a minister who has admittedly 20 years later said that he knew he was pimping and being pimped by one of the ministry associates at the meeting and was being "directed" to a "part of the body" that people couldn't understand that he was going to be sent to...

What we see the effects of now, was obviously talked about long before now and was planned and destined to happen at some point.

Jude 1:4~"For there are certain men crept in UNAWARES, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

The problem I see with the church is that we have become so enamoured with the personality until we can't see or hear Christ. We believe that a person such as Bishop Pearson can espouse false and heretical and nonbiblical teaching and still be a Christian because he has a confession of Christ...But the scripture has never been more true:

Isaiah 29:13 ~ "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and WITH THEIR LIPS do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:"

Throughout this interview, Lexi was basically seduced by what she thought Carlton had meant to the body of Christ historically. She was in awe of his abilities and obviously was smitten by his words so much that she tried to harmonize his teachings with the teachings of the bible. This is called the spirit of seduction. Surprisingly enough, out of all people, Dr. Jamaal Bryant was the one who stood against Carlton's assertions strongly claiming that he needed to come back...AT least until Carlton said the prior statement which I will repeat for clarity:

"I believe the gifts are without calling [meaning repentance]we got babies stretched across this country-preachers...I know "stuff
Carlton basically concluded when he said this after a prayer offered for him under Jamaal Bryant's direction:

"If you're as powerful as you THINK you are, I'll be back!"


Someone asked me what I thought of that statement, because it is one where one needs spiritual ears to hear. I summarize my answer by quoting scripture:


Revelation 21:8 ~"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their PART IN THE LAKE which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death"


Blessed!

Read more!

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Does Eternal Really Mean Eternal In Hell? Pt.1


There is a view espoused by many individuals within Christian circles who don't believe in the ongoing reality of hell neither it's eternal punishment. That view is called Annihilationism. Here is a working definition of this view:
Annihilationism ~"A Christian doctrine that sinners are destroyed rather than tormented forever in "hell" or the lake of fire. It is directly related to the doctrine of conditional immortality, the idea that a human soul is not immortal unless it is given eternal life. Annihilationism asserts that God will eventually destroy or annihilate the wicked, leaving only the righteous to live on in immortality. Some annihilationists believe the wicked will be punished for their sins in the lake of fire before being annihilated, others that hell is a false doctrine of pagan origin."
Now, in my previous post, Does The Bible Teach A Literal Hell, we addressed the fact that hell is taught throughout the bible and that hell is a literal and not merely figurative place. In fact hell as is taught throughout scripture is a place of ongoing conscious reality and one of torment.

However under the annihilationist construct, there is an emotional appeal to a western sense of morality and guilt based righteousness. Hell either does not exist as a literal place or abode, or is a temporary place of punishment described with figurative terminology specifying extinction rather than an ongoing conscious reality of suffering. Scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 9:5,  Ecclesiastes 9:10, which are used to claim that there is no consciousness or pain beyond death and  Malachai 4:1,  and Mt. 10:28,  claiming that the destruction of the individual in hell is actually the extinction of the individual rather than eternal ongoing punishment.

Just in case you were wondering, this view is not relegated to the biblically illiterate or intellectual slouch. In fact it has been gaining acceptance in some scholarly circles, particularly reformed theology circles and threatens to be a doctrine that the church should draw out and examine more thoroughly. One quote by a famous scholar supporting this doctrine is from the late and highly referenced historical document scholar F.F.Bruce:
"annihilation is certainly an acceptable interpretation of the relevant New Testament passages ... For myself, I remain agnostic. Eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the revealed character of God." [Letter from F. F. Bruce to John Stott in 1989, as quoted in John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354]

Is Eternal  Conscious Torment Incompatible With The Character Of God?

There are 4 primary objections to the eternal nature of hell that I'll address and then conclude with what I believe is a better biblical construct of hell, its purpose and its eternal nature.

Objection I:
"Hell is eternal. men are finite. Therefore finite men will not suffer in eternal hell."
This usually goes along with something like this also:
"The punishment of an eternal hell and suffering is disproportionate to the sins of humanity because humans are finite and sins are finite. Therefore for a finite being to suffer in an infinite way especially because of finite sin would be unjust. "
These are popular questions/assertion of the atheistic, agnostic and other biblical liberals, claiming that God is somehow unjust for rendering 1- a punishment upon beings that he knew would fail and 2- making that punishment conscious and eternal. that combination causes the critic such as F.F. Bruce (who's critical on this issue only) to digress into the more sensitive parts of the nature of God such as his love and mercy.

Although I won't oversimplify why people believe the aspects of God's mercy overshadow the aspects of his justice, I believe part of the reason that a persons don't fully comprehend why the suffering of hell is and should be eternal. This is because within our society there is no distinction between shame and honor culture punishments and guilt culture punishments. 

In his article "Shame-culture band Guilt-culture" James Atherton details the difference in why and when a person is "guilty" or held culpable for their crimes or accusations against them in a shame-honor culture contrasted to a guilt culture. In a shame-honor culture the  guilt could be long before a magistrate or police are involved and may not necessarily involve police at all. The shame comes when things are noised throughout the community and when one is shamed by the belief of the community or the group to which one belongs. This was the setting of the bible historically, and was the culture of Jewish community in Jesus' day.

On the contrary within western society, we are in what is called a "guilt culture" where one is innocent until proven guilty and the opinions of others don't matter until one can be found guilty. In fact most courts also dole out sentences based on one's remorse even if they are not guilty of the offense. One could be found innocent legally and yet be dreadfully sahmed, but there is usually no credit or penalty given for shame.
Within a shame culture the penalty of that shame lasts until it is compensated or accounted for or until the shame is removed.

This is not uncommon to us in America. We have all heard the saying that there is "honor among thieves" for example. What does that mean? That there is a certain sense of shame that comes to a thief who dishonors another. The ultimate price for that dishonor may be a "hit" placed on the guilty party. That penalty lasts until there is proper compensation for the original dishonor.

With this is mind the death of Jesus is best understood as a "substitutionary shame culture sacrifice", where Jesus took upon himself the shame in our place:

Hebrews 12:2 ~ "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising THE SHAME, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."
Back To Hell and Everlasting Punishment:


In the NT we see Jesus we see Jesus describing hell as a place of "outer darkness" and  "weeping and gnashing of teeth". (Mt. 8:12, Mt. 22:13, Mt.24:51, Mt. 25:30 & Lk. 13:28) In all instances of the message of hell in the NT it was also clear that:

1- Individuals in hell were consciously aware of it
2- Individuals in hell received punishment in proportion to their works or inactions
3- Individuals in hell were not tortured but lived in torment consciously.
4- Part of that torment included a conscious realization of actions or inactions in their prior existence.
5- At no time do wee see Jesus describe a non-conscious torment or one where those who were in torment were unaware of their presence or the effects of their presence.

To Disbelieve God Is The Ultimate Dishonor To Him Requiring A "Shame-Honor" Offering Or Atonement.

As stated a shame-honor atonement is exactly what Jesus experienced upon the cross in dying for our sins. This paid the penalty of the shame brought upon all mankind in a substitutionary way God is our God and as much as we state that he is our friend, he is not merely a "friend" in the sense of someone to whom we don't have to worry about being accountable. This sheds light on the eternality of hell. If there has been no substitution for the ultimate dishonor portrayed toward God there is no payment for the sin or dishonor. Therefore the penalty is in full effect for the duration of the being exacting the penalty. If God is eternal the penalty would also be expected to be eternal along with him.

Objection II:

The critic draws parallels stating that
"Even children aren't punished indefinitely or in some way into oblivion by loving parents."
The criticism further states:
"God couldn't be a loving father punishing his children forever."
However, is this an adequate parallel? Does this damage the concept of a biblical hell or relegate it to a mere control mechanism? Is nature and character of God repudiated by these statements?

In light of the information on the "shame-honor culture" in which the bible was written in Objection 1, and the additional understanding of the nature of sin and son-ship, I think not. First, the reality is that the punishment of hell is proportionate to the acts that it took to place one there. Therefore all acts of sin will not be punished to the same degree. Further, when it is considered that the nature of God is holy and that God does not entertain sin and that all sin dishonors him it becomes more understandable to see why there must be a penalty to and for all sin. Further, it is the sin of unbelief which is the arch dishonor to God. Unbelief is the root of all sin and uncleanliness and the determining factor of whether one is a "child" of God or not. In other words all humans aren't children of God. Only them that obey him and the obedient receive no punishment. (1 Thess. 5:9) I'll explain:

The Effect Of Sin

Throughout the NT unbelief was seen as the prohibitor of mighty works (Mt. 13:58), the damper to faith in God (Rom. 3:3), the restricting agent of the OT Israelites from fully receiving the promise (Heb. 3:19) and ultimately the whole reason that sin entered into the world. (Rom. 5:12)

The biblical command from the beginning was for man to be holy (Lev. 20:7, 1Pet. 1:15-16). God's nature has always been holy from eternity. Sin caused dishonor and the ultimate rift between God and man:

Isaiah 59:2~ "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear"
The first preparation that God made for man was covering the effects and result of his sins:

Genesis 3:21~"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."
Then there is the consideration that there was no sin in Jesus (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Pet. 2:22) and (1 Jn. 3:5)  and that Jesus was the covering and propitiation for sin from the beginning of creation (as would be required as God operates from eternity)

Revelation 13:8 ~"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
The Mishandling Of Inheritance

What this says is that sin is the only inhibitor to all men when it comes to relationship to God and his word and that all begins living in unbelief cannot and will not inherit the promises of God. Using the cultural motif once again, In ANE (Ancient Near East) times true children would have been expected to believe their fathers (parents also) and obey their will. This was an especially important thing to do for the firstborn son as the inheritance of the family would automatically fall to him.

Example: Esau had been raised all of his life to know what his birthright was and its importance. The Abrahamic promise had been rehearsed to him practically since the womb. He had been versed in the customs of family and history, and knew that he and his family was a part of God's promise to the Earth:
Genesis 17:7 ~ "And I will establish my covenant between me and THEE AND THY SEED after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

Genesis 22:16-18 ~ "16-And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son]: 17-That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18-And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
For a bowl of soup (pottage) Esau sold his future. Did that make him less than Issac's son? No, he remained a son, but he lost the priority and favor of his inheritance forever because he did not believe in the importance of his birthright.
Genesis 25:31-34 ~ "31-And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32-And Esau said, Behold, I [am] at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33-And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.  34- Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised [his] birthright."
Any "priority" that Esau may have had was immediately lost even though he was the eldest son. Even though the blessing had to be pronounced, he lost the blessing of God that day in all actuality.

The Effect Of Son-ship

Individuals are in a similar boat to Esau today except the stakes are based on a far greater eternal inheritance. Contrary to what the song said, we are NOT all God's children. One is not a child or a "son" of God, in God's eyes unless one receives, believes and obeys. (John 1:12, Rom. 8:14, 1 John 3:1)  Jesus called all others born of their father, "the devil". That puts an end to the claim that any of God's children receive punishment in hell. God's "children" don't receive eternal punishment as they identify the father clearly in all they do.
John 8:44 ~"Ye are of [your] father THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Conclusion:

In Pt. 2 of this study I will outline and address 2 additional objections to the eternality of hell and lay down various  reasons why I believe that it is an improper biblical interpretation to claim that the effects of hell are eternal while the conscious condition of hell is not. More specifically I plan to deal with the following objections:

Objection III: "Hell wasn't created for men therefore men won't continue to suffer in it."

and

Objection IV: "The Greek words used to describe the longevity of hell "aionios" is also used to describe a non eternal time frame. Therefore hell is temporary in nature."

Blessed!

Read more!

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Omniscience and Freewill, Does God Know All Or Did He Leave Some Wiggle Room?


The Proposition:
In Is there a God? (Oxford, 1996, p.7-9) Professor Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford said this:

"It seems to me that the same considerations require that we understand God being omniscient in a similarly careful way. Just as God cannot be required to do what is logically impossible to do, so God cannot be required to know what is logically impossible to know. It seems to me that it is logically impossible to know (without the possibility of mistake) what someone will do freely tomorrow. If I am really free to choose tomorrow whether I will go to London or stay at home, then if anyone today has some belief about what I will do (e.g. that I will go to London), I have it in my power tomorrow to make that belief false (e.g. by staying at home). So no one (not even God) can know today (without the possibility of mistake) what I will choose to do tomorrow. So I suggest that we understand God being omniscient as God knowing at any time all that is logically possible to know at that time. That will not include knowledge, before they have done it, of what human persons will do freely. Since God is omnipotent, it will only be because God allows there to be free persons that there will be any free persons. So this limit to divine omniscience arises from the consequences (which God could foresee) of his own choice to create free agents. I must, however, warn the reader that this view of mine that God does not know (without the possibility of mistake) what free agents will do until they do it is not the normal Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) view. My view is, however, implied, I believe, by certain biblical passages; it seems, for example, the natural interpretation of the book of Jonah that, when God told Jonah to preach to Nineveh that it would be destroyed, he believed that probably he would need to destroy it, but that fortunately, since the people of Nineveh repented, God saw no need to carry out his prophecy. In advocating this refinement of our understanding of omniscience, I am simply carrying further the process of internal clarification of the basic Christian understanding of God which other Christian philosophers such as Aquinas pursued in earlier days."...“All this does of course assume that human beings have some limited free will, in the sense that no causes (whether brain states or God) determine fully how they will choose. That is the way it often seems to us that we have such a power. Even the inanimate world, scientists now realize, is not a fully deterministic world—and the world of thought and choice is even less obviously a predictable world.”

The Concept, Called the "Open Futures" View:
1- God is the creator of all things
2- God gave mankind free will.
3- God does not fatalistically predetermine free-will creature's actions
4- God knows only what is logically possible to know about the future
5- The possibility exists that God is wrong about his creation's future actions if they act illogically
6- Therefore God can change his mind to account for what was previously unforeseeable
On What Basis Does God Know Our Actions?

God must know our actions on the basis of his foreknowledge. God's foreknowledge, however does not fatalistically predetermine our actions. It is merely a destination that he knows that we will take under any circumstance given what we have been given at any time. Evangelical and reform circles take this one step further adding election and predestination, both concepts which are taught within scripture. Dr. John Calvin however, warned against teaching predestination  in an ipso-facto manner:

"First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth. For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear."~ [Calvin, Institutes, Vol.3, Part 26 Ch. 21 Section 1]
Although these concepts are closely tied together I think we will be best served to focus on one aspect of the puzzle. In light of scripture we must ask the following questions regarding God's foreknowledge in cases where it appears that God either didn't know the outcomes or changed his mind by "repenting" of what he originally intended to do. There is said to be at least 40 such cases or applications of the "repentance" of God in the OT. We will look a few of the more significant ones such as follows:

A- How Do We Account For The Lord's "Repentance" In Genesis?
Genesis 6:6-7 ~ "And it REPENTED the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7- And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it REPENTETH me that I have made them."
 Was it not among all the logical probabilities of God's understanding that man would defile the earth with his sins the way he did? Was God caught off guard somehow? Further after the flood, (Gen. 9:9-17) would God need to make a reminder for himself to never flood the earth again because he may be overtaken by man's future decisions which to God would be also another logical impossibility?

B- How Do We Account For God's Almost Destruction Of Israel After Delivering Them From Egypt?
Exodus 32:14 ~And the LORD REPENTED of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Moses plead for the lives of Israel. Was man's action not a part of the logical probabilities that God could accounted for from the beginning? Or was there a greater lesson and message at work in this?

C- How Do We Account For The Lord's "Repentance" In Judges?
Judges 2:18 ~"And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it REPENTED the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them."
Once again, was it logically impossible for God to have foreseen the groanings of the people after Joshua's leadership and what the people would suffer at the hands of their enemies during this "sin cycle" that we observe in the period of the Judges?

D- How Do We Account For God's "Repentance" Over Saul's Kingship?
1 Samuel 15:35 ~ "And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD REPENTED THAT he had made Saul king over Israel."
God called and anointed Saul. Was it logically impossible that God, after having made Saul and knowing him from his mother's womb, as God told David, would not know or somehow loose sight of what Saul was going to do or the decisions that he would make out of his own heart and free-will?

E- How Do We Account For God's "Repentance" Over The Angel's Actions Regarding Jerusalem?
2 Samuel 24:16 ~ "And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD REPENTED him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite."(Also see 1Chron. 21:15)
God ordered this destruction. Was it logically impossible for God to have forseen how he would feel about the destruction and suffering of the people of Jerusalem before he commanded the angel to do his bidding?

F- Then There's Jeremiah's Words To The King Of Judah Calling For The Nation To Repent. How Do We Account For The Conditional Promise Of God's "Repentance"?

Jeremiah 26:12-13 & 19 ~ 12-Then spake Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying, The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. 13-Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you. ...
In this same verse of scripture the elders recount Micha's prophecy under the reign of King Hezekiah (Micah 1:1 and 3:2) which also led to God's mercy instead of the prophesied judgement:
Jeremiah 26:17-19 ~ "17-Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake to all the assembly of the people, saying, 18-Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Zion shall be plowed [like] a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. 19- Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD REPENTED him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls."
G- Jonah & Ninevah

Then there is the one that Dr. Swinburne alludes to. The story of Jonah and Ninevah, under the reign of Jereboam II (793-752 BC). After disturbing Jonah's life, sending on a mission, initially against his own will, and almost killing him to make him do HIS bidding. The King and the city, originally promised destruction,  repented to God and the wrath of God was abated. That declaration ends in this statement:
Jonah 3:10 ~ "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God REPENTED of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not."
Although it would be 140 to 180 years after this prophecy that Ninevah would be overtaken by the Assyrians, their destruction was not in the lifetime of Jonah or any of the then current inhabitants of the land.

Scriptural Contrast:

In spite of all of what has been mentioned above, now we should contrast it all to Numbers:
Numbers 23:19 ~ "God [is] not a man, that he shlould lie; neither the son of man, that he should REPENT: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
What Does All This Mean?

The scholar correctly asks: "Is all repentance the same?" That's the $64,000 question. Let's see:

In all of the verses where the "repentance" of God is called into question, the word repented or repentance is the Hebrew word נָחָם (nakham).

According to  NetBible.org  this word means that God “was grieved” or “was sorry.” Here's tenh rest of the dfinition as rendered:

In the Niphal stem the verb נָחָם (nakham) can carry one of four semantic meanings, depending on the context:
(1) “to experience emotional pain or weakness,” “to feel regret,” often concerning a past action (see Exod 13:17; Judg 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Job 42:6; Jer 31:19). In several of these texts כִּי (ki, “because”) introduces the cause of the emotional sorrow.

(2) Another meaning is “to be comforted” or “to comfort oneself” (sometimes by taking vengeance). See Gen 24:67; 38:12; 2 Sam 13:39; Ps 77:3; Isa 1:24; Jer 31:15; Ezek 14:22; 31:16; 32:31. (This second category represents a polarization of category one.)

(3) The meaning “to relent from” or “to repudiate” a course of action which is already underway is also possible (see Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16 = 1 Chr 21:15; Pss 90:13; 106:45; Jer 8:6; 20:16; 42:10).

(4) Finally, “to retract” (a statement) or “to relent or change one’s mind concerning,” “to deviate from” (a stated course of action) is possible (see Exod 32:12, 14; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Isa 57:6; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13-14; Am 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; Zech 8:14). See R. B. Chisholm, “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” BSac 152 (1995): 388.
To our conversation and the verses listed where God repented, the first category applies because the context speaks of God’s grief and emotional pain (see the statement in Gen. 6 v. 6) as a result of a past action (his making humankind). For a thorough study of the word נָחָם, see H. Van Dyke Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHM,” Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.

NetBible.org further says this:

The Hebrew word naham, is an onomatopoetic term which implies difficulty in breathing, hence, "to pant," "to sigh," "to groan." Naturally it came to signify "to lament" or "to grieve," and when the emotion was produced by the desire of good for others, it merged into compassion and sympathy, and when incited by a consideration of one's own character and deeds it means "to rue," "to repent." To adapt language to our understanding, God is represented as repenting when delayed penalties are at last to be inflicted, or when threatened evils have been averted by genuine reformation (Gen 6:6; Jon 3:10). This word is translated "repent" about 40 times in the Old Testament, and in nearly all cases it refers to God. The principal idea is not personal relation to sin, either in its experience of grief or in turning from an evil course. Yet the results of sin are manifest in its use. God's heart is grieved at man's iniquity, and in love He bestows His grace, or in justice He terminates His mercy. It indicates the aroused emotions of God which prompt Him to a different course of dealing with the people. Similarly when used with reference to man, only in this case the consciousness of personal transgression is evident. This distinction in the application of the word is intended by such declarations as God "is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Sam 15:29; Job 42:6; Jer 8:6).

Conclusion:

When we see that God "repented" throughout scripture we see no connotation that God either repudiated his actions or underwent a change from an evil course. That type of repentance was/is man's.

Further, God being God could not be surprised by any action of man and must by virtue of his being as God know and account for all actions of men whether those actions are logical or not before they occur. Therefore God IS NOT restricted by logical possibilities and somehow deficient when illogical choices are made. God in his infinite wisdom had already made a propitiation for the sin that man would choose before man ever hit the ground. How do we know that? This is how:
Revelation 13:8 ~ "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Foundation Heb. (Katabole)~1) a throwing or laying down 1a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb 1b) of the seed of plants and animals 2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

Jesus was not a propitiation for man's sins after the earth was created at some point when it was necessary, he was a propitiation BEFORE the earth was founded. In other words neither sin, not the actions of men caught God by surprise, it was already accounted for. Secondly God saw the end from the beginning, not in a fatalistically predetermined manner, but in a manner that allows him to "do his pleasure" or as he pleases among his creation:
Isaiah 46:9-10 ~ "9-Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, 10- Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
Unfortunately Dr. Swinburne and others who adopt his approach feel that God is feeble in both his insight, attempts and limited in knowledge or abilities. This is a sad view of God and one that is seemingly powerless to effect change within the world. The god of the bible is not a powerless God waiting on man's next decision before he responds. He is an active God establishing fellowship and relationship with and throughout his creation.

God is not feeble neither is he bound by what we see and understand as logic. Is God illogical? Yes, at times he is. How many individuals serving him see that there is a shorter path through the "wilderness" of their life than the path that God has placed us on? There are a number of things in our lives that we think could have worked out much more easy for us. There are many situations in our lives that defy logic. The key here is in coming to understand that God has some of us on a seeming "40 year path" for his own purposes and reasons, and those purposes and reasons (some which we may never know) will all serve to make us better in the end. Usually those purposes and reasons allow us to see and experience him, his wonder, and people  in ways that we would have never experienced otherwise.

How many times are true friends and enemies revealed through adversity? How many times is the clear path and logic of God revealed in an otherwise illigical situation or circumstance? Have you ever wondered, "Lord why am I here or going through this?" only to find that what you had gone through, which seemed very illogical of God to put you through, actually made you more keen, increased your worship and fellowship both with God and man? How many times through steps that we though that were not expedient for us that God has proven that his grace was truly sufficient? Then how many times has God led you to make rather illogical decisions so that you could serve him better and more effectively? A person with a degree can get a job at mostly any major corporation, but what about those who God called to make the illogical decision of becoming a missionary with no guaranteed income or living?  Did God not know his calling nor the response he would get?


A Much Better And More Biblical Concept Is This:
1- God is the creator of all things
2- God gave mankind free will.
3- God does not fatalistically predetermine free-will creature's actions
4- God knows all thing that are possible to know about the future, actions, and even the very thoughts of his free-will agents without impugning upon their free-will.
5- God's "repentance" is not equivalent to the repentance of men, therefore any change of outcome from God is 1-What he expects it to be and 2- Is something whereby the mercy of God can be extended to mankind.
6- Therefore there is no decision of man, neither logical or illogical possibilities, that are impossible for God to both know and have already accounted for eg: There is no possibility that God could be worng about what he foreknows.
7- Therefore God does not make bad decisions or deviate from his intended plan of action
Blessed!
Read more!

Friday, November 13, 2009

HIV/AIDS & Health Care Reform, What Do We Really Know?

This Post Discusses Adult Situations And Describes Sexual Activities That Some May Find Offensive. Material Contained Herein Is For Educational Purposes

In the days of health care reform one thing is abundantly clear. No matter what the public says Washington will reform the system in some manner or fashion. Supposedly this reform is for the approximately 38 to 45 million uninsured individuals in the United States legally. This reform will, in some form or fashion, make employers responsible for the health care of their employees imposing penalties for failure to acquire health plans. This in and of itself could put some companies out of business depending upon the requirements. While it is not yet all hashed out there is also additional pressure for what has been called the "Public Option". This option is said to be a way for individuals to secure coverage at supposedly lower and more competitive prices group rate prices as opposed to individual plan prices. I have placed the most up to date information on the current congressional wrangling at Dunamis Insurance & Business Services web site, and will update that regularly to clarify exactly what's going on regarding this issue.


