Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’

Liberals ‘Religion’ Is The ‘Religion’ Of Abject Hypocrisy, Cynicism And Fascism

July 30, 2014

It’s a funny thing, liberals and Jesus.

On the one hand, they loudly and shrilly denounce conservatives from talking about religion and most certainly for actually trying to make their religion part of public policy in any way, shape or form.

“How DARE you?!?!” they declare with über self-righteous indignation and moral outrage.  “The separation of church and state is the foundation of our democracy!!!”

Only that’s an outright lie, or course, as is easily proven by reading the words of our founding fathers – including our very greatest founding father who was the father of our country:

What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

I have a lengthy volume of quotes in the article I link to above proving that “separation of church and state” was not a value our founding fathers cherished.  What modern progressive liberals wanted is most clearly seen in the near-contemporaneous events of a very different worldview that emerged in the French Revolution and ended in “the Reign of Terror” as a truly ugly and tragic spirit of atheism became a toxic, murderous cancer across France.

But what is most interesting about liberals isn’t merely their hatred of the morality of religion and their determination to suppress and exterminate religion by essentially banning it from government and from culture.

It is the amazing hypocrisy that they immediately show when they believe they can twist, pervert, distort religion to their side.

As an example, let’s consider what liberals – and I mean the liberals who are most toxic in their rants against the “Christian right” – are doing to subvert Jesus into their political ideology.

I came across on the editorial page of the überleftist Los Angeles Times a cartoon by the liberal cartoonist Jimmy Margurilis one such example:

Who Would Jesus Deport

Well, I suppose I’d like to ask Jimmy Margulies – since the opinion of Jesus is clearly so important to him – who Jesus would TAX?  Who would Jesus regulate?  Who would Jesus oppress with government bureaucracy?  Who would Jesus, for that matter, sentence to prison on Margulies’ deeply flawed understanding?  If Jesus wouldn’t deport anyone, He wouldn’t imprison anyone either, would He?  He’d just forgive them and let them go scott free to torture and rape and murder and oppress the rest of us.   That’s the Jesus the left loves: the benign Jesus who morally stood for NOTHING but “tolerance.”

Here’s another liberal telling us we should be a theocracy:

“Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America,'” tweeted King Tuesday before adding: “Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren’t in your back yard, isn’t it?” — Stephen King

It turns out that Christian groups – the very people Stephen King is most demonizing – are doing by far and away the MOST work to help these people who are flooding across the border.  And they rightly asked the secular humanist progressive liberal turd, “What are YOU doing to help these people???”

But here Stephen King is quoting the Bible for us, quoting the Jesus who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  NO MAN comes to the Father except through ME.”  The same Jesus also said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”  In fact, Jesus said, “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”  And oops, Stephen, that includes the parts about homosexuality being an abomination and a detestable act and the like.  And oops, that includes abortion and the systematic murder of more babies than the total number of dead – civilian and military alike on both sides alike – of the bloodiest and most murderous war in the history of the human race.

Liberals believe in the separation of church and state.  Oh, until it suits their purpose NOT to believe in the separation of church and state.  To put it more accurately, liberals believe in the separation of church and state for Republicans and conservatives.

Which is why it is always amazing to hear a liberal try to tell you that we should open our arms, surrender our borders, and allow every single “refugee” to come flooding into our country because it’s in the Bible.  Where, number one, it is NOT in the Bible, and number two, even if it WERE, it would fundamentally and profoundly contradict your precious “separation of church and state” to do it anyway.

If Stephen King and Jimmy Margulies and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want a Judeo-Christian theocracy, fine.  Let them say so.  Let them stand for the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers and forced worship of Christ.  But that’s not what they want, is it?  No.  They want a liberal progressive, secular humanist salad bar where THEY and ONLY THEY get to cherry pick the highly selective parts of the Bible they want to follow after splitting those parts out of their context and warping them.

See, I could actually LIVE in a world where Jesus was taken seriously and obeyed.  It’s LIBERALS who would be violently revolting.  Because liberals are people who are so toxic to Jesus that they literally put Him in a jar of urine and funded it as “art.”

I ask you, liberal, to produce for me ONE Bible verse that says it is secular government – and not the church’s and not God’s people’s – role to provide welfare.  I’m just going to state it categorically until you do, that your worldview is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

When the disciples came to Jesus because there was a crowd of 5,000 men (probably a good 15,000 people) who had nothing to eat, do you know what Jesus did NOT tell them to do?  He didn’t tell them to go to King Herod or to Governor Pilate for a government welfare program to feed the poor.  He said YOU feed them.  And after a little humming and hawing the disciples finally did the right thing: they did their best to put some food together and came to Jesus and asked HIM to bless it.

In 1 Samuel chapter 8, we find that the people, in wanting to be like all the other nations with a human king and a human big government, were rejecting GOD.  If you don’t believe me, why don’t you read 1 Samuel 8:7 for yourself?  And God warns the people, saying over and over again, when you have your big government king, HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL APPOINT FOR HIMSELF… HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL TAKE… (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:14).   HE WILL TAKE (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:15).  HE WILL TAKE (and exploit what he takes for his political and ideological projects according to 1 Samuel 8:16).  HE WILL TAKE … and you will become HIS servants.

And God will not answer you because you made GOVERNMENT your God and your master.

And that is exactly what liberals have done and exactly what liberals want.

Unless, that is, in their twisted and perverted way, they think they can twist and pervert Jesus into their socialist elf.

It’s actually true that the Bible tells us not to harm the sojourner in your land.

But let’s see if that’s an all-encompassing and all-inclusive edict that should apply to illegal immigrants who break our laws to enter our country and consume our resources like locusts when they arrive.  Let’s see what God had to say to Israel about how to treat the Jebusite, the Hittite, the Canaanite, the Philistine, etc:

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.  But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. — Deuteronomy 20:16-18

I wonder if liberals are going to quote that passage to me when it comes with how to deal with illegal immigrants???

Oh, wait, I DON’T wonder.  Because liberals are the worst kind of self-serving, dishonest HYPOCRITES who despise the Bible in any kind of actual, legitimate CONTEXT.

God commanded Israel to drive out or destroy these peoples because they were absolutely wicked and depraved.  God knew they would corrupt His people with their vile ways.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.  And history proves that Israel collapsed spiritually and morally before they collapsed politically because they failed to carry out God’s command.

God was incredibly patient with these people in their wickedness.  In Genesis 15:6, God gave Abraham the land these wicked peoples inhabited.  But first Israel would remain in Egypt for four hundred years.  Why?  God explained, ” In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”  When these peoples reached their “full measure” of wickedness, it was time for Israel to come in and take what God had given them.

And America is in a very similar situation as millions of illegal immigrants pour in who do NOT love America, who do NOT want to assimilate, who have NO love for our Constitution, our founding fathers or our ways.  And they are subverting everything this nation used to stand for just as the above “immigrants” subverted everything that God intended for Old Testament Israel to stand for.

I state for the factual record that there are a lot more verses like that one regarding “immigrants” in the Bible than there are the kind the liberals cite as categorical commands to allow illegal immigrants to come in and take over our country as Democrats exploit them to “fundamentally transform” America.

And how did Obama instruct the people the liberals demand we let in?

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

But I’m sure that leftist propagandist Jimmy Margulies would fully agree that Jesus would instruct His followers to “punish your enemies.”  And of course Jesus would use the IRS as a political weapon to harass, intimidate, dismantle and persecute – and yes, “punish” – His political opponents, wouldn’t He???

Let me assure you of something: if Hispanic illegal immigrants voted Republican, you would see the rabid, poison-dripping FANGS of Democrats come out in a spirit of rage and hate unlike nothing you’ve ever seen on the faces of Republicans as they went completely poop-flinging nuts over the invasion of our border.

I attend a church that has an English and Hispanic congregation.  And I regularly take part in ministry to Hispanics, quite a few of which are here illegally.  As a true Christian, I DON’T hate illegal immigrants.  I realize as a moral human being that if I were a poor Mexican or Central American living in a completely failed state the way these people are, I would come to America too – either legally or illegally.  I recognize that for many illegal immigrants, work is a good thing that they are grateful for.  And that they send a lot of the money they earn home to their families.  These are virtuous things.  What I rabidly despise is a cynical and dishonest liberal ideology that wants to politically benefit from these poor people’s misery and ignorance.  I blame the left for its hostility to America as they seek to cynically grab further political advantages by exploiting these people.  Liberals are like drunken braggarts in a bar, buying drinks for everyone in order to be popular and then refusing to pay the tab when the bill comes.  America cannot afford to continue living so wildly and wickedly beyond our means.  We are going to completely economically and socially collapse because of the vile wickedness of Democrats.  And then you will see suffering as you have never seen before – suffering that Democrats forced upon the America that they destroyed.