However, as noted in "Hate Crimes Legislation, Presidential Approval Of The Gay Agenda" in light of our President's agenda to normalize homosexuality, even calling homosexual relationships:

"just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

We should ask and look critically at the real motivation behind such an expansive move, and we should better define what is really occurring and why there is such a push to insure the "uninsured". Most of those infected with HIV/AIDS in care rely on public sector insurance programs or are uninsured, estimated to range between approximately 70% and 83%  [Fleishman, J., Personal communication, Analysis of HCSUS Data, January 2002 also see: Nakashima AK. “Who Will Pay for HIV Treatment? Health Insurance Status of HIV-Infected Persons.” In: Proceedings of the 1997 Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; September 13-16, 1997; San Francisco, CA. Abstract 293.]

3 Facts To Keep In Mind Before We Embark Upon This Subject:

1- America's citizens should have access to excellent health care and there is enough money within the system to provide such for all of it's citizens. That doesn't necessarily mean that health care should be controlled or distributed by the government. Those things are a separate issue from this writing.

2- No individual should be denied adequate health care because of any factor including sexual orientation. To suggest so is a ridiculous notion. This article makes no such suggestion.

3- There is NO ENDORSEMENT of any immoral sexual activity within this article. God's way of marriage and one man and one woman still is the best prescription for sexual activity, health, growth of the family and health of the community and society in general.

The Case & History of AIDS:

In examining the accuracy of the classification of cases by the CDC, it must be recognized that, except in perinatal cases, it is virtually impossible to know with absolute certainty how a particular individual became infected with HIV. Originally, pre 1981, AIDS was referred to as "GRIDS" ("gay related immunodeficiency syndrome"), because it appeared to be a disease which affected only homosexual men. Later, it became clear by statistical analysis that it primarily affected homosexual men and IV drug users, but that HIV could also be transmitted by penile-vaginal intercourse and blood transfusions, and from an infected mother to her child. All of these transmission methods are consistent with the fact that AIDS is a blood disease. However, even though the high risk categories are known, there is no way of knowing for certain whether a particular person became infected in a particular manner, because the precise details of one's life cannot be known with absolute certainty by others.


Research provides abundantly clear information  that AIDS is a devastating disease. The research also shows that HIV/AIDS is a disease that is rampantly and readily spread throught the  homosexual community. Currently there are 1.1 Million individuals known to be infected either with AIDS or the disease thought to cause AIDS, HIV. The research also affirms that although there are many advertisements such as BET's "Wrap It Up" campaign and condom distribution at high schools and now even grade schools throughout the country, geared toward heterosexual individuals, yet HIV/AIDS is still primarily a homosexual disease, more readily and easily transmitted through homosexual. Despite all of the efforts to make the disease a disease for all sexually active individuals, HIV/AIDS remains tied to the immoral sexual and anti-biblical sexual activities of homosexuality and the homosexual community.

Don't believe me? Good, because I didn't do the research. However the research and medical professional dis and here's what they found. In  An Actuarial Analysis on the subject:

Distribution of AIDS Cases In The United States

As of the end of 1992 (publication of the 1993 report having been delayed by the CDC), the cumulative distribution of adult cases since 1981 by exposure category was as follows:
Male homosexual/bisexual contact 142,626 (57%)

IV drug use (female and heterosexual male) 57,412 (23%)

Male homosexual/bisexual contact and IV drug use 15,899 ( 6%)

Hemophilia/coagulation disorder 2,026 ( 1%)

Heterosexual contact with a person with, or at increased risk for, HIV infection 13,292 (5%)

Born in Pattern II country 2,962 ( 1%)

Receipt of blood transfusion, blood components or tissue 4,980 ( 2%)

Other/undetermined 10,002 ( 4%)

Total 249,199 (100%)
According to 2007 CDC figures, the current status of HIV/AIDS in the US is as follows:
In 2007 There were 42,655 new cases of HIV/AIDS in adults, adolescents, and children were diagnosed in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting, which was down from the 2006 estimate of 56,300 new HIV/AIDS infections.

Approximately 74% or 42,495 diagnosis were men the remaining 26% were women.

Men having sex with men (MSM) category accounted for 71% out of the total male infections and 53% of overall total new infections in 2007.

Heterosexual sex with high risk individuals (individuals known to have HIV or AIDS)  accounted for 11% of all new infections.

Among women, 83% of all new HIV/AIDS diagnosis were from women who engaged in high risk heterosexual contact. ie: Had sex with men who were thought to already have HIV/AIDS.

Blacks/African Americans accounted for over half (51%) of the estimated number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses made during 2007, followed by whites (29%) and Hispanic/Latinos (18%).
To date there have been approximately 562,793 death from AIDS in the US.

Currently there are approximately 455,636 persons in the US living with AIDS (excluding HIV)
It is estimated that 1 in 5 (20%) of all kids infected with HIV/AIDS are unaware of it.
This statistical data compiled by the same government who wants universal health care knows that HIV/AIDS as of this 1992 report, delayed, says that almost 60% of HIV/AIDS transmission was from the homosexual/bisexual community.

One would say that well that data only tells part of the story. We've seen figures such as Magic Johnson who caught AIDS from heterosexual sex and therefore your argument is DOA because it can be proven that heterosexual can easily catch AIDS.

Is that so? Is my argument a moot point, or one worth examining closer? The fact is that Cookie didn't catch AIDS. So it's worth examining a little more closely. Let's see. In that same actuarial analysis, there were also statistics compiled as to the likelihood of acquiring AIDS from one of the most high risk sexual groups in the world. Prostitutes. Surprisingly this is what the study found: 

HIV and Female Prostitutes:

Prostitutes are another group which engages in sexual activity with multiple partners. Root-Bernstein discusses their experience as follows:
"M. Seidlin and his colleagues examined the prevalence of HIV infections in New York City call girls during 1987, They studied seventy-eight women who had been prostitutes for an average of five years each. Each woman had had an average of over 200 clients during the past year, or approximately 1,000 lifetime partners. Use of condoms was sporadic at best. Vaginal intercourse was common; anal, rare. Since it is estimated that nearly 5% of men in New York City are thought to be intravenous drug users and half of these are HIV seropositive, it is probable that each of these prostitutes had sexual relations with an average of twenty-five HIV-seropositive individuals. Despite this unusual promiscuity and despite living in one of the AIDS capitals of the world, only one of the women was HIV seropositive. She admitted being an intravenous drug abuser. Her seventy-two non-drug abusing co-workers were all HIV negative."
You mean to tell me, putting a gun up to one's head and playing Russian roulette by having unprotected sex with women who have sex with men for money as an occupation amounted to ONE HIV positive case in this study in the AIDS capital of the world??? If this disease was truly a heterosexual disease would not the cases of infection and the infection rate be much more expansive? Let's read further:
"Another study carried out in New York City by Dr. Joyce Wallace and her co-workers between 1982 and 1988 found similar results. They surveyed several hundred streetwalkers (a lower class of prostitute than call girls) for a variety of measures of immunodeficiency. Excluding admitted intravenous drug users from their study, they found that only 4.5 percent of the prostitutes were HIV infected. The only statistical difference between those who were infected and those who were not was that the HIV-positive women had had a mean of 3,062 sexual partners during their lifetime, whereas the HIV-seronegatives had had 1,047. On the other hand, Wallace found an HIV seropositivity rate approaching 50% among drug-abusing prostitutes."
"Similarly, a 1988 study concluded that "HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity alone does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV".
The Difficulty Of The Transmission Of HIV By Heterosexual Contact

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of a presentation of this sort. First there is no endorsement to run out and have heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Secondly, there is no endorsement to not worry about catching the disease if one is not committed to the will and plan of God. I am convinced that many heterosexuals are receiving this disease at the hands of bisexual lovers (men and women) and even spouses on the Down Low. In many instances women are challenged by a man who likes other men and are convinced that they can "change the man" and his desires, only to find out that the man will have sex with a woman as a matter of variety, proliferating his disease, but maintaining his lust for other men also. There are men in a similar situation with bisexual women, and they are in equally as dangerous of a situation.

Most STDs have a fairly high efficiency of transmission - perhaps a 10% to as high as a 50% probability of transmission during a single sexual act with an infected partner. As a result, the typical route for such diseases is from male-to-female-to-male-to-female..., by heterosexual intercourse. Obviously, therefore, the best defenses against the spread of such diseases are said to be (1) monogamy, (2) condoms (which is not a safe method as will be discussed below), and (3) medical treatment when symptoms occur.

HIV, however, is very different in one fundamental respect. Although it has been demonstrated that the transmission of HIV by heterosexual intercourse is possible, both male-to-female and female-to-male, unlike most other sexually transmitted diseases, the transmission is extremely inefficient, particularly female-to-male.

In addition, transmission usually is associated with some type of abnormality, such as some other STD. This was dramatically illustrated in a paper titled "Female-to-Male Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus", by Padian et al, published in the September 25, 1991 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In this paper, 72 male, non-drug using partners of HIV-positive women were studied, beginning in 1985. Of the 72 males, only a single one became infected through sexual contact. It is instructive to quote excerpts from the description of this couple's sexual practices and physical condition, to show the conditions which caused the man to become infected.
"Over the five years prior to the study, [the woman] had over 600 male partners, including over 2000 contacts with a bisexual man, an unidentified number of contacts with an intravenous drug user, and over 1000 contacts with a person she knew to be HIV-infected.

"The couple reported an average of 15 sexual contacts a month for the last 7 years. Almost all of these contacts consisted of unprotected vaginal-penile and oral intercourse. The couple practiced anal intercourse twice. The couple never used condoms. ... The woman would frequently have sexual intercourse with another partner while her husband first observed and then had intercourse with her immediately after the other partner.

 "This couple reported ... over 100 episodes of both vaginal and penile bleeding. The cause of this bleeding could not be established. Medical data were available only by history, and over the last 5 years, the woman reported four cases of vaginal yeast infections, both reported one case of trichomoniasis, and the man reported one case of urethral gonorrhea. In addition, the woman reported a history of endometriosis and had a hysterectomy during the year prior to entry into the study."
The report goes on to suggest that the man's HIV infection may have come from one of the other men who had sexual relations with his wife immediately prior to his sexual activity, rather than from his wife.

The report also states that six other of the 72 men reported penile bleeding during sexual intercourse, but did not become infected.

Now get this, the HIV was NOT from the woman, but from the man that the woman had sex with prior. Could this be the reason that HIV is on the increase in the Black Community and especially among Black heterosexual women. the lesbian is deceived into believing that they are exempt, but if they also have bisexual lovers their risk is equally as great of both catching and spreading this disease.

It is not at all surprising that this one man became infected, given his history of penile bleeding and other STD's. In fact, it illustrates that the risk of transmission of HIV infection may depend on a variety of factors relating both to the degree of infectiousness of the infected partner and to the susceptibility to infection of the uninfected partner. Of particular interest in this regard is the paper "Biologic Factors in the Sexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus", by Holmberg et al. This paper discusses a number of possible cofactors, and concludes with the following summary:

"The probability that any single episode of genital-genital or anogenital sexual intercourse will result in transmission of HIV may be determined by multiple biologic factors of the infectious person, the virus itself, and the exposed susceptible person. Some of these factors are known or suspected (figure 1), and they may explain observed differences in the sexual transmission of HIV in different parts of the world, notably in Africa, where genital ulcerative disease is probably influencing the epidemiology of HIV. Several studies have shown that infection in partners of HIV-infected persons is not determined solely by numbers of sexual encounters; on the contrary, HIV-infected partners have usually had fewer sexual encounters with infectious mates than have noninfected partners.,, Thus, sexually active persons should be cautioned that, to our knowledge, there are no nonsusceptible persons and that any single sexual encounter may lead to HIV transmission. Research into biologic factors that modulate HIV transmission continues to be hampered by difficulties in identifying HIV transmitters and nontransmitters, infective and noninfective variants of HIV (if the latter exist in vivo), and persons relatively more or less susceptible to HIV infection. However, as the number of partner studies and the number enrolled in them increase, a progressively clearer idea of the biologic determinants of sexual transmission should emerge."
Given the level of STDs among street walking prostitutes, and the desire by some to try to conceal their drug habit, it is not surprising that a small percentage of those who did not admit to drug use nevertheless were HIV-positive. All things considered, it is significant that the percentage was so low, and is another indication of the extreme difficulty of HIV transmission by heterosexual intercourse.

AIDS and Homosexual Men

In contrast to the low risk for heterosexuals, homosexual men incur a significant risk because of their lifestyle. Root-Bernstein details the many immunosuppressive risk factors that affect homosexual men. Many of these, such as syphilis and a variety of other infections, are associated with anal sexual practices engaged in by a significant percentage of homosexual men. However, other risk factors were related to the widespread use of various drugs by homosexuals. In this respect, Root-Bernstein quotes the following studies:
"A CDC survey conducted in 1983 found that a 'typical' gay man in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco used four street drugs regularly. Those who had developed AIDS by 1983 had a history of increased drug use both in therm of frequency of use and number of different drugs used regularly. Ninety-five percent of the gay men surveyed regularly used inhalant nitrites; over 90 percent smoked marijuana; 60 percent used cocaine; about 8 percent used heroin; over 50 percent used amphetamines; over 30 percent, barbiturates; almost 50 percent, LSD and methaqualone; and about 40 percent had used phencyclidine. Linda Pifer's 1987 survey of gay men in Memphis found slightly lower rates of drug use. Over 80 percent of this group admitted to using nitrites at least occasionally and 30 percent more than once a week. Seventy-four percent admitted to use of other illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine, and LSD, with an average of nearly seven years of 'routine use.' Eleven percent described themselves as being 'heavy drinkers' and another 37 percent as 'moderate drinkers.' Multiple drug use was the norm among the heavy abusers."
 The increased risk of HIV infection for those homosexuals (and heterosexuals) who engage in anal sex is described by Root-Bernstein as follows:
"Immunological contact with sperm, or material carried in sperm, is increased in anal, as contrasted with vaginal or oral, intercourse. On reason has to do with the physiological differences of the rectum, vagina, and upper gastrointestinal tract. Vaginal tissue differs markedly from rectal tissue. The vagina has thick, muscular walls covered by a deep layer of epithelial (skin-like) cells that are easily sloughed off and secrete a lubricating mucus to decrease the possibility of abrasion. Even if abrasion does occur, the capillaries that embedded in the vaginal tissue are far from the surface and difficult to reach. There are also very few lymphocytes directly in the vagina, most of them being located higher up, near the cervix. The rectal tissue presents an entirely different picture. The rectum is comprised of an extremely thin layer of tissue, densely entwined with capillaries. It lacks the thick layers of epithelium that protect the vagina and its ability to produce a protective mucus. Moreover, the intestines are studded with Peyer's patches. Located along with the Peyer's patches are concentrations of M cells, which apparently function as portals through which the resident lymphocytes constantly sample the contents of the rectum for foreign material. These M cells have been shown to permit viruses such as HIV to gain access to the immune system from the rectum. Thus, unlike the vagina, the rectum represents a place in the body through which the immune system can easily be reached, even under normal conditions. Since microscopic tears and bleeding can accompany anal intercourse and infections but are rare in vaginal intercourse, anal exposure confers another means for semen components (and viruses) to enter the bloodstream, there to be immunologically processed."
Root-Bernstein then goes on to list a number of diseases that may develop in the rectum as a result of the various anal sexual practices engaged in by homosexual men. It is no wonder that, even apart from AIDS, homosexual men who engage in anal sexual activity have a higher incidence of immunosuppressive disease than heterosexuals.

More recently, Scottish researchers found transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among heterosexuals slower than among homosexual men.  A study, published in PLoS Pathogens, also found transmission clusters in the heterosexual population occurred in networks of more than 10 people and as many as 30 people, but were smaller than those found among HIV-infected homosexual men.

 Mental Health Issues:

The study was conducted by UCLA scientists and involved data from a survey of more than 2,000 Californians in 2008.

The researchers found 48.5 percent of gay lesbian or bisexual individuals said they participated in treatment during the past year, compared with 22.5 percent of heterosexuals. Lesbians and bisexual women were most likely to receive treatment and heterosexual men were the least likely. The report stated:
"It is well known that health services utilization is greater among women generally," researcher Susan Cochran said. "Here we have shown that minority sexual orientation is also an important consideration. Lesbians and bisexual women appear to be approximately twice as likely as heterosexual women to report having received recent treatment for mental health or substance use disorders."
The Condom/Safe Sex Myth:

It's commonly thought and taught that condoms will make one "safe" during sex or sexual activity. The facts are asotounding that this is equally as great of a lie as any. According to The Medical Institute.org:
"The Bottom Line Condoms don't make sex safe, just less risky. Although condoms can reduce your risk for some STIs, they don't eliminate it. You can still get an STI (Sexually Transmitted Infection) or get pregnant...To completely reduce your risk for some STIs, you should avoid sexual activity (oral, vaginal or anal sex) until you are faithful to one partner. If you've already had sex, see a doctor about getting checked for STIs...Waiting to have sex until you are in a faithful, lifelong relationship (such as marriage) is the only certain way to avoid being infected sexually."
Life Expectancy:

 According to the US Library Of Medicine National Institute Of Health:

Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994--one in the USA and the other in Britain--yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less than 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. ~ PMID: 9923159 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Anal Sex Misconceptions

With the advent of hip-hop and porno's "Booty Worship"  and "Booty Fixation" there also comes a more widely proliferated experimental sex type that is having its devastating effects on our community. This is called anal sex. The problem is that anal sex is is much more risky than any other form of sex and is not just for homosexuals, as was once thought.  According to the Bradley Hasbro Children’s Research Center in Rhode Island, anal sex is on the rise among teens and young adults, particularly those who have unprotected vaginal sex. Experts say girls and young women are often persuaded to “experiment” with their bodies for all the wrong reasons: To please a partner. But at what cost?

Since there’s a higher likelihood for contact with blood and other bodily fluids during anal sex, experts say it puts you at a higher risk for STDs. According to the Kaiser Foundation, more than one-third of new HIV infections in the United States occur among people between the ages of 13 and 29 and can be attributed to the mind-set among youth that they are not at risk of contracting the virus. In an ABC news.com interview Eliz. Schroeder co- author of "Sexuality Education: Past , Present & Future" said:  “They don’t think you can get a disease from it (anal sex) because you’re not having intercourse. They can actually recite by rote how you get AIDS, but it doesn’t transfer to their personal behavior.”

Medical Costs Associated With HIV/AIDS

Although this is one of the most obfuscated areas of information for obvious reasons, it is estimated that for every HIV infection that is prevented, an estimated $355,000 is saved in the cost of providing lifetime HIV treatment. See: Schackman BR, Gebo KA, Walensky RP, et al. The lifetime cost of current human immunodeficiency virus care in the United States. Med Care 2006 Nov;44(11):990-97.

There is a differnt cost for various treatments and regimens and varying costs appropriate to teh stage of the disease. I have attempted to provide a Rough estimate of medical costs in one age group based on Life expectancy for that group. I have also used conservative figures in todays dollars rather than inflationary dollars. This is the data:
20-29 age group represent approximately 25% (10,624) of all new HIV infections.

Annual estimated medical costs for this age group $8,452 per year per individual.~This figure is dependent upon the regimen and payer (newer formulations of more than one antiretroviral drug may be priced as high as their component parts)[This is based on average wholesale price (AWP). The price Medicaid pays for prescription drugs includes a rebate off the average manufacturers price (AMP), which itself is less than the AWP. The rebate received is defined as the greater of 15.1% of AMP or AMP minus the Best Price (BP) for brand name drugs. The rebate for generic drugs is 11% of AMP.] This represents an average estimate across all payers and all HIV disease stages, based on several studies. {Personal communication, James G. Kahn, January 2003. When additional medical expenses for doctor’s visits, laboratory tests, and drugs to prevent or treat HIV-related opportunistic infections are taken into account, average annual costs rise to approximately $18,000 to $20,000 per patient, with even higher expenses for those with more advanced HIV-related illness.}

Annual estimated cost per all individuals within this category $89,794,048

Providing healthcare to all individuals in this demographic group until life expectancy (excluding premature deaths or other occurrances) $3,771, 350, 016.
Rx Costs:
National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM) Foundation, for example, found that national retail drug expenditures for antiretrovirals totaled $2,572.4 million in 2001, representing an almost 21 percent increase over 2000, compared to a 17% increase for all retail prescription drug sales over the same period
Once again for obvious reasons, there is much obfuscation of truth in this area and my estimates are admittedly rough, but give a good idea of the costs associated with HIV/AIDS. Ultimately most of those costs are produced and will be generated by the homosexual community. This is not to question the humaneness fo the treatment. All sick individuals need and should have a right to healthcare, but it does bring into clarity the push for a nationalized healthcare against the backdrop of calling homosexuality admirable.

What Could Be The Results For Not Providing Adequate Universal Type Healthcare For Homosexuals?

Canada found that out when they were sued. Canadian Homosexual Complaint PDF Against The Gov't. The Canadian Government found out that the gay community stated the following as being the reason why they needed healthcare:

  • The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;


  • GLB people commit suicide at rates ranging from twice as often to almost 14 times more than the general population;

  • GLBs have smoking rates ranging from 1.3 to three times higher than average;
  • GLBs become alcoholics at a rate 1.4 to seven times higher than the general population;
  • GLBs use illicit drugs at a rate from 1.6 to 19 times higher than other Canadians;
  • GLBs experience depression at rates ranging from 1.8 to three times higher than average;
  • Homosexual men comprise 76% of AIDS cases and 45% of all new HIV infections;
  • GLB populations are at a higher risk of lung and liver cancer;
  • Homosexual and bisexual men suffer a higher rate of anal cancer than heterosexual men;
  • Lesbians report a higher rate of breast cancer;
  • GLBs experience verbal and physical abuse at a greater rate than most Canadians.
Boy on so many points that sounds exactly like what I've laid out here doesn't it. Could this be a major source of the push to nationalize healthcare. Not to minimize individuals suffering because of inadequate access to healthcare, but does the homosexual agenda dn lobby have more to do with this than meets the eye? I wonder if we are next?

Conclusion:

Is the treatment of HIV/AIDS the most expensive medical care and treatment? NO, hemodialysis costs an estimated $150,000 annually per quality adjusted year life. {Freedberg, et al., “The Cost Effectiveness of Combination Antiretroviral Therapy For HIV Disease,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 11, March 2001.}

Anyone thinking that the point of this article was to say that HIV/AIDS treatment costs so much that it shouldn't be covered missed the complete purpose of the article.

The article uncovers the hidden agenda behind the posture of the homosexual agenda, gay rights, and the insistence on this governement to normalize homosexuality and exalt it to an equal status of heterosexual relationships. This article exposes an element behind healthcare reform that is not discussed by many if any but that cannot be denied.

This is yet another reason often unspoken that the gay rights agenda has sought to plant itself so deeply into the thread of American life.  Rather than simply treat the result of gay sex, which can be proven to be harmful to siociety in general, I'd rather spend my time pleading with homosexuals to leave the lifestyle, because it is not only spiritually and morally devastating, but it is also physically and mentally devastating.

Based on the numbers, homosexuality is anything but admirable. The results of Homosexuality according to the numbers which I did not compile is not a wise decision for individuals, monetarily, socially, mentally, physically or otherwise.

We should ask our President is this the aim of health care reform? To socially normalize and encourage the immorality and devastating effects of homosexuality? how could anyone who cares about humanity, knowing the facts, endorse a homosexual lifestyle. The statistics say that the lifestyle is froth with problems none of which were invented by me or on this site. Is our Preseident promoting what is simply politically expedient, or something that is actually good for all of America? We may ask, I wonder if we will receive and answer?

Blessed!

Proverbs 16:25 ~ "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the WAYS OF DEATH."

References:


US Library Of  Medicine National Institute Of Health

UPI.com Gays & Lesbians Seek Healthcare

The Dakota Voice

American Psychiatric Association Coverup

Sexuality Education: Past Present & Future
Eliz. Schroeder & Judy Kuriansky Prager Publishers 2009

EDINBURGH, England, Sept. 28, 2009

HIV Prevention in the US at a Critical Crossroad CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/hiv_prev_us.htm

Current News:

Life Site News
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081407.html

Education Czar Homosexual affirming religious hater
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/23/critics-assail-obamas-safe-schools-czar-say-hes-wrong-man-job/

CA Supreme Ct. Forces Doctors to lay down their religious beliefs
http://jasonaclark.com/2008/08/19/california-supreme-court-says-homosexual-rights-trump-christian-rights/

Concerning Medical Costs See:

1- Bartlett, J., Medical Management of HIV Infection, 2001-2002 Edition, 2001.

2- Kahn, J., Haile, B., Kates, J., Chang, S., “Health and Federal Budgetary Effects of Increasing Access to Antiretroviral Medications for HIV by Expanding Medicaid,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 91, No. 9, September 2001.

3- Freedberg, et al., “The Cost Effectiveness of Combination Antiretroviral Therapy For HIV Disease,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 11, March 2001.

4- Bozzette, S., et al., “The Care of HIV Infected Adults in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 339. No. 26, December 1998.

5- Bozzette, S., et al., “Expenditures for the Care of HIV-Infected Patients in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vo. 334, No. 11, March 2001.

6- University of Alabama (UAB), Press Release: UAB Announces Results of First HIV Patient Care Cost Analysis, July 2002.
In the UAB study, the average annual cost of patient care ranged from $14,000 for those at early stage HIV infection to $34,000 for those with advanced-stage disease.

7- National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, Prescription Drug Expenditures in 2001: Another Year of Escalating Costs, Revised May 2002.
Read more!

Saturday, November 7, 2009

A Declaration Of Youth Freedom & Liberation At The 2009 COGIC Convocation



In what was one of the many very powerful sessions of the COGIC 2009 Convocation, on Saturday afternoon 11/7/09 Pastor Donnie McClurkin spoke to the youth plainly, openly, and freely:


"We talk about Tonex but we should know, God did not call us to such perversion"..."God did not call this generation to such perversion"..."They have lied to this generation" If it hadn't been for this Jesus, I would be a homosexual today, BUT he is a deliverer, he is a deliverer today...He's a strong deliverer"

The Message Of Youth Renewal

Pastor McClurkin was used of the Lord to deliver a word to more than 5000 youth that attended the service to present the year end presentation of the COGIC International Youth Department. Preaching a message directed toward them who have been "lost in the house", it was clear to understand and clearly received that the Church Of God In Christ is not a place for homosexual, youth or otherwise, to park and or hide out while he/she proliferates their ungodly lifestyle.

Fathers To Sons & Daughters


There was much food on the table and something for everyone to eat. To the fathers, Pastor McClurkin made note of the fact that the father has long been absent from the midst of the children and the family and have left the youth exposed to the rudiments of the world and to a society that is morally imbalanced.

"Remnants of a holy generation will rise up past their peers and society"
"Young people are not comfortable being real...I went to Mason Temple and I sat in the musical...where are the fathers that will embrace the boys and say NO, NO NO, he (the devil) can't have you!"



"I see feminine men, do not applaud because it sounds like a bash, it's because we've failed, our boys, we've failed our girls, but TODAY, satan's hold will be destroyed from over the lives of our youth."
Rehashing some of his own history regarding being raped at 8 Yeas old by his uncle, Pastor McClurkin admonished the parents to become more involved with their children and find out more about their lives and their disappointments in order to effectively serve them and help them when they are in need. He said emphatically:
"Some of you parents need to get up off you're duffs and praise God for your children!"..."Today is the day of the turn around."
Taking A Generation Back From The Enemy

Pastor McClurkin made particular note of the fact that the elders were responsible for teaching the youth and helping them to know truth. What many don't understand is that in the black community, the elders speaking to the youth was the method that communication occurred. Historically it was the most effective method of retaining generational values and priorities. He said that because of the failure of the elders in his life that his life wasn't fulfilled until he was almost 40 years old:
"Come Monday I will be 50 and my job is to turn around and tell the young folk am I now an elder, and I know my God is a deliverer"..."You have no idea how many times I gave myself away trying to find myself."
The message also pinpointed a target group that is not often talked about in youth circles. The lesbian. Pastor McClurkin took time to expose the problems of many female youth who sometimes go under the radar undetected as being involved in the sexual immorality of lesbianism:
"These young girls are just as bad as the boys in homosexuality but you don't see it"..."God said with love and kindness, I don't want your gift, don't want your talent, I want you....I didn't start healing until I turned 40."
Truth Must Be Told And An Apology Must Be Made:

Pastor McClurkin spoke plainly regarding the sin of fellow gospel singer Tonex. He stated that love, although the overarching principle, was not to compromise the truth in any way, and that the truth must be told.
"I can't condemn Tonex, I've got to love Tonex, but I've got to tell him the truth"..."I apologize"...."I tried to keep the image when my life was messed up"
The youth have served for their talent and those talents have been used to spotlight what we want to spotlight, but God is calling the church to a greater accountability. I'm in agreement with Pastor Mcclurkin, we must repent to those lesbians, homosexual men, adulterers, and bisexuals that we've allowed to preform without confronting them with the truth of God's demand...That demand is that they flee from youthful lusts and be saved and restored unto God. I hope that this church will no longer be satisfied as being a place that bring up the nations finest musical talent without that talent being stopped at the door and confronted with their sins.

The Alter & The Declaration

In what was one of the greatest calls to repentance of the 2009 Convocation thousands of youth came to the alter to repent of sexual sins and ask God for strength, help and direction in dealing with the issues of life.
"satan you lost this generation, you have no authority over these souls...I declare in the name of Jesus FREEDOM!"
I join pastor McClurkin and the others that have made this declaration over our youth. It is not time for them to die, but it is time for them to live in freedom and in the joy of youth and the experiences that youth brings.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The Church Of God In Christ is faced with a particular charge. That charge is to make sure that the environment in which our youth grows and in which our families receive spiritual fellowship, is as safe as it possibly can be.

This week Presiding Bishop Charles E. Blake addressed the bonafide issues of sexual abuse from clergy within our church and failed in two very important and significant ways. 1- He under valued the seriousness of the abuse and resultant jail terms received by the perpetrators calling them "allegations" and 2- The Bishop suggested that the volume of sexual abuse cases is offset by the large numbers of clergy, as if to say that sexual abuse within the church is not really a problem because incidences are few and clergy numbers are high. In essence, because there are so many clergy, the cases were proportionately few in number therefore not anything to be alarmed about.

 Needless to say I, as a pastor in this church am totally disappointed by that approach from our Chief Apostle...I am more than deeply concerned that the issue of clergy sexual abuse will undermine any progress that this church makes in dealing with significant community issues, and that our leadership must undertake securing the rights, hearts, minds and safety of the PEOPLE and not just the clergy caught in their immorality. 

I think we continue this dialogue until our leadership understands that administrative policy must fundamentally change within the church. We cannot judge our actions by the actions of others or the law of large numbers. We cannot hide behind statistics and contend that we are doing the people of God justice or a service. The church's approach toward the people and victims in particular must dramatically improve before we can expect God to shower down the blessings that we need to restore the health of our communities.

The progressive message to our youth that has gone out in this convocation can only be undermined by indecisive actions and efforts to save face. In my opinion the condition and environment of our churches belongs to all the people of the Church Of God In Christ and only by God through prayer and the diligent actions of the Saints can we expect to see the required changes in approach necessary from our top leadership. Until then it seems that each Pastor and member church should be responsible for doing the very best possible to safegard our youth...The people of God are worth ever effort to save them, Jesus displayed as much regard for the people by dying for them and the whole world!

Blessed!

Update~ Special Thanks To Djenk23 for the following videos.:









Read more!

Monday, November 2, 2009

COGIC Issues: 102nd Annual Holy Convocation

Corrections have been made to this page 11/02/2009: Bishop Gilkey's first name is Joseph and Enoch Perry's title was referenced as "Bishop". Those statements were incorrect. Special note 11/29/09: See bottom of the article for commentary and update.


As the Church Of God In Christ's 102nd Annual Holy Convocation  begins Nov. 2-9, 2009, there are some significant 21st century challenges that the church faces.

2 of the most acute questions have been asked by individuals such as Pastor D.L.Foster of GCMWatch.com and myself among others:

1- How will COGIC handle the perpetrators of sexual abuse among clergy?

2- How will COGIC handle the victims of sexual abuse and make them whole?

And what may be a similarly related issue:

3- Truly, how is the real property of congregations and the congregations themselves handled when a pastor dies and why is the congregation overlooked?

Section I: Clergy Sexual Abuse

1- How will COGIC handle the perpetrators of sexual abuse among clergy?

2- How will COGIC handle the victims of sexual abuse and make them whole?

In what was a shocking revelation, Deidre Malone of the Malone Group, and spokeswoman on behalf of COGIC, said that the Presiding Bishop of the Church Of God In Christ, Bishop Charles E. Blake stated that:   She further stated that Bishop Charles E. Blake will announce an initiative regarding clergy sexual misconduct during the Holy Convocation Nov. 2-9.
"The church has been working on this issue for more than 15 years,"
First, it is refreshing to see that this issue will be addressed and addressed openly and hopefully clearly. Although I haven't heard from any official as to the plans and statements that will be made, at ReportCOGICabuse.org, it can be noted that I have at least tried to at least present information pertinent to addressing the care of the victims of these sort of atrocities.

The sad thing is that if the church has been aware of these sort of atrocities for 15 years, why hasn't it  responded with greater sense of urgency and a more exacting resolve? Over the last 15 years there have been 3 Chief Apostles of the church:

Bishop Chandler D. Owens
Bishop G.E. Patterson
Bishop Charles E. Blake

I would say that based on the atrocities of former General Board member, Bishop J.D. Husband, that someone had to know that there was trouble long prior to 15 years ago. GCMWatch also reported this:
"In 1991, through his lawyer, Bishop J.D. Husband, a charter member of the Church of God in Christ’s General Board, admitted guilt to “all charges” levied against him. But multitudes of people are still baffled about what Husband did. Other than rumors, the evidence against him was kept secretive and not even reported to legal authorities."
Although Mrs. Malone's comments leave much open room, one wonders what is it that the church has been working on for 15 years regarding the clergy sexual abuse issue and under who's direction that this "work" been taking place and to what aim. Hopefully that will be addressed during the Convocation and the church will come out with a greater sensitivity toward the victims of sexual abuse and a plan that will permanently remove sexual predators and abuses from all clergy activities. Clearly the days of simply looking the other way, as has been the recent MO of many of our leaders, is over, and children of God are demanding a much greater and more biblical accountability of the church leadership.

Section II: Church Property In Transition

3- Truly, how is the real property of congregations handled when a pastor dies and why is the congregation overlooked?


Legal council for the church,  Judge Enoch Perry has said that service in COGIC by it's pastors and leaders is basically voluntary and is at an arms length status. One report is as follows: 

Perry told lawyers that COGIC national has no power to make member churches or pastors obey its rules. The reason: “everything in COGIC is voluntary”. Perry said all dues, tithes, fees, reports and financial stipulations on bishops, superintendents, national office holders, licensed ministers, missionaries, local church reports, jurisdictional reports and the likes are all voluntary and nothing was mandatory. Perry said the church has no ability to enforce dues assessed to its members. The only possible repercussion he said is that “credentials are not lost, just not renewed” [Summary of 2008 Deposition regarding Pastor Sherman Allen (pg 46)]

In the sworn testimony regarding the transition of Emmanuel COGIC 4/11/2005 Elder Perry said this when asked about the structure of the church :
"Well the church of God in Christ is a hierarchical organization, that is we are ecclesiastical. You have your General Board at the top. The General Board filters down to the board of Bishops..."(pg. 15)
and
"Primarily, the local church has the responsibility in terms of its day to day action, but as it relates to the national church for example, the jurisdictional Bishop who is the representative of the national church has the right to come onto that property anytime he wants to. If you look at the 1952 constitution of our church it states specifically that no local church , no board of trustees, no directors can withhold the pulpit from the jurisdictional bishop or any national official. So to that end it's part of the national church and the local church. You can't separate the two, the local church is part of the national organization." (Pg. 54-55)

and this
"because it is a rule and regulation of our church and as I said before and bears repeating anytime you join the church you give your implied consent to be governed and ruled by the regulations of that church. This manual says that every deed ought to contain paragraph nine. Whether they do it or not I think that you will find that the case law substantiates that position. Whether it's included or not, it's still a part of the deed if it's in the national church bylaws, constitution and it's here."(pg. 56)
This is a sharp contrast of opinion from the same person separated by approximately 3 years. What constituted this tight relationship in 2005 regarding the property of Emmanuel COGIC to capitulate to a "voluntary" relationship regarding pastor Sherman Allen and his sexual abuse of members of his church that was part of the COGIC for over a 20 year period of time?

Could it be convenience? Could it simply be a way for the national church to save face? Or could it possibly be a way to preserve assets?

What Does This Mean?

If Elder Perry's testimony is true regarding Emmanuel, then all churches which are a part of the Church Of God In Christ are potentially assets available to settle the claims of the church's creditors or lawsuits if necessary. If this preacher's testimony was false then he either does not know the constitution  of the church (interpreting it erroneously) or has possibly committed perjury which is a criminal offense. Now, before anyone claims that I've slandered the bishop, these are legal proceedings of which I have personally read the testimony and so if there is slander the one testifying has slandered himself. Also before anyone further claims mutual exclusivity, similar testimony regarding the church was rendered in 1999 to rend control of New Jerusalem COGIC away from it's membership and into the hands of the jurisdictional Bishop and ultimately the National church. The national church claimed an "implied trust clause" upon all member churches real property and assets.

This is a legal review summary from a case involving New Jerusalem COGIC who tried to remove their church from the Church Of God In Christ upon the death of their Pastor:
"A local church, if it desires to remain independent of the influence of a parent church body, must maintain this independence in the important aspects of its operation, e.g., polity, name, finances. It cannot, as here, enter a binding relationship with a parent church which has provisions of implied trust in its constitution, bylaws, rules, and other documents pertaining to the control of property, yet deny the existence of such relationship. A local church cannot prosper from and enjoy the benefits afforded by a parent hierarchical church, participate in the functioning of that body, and then disclaim affiliation when the parent church acts contrary to the desires of the local church, so as to shield from equitable or contractual obligations the
property acquired by the local church either before or during such affiliation."
Section III: The Bishop & Emmanuel COGIC A Closer Look:

In this ongoing case regarding Emmannuel COGIC of Wichita, KS, which has been thoroughly documented at COGICJUSTICE. The church had a desire to be transferred from under the leadership of Bishop Joseph C. Gilkey of Kansas Southwest to Kansas Central jurisdiction within the Church Of God In Christ (Yes the same organization). In fact the founding pastor, Elder Joshua Stidham, died on Oct. 24th 2004, was buried Oct. 26th, 2004 and against the wishes of the people a supposed new pastor was appointed by Bishop Gilkey Oct. 31st 2004. What's equally as bad is that Bishop Gilkey would not allow or facilitate the wishes of 100% of the membership of the church in a legal vote on the issue, but instead refused to hear the church's request to transfer and escalated the situation through multiple legal proceedings and court battles. As a result it's been a long hard struggle for this church and they recently received a restraining order from their Bishop...YES you read it right...a RESTRAINING ORDER from their Bishop on a case that was originally mediated and settled WITH PREDUJICE. Not only did the Bishop in this case serve a restraining order on the church, he renewed a case that was settled with the agreement that the issue would never rise again.



For Emmanuel's trouble, the only ones who have seemingly acted with any godliness and clarity of thought has been the Bishop Samuel Nesbitt who is also the Chief Justice of the COGIC Judiciary Board, and the others such as Associate Chief Justice Thomas Jackson Jr. and Associate Justice Talbert Swann. Under the direction of Bishop Nesbitt they have clearly said:
"The constitution gives the Jurisdictional Bishop authority to fill vacancies that occur in the pastorate in the jurisdiction over which he presides. He is not to fill the vacancy by placing himself or his designee inn the vacancy, under the title of Pastor but under the authority of his Episcopal office he or his designee is to supervise or manage the said church until such time as the pastor is appointed to fill the vacancy. The Bishop is to set in order the things that are needed, as instructed in Titus 1:5 (Biblical Authority)" [Dissenting Opinion Constitutional Violations At Emmanuel Pg. 4]
Bishop Nesbitt also said this:
"The power to appoint and ordain elders within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over which he presides, is vested in the Bishop only, but the screening of the Elders to be appointed or ordained is a shared responsibility. When the selection of the Elder has been made by the "Trinity", Jurisdictional Bishop, District Supt. and Congregation, the Bishop then appoints the chosen Elder as Pastor to fill the vacancy in the Pastorate." [Dissenting Opinion Constitutional Violations At Emmanuel Pg. 5]
They conclude by saying in the dissent:
"The majority decision of the court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful consequences for the church at large" [Dissenting Opinion Constitutional Violations At Emmanuel Pg. 9]
I wonder why more men of the character and resolve of Bishop Nesbitt do not serve in greater and more numerous capacities within our church. It would certainly be a help in all aspects of church growth and development, as right now we can see that flesh has a high potential to not only get in the way, but to also oppress the people of God, claiming privilege where it has not planted and reaping what it has not sown. There ought to be shame for what has been allowed as these events have not gone without the input of the Presiding Bishop and the General Board. What can we expect as a result of the 102nd Convocation? The answer to that question  remains to be seen.
 
Blessed!

Special Update 11/25/2009: Since the COGIC Web Site; Bishop Blake meets,  will not allow my comment to be published, I thought I would let you, the reader know what I said so that you can contrast it to the comments they allowed to go through. There are less than a handfull of comments similar to mine so I really don't know why this one was restricted for some reason...You tell me:

Comment Dated:
November 9, 2009 at 10:56 pm


Thank God Presiding Bishop Blake & General Board. I was encouraged and inspired by the Holy Convocation.

So far as the sexual abuse policies. I have set forth that we should yet incorporate a method to address and minister to the victims of this type of abuse. They are the ones suffering.

You are doing well by revising and implementing policies aimed at prevention, however the victims need repair and handling from the church once abuse has been established. I’m not talking about consensual relationships exposed or gone bad, I’m talking healing the victims of abuse.

I don’t believe that we will be successful or blessed by God in these type of efforts unless we make a solid and open commitment to addressing the victims and ministering to their needs. I sent you the advocacy plan located here: http://www.reportcogicabuse.com/nvap.html .

Can we meet to discuss it or at least discuss modifying it to make it better and more effective in meeting the needs of the church and people of God? I believe that we must implement a new strategy to address the needs of victims and I believe the heart of our leadership is interested in doing that too, but will we act?

In All Humility~ Supt. H. Burnett



Read more!

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Youth S.O.S!

We Must Rescue Our Youth

"We're not animals. We're not savages.
We're students and we're trying to achieve,"
Maritza Morales
Richmond High student

Richmond High School in Richmond, CA. has become the center of attention over the last week but not in the way that either it's citizens or the rest of America would have liked.


One would not have thought that a school Homecoming celebration would take on a criminal tone and be froth with what could be considered the most animalistic and degrading treatment of a fellow human being in recent times.

According to CNN.com, It was at a school homecoming that a 15 year old girl had her human dignity stripped away from her while as many as 20 or more people looked on with amusement. This was heinous crime that needs our attention as the church and as a community of believers. It is our time to rise and go back to what we know that works and the only thing that will deliver our youth and families from the whims of human moral relativism and the dank and dark depths and capacity of sin found within the human heart without Christ as savior.

Because of this I have enclosed a special message that I hope will encourage you to be and further become a part of the solution to this degeneration and decay of human value that is all too prevalent and observable within our communities. Please be encouraged: (Click on POSTS at the bottom of the player and then click the message to play it in its entirity)


So far there have been approximately 5 arrests and a host of individuals identified that were simply perverted , spineless onlookers who found pleasure in the degradation of a fellow human being.  Video and tape sales won't help us past this one...we don't need personality, we need Jesus! Let us engage in prayer for this young lady who from all accounts was a good person and regardless of that was a person who certainly did not deserve to be demoralized and dehumanized in this way. May the grace, peace and strength and healing power of the Lord Jesus be with her now like never before! Amen.

Blessed!

Further Details Mercury News.com

Read more!

Larry D. Trotter: "I Was At Death's Door"


This article is not filled with bold faced assertions and character assassination is not the object. The object is to examine the conflict between the understanding and application of holiness in the life of many 21st Century leaders.

An Interview With The Bishop
Leadership, is one of the greatest jobs a person can have. Whether it's leading a crew of employees in secular employment or leading a team to competition and victory. The greatest and most exhaustive type of leadership is spiritual leadership. It's often thankless and strenuous. Many desire the accolades that leadership sometimes brings but few want the responsibility or criticisms that comes along with it.

Recently I come across a leader that has a long history within the church and decided to take a listen and hear for myself what he had to say. I can't tell you enough how surprised I was to hear some of what I heard and also how relived I was to hear some things especially if his accounting was true. So far as the content and even my assertions, one can judge for themselves and feel free to express your opinions if you would like.

In an interview with Kevin Bond of Straight Talk of StreamingFaith.com Bishop Larry D. Trotter explained his ministry, separation from The Full Gospel Baptist Church, and his current condition of health.

To put rumors to rest he stated that the separation from the Full Gospel Baptist Church was a peaceful one, and that his current condition of health is partially driven by heart disease and other illnesses for which he is currently undergoing treatment. The reason the latter is important is because there is a current RUMOR that the Bishop's health condition was certainly more serious than he states. My thoughts are that I hope he recovers and continues to recover well and speedily.

I've posted the interview and one particular part stood out. It was the part regarding the teaching against sin within the church. Here is the interview:

Video Removed Due To Improper Play Protocols
Please go to following link: Bishop L.D. Trotter

Holiness Of The Believer

I thought the initial segment of the interview was very interesting for a number of reasons. According to GCMWatch.com in April 2009 Bishop Trotter conducted a revival at an openly "gay" affirming church within Pastor Yvette Flunder's organization. Now, some will say this is judgemental and is only guilt by association, but the problem is how can one revive something that shouldn't exist? IE: The only way to help a church that is caught in homosexuality is to call the entire church to repentance of their sins and to ask them to renounce homosexuality as the sin that it is. Some may say that the "dead" need to be revived, however I will say that those that are "dead in their trespasses and sins" only need repentance according to the word and that is the only point from which there can be true revival.

Sin And The Old Church

This portion of the interview went like this; As you saw Kevin talked about the lack of preaching in the church against sin. Bishop Trotter responded saying the following:

"It's kind of ahh 21st century church or Christian kinda y'u-know, do what you wannna do..."they all people leave 'em alone." So we don't, as pastors this day and age...The church is so relaxed we just accept any kind of lifestyle, there's no challenge on lifestyle or moves, y'u-know, in the church. It's like OK, I'm gonna get up here and preach, I'm gonna get an offering, I'm gonna get a nice car, or a plane,...I ain't botherin' nobody, about issues of sin.


When have we heard on TV or in our pulpits, collectively, people talk about sin? When do we hear, anymore, people talk about true repentance? Y'u-know, those were things that...when we came to Christ, that we were told as young people, to ask God's forgiveness, y'u-know. And I don't hear that a lot. Don't hear repentance message at all."
As stated, these comments and the Bishop's assessments was especially interesting for a number of reasons. Was the church in St. Louis called to repentance along with the lesbian Presiding Bishop? I don't know but I would like to know when given the opportunity to preach against sin, did the Bishop take advantage of that opportunity, or did he simply just collect his offering and not "bother nobody"???

Additional Observations

Another observation is that Bishop Trotter is known to preach sexuality provocative titled messages and implore a high level of carnality within those messages. In my experience, preachers who do such things are often found with many sexual impurities within their life. Unfortunately, those things are not uncommon to many within "what's up doc?", or "good ole boy" preachin' circles. One example is a message this same Bishop preached in Peoria, IL some time ago entitled, "What To Do When You're Horny". Now, because the church has become so morally weak, and spiritually blind by flesh and it's desire for fame, accolade and association, some may think even that title is acceptable, but just in case you didn't know anything like that is unbecoming of communication between Saints and is very doubtful if not impossible that it's a communication from God.

Ephesians 4:29 ~"Let no corrupt COMMUNICATION proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

Colossians 4:6 ~ "Let your speech [be] alway WITH GRACE, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man"

Defilement Of The Sanctuary

In all of this the church is usually only a building where the "show' takes place and there is no real sanctity that goes along with the sanctuary. Case and point and right on que: This Bishop also allowed his church to be used for a Michael Jackson memorial where the church was involved in not only by commemorating Michael's life, but also singing his songs, and having a good time in Michael's name. Now, when Michael died, this was a practice many places within the body of Christ. Pastor's opened their doors for Michael Jackson singing and dancing commemorations. In other words, the house of God was allowed to be defiled in honor and deference to a sinner.

This is a highly confusing message to send to he church if the object is to preach against and stand against sin. I wonder did the older saved individuals to which the Bishop referred present anything like that or along those lines to him in his youth?

Finally, even though Minister Larry Hampton has declared his freedom from homosexuality under bishop Trotter's ministry at Sweet Holy Spirit church, the report however is that there is an overwhelming amount of homosexual members and attendees within his church. To his credit, Bishop Trotter has stood against homosexuality publicly and from his pulpit on various occasions that we are aware of. However, individuals who regularly attend his church, and some who have positions within the church and who are also openly homosexual, and continue to practice homosexuality, remain without remorse or repentance.


Divorce

This is yet another issue that the "old church" to which Bishop makes reference, certainly would not have approved of. That church certainly would not have endorsed divorce, but yet Bishop has unfortunately joined the ranks of Bishop Weeks the $5,000 pen buying, multimillion dollar deal writing, Juanita Bynum II, and Multimillion dollar condo having, recently reinstated pastoring Paula White's and ad nauseum. All of these say that their ministry will be better than it was before the divorces. Paula White even states that her marriage was only for a "season" according to the word of God, and she's entering into a new season to fulfill her destiny.  But that IS another story. In Trotter's case there was so much controversy over the divorce and his lifestyle (and yet is today) that he has made a Uncut Confessions DVD in which he promises to answer all speculations regarding hisife and family issues, and health issues. Although that's good, I would like to hear his wife's story. I believe she will add a great deal of context to what the Bishop says, or doesn't say.