I believe, therefore, that we ought to treat the illegal immigrants who are coming here as human beings.  And that we should protect our nation, protect our borders, protect our culture, protect our way of life by controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.

And, like the Christians that Stephen King demonizes, I’ve actually put both my time and my money where my mouth is.

Liberals don’t want to follow God or His ways.  They HATE and DESPISE God and His ways.  Instead, they want to REPLACE God with their human government and they want to replace God’s ways with the ways of “political correctness” that they can shape and distort and control by first banning God from our discourse and then replacing God’s ways with their ways in the vacuum that they created with their “separation of church and state.”

If you actually follow Jesus and His Word and regard both as your moral authority, fine, you go ahead and quote Jesus and quote the Bible.  But when I know and YOU know that you really despise both Jesus and the Word of God, THEN DON’T YOU DARE DISHONOR CHRIST BY SUBVERTING HIS TEACHING WITH YOUR WICKED IDEOLOGY THAT IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM ABANDONS HIM.

I tell you what, liberal.  Since what you really want is more big government, instead of quoting the Jesus whom you clearly don’t follow, why don’t you quote the sources that actually represent your real belief system?  Quote me fellow adherents and proponents of your monster-sized (and frankly monstrous) government system.  Quote me Chairman Mao, quote me Joseph Stalin, quote me Adolf Hitler, quote me Kim Jong-Il on illegal immigration.  But, oh, that’s right: these people EXTERMINATED immigrants they didn’t like.  You’d be completely and utterly long, but at least you’d have the virtue of integrity.

But instead what you do is falsely masquerade behind an artificial Jesus when we both damn well know you don’t follow Jesus and never will.  There’d be nearly 57 million more babies born to grow up and come to the feet of Jesus if you believed Him, just for starters.

What liberals really want isn’t Christ, but the Antichrist.  They want the ultimate big government tyrant who will viciously persecute the people of God and impose the complete socialist takeover of the world in the economic system known as the “mark of the beast” such that no one can buy or sell ANYTHING without government approval.  THAT’S the “Christ” liberals want.

Jesus told us in the last days prior to “the Democrat Jesus” – the Antichrist – coming, people would come in His name claiming to represent Him.

And in the warped, dishonest left, that’s what we’re seeing.

Which is how we can know the beast is coming.

 

 

Christ Is Risen! He Is Risen Indeed! An Easter Message On 1 Corinthians 15

April 20, 2014

Christ is risen!  He is risen indeed!  That millennia-old paschal greeting sums up the essence of Easter.  Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, as prophesied in the Old Testament as a future event and as described in the New Testament as a historical fact, was crucified and His dead body was placed in a guarded tomb.  But on the third day, on that first Easter morning, He was raised from the dead.  And by being raised from the dead Jesus was able to offer His resurrection life to anyone who would believe in Him.  According to Romans 10:9, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

In our modern age, the Christ of Easter has been replaced by what we can call an “Easter Bunny Jesus.”  2 Corinthians 11:4 points out that false culture, false religion and false science manufacture false Jesuses.  The Easter Bunny Jesus was a good man, a moral teacher, who was killed for preaching socialism, pacifism, and whatever other politically correct “-ism” is in vogue with the secular humanist, anti-supernaturalist, postmodernist, existentialist, moral-relativist crowd that has anointed itself the arbiters of truth.  Their Easter Bunny Jesus, of course, died and is still very much dead.  One of their favorite assertions is that the biblical accounts of Jesus are myths and fables written after the fact by people who were not eyewitnesses.

The problem with the Easter Bunny Jesus is that such a Jesus, like the Easter Bunny itself, ultimately means nothing, because he is nothing but a fabricated story with a fabricated theological meaning.  And a dead Messiah can’t do anything for anybody for the very simple reason that he is DEAD and BURIED.  And it is a doubly fabricated story because it has no connection whatsoever with the real Jesus and what the real Jesus really did on Easter.