Conclusion

I certainly agree with the Bishop that, no matter what is preached, many will do what they will regardless. However, the actions of the Bishop are a far cry from what he teaches (at least in these instances)and are therefore very difficult if not impossible to reconcile.

1 Timothy 3:1-5 ~ "1-This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2-A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3-Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;  4-One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 -(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) "

It is incumbent upon leaders to make the way of the Lord plain and not mix that way with flesh. Since the flesh cannot please God, the rationalizations that are birthed out of the flesh are inadequate when it comes to HIS service.

The deeper message is that this interview represents a sizable contingency of today's leaders. Knowing what should be done but seemingly stuck with the inability to do or perform it. It may be that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Romans 7:15-21 ~ "15-For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16-If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good. 17-Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18-For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not. 19-For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20-Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21-I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22-For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23-But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24-O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

In these times it is critical to have salvation and further the spirit of the Lord. That begins with relationship with HIM and service to HIM. Without that relationship, we will live contrary to our confession and without that power, we are ineffective in a world filled with misery, grief, misdirection and confusion. However we must overcome, because Jesus has overcome, we will be over-comers also.

I say let's take back 21st Century Holiness and servitude to the level that pleases God. I am certain that much of what we accept and allow in the modern church will be rejected in the Day of Judgement. The church must go back to a solid and firm foundation of truth rooted in truth and be willing to place itself in the way for that truth. Maintenance of and with the world and its system is unacceptable and a futile effort. The change must come from the pulpit, but if it doesn't God is seeking the faithful, the humble and the powerful to walk along side HIM into their deliverance. Will you be one of those?

Micah 6:8~ "He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to WALK HUMBLY with thy God?"

Blessed!

Read more!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Unnaturally Selected, 150 Years Of Deception

Before We Get Started:

We have had some recent and good discussion regarding science, evolution and evolutionary theory on this blog. This will likely be my last post in the series. The other posts can be located as follows:


Until recently even the radicals have been fairly behaved and welcomed. Those whom we've come to know as regulars are yet welcomed, and new individuals willing to respectfully engage are certainly encouraged to provide their insights, but the charlatans that think that ad hominems are basis for debate, or that can't read what is directly addressed, can crawl back into the pit of primordial slime from which they believe they have arrived. Those individuals are certainly not welcomed. But for the rest, atheist and theist alike, who simply love true dialogue and debate, and want to get to the truth of the issues, let us press on.

150 Years Of Deceit


As we run headlong into the 150th anniversary of the Magnum Opus of Charles R. Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life (Yes, Favored Races, namely and more specifically them that are WHITE- and they continue to say he wasn't racist-go figure!)
There is a WHY to life and that why is  not in natural processes but in Jesus Christ!  As Christians we are becoming equipped to both understand evolutionary arguments and also put down evolutionary rhetoric and dogmas which have made their rounds, deceiving many into believing that both man and ape share what is called a common ancestor. In fact the Darwinian evolutionary theory of common descent is that all biological beings share this common ancestor, and over time, through process of natural selection, mutation and what is otherwise considered blind process, there have been branches upon branches of species and phyla created to produce this wonderful world of diversity and what we call life.
According to the atheistic evolutionary faithful, in the end man has no need for God as God is a development of the creative ability and capacity of man. In fact in the Darwinian world, God is bad, a concept devised by the clever seeking to hold man's mind captive and keep him away from the truth that we are simply chemical biological, reproductions of natural selection.

Thankfully, we do not all believe that garbage. I am one especially that doesn't find consuming the "trash" of Darwinism amusing in the least bit. In fact, for a number of reasons, most of which have been discussed on this blog, it takes an unbelievable leap into a blind chasm to believe Darwin's view of the world. With Darwinism, one must first believe that all of what we see came from nothing but chemicals in a pool of primordial soup in an electro charged environment over millions of years, and that somehow, out of that all life sprung up to what we see today.

Fact: Without DNA there is no self-replication within the cell. Without self replication there can be no natural Selection. This creates a circular box for evolutionists as they cannot use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA as would be required under their theory.

In other words the Neo-Darwinists would like us to believe that impersonal and unreasonable brute force of blind, random and naturally selected processes (which could not have started itself as a process) somehow hones species over time to create beings ultimately which have the ability to reason, think, communicate and assign value, such as man.

God Has Made The Whole Play!

I encourage all Christians to get envolved in sharing the truth and God's word regarding this dogma. Anyone can learn the concepts to speak to evolutionists and raise the level of dialogue. This Sistah, makes me so very proud. All I say, keep up the good work and make it even better next time.



Natural Selection The Concept:

"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were. ~ Darwin, C. R. 1860. 'On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.' London: John Murray. 2nd edition, second issue. pg.84
“If I were convinced that I required such additions [new powers and attributes and forces] to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish.” ~ Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 2:6.


“the Devil’s gospel”~ Charles Darwin, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 8, 1860, ed. Frederick Burkhardt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 316.


“My deity.” ~ Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 2:165.
Natural Selection The god Who Is A Force

The force behind Darwinian evolutionary common descent is a process known as natural selection. It is quite interesting that according to Carroll Lane Fenton, in 'Darwin and the theory of evolution' [1924] [Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Julius], that Darwin himself published the theory of natural selection while he himself was yet a believer in "special creation". Further, so far as theism or God belief was concerned, Darwin records that it  “was strong in my mind…when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.” 'Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin': 1809–1882, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W. W. Norton, 1958), 93. This displays the utter apostasy and confusion of heart that was the birthplace of many of the scientific ideals that Darwin set forth.

According to the proponents and followers of this theory, natural selection only preserves favorable variations within species, while conveniently destroying unfavorable variations within species, and sometimes eliminating species all together. For evolutionists natural selection becomes god crossing boundaries and problems of the slow development of complicated organs like the eye and heart. In Darwinian theory natural selection allows organs to change their use over time potentially leaving vestigial organs (a theory which has been proven to be false) and preserving and modifying the "good" organs to aid the survival of the fittest species. In other words, this is a very violent process and one that is not to be reasoned with. As atheist James Randi states natural selection is a process filled with "biological experimentation" resulting in the beauty that we see and continue to see today.
According to Biology Online.org natural selection si defined as follows:
"A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations."
Atheistic evangelist Richard Dawkins preaches that the gospel of Natural Selection is a sort of middle ground between design and chance processes. He says this:


"If it (natural selection)really were "chance" it couldn't possibly give rise to ahh the ahmm wonderful panoply of complexity that we see. So it isn't chance and it isn't design, it's natural selection. Natural selection is an anti-chance process, it's a non random process."
Hold the phone Dr. I was born at night, but NOT last night. According to your redefinition of natural selection it's neither chance nor design and it isn't random...OK what is it? Maybe he will enlighten us:

"So this is another of the difficult things to grasp, the hand of time is one of them, the absence of a controller, the absence of a top down governor, designer, creator, is very hard to grasp, because we're so used to the idea that complicated things that look as though they've been designed, ahmm must have been designed, well they mustn't have been designed, they don't have to be designed, natural selection will do the job as well, that is a very hard concept for some people to grasp"
OK, that helps.(NOT! About like sugar "helps" cavities)
According to Dr. Dawkins Natural selection is simply "hard to believe" because there is no-one at the helm. OK I am beginning to think that in Dr. Dawkins world the elevator goes to the top, but it's empty, no-one's waiting to get on it, and what's worse no body's pressed the button... He concludes by saying:


"There is a very, very powerful illusion of planning, powerful illusion of design, and it's a really staggering and exciting fact that, a blind physical process, natural selection, is capable of producing this extraordinary simulatrum of design."
Is that living in DENIAL or what? Wait a minute, he just said this,
"Natural selection is an anti-chance process, it's a non random process"
Then he says,
"it's a really staggering and exciting fact that, a blind physical process, natural selection, is capable of producing this extraordinary simulatrum of design.
OK I get it...According to Dr. Dawkins, natural selection isn't random it's just blind-Wow that makes the world a LOT more understandable now.

And they say atheism ISN'T a proposition of faith? Here we have a scientist that describes the evolutionary process of natural selection as a mid range between design and chance and blind processes. It's not dumb, it's simply blind so what you see, or in this case natural selection CAN'T see, is what you get. According to the good Dr. we all could have developed the morality of rape as being acceptable because our moral evolutionary past is arbitrary also.

"If You Don't Find A Bone Leave My Theory Alone"..."Atheists, You Have Been Bamboozled"!

The beautiful thing is that we don't all have to have a professional and polished presentation to know the truth. This sistah may not be as polished as some would like  but I say keep pushin' on.




Conclusion:

Natural selection is ineffective because from the beginning the believer was chosen by God. The problem with Darwinian evolutionary theory is that it takes away, soul, spirit, and all the immaterial parts of our being that exists. in other words the theory tells us that we are NOT what God made us but we are what the earth and processes have made us. Nothing could be further from the truth and a greater lie hasn't been perpetrated upon humanity in modern times.

The critic vehemently repeats that the "establishment"  and especially religious ideas are what tries to hold science evolutionary down. atheism through evolution has been taught to our children in the classrooms for over 50 years. I propose that the community rise against evolutionary science in part because it's  makes atheistic claims,  is full of anti-God,  racist and sexist concepts and is questionable science at best. Not to mention that evolutionary theory has no answers for the moral concerns of our community.

If there is anything we need is a relationship with God through Jesus. HE is the intelligence behind the veil of life and whether one tramples on his mercy or not, he has extended his mercy and simply says...don't believe a lie, come back to the TRUTH and that TRUTH will make you FREE.

Blessed!

Read more!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

"Hate Crimes" Legislation, Presidential Approval Of The Gay Agenda

This Is What God Says:

Leviticus 18:22-30 ~ 22-THOU SHALT NOT LIE with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. 23-Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion. 24-Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25-And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26- Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27-(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled;) 28-That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you.  29-For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. 30- Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that [ye] commit not [any one] of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I [am] the LORD your God.

This Is What The President Obama Says:



"My expectation is that when you  look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women, are just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

On Oct. 10,2009 President Barack Obama said these words to a warm and welcoming cheer from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, (HRC) a gay rights advocacy group which we have detailed on this site. In fact gay advocate, Harry Knox, current member of the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships was the former director of the HRC until Presidential appointment in April of this year.

In one of the most shocking parts of the President's speech he single handedly and in one sentence exalted gay and lesbian relationships to "admirability". Not only are the immoral relationships of homosexual unions out of the closet, they have taken center stage and are now touted as being something worth aspiring to. This means that homosexual relationships are, in the minds of many leaders of our country, at least equally as desirable as heterosexual ones. What has happened? This indicates a paradigm shift of morality, from objective values to culturally commensurate and relative values. Plain and simple the winds of CHANGE has shifted from the absolute truth of the God's word to a standard that is both socially and culturally acceptable and ever changing.

On Military Service

"I will end 'don't-ask-don't tell,'"..."We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country,"..."We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens ... especially when we are fighting two wars."...I will end don't-ask-don't tell, that's my commitment to you."

Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell was the tag name of the law was passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton. The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. President Obama said that he's working with Pentagon and congressional leaders on ending the policy so that gays can serve openly in the military without fear of reprisal or discharge.

The question is do the straight men and women that serve in the military mind taking showers with and bunking with individuals who are openly gay? Is there a psychology that comes along with these type of associations that make it difficult for both the straight and homosexual person? Will there be a greater risk on the battlefield for a homosexual than for a straight individual.? Will the homosexual receive preferential treatment in advancements and promotions?

I'll deal with some of these questions in the racism & the struggle for equal rights below.

On Marriage
"And I've called on congress to repeal the so called defense of marriage act and and to pass the domestic partners benefit and obligations act."
The HRC was one of the major advocates for repealing Prop. 8 in California and suffered a black eye at the hand of what they considered to be the "religious right". Since then 7 states plus DC have joined the ranks of legalized gay marriage bringing the total to 9 states plus DC. This is working according to the plans of the gay activist movement and in particularly groups such as Gay And Lesbian Advocate Defenders (GLAD) and Lambda Legal. who have aggressive plans to make homosexual marriages legal across the United States.

With that comes child indoctrination. As homosexual marriages become legal, and because we currently allow a system of federally controlled education, text books and syllabuses must be changed to reflect the laws of the land. This has happened, and will continue to happen as parents find that they have no rights when it comes to protecting their children in the public education setting. I've documented one such case HERE in Massachusetts which is the "gold standard" for homosexual educational rights.

President Obama has further committed and deeply entrenched himself himself into the homosexual agenda. From the Presidential Web site the further plans are open for everyone to view:


"President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Racism & The Struggle For Equal Rights

Is the struggle against racism and for homosexual rights equated? In my opinion absolutely NO. Homosexuality DOES NOT equal the struggle for racial equality although the struggle for social acceptance follows the a similar path.

The critic says that in all of those questions that were asked above, we can simply remove homosexual and insert Black. Those were similar considerations when Blacks were allowed to serve in the proverbial "white man's" army? But is that really the case?

Being Black is certainly nothing that can be changed neither can it be repressed although many try. Black is something that is beyond an individuals choice "to do" and one cannot vacillate between being black and or any other color. In fact once a person IS Black they cannot become any other race or nationality. most say that 1% of blood that is Black is Black forever no matter how bleached it may be.

Similarly to my Grandmother who was 100% Chippewa. By all accounts she looked like a white woman. She married a Black man. When that happened,  her future children, as fair skinned as they would be, were no longer considered Indian (except by the gov't & casino industry) They were considered Black. In fact when my father showed up at the job at General Motors in Detroit, MI., light skinned and as much straight hair as he wanted to have, his skin was yet a half hue darker than white, and immediately my Grandmother, as faithful and good worker as whe was lost her job.

Sexual Choice


You see, all sex is a choice. Although many feel sex is an uncontrollable urge, it's really a choice. Love is also a choice and it is a spiritual venture not meant to be controlled by feelings (as it often is) or emotions (as is the modern standard). Homosexuality is not subject to the constraints of God and is a violation of his word. Plain and simple. It is a sin, along with heterosexual sin, and one must be saved or delivered from sexual sins IF that is one's propensity. I have written about a much argued point on Homosexuality In The New Testament HERE. FYI: God still does not favor homosexuality and it is still a sin.

Be it known, as I have stated clearly before on this blog, no person deserves to be discriminated against in employment, housing or the right to live and pursue freedom because they are homosexual. The reason is because homosexuality is not an illegal activity under the law (at least in most places). Homosexuality has advanced in the American Psychiatric Association (APA) definitions, and was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973. All disciplines soon followed. 

However the doors are open to members and advocates of other so called "sexual minorities" such as pedophiles and the incestuous, who are making the statement and asking the question, "I'm think I'm normal, why not make my sexual lifestyle legal?"

I'm sure that Warren Steed Jeffs is claiming that polygamy and pedophilia have not been give a fair hearing, and that he should not be in jail, not only because he's God's messenger, but also because he's simply a "sexual minority". Then there's movie mogul Roman Polanski who certainly feels unfairly treated especially since the young lady he sexually assaulted 10 years ago was 13 years old. He knows that the legal age of sexual consent in the Netherlands is 12, (see note below) and that America is just plain ole unfair.

Conclusion:

President Obama ended his speech by saying,
"Thank you for the work you're doing, God bless you, God bless America!"
The reality is how can we ask God to bless us when we endorse something contrary to his nature, his will and his word? How can that be blessed of God?

God has spoke and the President has spoken. Who's words will you follow and believe?

For me I'll conclude by saying this:

Joshua 24:15 ~ "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, we will serve the LORD."


Blessed!


Should We Be Alarmed About Hate Crimes Legislation?
Read HERE and then read HERE.


Note:
The Netherlands has no sodomy laws, the age of sexual consent is 16 for all, sex between an adult and a young person between the ages of 12 and 16 is permitted by law, as long as the young person consents. It may only be prosecuted by complaint from the young person or the young person’s parents. The question remains whether the public prosecutions department would proceed to prosecute if the young person themself had consented and their parents filed the complaint.





Read more!

Saturday, October 17, 2009

COGIC Victims Advocacy, Essential, Necessary & Urgent Pt. 2


As a subsequent article to our initial post COGIC Victims Advocacy, Essential, Necessary & Urgent Pt. 1 , on 10/15/2009 Charisma Magazine Online featured the work of Pastor D. L. Foster of GCMWatch in bringing attention to what has been considered by many, including myself, to be unchecked immoral and criminal behavior among some fellow COGIC ministry brethern.


In the Charisma article Pastor Foster points toward the newly established web site created to assist COGIC victims of sexual abuse in the healing process with spiritual support as well as poignant advice on how to proceed to rectify problems or file complaints in the event of criminal activity. The site is known as Reportcogicabuse.com. The site is not sponsored or run by the national church but is certainly endorsed by this ministry and many other COGIC ministries across the country. Whether the General Board Of Bishops knows it or not there is an outcry across the nation for the healing of God's people.  

As stated in the previous article, on an unsolicited basis, I personally undertook the opportunity to address the glaring problems that COGIC faced and continues to face from the improprieties of some of it's clergy. In fact my proposal, presented to the highest officials of our church, covered a period of 20 years in which time various elders and ministers and Bishops engaged in improper sexual activity and criminal behaviors. These crimes were documented and in many cases resulted in the perpetrators receiving the full weight of penalty under the law. In some cases individuals died before prosecution could begin and no restitution was ever made.

One such case that did not escape the courts was that of Supt. Leon Dupree of New York. This Elder was charged with rape, burglary and assault with a weapon purportedly done to one of the members of his former church in 1988. Here's the summary from the news report regarding his crime:
[Rome] Daily Sentinel 5/28/88
Rev. Leon Dupree, 47, pastor of Lily of the Valley Church of God in Christ in Rochester, NY, is charged with first degree sexual assault and first degree burglary of a 26 year old woman. She said he was armed with a hammer and struck her with a screwdriver. Dupree was convicted of second degree manslaughter in a 1978 drunken driving fatality and served time in state prison.
Not only did Elder Dupree kill someone before he was saved (I assume) he faced conviction as a rapist and a burglar while he was a pastor. Now a fair question is was he convicted? In response to that, there is no statement from Elder Dupree in any venue proclaiming his innocence. That may be an argument from silence in lieu of court records, but in this case it's pretty powerful. To the heart of the matter, Elder Dupree is currently Pastoring a new and reorganized church called New Visions Community COGIC and his church is in the jurisdiction of General Board member Bishop Frank O. White, which for some reason was absolutely unavailable both in person, phone and fax when my proposal was sent to his fellow Presidium members.

Now the problem with this is NOT that Elder Dupree can repent, serve time and make restitution, as he did at least once previously. Thank God IF he has been restored. The problem is the "IF", and the shuffle.

The people of God have a right to know IF this pastor committed the crime, IF this pastor has repented, IF this pastor has continued to go through the motions in spite of his pastoral and criminal history, and IF the church has taken these matters seriously enough to monitor the pastor's progress and exclude him from pastoral ministry IF he was convicted and IF there are any potential situations in which he has direct contact with individuals in private settings.

There is much that we don't know about Leon Dupree but from a theological standpoint there are some sins that can be done which causes us to lose our birthright and inheritance. We can, by our actions, exclude ourselves from certain duties within the Kingdom of Christ. Example: Moses could not enter into the promised land, nor continue to lead God's people by his own actions. (Deut. 32:48-52) David could not build the Temple of God, by his own actions. (1 Chron 28:2-3)  Esau was blessed, but could not receive what he thought would be the right of the firstborn because he mishandled what he had been given. (Gen. 25:34) King Saul, though anointed by God, was rejected from being King by his own actions. (1 Sam. 15:22-23)  So one should be able to recognize that from a biblical standpoint, this is a very serious issue and one that has many potential spiritual and social ramifications.

Elder Dupree, yet serves and more than likely, his members have never been advised of his past actions and activities. This has nothing to do with his ability to deliver the message, but it has everything to do with the security of God's people and respect and honor for the house of God. If Elder Dupree was found innocent of all charges, I'll be the first to post that right here on this site.

A Church Response

The reason that all of this is especially important, is because of the words of Supt. Derrick Hutchins to Charisma regarding the work of Elder Foster. His statements were unbelievable.

For a little context and texture: Supt. Hutchins is the Chairman of the National Elders Council in the COGIC. This is a very important position when it comes to the disciplinary actions against other pastors, as Elders from various jurisdictions who would be responsible for presenting recommendations for pastoral disciplinary actions, would have Supt. Hutchins as an available resource to answer questions on church policy. In short, his position could directly effect what recommendations are made by jurisdiction review boards when it comes to pastoral discipline. This is what he said about Elder Foster's efforts:

"That's the part that I really find offensive," Hutchins said. "Because sometimes it's written like all we want to do is save ourselves from liability, we don't really care about people—and that's not true at all."..."Our first concern is the parishioners, not just pastors," he added. "We do not tolerate pastors in the pulpit who are found guilty of these improprieties."

In one fell swoop, Supt. Hutchins overlooks all of the current and pending litigation against the church, bypasses all of those ministers, Elders and Bishops who have been convicted, skips over the SETTLEMENT that took place at All Saints because of allegations of rape, and states that guilty pastors aren't tolerated in the pulpits. He says that there is concern for the "people" but nothing in his statements express that concern.

Charisma went on to summarize Supt. Hutchins statements as follows:
The denomination's constitution calls for ministers accused of egregious sexual misconduct such as rape or pedophilia to be immediately suspended while the claims are being investigated.
I want to know IS THAT TRUE? Why would I, a 29 year member (me) of the church ask? First, I admit that I don't know everything, and if I don't know this, then chances are that you don't either. So it must be called into question. Secondly, I've NEVER seen the procedures that Supt. Hutchins outlines followed by anyone anywhere in this church. In fact, none of these so called procedures were followed while Pastor Sherman Allen was yet claiming to be a part of the COGIC and multiple women had claimed rape.

Supt. Hutchins concluded with a most interesting statement:

“I want to believe that every bishop is committed to carrying out the constitution as it relates to these grievous acts,” Hutchins said. “Anybody who can find where it’s not being carried out and can prove it, I’m sure that charges will be brought against that bishop who did not carry out his responsibility."


Based on these statements, a deeper question regarding what actually happened in the Sherman Allen case is in order...Has Bishop J. Neaul Haynes (COGIC General Board Member) who oversaw the Allen church proceeding,  been set up as the "fall guy" for the church's inaction in that case? Based on the statements of Hutchins, is this or could this be  the "golden ticket" for the church to possibly and potentially escape what is promised to be a landmark case with serious implications both spiritually and financially to the "Grand Ole" Church Of God in Christ? I find Supt. Hutchins statements to be shocking in light of the current circumstance.

Same Song Different Singer:

Please notice, in addition to the above, that in Supt. Hutchin's view is that the member must prove their allegation of sexual impropriety against the pastor to the church before any action will be taken. This is preposterous and does nothing to address the root of the problem. Additionally, there are no measures to address the stability or condition of the victims under any circumstance. There is a glaring vacuum of inaction toward the victims that not only this Supt. does not see or appear to understand, but that the church as a whole refuses to acknowledge from the Presiding Bishop's office on down.

This is one of the most discouraging parts about Supt. Hutchins commentary. There may well be policy that is certainly not being carried out requiring some mass new training, but there is absolutely nothing that the church has set in place to heal the people or heal the land when these issues arise as they continue to arise in this church. God help us, to say the least.

Blessed!


Read more!

Does Science Presuppose Atheism?


"I toyed with atheism from the age of about nine, originally because I worked out that, of all the hundreds of religions in the world, it was the sheerest accident that I was brought up Christian. They couldn’t all be right, so maybe none of them was. I later reverted to a kind of pantheism when I realised the shattering complexity and beauty of the living world. Then, around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since." [Richard Dawkins You Ask The Questions Independent February 20 2003]

The Problem

As mentioned in the post The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind, and later questioned in Is Evolution Science? It seems that modern scientific theory comes with an automatic presuppositional bias against theism in general. This bias is constructed on the chassis of methodological naturalism, which primarily deals with how one gains "trustworthy" knowledge or information from the natural or material world in which we live. This is called epistemology.

Usually, along with the proposition of methodological naturalism, comes a stance know as Metaphysical Naturalism, which focuses on what actually exists within the natural world and makes bold statements of what doesn't exist within the natural world. This is called ontology. Both of these constructs usually lend themselves to anti-super-naturalism, which is the belief that there is no outside intervention in the present day world from any source and specifically the source called God. I've discussed that topic and the flaws of that sort of reasoning in depth HERE. The backbone of all of this sort of thinking is atheism (the denial of the existence of God).

Each of these constructs are the philosophies of men seeking to affirm their place of relevance within the world. In fact what can be more appealing than believing that you (self) is actually in control of all parts of your being and that everything, no matter how complex, is controlled by processes, events and actions that have human origin and human sources. It is this sort of belief, that leads to skepticism (which can be healthy at times) but too often leads to radical metaphysical naturalism, where all things are viewed only as a discovery of life apart from God when in actuality all methodological naturalism does is measure what God has already done in history and continues to do in modern reality and real time.

Some are confused when they come to understand that the secrets of the universe are unlocked, not because God hasn't revealed himself, but because God has revealed himself and left evidence of his actions throughout all his creation. It is a lack of that understanding that modern science in the hands of metaphysical naturalists have missed.  Why? Partially because man, in his desperate attempt to find relevance in life, has excluded the very one that makes man relevant from the beginning:

Col. 2:8-10 ~ "8-Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9-For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10-And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:"

It is interesting to note that God places man at the center of his will and plans, but metaphysical naturalists place all other objects and things on the pedestal and claim that man has arrived via the sources of nature that are beneath man. The unfortunate part is that these sort of philosophies seem to proliferate among the most educated or those claiming the highest levels of academic literacy.  In fact college campuses have become a breeding ground for many of these philosophical constructs and they usually all begin when students take their first year philosophy class and are confronted with what is known as the problem of evil. This concept was taught by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270BCE) . The Epicurian problem of evil is usually constructed like this:

1- If a perfectly good God exists, then evil does not.
2- There is evil in the world.
3- Therefore, a perfectly good God does not exist

Paul was confronted with much of the same in his day by followers of this particular philosophy in Acts 17:16-21. So these sort of constructs are not foreign news to the bible or bible believers. One note of interest from this argument against the existence of God, and its various reconstructions and updates, is that all versions of it give way to the notion that God, if he exists, would be GOOD. This is an interesting observation and telling statement from all who would specifically deny God's existence while at the same time stating that if God exists his "goodness" is arbitrary.

One could rightfully ask the question, why is it that the most educated amongst us, are sometimes caught in this vice and trap of philosophical metaphysical naturalism? In addition to what I've stated above, what is appealing to individuals who many times have been raised in theistic homes where religion and God was the centerpiece of life and morality. More specifically how is it that Christian youth are by far falling away from the faith upon entering college and and being confronted with philosophies such as these?

Certainly not to oversimplify, but simply put, many people have never learned or simply choose not to live and walk by faith. In fact the "faith walk" has been so minimized and glossed over by the rank materialism of the modern church that it's a wonder that our youth maintain any significant values as they proceed through life. So in part the focus of life has shifted from faith to materialism:

Gal. 3:11 ~"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

2 Cor. 5:7~ "(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)"

Then there has been a sub-diversion of the mind. Once a person has known Christ and then rejects him and continues to live in sin, there is a blinding and shading of the spirit from what is spiritual. Then self-will sets in to further drive the heart and lead one to understanding that they can best reckon on their own terms.

Rom. 8:5-6 ~ "5-For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6-For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace."

Very Brief History Of Modern Science:

Modern science was birthed through the Renaissance (1400-1527 AD). "Natural Philosophy" was the term most often used to describe science at one time. Later Mikolaj Kopernik (1473-1543), whose Polish name was Latinized to Nicolaus Copernicus, described what was called a "new knowledge" and eventually set forth the notion that the sun, rather than earth, was the center of the universe and that the earth, not stars, were spinning and that process was the cause of the changes of the sky and in the earth that we see.

Later, when Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) applied mathematics to motion, (which heretofore had not existed under Aristotlean  physics) and invented the telescope which was able to view objects in space in better detail, science would take it's greatest leap ever in history. Galilei's studies and inventions affirmed many of Copernicus's theories. In church terms Galilei became one of the first "evangelists" of modernistic scientific theory by presenting his evidences to the church under his former friend, Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644). Unfortunately for Galilei he would later be jailed for life (house arrest) due to a character misinterpretation by the Pope of a piece of Galilei's work. Although Galilei didn't yield unto death or the shedding of blood,  modern science was born and there was no turning back.

Since that time there have been all kinds of scientists in all fields of science who have approached the subject from various points of view. Some have theistic and atheistic philosophical control beliefs and views. What is interesting to note is that peer pressure is highly at work within the field and study of science, even if that peer pressure endangers the actual exchange of good right and wholesome information. In fact within modern fields of science godlessness is a vocal position and rewarded and praised as being rational and the right way to think.

The Strange World Of Naturalistic Philosophy

In this world babies have no rights because they are consciously unaware of their existence, so abortions are OK. In this world animals are given and extended what was normally considered to be human rights, and afforded protections under the law that send people to prison. In this world sexual immorality and homosexuality in particular is placed on the same level as heterosexuality and extended a platform of "civil rights". The question is why can't other deviant sexual behaviors be extended or afforded the same rights? It's because in this world and through the metaphysically naturalist system, morality is established by the culture and is relative to the feelings of the one carrying out that morality.  

Rise Of Godless Philosophy Or Merely A Reversion To Old Sophisticated Excuses?

Although current studies show that about 38% of scientists in the natural sciences are atheistic in their philosophical worldview as compared to 31% of scientists in the "soft' sciences. These percentages are yet high as compared to the population of the United States which is said to have a 90%  theistic philosophical worldview. In the same study there was discussion over whether many of the scientist who denied theism di so because they really denied theism. In other words, it was clear that those who lived in what the church would consider to be sin, were the highest group claiming atheism or a non-theistic worldview.

As it pertains to the traditional scientific thinkers such as Dawkins, many see science at home in a world where no gods are included. They believe or at least set forth principles based on their assumed metaphysical naturalistic premise and hogtie those principles to reason (logic), as if to say that belief in science is the only "reasonable" way to understand and view the world and occurrences within the world and gain knowledge of the world itself. Therefore the result is an ugly three headed monster of natural and metaphysical philosophy tied together under the false interpretation of reason planted in the shallow ground of methodological naturalism and presented as science.

A Unique Relationship

Not all proponents of materialism deny the premise that philosophy of science is different from methodological science. There is a close but vastly different and interesting relationship. Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center For Science Education (NCSE), who describes herself as atheist but does not discount the importance of spirituality, sets forth the fine line regarding this relationship as follows:


"I have argued that a clear distinction must be drawn between science as a way of knowing about the natural world and science as a foundation for philosophical views. One should be taught to our children in school, and the other can optionally be taught to our children at home. Once this view is explained, I have found far more support than disagreement among my university colleagues. Even someone who may disagree with my logic or understanding of philosophy of science often understands the strategic reasons for separating methodological from philosophical materialism -- if we want more Americans to understand evolution."Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism May 1998

What she alludes to without saying it is that the philosophical materialism of science is the religious aspect of it and that zeal is carried by its most famed evangelists especially when it pertains to evolutionary theory. This is really quite telling because most scientists and those targeted by the new "good ole boy system" of scientific  affirmation, and what almost appears to be social club acceptance, do not distinguish the difference between the philosophical materialistic aspects of science and the purely methodological naturalistic aspect of science. In most venues these vastly different purposes and aspects of science are said, taught, and presented to be one in the same.

The same can be said true of evolutionary philosophy and the theory of evolution. It is often taught and presented with a metaphysical naturalistic bias that excludes the possibility of God replacing him with random processes over time and a purely synergistic relationship between matter and energy.

Do Scientists Need A Rescue?

Certainly the scientist who is often stymied by the vocal metaphysical naturalist minority are in need to be rescued from the radical right and left wing atheism which has crept into moder scientific method. Methodological naturalism has no necessity to give way to atheism or metaphysical naturalism, however this is the current condition and confusion of modern scientific method. Science, which is a valuable and needed tool in ordinary life should not be used as a tool to explain away God as in and of itself is not equipped to do so without being a philosophical construct. Science should remain neutral at best and worst even within a Christian or theistic environment. Modern scientific methods has lost it's purpose and feels that it should be rewarded for pointing to blind processes, random chance and time as justifiable answers to important life questions and universal concerns such as those aimed at by neo-Darwinian evolutionary science.

Unfortunately science has become the tool used to religiously and systematically recreate the mindset and shape it into a product of the culture, modern popularity and fads unbecoming of true scientific discovery. Remember the goal of humanism was and is to replace the city of God with the city of man. Gaining control of the educational process and dealing with origins is essential to that plan and the method that philosophical naturalism has taken and continues to take with the approval of the state which is ill equipped to discern and recognize the difference. The only way to make the state realize a religious construct and concept is to  wrap it up in a bible, prayer or other biblical literature. Believe that if God or God concepts were taught in the classroom as we found in Dover, PA., there would be no secrets nor silence and there would be resulting actions immediately. The critic says that ID was kicked out of Dover because it wasn't science, but I pose that ID was kicked out of Dover because it wasn't atheism taught under the guise of philosophical methodological naturalism.  

Conclusion:

One thing is sure, God doesn't need science to validate or approve of his intervention int the modern world. His power supersedes scientific laws that we feel define our world. In fact his law shapes our world in ways that are beyond scientific ability to comprehend. He is the only thing that has been here always and will be here always even after all scientific knowledge has been made illogical and irrelevant. However, in the meantime, our children and families must be taught the rudiments of science and the benefits that are currently gained through scientific understanding in the world in which we live.

I encourage Christians within the scientific community to take a stand, for this may be the whole purpose of your life and the opportunity that God has designed for you to make a difference. As a scientific community, I would encourage you to revert back to the time when science was understood as unlocking and discovering what God had already and historically done in this world.

With that said, it is incredulous to believe that complex process simply originate from mindless repetition of incomplexity that arose from nothing, for no purpose and for no reason. It is further more than a stretch of the imagination to believe that whatever is there somehow expands over time like an overweight individual in spandex until it creates something more complex than the information that it had to work with in the beginning. Even if that were the case, that in and of itself would be miraculous because we know know by studying chemical biology that it is much easier to understand complex functions in the light of the transfer of complex information. In other words, nothing "just happens" as evolutionary biologist would like us to believe. es, for mankind it is easier to measure what we can see, but measuring what is seen is not always the correct measure of the truth.

Blessed!

Read more!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The Dunamis Word On Satellite & Internet Radio


Thank God For HIS Goodness & Opportunity!


Pastor Harvey Burnett & The  Dunamis Word will be broadcast on satellite and simulcast on Internet radio beginning Saturday morning Oct. 17th 2009 at 9:30 AM CST. The broadcast will also be available for replay by Gcast.

The satellite stations carrying the broadcast will be Galaxy 19, Glory Star and SpiritCast. You can get to the live Internet stream link at Universal Christian Radio . Simply click the appropriate download speed for your computer.

As previously mentioned for those who miss the initial broadcast, the program will be saved and available on GCast. The GCast link will be  posted to this site.  We will deal with topics ranging from Christian faith and practice to post modern Christian culture, evangelism and apologetics.

Pastor Burnett will be interested in prayer requests and addressing listener inquiries. To suggest a topic please email at Dunamis1@netzero.com. Also remember to continue to pray for this ministry as we expand to fulfill the mission of Christ and meet the needs of God's people.


Luke 10:2 ~ "Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly [is] great, but the labourers [are] few: pray ye therefore the LORD OF THE HARVEST, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest."
Blessed!

Read more!

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Is Evolution Science?

I: Evolution ~ Philosophical Metaphysical Naturalism





"May not a future generation well ask how any scientist, in full possession of his intellectual faculties and with adequate knowledge of information theory could ever execute the feat of cognitive acrobatics necessary to sincerely believe that a (supremely complex) machine system of information, storage and retrieval, servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and them repairing them in a teleonomic Von Newman machine manner, arose in randomness-the antipole of information"~Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (Triple Doctorate) Huxley Memorial Lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University 2/14/1986

Dover, PA. 2005 Definition Of Science:

In the case where Intelligent Design (ID) was being taught in Public schools as science, the court held that the school board violated the establishment clause and that ID was no  more than  creationism repackaged. The court also held to the  validity of science according to the standards of the National Academy of Science's definition and said the following:

"As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." ( P-649 at 27)."

That was a most interesting definition. Did you notice what constitutes as science however? Here's the summary:

1- Science is LIMITED to empirical, observable, and ultimately testable data

2- Explanations are RESTRICTED to those which can be inferred from confirmable data.

3- Only has results that can be obtained through observation and experiments

4- Those results must be able to be  substantiated by other scientists.

5- Anything that can be observed or measured is "amenable" to scientific investigation

6- Explanations that are not empirical cannot be a part of science.


The amazing thing  about this is that evolution fails  under 5 of the 6 constructs. How?

1- Evolution  in the sense of Macroevolution has never been witnessed nor observed.

2- No data can be confirmed regarding evolution therefore any explanations for  it  cannot  be restricted to the available data. It has to be made to fit.

3- Evolution only occurs when species are made to show variation. there has been no new phyla created as evolution states. Only varying species and  most with severe limitations such as fruit  flies.

4- Evolution cannot be measured as postulations  take significant millions of  years for  cycles to reveal themselves. Secondly, the fossil  record is lacking and only consistent with  the biological explosion of the Precambrian era. there is no gradualism in the record.

5- There are no empirical explanations for  Macroevolutionary process. This is the overarching premise or process by which man is said to have descended along with primates from a common ancestor. There are no  empirical facts to back those assertions.

Can That Possibly Be Science?

Let's see, we have a system called "evolutionary science", that  has only been observed on a microevolutionary scale by which merely restricted variation has developed and some by laboratory design. We have plants and certain seeds that have been scientifically manipulated  for which scientists claim evolution, but  no evidence of similar biochemical process among any living thing.  There is no evidence of Macroevolutionary change creating new phyla and that has never been observed in any  known species, and  what claims that  exist  for such are refuted when studied more in depth. There is no fossil record to confirm historical macroevolutionary change, in  fact the  fossil record is consistent with sudden appearance of life forms and  creatures being made to be the way they are whereas evolution teaches gradualism, the evidence does not indicate such. Where is  the science of evolution? Is it in the peer groups or associations of the scientists themselves, the classrooms of the students, the books that they write. Where is it? Because it's certainly NOT in the scientific evidence.

I'm sorry my evolutionist friends, your dogma is what I call philosophical metaphysical naturalism. I believe this materialistic approach to science has caused the damage that we currently see played out in our children, families and social environments. Is evolution the ONLY cause? ABSOLUTELY NOT! but it is a cause. How is this so?

You have told people for generations that they are mere animals and except for the purpose they determine are without a higher purpose. You've told them that they were created by process of random chance and mutations. A mere accident of a spark called life. The effect is that they have been deceived into becoming animals and acting with the animalistic behaviour that you have encouraged through an empty worldview. They are  destroying themselves and our communities with murder, lust, greed, materialism, intellectualism, drugs and such the like and lending themselves to self directed relativistic morality or amoralism.


STOP The Madness!

I want my community back. My neighborhood back. My schools back, and my colleges back, and the future of my children back as well. The only way to do that is to insure that YOU either place your philosophical metaphysical naturalism, (which falls short of science under most definitions that  you postulate) in the guise of what you call science, onto the trash heap of history or exit the campuses and schools in which you pollute the minds of the young and vulnerable.

I ask every Christian to commit themselves to doing their part to make sure it is so.


II: Let's Take Another Look:



What has Dr. Michael Behe found that our local philosophical naturalist scientists say means nothing? Well, he can't be blamed for this one::

Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 1

First Post Conclusions:

A number of points can be drawn from this fine work:

  • The central point of The Edge of Evolution was tat if several amino acids of a protein must be changed before a certain selective effect is available, then that is effectively beyond the reach of Darwinian processes. Bridgham et al (2009) confirm that conclusion. (As an aside, it would make a good project for a sociologist of science to ask why the same conclusion is met with howls of protest when presented by a Darwinian skeptic such as myself, but garners praise when presented by someone else.)

  • There is no reason to think the protein studied by Bridgham et al (2009) is unusual in its difficulty of developing a binding site for even a relatively closely-related substance. In fact, in the absence of strong opposing data, that should be the default, reasonable assumption.

  • That same reasonable assumption counts strongly against any two unrelated proteins easily developing a binding site for each other.

  • That reasonable assumption therefore negates all woolly Darwinian evolutionary scenarios where critical protein binding sites are assumed without justification to pop up when needed (such as, say, in the building of multiprotein structures like the cilium or flagellum).

  • Thus the work strongly supports the conclusion of Edge that Darwinian processes are highly unlikely to have built the complex molecular machinery of the cell.
Second Post:

Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 2

Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution. The manuscript, from the laboratory of Joseph Thornton at the University of Oregon, is entitled “An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution”. ( http://tinyurl.com/yeq2cy8 ) The work is interpreted by its authors within a standard Darwinian framework, but the results line up very well with arguments I made in The Edge of Evolution. ( http://tinyurl.com/yba6vba )This is the second of several posts discussing it.

Using clever synthetic and analytical techniques, Bridgham et al (2009) show that the more recent hormone receptor protein that they synthesized, a GR-like protein, can’t easily revert to the ancestral structure and activity of an MR-like protein because its structure has been adjusted by selection to its present evolutionary task, and multiple amino acid changes would be needed to switch it back. That is a very general, extremely important point that deserves much more emphasis. In all cases — not just this one — natural selection is expected to hone a protein to suit its current activity, not to suit some future, alternate function. And that is a very strong reason why we should not expect a protein performing one function in a cell to easily be able to evolve another, different function by Darwinian means. In fact, the great work of Bridgham et al (2009) shows that it may not be do-able for Darwinian processes even to produce a protein performing a function very similar to that of a homologous protein.

Before reading their paper even I would have happily conceded for the sake of argument that random mutation plus selection could convert an MR-like protein to a GR-like protein and back again, as many times as necessary. Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes can’t manage to do even as much as I had thought.

(As an aside into the circus world of popular-level debates on Darwinism, the work of Bridgham et al (2009) nicely shows the fallacy of the anti-ID retort that, say, a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex because, if the catch and holding bar are removed, parts of it can still be used as a tie clip. The same principle that holds for cellular machinery would hold for all machinery. Something that was shaped by selection to work as a tie clip would not look like an ancestor of a mousetrap, or easily be converted to one by random changes plus selection. If you look at images of tie clips on the internet, none of them resemble mousetraps — except for those purposely designed by folks who were arguing against irreducible complexity.)

Another point worth driving home in this post concerns the frequently encountered argument that, well, just because one kind of protein can’t develop a useful binding site or selectable property easily doesn’t mean that some other kind of cellular protein can’t. (In keeping with their Darwinian framework, Bridgham et al (2009) seem to allude to this.) After all, there are thousands to tens of thousands of kinds of proteins in a typical cell. If one of them is ruled out, the reasoning goes, many more possibilities remain.

This argument, however, is specious. For any given evolutionary task, the number of proteins in the cell which are candidates for helpful mutations is almost always very limited. For example, as I discussed in EOE, out of thousands of malaria proteins, mutations in only a handful are helpful to the parasite in its fight against chloroquine, and only one is really effective — the mutations in the PfCRT protein. Ditto for the human proteins that can mutate to help resist malaria — there’s just a handful. In the case of the hormone receptors discussed by Bridgham et al (2006), one can note that, out of ten thousand vertebrate proteins, the one that gave rise to a new steroid hormone receptor was an already-existing steroid hormone receptor. This should be quite surprising to folks who believe the many-proteins argument, because the steroid receptor was outnumbered 10,000 to 1 by other protein genes, yet it won the race to duplicate and form a new functional receptor. If all things were equal, we should be very surprised by that. But of course not all things are equal. The reason the receptor duplicated to give rise to a closely-related receptor is because no other protein in the cell is likely to be able to do so in a reasonable amount of evolutionary time.

The bottom line is that, for a given evolutionary task, at best only a handful of proteins will likely be helpful to evolve, at worst none may help. To calculate the probability of, say, a helpful protein-protein interaction developing in response to any particular selective pressure, it’s mistaken to gratuitously multiply odds by the total number of proteins in a cell. Combined with the point made by Bridgham et al (2009), that even tiny structural/functional changes may not be achievable by random mutation/ selection, these considerations pretty much squelch the likelihood of Darwinian processes doing much of significance during evolution.

References


Bridgham,J.T., Ortlund,E.A., and Thornton,J.W. 2009. An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution. Nature 461:515-519.

Bridgham,J.T., Carroll,S.M., and Thornton,J.W. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312:97-101.

By the way...is evolution science?


"Evolutionary philosophy has indeed become a state of mind, one might almost say a kind of mental prison  rather than a scientific attitude. To equate one particular interpretation of the data with the data itself  is evidence of mental confusion. The theory of evolution...is detrimental to ordinary intelligence and warps judgement." ~ Dr. Arthur C. Custance" Evolution: An Irrational Faith" in Evolution or Creation Vol. 4-The Doorway Papers(Grand Rapids, Zond.1976)pg. 173-174

I'd say NOT!
Blessed!


Read more!

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Rottweiler Who Lost His Teeth & His Mind

Genesis 2:7 ~ "And the LORD GOD FORMED MAN [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."



"This is not an anti-religious book"..."God, to repeat this point, which ought to be obvious, but isn't, never made a tiny wing in his eternal life."

Young Earth creationists are, he writes, "deluded to the point of perversity"..."all but the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution".

Atheist and evolutionary evangelist Dr. Richard Dawkins recently sought to advance evolution and do his part to stamp out creationism with the presentation of what he calls the "facts of evolution" in his new book 'The Greatest Show On Earth'. The author of several books, the most recent being "The God Delusion" in which he claimed that all Christians were deluded for believing in God.

In this book, though leveling insults at Christians, especially those who believe in the Old Testament and the creation narratives, in almost every chapter, Dr. Dawkins has supposedly "evolved" to believe that belief in evolution and belief in God are compatible relationships. He recently said this to Newsweek.com:

"No, I don't think they're incompatible (belief in God & evolution) if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God—to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind."
Two things are for sure, similar to his predecessor, Charles Darwin, Dr. Dawkins does not deal with 'first life' (how life first began) within any of his theories. In fact he would rather claim that we came from 'aliens' than attribute life on this planet to God. Secondly Dr. Dawkins is frustrated that large numbers of the general populous doubt whether evolution actually does what it claims. The  problem is that more and more scientists  are realizing that the human  genome and the universe and life in general is far too complex to simply have arisen by the process of time, environmental conditions and random chance as the "theory" of evolution holds. 


When combined with the fact that there is no modern archaeological evidence of any transitional form between humans, apes or chimps and their supposed common ancestor, (which Dr. Dawkins says really isn't necessary for evolution to be true-wouldn't ya know it?) the theory of evolution is being quickly reconsidered, repackaged and rethought on almost every front.

The Beginnings

What began 150 years ago in approximately 1859 with naturalist scientist Charles Darwin (2/12/1809- 4/19/1882) quickly became the 'rational man's' way to think of his origins and relive himself of any connection or responsibility to or with God or a creator.  Probably developed with many of the underpinnings of his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin, who was an materialist evolutionist, the theory of evolution, would change the approach to understanding the world that we live in. The backbone of his theory was to repudiate the idea that divine assistance was necessary for any apparent design in the origin of the species or humankind. Please keep this in mind: Darwin’s claim was that all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor. This is called the theory of Common Descent.  Important note: The theory of evolution as set forth by Darwin does not deal with first life (how life came to be) it merely deals with how existing life changes into new species and manifests itself. This is a point often misunderstood by most creationists or those who hold to a biblical worldview of the origin of life. This proves to be the most fatal self-inflicted wound of evolutionary theory as we will see in this writing.

Essential Components Of Evolution:

There are several components of  the evolutionary process. It's basic 'faith statements' can be found in understanding the following items: Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift & Natural Selection all combine with Time to affirm the MACROevolutionary process. I have applied links for you to discover these terms and find how they are defined by modern evolutionists.

There were many observable issues that evolution addressed or attempted to settle regarding changes within species, such as the adaptation of species over time to particular environments. The adaptation of species to their environments over time is a type of evolution. That kind of evolution has been readily observed and is not denied by most individuals. That  type of evolution is called MICROevolution. MICROevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. However, the type of evolution claimed to have occurred and ultimately produced man is called MACROevolution. The difference between these two types of evolution are as vast as the difference between midnight and high noon. MACROevolution is supposedly evolution on a grand scale; what is said to be seen when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. (you'll hear this again) What is amazing to me is that most individuals who hold to evolution as the process by which man came into existence consider MICROevolution to be the only process necessary to confirm  MACROevolution. In fact this is what a scientist says regarding the MICROevolution he observed:
"I was fascinated to learn that, in 1971, Belgian scientists transferred a group of lizards from one small island off the Yugoslav coast to another, free of native members of that species, nearby. During that same summer, a few miles inland in the wild backwoods of Croatia, I myself was hard at work moving thousands of snails between habitats in the hope of picking up differences in survival. Thirty-seven years later, the descendants of the transferred lizards had changed – evolved – to gain stronger jaws and a modified gut to deal with their new and more vegetarian diet; but, alas, just a year after moving the molluscs I could find almost none of them (which proves not that evolution is wrong but that experiments in the wild usually do not work)" ~ Dr. Steven Jones professor of genetics at University College, London hailing Richard Dawkins at Telegraph.co.uk 9.19.2009
What Dr. Jones described and observed is MICROevolution. Stronger jaws and a modified gut  confirms that the species changed or adapted to it's environment. However, what most evolutionists do is take this sort of observation to confirm MACROevolution. Once again, MACROevolution is supposedly evolution on a grand scale; what is said to be seen when looking at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. MACROevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. Therefore Dr. Jones' observations do not affirm MACROevolution only MICROevolution. The evolutionist simply says that multiple series of MICROevolutions add up to MACROevolution on a grand scale. This is the "catch" in the view of the evolutionist...The evolutionist claims that all that is necessary is additional time and since we've already observed change on a MICRO scale we will definitely and eventually observe change at a MACRO scale if we simply allow the necessary time.

The problem is however is that if MACROevolution had occurred, this species would become something else other than the lizards they were to begin with. In other words, the lizards Dr. Jones observed continued to be lizards, they did not become ducks, geese, or pekingese swine, they remained lizards. What Dr. Jones wants us to believe is that eventually these lizards will become a totally new species. The evolutionist simply claims that time  is the necessary element to complete the process (there is no completion under their construct however things just continue to change) and since we can't observe it within our finite lifetimes, we can reasonably conclude that by observing MICROevolution and what fossil records that do exist that  MACROevolution is true. This is the type of 'snake-oil salesmanship' that Dr. Phillip Johnson (who is not a scientist) exposed regarding evolution in his book "Darwin On Trial" This is what Dr. Johnson has to say about the element of natural selection which is the primary component of  this little opiate of the masses that evolutionists continue to assert regarding the origin of the species:

"None of the proofs [for natural selection] provides any persuasive reason for believing that natural selection can produce a new species, new organs, or other major changes or even minor changes that are permanent." Dr. Phillip Johnson, 'Darwin On Trial' (Downers Grove, IL. :Intervarsity Press, 1993) p. 27. 

Is the previously mentioned type of adaptation and change within species what evolution as it is taught and proclaimed, limited to? Absolutely not. Evolution claims that given the millions of years necessary for the process to continue, those lizards may even become men or a completely different animals. From a 'fish in the sea to an astronaut I can be'  given enough  time and the right blind chance mutations and environmental pressures. This is known as speciation and is commonly called the "smoking gun" of Darwinism.  However top scientists confirm that primary speciation, which is the type of speciation that Darwinism and modern evolutionists claim, has  never taken place not even in a created or controlled environment:
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another" ~ Alan H. Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), Book Section, p. 29. Frederick M. Cohan, “What Are Bacterial Species?” Annual Review of Microbiology 56 (2002): 457-482. Available online (2009)
Evolution further proclaims that not only do men and mammals share similar DNA, they also share a common ancestor, and over time and through the process of natural selection have become the thinking, rational and communicable beings that we currently are.

The basis for evolutionary theory is nothing less than scientism. The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.Why is this approach and the resulting naturalistic worldview bankrupt? I've done my part to present at least 5 compelling reasons why, without merely invoking the bible or biblical texts as proof for my assertions:

I: DNA Screams For Intelligent Design

Every programmer knows that code is essential to make anything function properly. Top scientists even know this such as J. Craig Venter who's claim to fame is having been one of the two men responsible for having mapped out the human genome. This is what Time says about their efforts:

"Venter stitched together the 582,000 base pairs necessary to invent the genetic information for a whole new bacterium. Step two is to boot up that DNA programming in a living bacterium to see if it takes charge of the organism. That's next on Venter's agenda — and he has little doubt it will work. As any software designer will tell you, once you know how to write the code, you can make it do almost anything."
According to Telegraph.co.uk scientist Richard Dawkins:
"criticises the simplistic idea of DNA as an instruction manual, and the embryo as a sort of Ikea flat-pack that assembles itself through a set of simple (or not so simple) rules."
Now one thing is certain, being in competitive sales is about maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses and when opponents strengths are exposed, you always give those strengths less time, for to dwell on the competitors strengths indicates just how strong their hand really is...so what do you do? You trivialize the opponents strengths and understate their value. This is just what Dr. Dawkins has done with the foundation of life, DNA. It is even more amazing when it is considered that Dr. Dawkins is a microbiologist and must be fully aware of the absolute and essential importance of DNA and it's coding and formulation. Without DNA there is no life and without it being ordered there is no human functionality.


What Are Some Of The Functions Of DNA?

DNA is the code of life. It can be described as miniature information/nanotechnology, digital code with error correction capacity, hierarchical filings systems within the genome, distributive storage and retrieval systems for data modules. There is also non coding DNA, previously though to be junk,  which functions like an operating system telling other coding regions when to turn on and off and how to regulate and express itself etc...even more incredibly this is upon layers and layers of complexity within each cell. Further, DNA can be described as a language or a message that is not merely repeating but telling a story similar to various columns in a newspaper.

The question is where does all this code come from? Secondly how and who ordered the code? Random chance and time as evolution and naturalism claims? Hardly. To think so is pure fantasy. As if this weren't bad enough for evolutionary dogma, the point can be further driven home by asking where does the "information" come from to begin with? As we have discovered, in order for life to occur information must be present. It is wishful fantasy to believe that complex information systems would somehow compose themselves from primordial soup and advance to what science agrees that are super highly complex information systems.

There's a better possibility of chopping your computer up into a million pieces, throwing it into the air, and expecting it to come down and form a new fully functional PC or MAC with totally new and better configurations and operating system than before you destroyed it. This is a complete fantasy. Everyone knows that complexity does not come from the uncomplex and what random complexities that do arise are generally very limited in scope and highly  unusual. DNA is the story of life from intelligence, God, to each and every human being and all of his creation. 

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of The Discovery Institute (expanding  upon the work of Dr. Francis Crick and Dr. James Watson) has studied this topic for over 25 years and produced a "peer reviewed" scientific article advancing Intelligent Design, says:
“Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.” Dr. Stephen  C. Meyer, 'Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design', (Harper Collins 8/2009)pg. 347)
The smallest unit of functional advantage in life are new proteins. What evolution overlooks is that natural selection, which has been and remains a staple of evolutionary  thought, claims that  to select for  functional advantage,  new proteins through random processes. This is proclaimed against the backdrop of the incredible difficulty of  random mutations to generate new proteins number one and those proteins to be ineffective without having a "blueprint" of action to follow. In other words evolution is the transfer of complex specified information (CSI) by random chance. The fact is that the generation of new proteins through random process is equivalent to finding a tiny needle  in a haystack the size of our galaxy. Remember, these type of "transactions" are essential to the concept of natural selection as it is currently proclaimed. One would think that these occurrences would be readily observable and a reasonable standard instead of the extreme exception that they are within the human genome.

A MUST SEE: To watch Dr. Meyer's C-Span presentation on his book. Click HERE.

II: Systems Of Irreducible Complexity

Dr. Michael Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh Universtity, (who is not a creationist) wrote the book, 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution' in which he examined what Darwin couldn't examine when the theory of evolution was set forth in 1859, the inner workings and molecular structure of the cell. In Darwin's day the cell was thought to be simple and  uncomplex, however with the rise of microbiological  analysis it has been found that the cell is a fertile soil of complex items that  can be best described as machines that perform numerous  functions of life. What he further discovered was that when one of these machines within the cell is not in the right place, wrong size or is functioning improperly the complete system fails to function. There is a breakdown. This is known as irreducible complexity. If there is a change within the cell, Dr. Behe noted that everything must change at the same time for anything to function at all.

Dr. Behe argues as follows:
"The  idea of Darwinian molecular evolution is not based on science. There is no publication in scientific literature-in journals or books-that  describe  how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but  absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can be truly said that the assertion of darwinian molecular evolution is merely  bluster." ~ Dr. Michael Behe, 'Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems' in William Dembski, ed., 'Mere Creation Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design' (Downers Grove, IL. Intervarsity Press,  1998) pg. 183
Not only do the cells have complex code, they can't arbritrarily change and still function. From both the functional and programmable perspective evolution fails the necessary tests required to support molecular evolution of  slight successive changes over long periods of time.

DON'T MISS THIS: Dr Behe takes on all critics and goes deeper at TrueOrigins.org

III: The Mind Body Interface Or Consciousness

Because  of the approach of the scientific practice over history, science did not lend itself to understanding  how and why we have consciousness. There seems to be a blind and empty-face stare into what science doesn't address under the current paradigms of scientific discovery. As Dr. Meyer states within his book, previously (19th Century) science sought to explain everything on the basis of matter and energy. Physics (Late 20th century)however discovered the awareness of the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics and even quantum phenomena. This led to the thoughts that agency or mind or what we describe as intelligence could be behind the material world. The  fact is that there is no physical  mechanism by which consciousness is achieved from the physical process of  the body.

All of this leads to a question just begging to be answered. How and why do we have consciousness? Current studies have shown that the material functions of  the body do not arbitrarily nor automatically produce consciousness or self awareness. The leap from the material functions of evolution to DNA and irreducible complex systems do not address issues at an even more fundamental level. How does the body interface with the mind? Does material existence have a necessity of consciousness? NO. Why? we can look at dirt, which is material, or rocks, which are material and clearly examine the fact that they do not have consciousness. What makes us any different if all is only material or the world is limited to naturalism?


"Now because consciousness exists in us, the most reasonable explanation for the origin of consciousness is that the universe began with a conscious being,"  J.P. Moreland Saddleback Church 9/5/2009

This argument takes on more of a theological  tone and can provide a direct argument for the existence of God. In fact Theologian and  philosopher Dr. J. P. Moreland makes  that exact case in his book ' Consciousness And The Existence Of God: A Theistic Argument' In this landmark work Dr. Moreland views the common concepts of and reasons why we are conscious beings and takes to most popular beliefs and assertions to task.


IV: Abundance of Archaeological Finds  But A Lack Of Archaeological Proof

During his time Charles Darwin admitted the weakness of the archaeological record. This is known as Darwin's dilemma:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."~Charles Darwin, On the Origin Of Species p.280
“By the theory of natural selection,” he wrote, “all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic varieties of the same species at the present day.” Thus in the past “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” ~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266
But Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian. He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since
“if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp.  285-288
Did those scientific observations disuade Darwin in his theory? NO. He simply argued that Precambrian fossils had been destroyed by heat, pressure, and erosion. Others postulated that Precambrian fossils were simply too small and soft to have fossiled. Similarly Richard Dawkins in his new book, does not think this to be an issue either (minimize your weakness) as he presents evolution and in particuarly rehashes Darwinian evolution through common descent hailing it as a fact.

Precambrian and even microscopic fossils have been found:
The long-held notion that Precambrian organisms must have been too small or too delicate to have been preserved in geological materials… [is] now recognized as incorrect.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was “even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”~ American paleobiologist William Schopf  “The early evolution of life: solution to Darwin’s dilemma,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9 (1994): 375-377.
There seems to have been an abrupt appearance of the major animal phyla about 540 million years ago—which modern biologists call “the Cambrian explosion” or “biology’s Big Bang. Even more so digging up fossils tells us little about the actual relationships of the fossils themselves:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”~ Gareth Nelson, “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.
More recently evolutionist the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, the father of Punctuated Equilibera (PE) , asserted this in order to promote his theory of (PE):

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism 1) Stasis. most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2)Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed"~Stephen Jay Gould, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace' Natural History 86(1977) pg. 13-14.

Robert B. Carroll reaffirmed Dr. Gould's position in 2000. What makes that significant? Carroll is the curator of vertebrate palentology at the Redpath Museum at McGill University and one that certainly has modern qualifications to be credible with archaeological findings...Additionally, not all scientific writers are  convinced that what is found is properly handled or disseminated without predjudice or bias:
“no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.”... "When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.”...“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” ~ Henry Gee, 'In Search of Deep Time.' [New York: Free Press, 1999], pp. 5, 32, 113-117.
a. Nonviability Of Transitional Forms:
"No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage". ~ Dr. Jonathan Wells The Discovery Institute.
In other words, in order to make things work transitional forms would have to lose certain characteristics before becoming a subsequent form or evolving into something else. This directly flies in the face of evidence for irreducible complexity and what  we now know about DNA and it's viability and use. What it would take to make a fish a fish and a bird to fly are two different systems and to expect to find both systems fully functional in one is ludacriss. In addition for a fish coming from the water to live on land, there would have to be a very complex set of lungs and extremities developed and all functions would have to be present at the same time. Such notions are mindless.

b. No Human Common Ancestor Or Transitionals

Recently a 4.4 million–year–old skeleton of what was claimed to be "a likely human ancestor" known as Ardipithecus ramidus (abbreviated Ar. ramidus aka "Ardi" ). What this discovery did was set evolutionists, at least those who place great weight upon archaeological evidence, back a few million years in their thinking.
"Ardi is the earliest and best-documented descendant of that common ancestor. But despite being "so close to the split," says White, "the surprising thing is that she bears little resemblance to chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives." The elusive common ancestor's bones have never been found, but scientists, working from the evidence available — especially analyses of Australopithecus and modern African apes — envisioned Great-Great-Grandpa to have looked most nearly like a knuckle-walking, tree-swinging ape. But "[Ardi is] not chimplike," according to White, which means that the last common ancestor probably wasn't either. "This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution," says Kent State University anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy, a member of the Middle Awash team. "It's clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity." So what does that mean? Based on Ardi's anatomy, it appears that chimpanzees may actually have evolved more than humans — in the scientific sense of having changed more over the past 7 million years or so." Time Online Magazine
The evidence of Ardi at best is only additional evidence against young earth creationism and nothing more.

c. Most All Change Is Cyclical

Changes and mutations within life forms are not directional toward the development of new life forms as required required by macroevolutionary theory but they simply shift back and forth within a limited range. This is what Dr. Jones (referenced above) observed in the lizards. What could be assumed is that those same lizards when taken off of the island and given a better or different  diet will produce offspring that will eventually return to the original jaw size and gut size of the original set of lizards. As stated at no point do they or will they become chickens or any other animal, or even human for that matter.

V: Darwinian Evolution's Sexist & Racist Assertions

Although most modern evolutionists say that they don't hold to Darwins failed theories of bias against women and racism against blacks in general, it is worth noting if  for no other reason, than to explain the foundation and influence of many of Darwin's scientific notions as carried out by evolutionary evangelists through the years. Remember, these theories were considered scientific at one time and even today have their influence within society. Though their scientific application has been debunked and certain laws instituted and modified to minimize the harmful influence to society that these type of postulations have they still exist and influence many in varios forms.

As noted in my blog Women, Mathematics & Evolution, some gender bias, much of which exists today had it's root in Darwinian evolutionary biology. The facts are that Darwin assumed that because women's heads were generally smaller than men's, they (women) were inferior in not only ability, but also intelligence.
[Man] attains a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women”whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, history, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages... [that] the average mental power in man must be above that of women." ~ Charles Darwin, 'Mental Powers Of A  Man & A Woman Ch. XIX' [The Descent of Man and selection  in Relation to Sex] (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1896), 327
Dr. Gould thought this issue was important enough to undertake refuting Gustav Lebon (another past proponent of Darwinian evolution) after he repeteated and tried to affirm the same part of Darwin's theory:
"Women represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and...are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man. They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt, there exists some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads. Consequently, we may neglect them entirely." ~ Stephen Jay Gould, "The Mismeasure of Man" (New York: Norton, 1981), 104-105
Distinguished women are an exception like a "monstrosity"  or a "gorilla with two heads"? WOW! This was evolutionary theory at work. Scientist  reaffirming one another and setting forth propositions based on what they considered science. Now the critic asserts that things have changed in light of new scientific findings. But that begs the question, Did we really have to find or come up with new science in order to debunk these outlandish and crazy ideas? How about civil rights? Did we really need to lose so many so that blacks could be liberated and share the same rights as whites? Some say the laws were established that don't reflect Darwin's ideas, but the facts are that Dawinian evolutionary thought is still yet a holdover in modern society. In fact, the title of the book commonly simply called Origin Of Species, was titled exactly as follows: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life." That was the complete book title which can be found HERE. There was a racist implication that couldn't be missed. The following is a quote from pre-Darwinian literature that sums up the canvass upon which Darwin undertook his studies and made his theories regarding race:
"Mr Lawrence has collected, in the eighth chapter of his admirable Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, a great variety of facts tending to prove that the Negroes, though morally and intellectually inferior to the white race, are by no means near the bottom of the scale of humanity; and he expresses the well-grounded opinion, "that of the dark-coloured people none have distinguished themselves by stronger proofs of capacity for literary and scientific investigation, and, consequently, that none approach more nearly than the Negro to the polished nations of the globe."~ Combe, George. 1847. The Constitution of Man and Its Relation to External Objects. Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart, & Co., Longman & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., W. S. Orr & Co., London, James M'Glashan, Dublin. pg. 322
As we discussed in our previous blog We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves, these were common racist sentiments considering that  Blacks and non-whites who were thought to be less moral than anyone else. This is in part why such thoughts should be repudiated expecially amongst clergy. These are ungodly sentiments and fall in line with an ungodly and godless culture.

Here's another thought that exists about the seed of interracial relationships especially between Blacks and Indians, who were normally cast together historically this little blurb against 'race mixing' still holds true in practice for many today:
"When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad. Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.[49] From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. ~ Darwin, C. R. 1875. 'The variation of animals and plants under domestication.' [London: John Murray. 2d edition. Volume 2.] pg. 21 [49]~Dr. P. Broca, on 'Hybridity in the Genus Homo,' Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.
"Zambo" also known as "Sambo" the child of a Black and Indian...I guess Darwin was referring to me all the way around...Darwinian evolution framed the attitudes and opinions of the people even when laws were changed to reflect human rights. Individuals yet today breath out many of the misinforamtion in Darwinian evlution and people have lost their lives fighting for rights that the founding  fathers of America said were "self-evident".

We could go on, but the facts are that Darwinian evolution was probably the worst type of science available when it came to race and gender issues. For any individual to simply resurrect it in another form is like  putting a pretty bow on a pig. It's still ugly.

Did the science change or did the scientists change? If the scientists changed, then I guess we could say that they evolved. Is evolution a fact? If that question refers to changes within a species the answer is yes, of course it is...But if the questions entails, do apes become  human or do fish become birds or any other combination, the answer is an emphatic NO. There is no evidence to support any such statement and what evidence that does exist is  either exaggerated or undermines the concept of evolutionary theory in this area.

Final Thought

Last week on ABC's The View the discussion of evolution and creationism was undertaken.  It was obvious to see almost  immediately the "Dawkinization" of host Joy Behar, who said regarding evolution:

"It's not a religious fervor thing. There's proof! Scientific proof! You want your children to go into the world and be ignorant? That's child abuse in my opinion."



With misinformation such as Joy's so common and encouraged by the media I  encourage every  Christian to be about dispelling the resurrection of this aweful myth and Godless fantasy . When God made man in his likeness and image, that likeness and image wasn't  the image of an ameoba, ape or chimpanzee. None of those beings  had what  Adam had from his beginning, the ability  to communicate with God and with others.

When man reduces himself to an accident of primordial slime, chance and time, he not only does himself a disservice, he does society  in general  a disservice. Random chance and time  do not lend or yield themselves to purpose. Our streets in many  places are amuck because children and  people have been told that they are animals and they act like animals by killing, murder, sexual  promiscuity, living  riotously etc, We have had enough of atheistic science and godless encouragements that life is  purposeless and meaningless or that the present reality is the only reality..Those are ridiculous notions  to say the least as we live in a world where immaterial realities exist such as  thoughts, hopes and dreams. These things do not have extension in space neither are they constrained by time but their existence  is without question.

The atheistic and naturalist days of scientific control are over. God allowed them to do things their way for so long and look at the mess their thoughts and programs have created. It's time for Christian scientists  to rise and take the classroms back and science back placing scientific discovery back into it's proper  place of discovering the beauty, glory and majesty of God's creation.

Blessed!

Read more!

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

God's Not Dead, But Tonex Is In His Sins...

This post is a special thanks to a commentor named Rogers for directing us to this interview.

I debated over whether to  add to the post "Holy Ghost Filled, Fire Baptized Gay People" or simply make a new post all together. I decided to create a new one because the more I read and see the more it is confirmed that Tonex takes apostasy to new heights. In a recent interview with Blackvoices.com Tonex decided to place more of his confused and anti-Christ views on the table in effort to followup with the fallout from the Lexi interview. One thing has never been more clear: Tonex is confused, and does not know how to find a balance between serving God and yielding to the "feelings" that he points out in the video.

Before I mention his erroneous statements and assertions from the interview, I remembered that last year  both Tonex and Ricky Dillard appeared on The Bobby Jones Show around the same time. In fact, I saw parts of a Sunday morning show that  included both. Although I'm unsure if they were there at the same recording I remember saying that it was a "GAY FEST" extraordinaire. I remember seeing both groups doing a bunch of shouting and dancing, putting on a show. I told people at a church I was ministering at that  the homosexuals were sending a message. Well, I guess I was right about that assessment. I believe that spiritual folk knew the message Tonex was trying to send long ago. Recently, he confessed that he used his music to send a message. Here's his words and his video:
"I talked about my same-sex attraction. I don't think that there was any new information here. I've addressed this issue in my music for years."
 

I believe that these are the segments that appeared on Bobby Jones show when I saw them. What I believe these charlatans need to know is that they are seen and their sins are not hidden. Here's Sister Ricky with his stage show too:


Yes, it was a gay-a-thon, that looked like church, sounded like church and obviously felt like church to many...but it was flesh and devil inspired. I make no apologies for stating that these individuals, even with a rich and deep church history, are apostates and on their way to hell for being doorways to immorality. (Don't try to cop that subject preachers, I already got it on lock)

These individuals, and many like them, believe that sexuality is simply a "preference" and that it has no moral effect and should not be a basis whereby one proves their relationship with God among mankind. Tonex affirms this in his recent interview claiming:

"What I am saying is that we need to stop focusing on people's private lives and sexual orientation and preach the truth of God's salvation. Whatever your faith may be, no one has the right to blatantly disrespect or harass another human being. Beyond that, we have no need to go into people's closets and private matters. Teach the word, and let God handle the rest."
Teaching sexual purity, righteousness and the standard of holiness sexually is "disrespect" and "harassment" to Tonex. This is an affirmation that is heard over and over from the gay community and proponents of the gay agenda. To carry this out and place proper perspective on it, the question is should all types of sexual immorality be off limits to the pulpits? From group sex to fornication to other perversions...According to this type of analysis every teaching against sexual immorality could be considered "harassment" by those who love their sins.

Tonex and those who hold his affirmation are unrepentant of their sins, and will be destroyed by and in their own lusts (James 1:15). What makes it even worse is that these type of individuals are endorsed by other spiritual apostates some of which call themselves leaders. Tonex, like many, further believe that the church should accept them as they are because they claim to be children of God. In fact like Tonex, they try to use psychology to condemn those of us who hold to biblical standards:

"His (God's) love is much greater than His judgment."
As if to say that God's love will somehow trump his justice...what he doesn't realize is  if that happens, God would preform the greatest evil by failing to judge according to his standard and allowing sin to become a pathway to God's favor. However one, thing he dopes not realize is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. (Heb. 6:18) This is the twisted reasoning of Tonex, whether he can verbalize it that way or not...that's the consequence and result of his apostate belief.

In The Interview:

Church Folk & Sexual Repression

Not only does Tonex say that most gospel musicians either are or were homosexuals:

"...although it's common knowledge that some of the most anointed musicians and singer-songwriters have, or have dealt with, same-sex attraction at some point."
He then casts the stone of "sexual repression" at the church:
"So much more to my story then the sexuality part, but most church folks are sexually repressed anyway, so they naturally gravitate right toward that type of subject matter."
I don't think a person who has sex both with men and women knows what sexual repression is. What Tonex thinks is liberty is actually bondage. The inability to distinguish proper sexual desires from "feelings" as he states in his video is the utmost bondage. Further, when a person is gender confused and living in not merely a sin, but abomination, such as Tonex admits, that is the essence of repression...It's not liberation to be drawn away with feelings and emotions until you sin with your body, mind and spirit as homosexuals do to fulfill their desires. That is bondage and entrapment.

Tonex claims that church folk are so sexually repressed that the church automatically finds what he's talking about interesting, because we're sitting on the sidelines fulfilling some inner desire that is not being met. He is interesting as in a lab rat being interesting to a scientist. However, in his statement and entire interview Tonex shows not only his lack of biblical knowledge, but also his acknowledgement that  he knows he is wrong, his self exaltation in spite of that wrong and his utter disdain for the church and living right.

I'm On A Mission, Beam Me  Up Scottie!

Tonex now assumes his mission to deliver the homosexual crowd from the oppression of the church interpretation of the bible although he readily admits he doesn't know what the bible says about homosexuality...Well that's a lie  because he does know. In fact it is clear that he feels condemned, but his feelings of love for the same sex overshadow what he knows is truth. Tonex rejects what he knows and what he's told. He  turns it around and makes it a purpose for his existence. This is his new mission:
"The hypocrisy of this should have left me quite burnt out with the whole situation. So then I had to shift my focus off of religion and move toward being a pioneer. Charting new territory for an oppressed people that truly love God and have been ostracized beyond belief -- the sheep of another fold.."
Similar to the man who says that the woman "made" him hit her, Tonex feels that this situation is for him to be a homosexual and be used by God to minister to homosexuals, assuring them that they too are acceptable with God, because after all, he is acceptable with God too. Next an ongoing tactic: Let's Use the Music


"I speak of them in a song called 'This is All of Me'. I was speaking for all the "kids" around the world. Basically the kids are boys and girls that are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender), a group that has a 30 percent suicide rate among gay and bisexual youth. And the young men with more "feminine gender-role characteristics" and those who recognized their same-sex orientation at an early age and acted on those sexual feelings seem to face the highest risk of self-destructive behavior"..."I will continue my recording activism, advocating fair treatment of all people, including these people, my own people, with whom I not only sympathize but empathize."
Anyone unconvinced that the devil is  using these artists to speak not only their version of the gospel, but  to also speak to their lovers and homosexual associates, must look again and think twice. These people are using their air time to affirm themselves in their sins and assocaite with one another in the face of God and at the expense of the church.

Conclusion:

To condemn the church and call it insensitive to what he feels is the gay agenda is ungodly. What Tonex fails to admit is the clear teaching of the bible against homosexuality. He overlooks the word that has condemned the sins of not only homosexuality but all perversions and unrighteousness whether homosexual formulated or not. There is no comfort in condoning sin. Sometimes we try to perceive whether actions are pleasing to God or not and those endeavors should be gladly undertaken, but to reject the word of the Lord and use the church as a marketing tool is the epitome of ungodliness and unrighteousness.


Tonex would have done better to simply repent for his sins,  ask for spiritual leadership and strong council and seek God in the most deep and sincere manner of his life. Instead he equivocates and makes excuses for his  sins and condemns others for both allowing him to continue and condemning his actions all at the same time.

What will he do? He will probably become Carlton Pearson's minister of music. Carlton will gladly receive him and indoctrinate him in his gospel of inclusion, produce and event called Gay Azusa and sell millions of tapes and CD's.

Romans 1:24-32 ~ "24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25-Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26-For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28-And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29-Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30-Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31-Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32-Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Blessed!

Read more!

Saturday, September 26, 2009

We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves

I must first say that I am not a movie critic and this post is not about encouraging anyone to see a film, but I was compelled to share my thoughts to some extent on what I hope the benefit of this film will be to our community.


Probably amid much criticism, Tyler Perry's new movie, I Can Do Bad All By Myself (Trailer HERE) is one of the best productions that I have seen in quite some time geared toward the struggles of American families and the African American community in particular. This production took me across almost every emotional spectrum especially when I viewed it against the backdrop of what I know we're dealing with as a community.

To Tyler Or Not To Tyler?

First, I know the criticisms of Tyler Perry. A single rich man is quickly called a homosexual when he doesn't get married quickly enough, is seen with the "wrong" minister, and makes part of his living portraying a woman. A particular minister, even goes so far as to suggest that for the sake of "entertainment" Tyler violates God's word, by dressing in drag and immitating a woman, consequentely doing damage to morality and violating biblical principles. Secondly, cussin' that used to be centered around the misuse of the word hell is now outright and flat out profanity, which I'll be the first to say should be eliminated.

On the  former however,  I'd also say that since I don't know him (Tyler Perry) personally, and God hasn't yet spoken to my spirit regarding the issue of his sexuality, that I'm not entertaining criticisms that this man is a homosexual. However, with that said, we should examine the defining line as it pertains to upholding biblical standards even in the entertainment industry. In my opinion that's a good conversation to have, but it must be undertaken from a scriptural standpoint and many of the fundamentalist and literalist views some of which may or may not be correct, must be stoked out in the process.

In other words, I pose, as I have done previously, that if Christians resist simply because "industry" is ungodly, we should be aware that there is no modern industry in which sinners and the ungodly are not enriched in some way, or where sinners don't sometimes control production standards. Example; Even many "Christian" owned companies receive supplies from suppliers and many of those suppliers are the same sinners and ungodly that some of us try to avoid. So what should the Saint do? Close shop and refuse to do business with anyone? I don't believe that position is biblical nor is it practical, but it soes foster good conversation.

To The Heart Of the Matter

There were many situations that Tyler touched on in this film. There were parentless children, adultery, a minister doing his best to serve the community (finally a positive portrayal of the church ~ Thanks Pastor Marvin) and a self centered lady settling for a suga-daddy doing the same thing over and over yet hoping for a change.

I was struck on a number of different levels and even at one point started to clap my hands and praise the Lord in the movie theatre (until I realized that I wasn't in church-LOL...that didn't stop me too much though) The movie hit home when I contrasted it to what is actually going on in our community...This is what a certain minister says on his website regarding the immorality of the Black community and its support of President Barack Obama during his recent campaign:

"Who better to strip America of it's morality than a representative of the most immoral group of people in the nation? Don't get mad at me, the numbers show that Blacks are the most immoral group in America and that we could care less about morality when it comes to looking good. The statistics on this matter show that we have the highest HIV rate, incarceration rate, drop out rate, STD rate, Abortion rate, murder rate, teen pregnancy rate, single parent rate, homosexual and lesbian rate, etc." ~ G. Craige Lewis Blogspot June 2010
I must say that I don't agree with this statement for a minute because it's a radical oversimplification of the problem, blaming the victim for current conditions that are readily observed. To say that blacks are the most immoral Americans because the statistics say so, is not only an  incorrect way to interpret modern soci-societal  statistical data but it's also a racist remark that the KKK would love to affirm. It's also an unempathetic position for church leadrship to take if the mission of the church is really the healing of the nation. However, this sort of observation does solidify the fact that the Black community has rather unique problems that effect the nation. The entire community, including the church, must become  better at addressing issues if our mission is to meet the needs with the power of God.


I believe Tyler's movie and other movies  like Tyler's  could be an element in helping to address these issues and start the necessary dialogue at a fundamental level. How? Simply put, we have  witnessed the power of media and entertainment to promote a message. For too long those mediums have been used to promote and solidify immorality and worthlessness. We are quick to observe the devastating effects that videos have had on our children in promoting pimps, sex and drugs. This movie exposes what we see but in a much different manner  than how it has been traditionally presented.

Burdens That Can be Lifted

Because so many individuals within the Black community are emotionally tired, spiritually weak and drained, too many have taken the easy road and are now content to follow the path of least resistence. The movie exposes that all too often, it's easy for a woman to accept a married man that uses her for sex and destroys her emotionally all in the name  of payin' the bills, deceiving herself into thinking that the future has promise. Some of those same women have suffered from emotional and sometimes physical abuse. It's a wonder that individuals trapped within that  type of bondage and emotional upheaval, even make it from day to day, yet alone contribute to the welfare of anyone else.


Many within our community have become so desensitized to abnormal behaviors until we make excuses for actions and rationalizations for our responses (or lack therof)  to try to make sense of what we observe. Alchoholism, as portrayed in the film, is sometimes a result of uncovered and unreconciled pain, and many never take time to try to find out what real problems have occurred behind closed doors leading to such destructive behaviors. Then there are our children...abandoned, left to fend for themselves and having to grow up way too early. Due to deaths, drugs and other ills some of our youth have been forced to create their own set of rules and morality as a way to psychologically deal with the evil that they've experienced. Unfortunately, we see that false moral standard played out in crime, incarceration and murder stats. The positions and predicaments that children have been placed in from being sold for drugs to molestation and abandonment, has taken it's toll on a whole generation who needs sound leadership, patience and someone to talk to them instead of about them.

Yes, Tyler's film dealt with the whole gambit of issues and placed God in the middle of  it all, not through a pimp or homosexual preacher, but through an extended hand and beacon within the community trying to assist individuals in whatever way they could. I was most excited about this because for too long the church has just been a part of the community and not the center of it. I am a firm believer that the church must take its place and get back to the real mission of Christ. We can sell  tapes DVD's and collect honorariums, but we should never forget the souls  of the individuals that God has called us to minister to.


Through all that was shown and portrayed there will yet be others that will only see a man in drag or hear curse words (the same one's they think but don't say) and shake  their head saying that God is against it all. Yet others will only hear Mary J. Blige singing and write it all off as mindless, godless mess. In other words some will only see  imperfections because it's a Hollywood movie. Well, that's ok, because in the end, I believe that God has seen all of our imperfections also, and yet loved us. Besides all that thank God that he is not against us like many people have portrayed and continue to portray him to be. Thank God that none of these types of situations or souls are beyond the reach and the power of God. I am afraid that some things simply must change IF we are to effectively reach and  make a difference within this generation.  We must not become weaker, but we certainly must become wiser. Unfortunately, popular pulpits, church facilities, tape, DVD sales and large offerings (including speaking fees) have duped the gospel minister into either being a ministrel putting on a show or a pupeteer seeking to pull  the next sensational string to which audience emotions are attached. The wisdom of loving and cultivating souls has somehow escaped our grasp.

Conclusion

If Tyler's movie does anything for the Black community, I hope it  fosters the serious and necessary conversation that the church must have with its youth, families and community outside of  its walls. I hope it causes the minister to leave the receiving of offering tray for a minute to give back to lost souls. I hope that if this movie does anything, it will let individuals who are desperate know that with Christ, all things are possible, and that  God can TRULY teach us how to love.

Blessed!

Read more!

Thursday, September 24, 2009

"Holy Ghost Filled, Fire Baptized Gay People"

This is what happens when you play with God and demons take control



Saints, I have no words...Beside the fact that we knew it all along, but to now try to convince the church with Bobby Jones co-host, Lexi...Please tell me I am having a nightmare.

Blessed-With The Help Of Jesus 4-Real!
Read more!

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 4

Galations 1:8 ~ "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

In this post will will provide a basic biblical contrast to the essential claims made by Islam. As you can tell from parts 1, 2 and 3 there is much that can be said about Islam but we will seek to narrow this apologetic to 4 points:
1- Is  The Biblical God Transcendent?
2-The Biblically Affirmed Deity Of Jesus
3- God's Plan Of Salvation & The Problem Of Sin Original Sin
4- The Final Revelation Of God To Man

Section I: Is The Biblical God Transcendent? 

In a response to Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture at the University of Regensburg on Sept. 12th 2006, leading Islamic Scholars presented a document called "A Common Word Between Us And You". Within this document there were 8 points outlined to display the unique and supposedly similar relationship between Islam and Christianity. The object of the document was to correct statements that were supposedly erroneous and misrepresentative of Islam, and to expound upon those "misunderstandings" encouraging Christians to expand their views toward Islam and Islamic teachings of the Quran, and especially many of those that were set forth within the Pope's address.

One of the retorts presented within "A Common Word" concerned God's "absolute" transcendence. Transcendence meaning that God cannot be physically intermingled or touched with his creation and most specifically with that which is flesh. This was the Islamic rebuke regarding the Pope's exposition of this concept found within the Islamic faith:
"You also say that “for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent,” a simplification which can be misleading."~"A Common Word Between Us And You"
The Muslim Clerics then go on to invoke that in order for one to truely understand transcendence as taught within Islam, one should study the teachings of al-Ghazali (d.1111CE) as his teachings are more representative of Islamic belief regarding this issue than the scholar that the Pope referenced. This is what al-Ghazali has to say about the subject:
-"He [Allah Ta`ala] is not a body with a form, or a limited, quantitative substance, not resembling bodies in quantifiability or divisibility, or in being a substance or qualified by substance, or in being an accident or qualified by accidents. He does not resemble anything that exists, nor does anything that exists resemble Him. There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him, nor is He like unto anything. He is not delimited by magnitude, contained by places, encompassed by directions, or bounded by heavens or earth." (Qawa'id, 1.3)

-"He - the Most High - is not a body composed of different substances, since the body is that which is composed of substances. When His being a substance limited by place is refuted, His being a body is also refuted, because every body is limited by place and is composed of substances. But it is impossible for the substance to be free from division, composition, motion, rest, form, and quantity, all of which are characteristics of originated phenomena. And if it were possible to believe that the Maker of the world is a body, it would also be possible to believe in the divinity of the sun and the moon as well as other heavenly bodies. If, therefore, one should dare to call Allah a body but not meaning thereby a composition of substances, he would be wrong as far as the name is concerned, but not in negating the idea of body." (Risalah, 1.5)
While it is true that the Quran teaches that Allah (God) is the sustainer of all things, (therefore he has involvement with the world and creation) the Quran also clearly teaches that God is not mingled with or does not take on the limitations of his creation or humanity under any circumstance. To say that the extension of Allah(aka: khalifa or Allah's agent on earth) is God himself or God in the flesh is Shirk (blasphemy) within Islamic teaching and is worthy of the penalty of death. Angels, though representatives of Allah, are NOT to be considered equal to or with Allah under any circumstance. Specifically, StateMaster Online Encyclopedia says this of the Islamic concept of Transcendence:

"For a Muslim, divine transcendence must be protected, and all talk of incarnation or even attempts at figurative artistic representation of the divine, or even of holy persons, are regarded as culpable detractions from God's absolute unicity, supremacy and transcendence. A Muslim is a believer in or follower of Islam."
Therefore one of the first and most notable differences regarding the God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran comes in the manner of how God has revealed, communicated and interracted with humanity, especially as it pertains to the process of salvation. This information directly effects the message that God gave to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, as it points to and reveals the actual source of the message. The message of the Quran is not authenticated by the scriptures that even the Quran holds in high esteem calling it "The Book" and the "Holy Injil" (the Old Testament)

For Christians, it wasn't an angel that has preeminence in the message of salvation toward man. It begins with God personally providing for and covering the nakedness or shame of Adam and Eve upon banishing them from the garden for their sin:

Genesis 3:21 ~ "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of SKINS, and clothed them."

From the beginning what God did indicated and signified that there would be a "death" to cover man's shame (sin). Next, it was God who made, performed and actualized a covenental relationship with Abraham and vicariously all of humanity:

Genesis 15:12-21~"And when the sun was going down, a DEEP SLEEP fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13- And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;14-And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15-And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16-But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full. 17-And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. 18-In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19-The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20-And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21-And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

Abraham did not have the strength, wherewithall or the awareness to make or keep the covenant, so God created and prepared the covenant and passed through it himself to validate and seal it. Amazingly, according to the scriptures upon which Islam claims to be based, and upon which Islam says that the revelation of God was given to Muhammad through Gabriel, it was God himself who personally tended to the sins of mankind making a way of escape. God himself was not seperate from his creation but was active within the midst of the creation.

Additionally, Moses spoke to God face to face beholding what is called God's "glory"(Ex. 24:16, Ex. 33:11, Deut. 5:4, Deut. 34:10), God's glory was seen by the congregation of Israel and later by Solomon and the priests of Israel as Shekina (Ex. 16:10, Num. 14:14, Num. 16:42,Num. 20:6, 1 Kings 8:11, 2 Chron. 5:14, 2 Chron.7:1-3). The key here is that this was God himself acting and moving and not a mere aboration, or angelic representative.

The New Testament builds upon this concept and theme further revealing that it was God himself who descended and took on the limitations of flesh without divesting himself of his diety. This is called the incarnation:

John 1:1-4~"1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4-In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

John 1:14~ "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

According to the New Testament, God was not seperate from what and those he created in any sense. He was/is sensitive to the needs of man and familiar with our most personal needs:

Hebrews 4:15~ "For we have not an HIGH PRIEST which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin."

Additionally the New Testament confirms the active role of God in the salvation of mankind:

John 3:16 ~ "For GOD SO LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

2 Corinthians 5:19~"To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

Based on this attribute alone, it should be thoroughly understood that the God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran cannot be one in the same, as one has of his own accord revealed himself readily to his creation, taken upon the limitations of mankind and redemmed mankind in a surgical and precise fashion, whereas Allah has restricted himself physically from his creation, sent only a representative of his message who is of a lower class than himslef while simultaneously declaring that he himself can only be perceived by humanity through the actions of human agency while he himself remains personally hidden.

Section II: The Biblically Affirmed Deity Of Jesus

As noted from Section I, within Islamic teaching there is no room at all for what the Bible teaches regarding how God has revealed himself to his creation nor for the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In Islamic teaching Jesus is no more than a prophet and certainly not one who died on the cross because of this he was not the one who rose from the dead in any sense other than the metaphorical sense of rising in one's consciousness. Because of this sharp difference, the teachings of Christianity are considered "Shirk" (blasphemy)or the greatest sin.

To confirm this thought, let's look at the Quran pronouncing a curse upon those who believe in the deity of Jesus:

"The Jews call Uzayr a "son of God" and the Christians call "Christ the son of God" that is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be upon them: how they are deluded away from the truth!"(Sura 9:30)
Islam as well as most biblical critics have traditionally held in question how much the bible teaches regarding the deity of Jesus, however it is abudantly clear that the gospels as well as the first written epistles of Paul clearly hold that Jesus was deity and not merely a man or prophet.

Prior to the gospel of John (90 AD), that I referenced earlier in this writing, it can be established that the first written narratives of the New Testament, the epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (55 AD)and Phillipians (55 AD) clearly upheld the deity of Jesus and that statements regarding the deity of Jesus were clearly pronounced as "essential" beliefs among Christians. There was no compromise on this subject among Christians and was reflected as much in Nicean Creed of 325 AD. Here is one of the first statements giving Jesus divine glory that we find within the New Testament:

Phil.2:9-11~"9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11-And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

There was NONE that heaven would bow down to except God himself. God would not share his glory with mere mortals.

Isaiah 42:8~ "I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and MY GLORY will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

God would not and does not instruct worship to anyone other than himself.

Jesus Receives Worship While On Earth Biblical Prophets Don't:

When questioned about the first commandment of God toward men, Jesus in Mk. 12:29 repeated the Hebrew Schema שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד - "Shema Yisrael YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Echad" Deut 6:4 and the Hebrew V'ahavta "And ye shall love" from Deut. 11:13. Understanding this is especially important because it affirms that serving ONE Lord and worshipping ONE God was unquestionably what Jesus taught and practiced. In other words what Jesus affirmed was clearly Jewish and clearly monotheistic:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"

As already noted, part of being a strict montheist was realizing that noone else was to be worshipped other than God himself. In context not even angles were to be worshipped as they were mere messengers of God and not God himself. With that said it cannot go without noting that Jesus regularly and often received worship in the Gospels and throught the New Testament.

In Matthew the wise men sought out Jesus with the express purpose of giving him worship Mt.2:1-2 says:

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,2-Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."

Additionally Matthew also contains an inclusio based on power and authority. The inclusio begins with the temptation in the wilderness in Mt. 4:8-10 with satan attempting to tempt Jesus by asking him to "worship" him:

"8-Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9-And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10-Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

The word used for worship (Gk: proskuneses)was the expansion of the word worship (Gk: proskuneo) of Mt. 2:2. The inclusio ends Mt. 28:16-20:

"16-Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17-And when they saw him, they worshipped (Gk: proskuneo) him: but some doubted. 18-And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19-Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20-Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen."

Thus the theme is clear. Without bowing to satan in any sense Jesus rightfully claims all power and authority that he had and receives the worship that was due him. He then exclaims this to those who had previously been blinded by the god of this world or satan himself.

God Calls Jesus God, Angles And All Of Heaven Worship Him, Not So Of Prophets:

Heb. 1:5-8~"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6-And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7-And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8-But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Repeating Psalms 45:6 Hebrews confirms that Jesus' nature was not merely the nature of angels of angelic beings and that it was not an angelic being receiving worship in heaven where only God is worshipped. Further, Revelation chapter 5 is filled with a beautific scene of heaven where Jesus is worshipped by all in heaven and occupies the throne of heaven or the seat of God himself.

Jesus Receives And Answers Prayer, Prophets Don't:

Contrary to Catholic doctrine, noone in heaven has authority to receive prayer but God himself. We see over and over throught the New Testament that believers not only prayed to Jesus but were encouraged to continue in prayer toward him. One of the first prayers made was to find a replacement disciple:

Acts 1:24~"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,"

The disciples prayed for the power to preach and minister the gospel and for the power to produce "signs and wonders" in the "authority" of Jesus (Acts. 4:30) Another notable prayer was the prayer of Deacon Stephen when he was stoned:

Acts 7:55-60~"55-But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56-And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57-Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58-And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. 59-And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60-And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep."

There are many other things that could be said and pointed out here but there is ample evidence scripturally to understand that the New Testament clearly taught that Jesus was not merely a man. He was/is God that took upon himself the limitation of humanity and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14).

Section III: God's Plan Of Salvation And The Problem Of Original Sin:

In Islamic teaching there is no such doctrine as "original sin". In fact sin is not the problem between God and man as Muhammad records that he was a sinner and that Jesus was without sin. Nonetheless, in spite of this acknowledgement, and angel named Gabriel "supposedly" claimed that Muhammad was the "Seal Of the Prophets" or the last and greatest prophet among men.

What concept of salvation there is within the Quran is based on observance of the Shahadah (Pillars Of Faith) as referenced in Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 1, and faithful observance to ritualisms such as fasting and traveling to Mecca and good works:

"Those who avert evil with good, theirs shall be the ultimate abode, Gardens of Eden which they shall enter; and those who were good to their parents and wives and their seed" (Sura 13:22-23)
"Men who fast a women who fast...for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and great reward" (Sura 33:35)
The message of the Quran came well after Jesus finished works righteousness by tearing the wall of partition between God an man by his death on the cross. In contrast, the work for salvation within Islam is never  finished. In the Old Testament, which the Quran is supposed to confirm,  works righteousness included sacrifices of expiation (remission of sins). This sort of concept is one far missing from Islamic teaching and the Quran all together. The manner of accounting for sin is totally different within Islam. In the New Testament, the Biblical plan of salvation involves repentance from sin as sin is the problem between man and God, this salvation is received and rooted in faith, actualized and made effective by works and maintained by trust and relationship with Christ. (See: Are Works & Faith Inseperable?)

In short, in Islam any salvation that can be gained is only based on what one has done or what one does and even that cannot be guaranteed as eternal, everlasting or meaningful with God.

Section IV: The Final Revelation Of God To Man

About 500 years before Islam the writer of Hebrews recorded these words:

Hebrews 1:1-2~"1-God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,2-Hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

The final revelation of God to man was done in the person of Jesus Christ himself who is God. The bible accords:

2 Corinthians 5:19~"To wit, that God was in Christ, RECONCILING THE WORLD unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

The revelation of God to humanity rests and abides within Jesus not Muhammad, the Quran nor Islam. Jesus hails that he is not merely "a way" but "the way"...in fact the ONLY way to both true peace with God, salvation and eternal blessings:

John 14:6 ~ "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Yes, it is my hope that someone reading this will consider the dangers of Islam as it pertains to salvation and their eternal destination. Islam, like many cults, have adherants with deep seeded emotions and emotional attatchments which make witnessing  to those bound within this religion challenging, however, the Christian is not without the aid of the Holy Spirit who's abiding presence is yet another concept not contained within Islam. I pray that you would share this information with those within Islam who want to be free by the Power of Christ as he is truely the only one able to rescue lost souls and provide true peace.

Blessed!

Update 10/26/2009 ~ Could Speaking Out Against Islam & Islamic Doctrine Become A Violation Of International Law?  Hear A Special Report By Jay Sekulow.
Read more!

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 3

Honor Killings: Radical Islam Or Just Islam?

"If I had stayed in Ohio, I wouldn't be alive,"..."In 150 generations in family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first — imagine the honor in killing me."..."There is great honor in that, because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It's in the Koran,(Quran)"..."They love God more than me, they have to do this," ..."I'm fighting for my life. You guys don't understand. … I want to worship Jesus freely, that's what I want. I don't want to die." ~ Fathima Rifqa Bary

The Price Of Choosing Jesus Over In Islam

This young Christian came to Jesus November 8th 2005. In July of 2009 she realized that she had to flee for her life and cut her ties with her family which maintained associations with Islam. For 4 years she hid and minimized her transformation experiences until her father found Rick Warren's book "A Purpose Driven Life" and her mother later found a second book. After these conversations in which she disclosed her love for Jesus she was threatened in the following manner:
17-"My father had a serious talk with me about the importance of retaining the Islamic blood line in my family but I did not tell him about my conversion;" 18-"In June of 2009 my father confronted me with several questions about whether I had become a Christian, whether I was baptized, ifl was going to a church. Out of fear I remained silent;" 19- "Then my father told me that he received numerous e-mails and phone calls from the leaders of the Noor Center community who informed him that he needed to deal with this matter immediately;" 20- "In a fit of anger that I had never seen before in my life, he picked up my lap top, waived it over my head as if to strike me with it and said "If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me! You are no longer my daughter." I continued to remain silent and then he said to me even more angry than before, "I will kill you! Tell me the truth!" 21- "On July 17, 2009, my mother confronted me about another Christian book she discovered that I had hid in my bedroom. She had just spoken with my father was on the phone who was out of town. She was very upset, in tears, and almost grieving and told me I was going to have to be sent back to Sri Lanka to be dealt with;" [(pg. 35 sworn deposition "INVESTIGATION AND INTELLEGENCE MEMORADUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR DEPENDENCY" IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA sworn and Filed 8/30/2009.]
Evidently police had to track Rifqa's whereabouts through computer and phone records. They found that her new temporary home had become the Global Revolution Church of Orlando Fl. partored by former Methodist pastor Blake Lorenz and his wife Beverly. According to the Orlando Sentinel the church is currently undergoing reorganization due to undisclosed reasons.

The Problem...The Connection

The Ninth Circuit Court Judge in the case, Daniel Lawson, ordered an investigation into Rifqa's former mosque to determine the validity of Rafqa's assertions. According to JihadWatch.Org, after being led around by Omar Alomari, who is said to have ties to muslim extremists (a cover boy), Rifqa's attorney responded to the investigators findings with a scathing 35 page brief claiming that the Noor Islamic Cultural Center, to which the family has been attached, "has been identified as one of the primary sources of Islamic extremism in Central Ohio"(Para 1, pg. 2)

The brief further states that the Noor founder, Dr. Hany Saqr, since 9/11, had a previous phone number which was listed in an Hamas American Operative phone book confiscated in 1992. This phone book identified what is called the Muslim Brotherhood's leadership in North America (Para 1, pg. 4) claiming that the individuals listed were individuals who could be counted on for faithful resistance or for the purpose of Islamic Jihad.

In response to these sworn allegations the Noor Islamic Cultural Center holds that Rifqa only attended the mosque on 3 occasions and that neither she nor her parents were known or instrumental figures in the Noor agenda. They also contend that Rifiqa is only a tool in the hand of Muslim haters:
"Unfortunately, hate groups appear to be using this family matter as an opportunity to attack the Muslim Community and Islamic Organizations in order to further their religious and political goals."

What the Noor Islamic Cultural Center leaders do not refute is the concept of "honor killing" as specified by Rifiqa in her many statements on the subject. Maybe that is because "honor killings" exist as a practice within the Islam and encourage or bless those who commit such atrocities in the name of Allah. I could be because there is a certain honor or place among the most radical and fundamentalist clerics and believers for practices such as this.

Update 10/13/2009:
The judge has ordered Sister Bary back to Ohio pending the immigration paperwork and verification of citizenship. So far the family has failed to do so and is in contempt of court. Here is the FOX News report of the story:


We Will Not Forget The Said Sisters

Mr. John Walsh and America's Most Wanted aired this story on sisters Sarah (17) and Amina (18)Said who were the daughters of taxi driver and radical Muslim extremist Yasir Abdul Said (50). According to Jesus Is Lord, A Worshipping Christian's Blog, in the Dallas suburb of Lewisville, Mr. Said "allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways.

Critic: "I Believe These Are Only Radical Extremist Views"

Well, I do too. However I also believe that these views are representative of Islam in its current and traditional condition. "Honor Killings" are supposedly for the protection of "family honor" by the leader or head of the family. This type of killing is usually from one family member to another family member. As you should note, There is certainly much political controversy over this issue and many are reluctant to speak out for fear of being branded as a "Islamic hatemongers", but thank God for TRUTH TELLERS such as Islam Watch who are former Muslims who expose this religion and this practice for what it is. Plain and simple ungodly murder. Claims are that this practice originated among Arab Muslims and has spread among most Muslims today. Islam Watch renders the following Quranic and traditional supports for "Honor Killings":

Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:

Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”

Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”

Quran-17:32 “ Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).

Quran-33:33 “stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.”

[A woman who transgresses these orders becomes the source of shame to her family. She will not be marriageable, she and her family become the object of gossip of everyone. The entire family can lose prestige. No one would give a daughter to the brothers of that girl in marriage and no one would marry her sisters. The family and even the extended family are maligned and become outcasts. This can only stop if the family cleanses that stain with blood. The woman thus defiled must be sacrificed even if she is a victim of rape.]~ Faithfreedom.org

Now some sahih hadiths:

Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died. (See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)

Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”

Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."

Al-Bukhari:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever guarantees me that he will guard his chastity, I will guarantee him Paradise”.

Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nisa’i and others:
Abu Hurayrah reports that the Messenger of Allah said, “No one commits adultery while still remaining a believer, for faith is more precious unto Allah than such an evil act!” In another version, it is stated, “When a person commits adultery he casts away from his neck the bond that ties him to Islam; if, however, he repents, Allah will accept his repentance”.

Al-Bayhaqi:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “O mankind! Beware of fornication/adultery for it entails six dire consequences: three of them relating to this world and three to the next world. As for the three that are related to this world, they are the following: it removes the glow of one’s face, brings poverty, and reduces the life-span. As for its dire consequences in the next world they are: it brings down the wrath of Allah upon the person, subjects him to terrible reckoning, and finally casts him in hell-fire.”

Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 22, Hadith No. 858.
Ali reported the Prophet saying: "Women have ten ('awrah). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten."

Misogyny Exists In Islam

What is awrah? The Encyclopedia of Islam defines 'awrah as pudendum, that is the external genitals, especially of the female. Pudendum derives from the Latin pudor which means sense of shame and modesty. So awrah signify an object of shame that needs to be covered. This is why the woman must remain covered, because she is too big of a temptation for a man sexually. This understanding leads to the next hadith which says:

"The woman is 'awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her." [Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut , Vol II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p. 65. Reported by Tirmizi as a true and good Ahadith.]
Faithfreedom.Org states this also: "If you escape from your home for any reason including abuse, you have brought shame to your family and you could be haunted by your own brothers or even your mother and killed."
A Possible Biblical Reason For The Mistreatment Of Women

I believe that this prophetic scripture is the reason that this crimes perpetuated against women are so strong in Islam:
Gen. 3:15~ "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Islam is devoid of any true power to set one free from sin. The actions of men are placed upon the women and it is always a woman's fault for what she experiences. Many believe that the practices of Islam simply reveals the bias of patriarchal relationships found within ANE (Ancient Near East) religions and literature. The bible is ANE literature and holds a much higher view and value of woman than does the Quran. In addition biblical scholars agree that Gen. 3:15 points to Jesus himself as the "seed" that bruises the head of satan. That seed flows through the woman (Mary) and because of it she (women in general) are fought by the "serpent" (aka: devil). Within the black community in America and in Africa nothing is more true.

These concepts could also have some bearing on the spiritual implications of Rifiqa's plight and the plight of other Muslim women seeking to convert to Christianity. If you are women considering becoming a Muslim please reconsider your actions and turn to Jesus the only true savior with power to forgive sins, heal your soul and bless your life. He has come to make you free, not bind you or blame you for the sexual sins and inadequacies of men.

John 8: 31-36 ~ "31-Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32-And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33-They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34-Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35-And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36-If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed"
There's nothing like a saved, sanctified and freed woman of God!

Blessed!

Read more!

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

COGIC Victims Advocacy, Essential, Necessary & Urgent Pt. 1

"The largest company, Church Mutual, reported an average of about 100 sex abuse cases a year involving minors over the past decade. GuideOne, which has about half the clients of Church Mutual, said it has received an average of 160 reports of sex abuse against minors every year for the past two decades. Brotherhood Mutual said it has received an average of 73 reports of child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct every year for the past 15 years. However, Brotherhood does not specify which victims are younger than 18 so it is impossible to accurately add that to the total cases"~The Houston Chronicle 6/14/2007

The Church Of God In Christ has been one of the greatest Pentecostal Holiness churches in America and has given rise to great tradition, dynamic ministry and the opportunity to serve the community at a grass roots level physically, materially and spiritually through prayer and righteous living.

With that said, for almost 5 decades this "Grand Ole Church" has not been without its challenges in dealing with clergy sexual abuse, improprieties, and clergy sexual sins and inconsistencies. In recent times, as documented by GCMWatch.com, clergy sexual abuse has reared its ugly head within the Church Of God In Christ causing much fallout and damage not only to the financial assets of the church, (at minimum lawsuits totaling 110 million dollars in lawsuits have been filed against the church for clergy sexual abuse) but to the most important resource of the church, the human resource of the believer.
Souls have been damaged and cases have been highlighted in almost every region of the country. Although, COGIC has not been the only organization or church that has suffered from this terrible sin, the situations have been especially disappointing to the African-American community which, until modern times, has held COGIC churches within the community in high esteem.

These problems have not gone overlooked by the Presidium of the Church Of God In Christ (aka The General Board Of Bishops) prompting the following statement from the Presiding Bishop of our church:
"We now live in a litigious society. People file lawsuits for every conceivable grievance, whether real or imagined. To protect the name, image, and assets of the Church of God in Christ, we must take positive steps to seriously investigate every case of alleged sexual abuse by the clergy. We must stand behind and support those who are falsely accused of sexual improprieties and found innocent by the courts. We must also insure that the Church act quickly to take firm and positive action against those who violate the sanctity of their positions and are found guilty of sexual abuse and other sexual improprieties." ~ ‘Person To Person 2007’ The Most Rt. Rev. Bishop Charles E. Blake Presiding Bishop Church Of God In Christ Inc. Memphis, TN.

Though highly critiqued, (and rightfully so) this statement does encourages a higher standard in dealing with cases of clergy sexual abuse. It is that slither of an opportunity that I have addressed and care to address within this post.

Background Information:

On February 4th 2009, Supt. Harvey Burnett submitted a proposal entitled Church Of God In Christ National Victims Advocacy Program (copyright date 4/2008). The 23 page proposal was faxed successfully to the following leaders of the Church of God in Christ who were in turn asked for a response:

  • The Most Reverend Charles E. Blake Sr., Presiding Bishop
  • The Right Reverend Phillip Aquila Brooks II, First Assistant Presiding Bishop
  • The Right Reverend Jerry Wayne Macklin, Second Assistant Presiding Bishop
  • The Right Reverend Roy LH Winbush, Assistant Secretary To The General Board
  • The Right Reverend Chandler David Owens, GB Member, Former Presiding Bishop
  • The Right Reverend J. Neaul Haynes, GB Member
  • The Right Reverend Samuel L. Green Jr., GB Member
  • The Right Reverend George D. McKinney, GB Member
  • The Right Reverend Nathaniel W. Wells, GB Member
  • The Right Reverend Sedgwick Daniels, GB Member
  • The Right Reverend Robert R. Sanders, Illinois 3rd Jurisdiction
  • Judge Enoch Perry, COGIC General Counsel

On May 19th 2009 the General Counsel of the Church Of God In Christ posted the following articles:

At the time of this writing it is unsure of whether the COGIC postings were in conjunction with or in response to the proposal that we submitted.

Summary Of Proposal:

The proposal that we submitted encouraged the church to establish an advocacy plan that is clearly in favor and in support of individuals and families that have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of COGIC clergy, ministry personnel, and adjunct church representatives. The outlined plan sought to create accessible a user-friendly system whereby complaints would be heard, assistance would be provided directly, and a clear path of correspondence would be established between the victim, church hierarchy, social authority and legal authorities if necessary.

The Victims Advocacy Plan as proposed is a viable and adaptable national plan including many elements. The following would be some of the necessary components of a successful Victims Advocacy Program: (pg. 15-16)

  • The establishment of a national grievance procedure and process centered on the victim. (specificity of this will be discussed at the appropriate time)

  • The establishment of a Centralized Victims Advocacy Dept. broken into regionalized teams to ensure efficiency in dealing with issues in multiple locations simultaneously.

  • A National Call Center or toll free access ~ National coast-to coast access is essential to the success of this sort of program.

  • A National Inter-Active, Web Site designed and developed to disseminate information to the public on how to identify the signs of sexual abuse and better explain the processing of sexual abuse claims and the grievance procedure within the Church Of God In Christ. The web site should also provide organizational statistics and helpful information as it pertains to dealing with and overcoming sexual abuse for those outside of our organization.

  • Complete and full disclosure to the Victims Advocacy Leadership of the current and potential sexual abuse cases within the church so that potential hot spots and trends can be assessed, and an action plan established to address problems early.

  • A clear and consistent educational program as a process for all Bishops, Superintendents, Pastors, Elders, Ministers, Mothers, Missionaries, and Evangelists. ~ This educational process should include information on the Victims Advocacy Program, current sexual harassment and sexual abuse procedure and should assist the church in the establishment of a National Sexual Abuse/ Harassment policy. This process should be conducted in conjunction with the Victims Advocacy Dept. and networked throughout all State Jurisdictions and assemblies. Further, this program should be a MANDATORY requirement within ALL Jurisdictions for the admittance of all churches, pastors and ministry personnel, both male and female.

  • Requirement that every church entering The Church Of God In Christ obtain a minimum sexual abuse liability insurance requirement as specified and agreed upon by Memphis. Jurisdictions may be encouraged to provide blanket coverage for upstart churches. At either rate no church should be admitted as a member of The Church Of God In Christ until they have secured this coverage.

The complete impetus of A COGIC National Victims Advocacy Program is to focus upon the victim's of sexual abuse, not asset preservation.

In Contrast

To date, with the exception of Bishop Robert R. Sanders (Il. 3rd Jurisdiction COGIC), we have not received a response from any COGIC official regarding this plan or proposal. We are therefore unsure of the reason that COGIC addressed the issue on the General Counsel web site as the information given seems to stop short of instituting a fundamentally new approach to this issue and only seems to suggest solutions to the problem. Further the information on the COGIC site is similar in format to what was distributed by our office. It is our encouragement that the following occur:

  • That the national church leadership acknowledge the need for a National Victims Advocacy Plan.

  • The National Victims Advocacy Plan or Program be establishment and geared solely toward the healing and restoration of victims of clergy sexual abuse.

  • That the national program be instituted as not to infringe upon current procedures for grievances within the church but to enhance the grievance procedure by providing the necessary support to the victims of clergy sexual abuse.
What Can Be Done In Addition To What Has Been Proposed?

1- Victims suffering from clergy or ministry related sexual abuse or know someone suffering from such abuse, can now make a confidential report at a new website called Reportcogicabuse.com

2- Members of churches and jurisdictions can ask their Pastors and Bishops to get involved in taking the necessary steps to rid our church of this disease. Implememtation of proper rules to address the needs of the victims are absolutely essential to that process.

3- Church Mutual Insurance a national leader in insurance for clegy sexual abuse recommends safety Tips and recommends that churches take clear and significant steps and provides tools that will assist local churches in rooting out and preventing this enemy from rising within the church.

4- Most importantly pray for the deliverance and restoration of all victims and all of our church. We want to encourage strong leaders to stand and demand the integrity of the church and the safety of our members at all levels.

Blessed!


Read more!

Friday, September 4, 2009

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 2

Islamic Heretics & False Christs

Even cultic religions have their heretics. For the Nation Of Islam their heresy is all wrapped up in the teaching that the Christian Messiah and the Islamic Khalifa, (Allah's agent on earth) came in the person of Master Wallace Fard Muhammed(1877 -1934-or sometime ~ Actually he is said to be on the mothership flying above-???). The Nation Of Islam is considered by traditional Islam to be a heretical group because of they believe that Allah took human form appearing as a man. As stated in "Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 1" this sort of teaching is known as Shirk, and is the highest or deepest blasphemy within Islam according to the Quran. Of course the Quran is of very little importance to the Nation Of Islam as they simply serve and obey the new messiah and self proclaimed "christ" they call Minister Louis Farrakahn.(pictured above)

There is a great history of charismatic leaders within the Nation of Islam. The successor of Master Fard Muhammad was Elijah (Pool) Muhammad who many yet claim was responsible for the dissapearance of Master Fard and the assassination of Malcom X after Malcom X visited Mecca and expanded his teachings and views of Islam to match more traditional views found within the Quran in 1964. Believe me there is a complete apologetic against such notions and I am uninterested in teh details and besides that isn't the focus of this article or this blog. (At least not yet)

In this article, we won't go into a chronological history of events within this movement, however we will make an attempt to understand it's appeal to many witin the African American culture and community. As noted in Hip-Hop, Idolatry & The Church Pt. 1, Islamic teachings and belief systems have had a specific effect and influence on many black artists and entertainers. With the conversion of popular social figures to Islam, such as former NAACP President Dr. Benjamin Chavis, and other popular black icons, as we will see later in this post, the NOI's influence cannot be understated, simply written off or devalued.

A Cult Is What A Cult Does

The NOI is a highly organized group. The followers are disciplined and believe in many positive and ethically right social and political moralities. On most days within many black communities, all one needs to do is drive down the street within the black community to engage a NOI Muslim distributing incence and their magazine "The Final Call". It doesn't matter how hot or how cold it is. Similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, these gentlemen and sometimes women, will work all day to spread their version of truth which is usually no more than the teachings and doctrine of one of the NOI's Ministers or former leaders. One thing is certain, IF you can allow the Lord to use you to penetrate the shell of a NOI follower and he/she is convicted of their sins and repents, you will most likely have and inpeccable Christian believer and faithful servan of the Lord. So it is well worth the effort to know the truth and reach out to this lost group.

Structure & Beliefs

The Minister sits atop the NOI with a host and regiment of body guards and ministry adjuncts to insure that the messenger is protected and the message preserved. The Nation's flag is designed under the Turkish variation or influence and adds the letters J- Justice, F- Freedom, E- Equality and I- Islam to the four corners.

The following are the Nation Of Islam's Official Beliefs:

1. WE BELIEVE In the One God whose proper Name is Allah.

2. WE BELIEVE in the Holy Qur'an and in the Scriptures of all the Prophets of God.

3. WE BELIEVE in the truth of the Bible, but we believe that it has been tampered with and must be reinterpreted so that humankind will not be snared by the falsehoods that have been added to it.

[May I interrupt? Now isn't that convenient. They are the only one's who caught the tampering and the interpolations of scripture (the bible), but don't worry they have a record to help correct us. That record came along over 500 years after the bible was already established and its tenets set forth...well go figure!]

4. WE BELIEVE in Allah's Prophets and the Scriptures they brought to the people.

5. WE BELIEVE in the resurrection of the dead—not in physical resurrection—but in mental resurrection. We believe that the so-called Negroes are most in need of mental resurrection; therefore they will be resurrected first. Furthermore, we believe we are the people of God's choice, as it has been written, that God would choose the rejected and the despised. We can find no other persons fitting this description in these last days more than the so-called Negroes in America. We believe in the resurrection of the righteous.

[Excuse me again, so resurrection is certainly NOT physical, it's only mental and poor black folk, they are so mentally incapable, they need to get to the FRONT of the line and go first. In their zeal to be racist against the white man, the NOI displays the utmost racism against their own people, by calling black folk "negroes most in need of mental resurrection"...What a way to go NOI...what a way to go!]

6. WE BELIEVE in the judgment; we believe this first judgment will take place as God revealed, in America.

7. WE BELIEVE this is the time in history for the separation of the so-called Negroes and the so-called white Americans. We believe the Blackman should be freed in name as well as in fact. By this we mean that he should be freed from the names imposed upon him by his former slave masters. Names that identified him as being the slave master's slave. We believe that if we are free indeed, we should go in our own people's names—the black people of the Earth.

8. WE BELIEVE in justice for all, whether in God or not; we believe as others, that we are due equal justice as human beings. We believe in equality—as a nation—of equals. We do not believe that we are equal with our slave masters in the status of freed slaves. We recognize and respect American citizens as independent peoples and we respect their laws that govern this nation.

9. WE BELIEVE that the offer of integration is hypocritical and is made by those who are trying to deceive the Black peoples into believing that their 400-year-old open enemies of freedom, justice, and equality are, all of a sudden, their friends. Furthermore, we believe that such deception is intended to prevent Black people from realizing that the time in history has arrived for the separation from the whites of this nation. If the white people are truthful about their professed friendship toward the so-called Negro, they can prove it by dividing up America with their slaves. We do not believe that America will ever be able to furnish enough jobs for her own millions of unemployed in addition to jobs for the 20 million Black people as well.

[One more time if you don't mind. It seems that the NOI was especially interested in starting their own country and establishing the wolrds largest employment agency. All this because they knew and know nothing about forgiveness. This is why the message of Christ on the cross is so powerful and without apology. None of the Islamic prophets know forgiveness, they only know war. by the way, NOBODY but NOBODY before let's say 500 AD was a Muslim. Abraham was certainly not one and neither was it a religious system until Muhammad came along.]

10. WE BELIEVE that we who declare ourselves to be righteous Muslims should not participate in wars that take the lives of humans. We do not believe this nation should force us to take part in such wars, for we have nothing to gain from it unless America agrees to give us the necessary territory wherein we may have something to fight for.

11. WE BELIEVE our women should be respected and protected as the women of other nationalities are respected and protected.

12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited Messiah of the Christians and the Mahdi of the Muslims.

13. We believe further and lastly that Allah is God and besides HIM there is no god, and He will bring about a universal government of peace wherein we all can live in peace together.

Simply put, they are heretical even by their own standards. If Master Fard "appeared as" God then who is Allah and where was he at? This group would have to adopt some form of dualism to even believe what they describe because they do not ascribe to one God existing as two persons, but they do make the exception and say that he "appeared" as a man. This is utterly confusing and nonsense. Something that you would expect from a "hustler" arrested in California frustrated in Detroit, and slick enough to come up with an idea by which he can con people even if but for a moment.

The Appeal

One would wonder with the out right confusion of the NOI, what would make it attractive? Let a former NOI member, now Christian explain:


"It was a thing that made us feel good about ourselves; it was a black identity thing. It gave us something we did not have it gave us boldness and strength"..."Not everything I learned in the Nation was bad. There was a resoect for women among them, there was more sisterhood and brotherhood and discipline in the Nation" [Testimony of Ms. Fahemah Sharrieff Inside Islam by Reza F. Safa Charisma House Books 1996 pg.59]

Ms. Sharrieff goes on to say that even though things appeared so good and right there was no power to keep her from the alchohol and drugs that overtook her and ruined her life. Self discipline was not the answer and she didn't find true freedom until she met Jesus at a church service Aug. 8th, 1988. I'm convinced it's better to be free no matter what the color of skin!

A false sense of accepting and belonging is what draws many into the NOI, only to find a "form of godliness" but no true power. The sad part is that the church was supposed to be the vessel that accepted the masses of individuals but has failed to do little more than pacify itself at the altar of its own ego.

Antisemitic?

Does the NOI join traditional Islam in it's hatered for Jews? Be careful because there is an excuse and obfuscation for everything. According to Timothy Ministries Theological Dictionary.com there are a whole host of issues with this group not to mention their antisemitism which they deny although their former spokesmen did say this:

"I called them [Jews] bloodsuckers. I'm not going to change that. Our lessons talk about the bloodsuckers of the poor in the Supreme Wisdom of the Nation of Islam. It's that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, Johnny-come-lately perpetrating a fraud, just crawled out of the caves and hills of Europe, so-called damn Jew. . . and I feel everything I'm saying up here is kosher."(NOI Minister and former Spokesperson, Khalid Abdul Muhammed in Baltimore, MD, February 19, 1994)

Minister Farrakhan himself has been no better claiming that the "pretending" Jews were responsible for America's problems and they they had deceived the nation into first of all believing that they are real Jews and secondly into obeying their false message and blinding the truth of Allah which was given by Moses, Abraham, and Jesus all of who Islam respect as great prophets of God.

The Star Factor

Although they have seduced many of America's most popular athletes such as Lou Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) and Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali)(who especially claimed Belief #10) Then there is strong and growing suspicion that the NOI had more to do with the demise of Michael Jackson and the dissapearance of significant sums of money, than anyone originally knew. In the July 2009 Commerative Edition Of Hip Hop Weekly Magazine Mr. Leonard Muhammad stated that he was appointed by Minister Farrakahn at Michael's request to handle Michael's affairs. The problem is that many of his staff and the NOI security were still around even after they had been released and were no longer needed. In fact Mr. Muhammad said this:


"Tom (Mesereau-Attorney during the child molestation trial)felt that that was not the image that he wanted to go to trial with. That he would prefere that Michael did not give that advantage, as how he saw it, to the prosecuting team. So we agreed to graciously exit So that it would give Michael the best possible chance of beating that case. Upon my leaving when Mesereau came on board most of our security people did remain and some of the nannies and teachers that were involved, they were not as high profile as I was, so they weren't focused on, so thankfully many of them were able to stay around Michael for quite a while after that and really until he passed away..." [Hip Hop Weekly Special Commemorative Edition 7/2009 Leonard Muhammad Broken Silence by Dasun Allah pg. 63]

One things is abundantly clear. There is no greater obfuscation of truth at any level than is found in The Nation Of Islam. This group is not theologically rooted in the Quran so theological discussions don't carry much weight within conversations as many adherants don't read the Quran with much understanding or context. However, they do purchase videos and receive sattellite broadcasts of their false christ whenever they can hear him speak. To their credit many NOI Ministers are interested in the condition of the community and are willing to organize to get things done but to their SHAME they do this eagerly especially if it means thwarting what they call the "white devils" whenever possible.

Mt. 24:23-24 ~ "23-Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24-For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

Conclusion:

The Nation Of Islam as well as other more traditional Ismalic groups need a saviour. Unfortunately for them their proclaimed greatest prophet Muhammad couldn't guarantee that his own sins were forgiven salvation following or adhering to the tenets of Islam. When asked about remission of sins the best answer that a Muslim can give is "Only God knows" or "God is merciful". In Christ we had a MUCH better hope that is both sure and steadfast. In the final segment we will look at a biblical rebuttal and apologetic to some of the questions and assertions of Islam. The saints must know that the weapons that we use in our warefare are much more poignant and sharp than the Quran or Islam will ever be.

All I know is what can wash away my sin? NOTHING but the blood of Jesus!

Blessed!


Read more!