So what really happened on the first Easter morning?

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15 we have an early Christian creed that dates to within the time of the crucifixion of Jesus that defines the meaning of the Gospel of Easter and defends the HISTORICAL REALITY of Easter.

Turn with me in your Bibles, if you have them, to 1 Corinthians 15:

   1Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

What is the meaning of the Christian Gospel of Easter?

First of all, the Easter Gospel is that by which we are saved.  According to the Bible, there are ultimately only two kinds of people: those who are saved, and those who are lost.  Jesus believed in the reality of hell.  We avoid discussing hell, because a lot of modern people find the concept very unpleasant.  But the fact is that Jesus talked more about hell than anyone else in all of Scripture.  In fact, Jesus talked about hell almost more than everyone else in Scripture COMBINED.  Jesus said in Matthew 7:23 that there will be many to whom He will say, “Depart from me.  I never knew you.”  In Matthew 8:12 Jesus spoke of a place of outer darkness, and said “in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”   According to Matthew 25:41 Jesus will say to those who are not saved, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

No Easter Bunny Jesus can save you.  Only the power of the real Resurrected Son of God can save you.

What do you have to believe to have the Easter Resurrection Life of Christ?  1 Corinthians 15:3-4 tells us: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”  Forget the Easter Bunny Jesus; we’re talking about the REAL death and the REAL Resurrection of the REAL Christ Jesus who came in fulfillment of the Old Testament that prophesied the coming Christ.  And this real Jesus REALLY died.  The body of this real Jesus REALLY was buried.  And the body of this real Jesus was REALLY raised from the dead.

Who is Christ?  As Peter confessed to Jesus in Matt 16:16, He is the Son of the Living God.  He is God the Son.  The Gospel of John begins by teaching that Christ was with God the Father from the beginning, and ALL things came into being through Christ.  Colossians 1:16 confirms this truth about Christ Jesus, teaching that “in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him.”

God the Son took on a human nature.  He created man and woman in His own image knowing that one day He would assume our image, so that He could live the perfect life in our place that we could not live, and then die the death that we could not die in our place for our sins.  And all you have to do to be saved, according to the Bible, is accept what He did for you on the cross, and believe that God raised Him from the dead with the kind of Resurrection Life that He alone can offer to YOU right here and right now as He takes your sin and gives you His righteousness.

Now comes the question: why should anyone believe this Gospel?  Why should anyone believe that this Christ came, died in our place for our sins that separate us from God, and was raised from the dead as the Lord of Life to offer that Life to us?  What evidence does St. Paul present that he’s telling the truth about the first Easter?

In verses 3 through 7 of 1 Corinthians 15, scholars identify an early Christian creed (there are SEVERAL early creeds preserved in the New Testament that were passed on from the very first Christian witnesses).  St. Paul – who began his own career as a Jewish rabbi and a Pharisee – in saying, “For what I received I passed on to you” – is actually using technical rabbinical terminology for the receiving and passing along of established oral tradition.  He’s pointing out that he received this creed from someone else and is now passing it on.    Paul points out that he had ALREADY given the Corinthians this creed on his first visit, which history confirms happened in 51 AD.  He uses the past tense: “I passed on to you.”  So we’re already within twenty years of the cross, aren’t we? But St. Paul tells us that just as HE passed the creed on, it had been previously passed to HIM, right?  So who did St. Paul receive the creed from?

It gets exciting: most scholars argue that Paul had to have received this creed when he made the trip to Jerusalem described in Galatians 1:18-19 to meet with Peter and James – the very people specifically named in the creed. That event is fixed historically: it happened in AD 38.  That’s just a few years from when Christ was crucified.

But the stylized, structured wording of this creed strongly suggests to many scholars that it predates even Paul’s visit to meet with Peter and James.   The underlying wording is clearly Aramaic rather than Greek, for example.  When the passages are re-translated into Aramaic, they possess the rhyme and rhythm that clearly reveals they were originally developed in that language.  That is why it’s “Cephas” rather than “Peter.”  And in the words of this creed, we are back right to the moments right after the Cross, to the Resurrection, as the eyewitnesses described what they saw and who saw it with them.

Let’s look again beginning with verse 5: “and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.”

For the first thousand years after the Crucifixion of Jesus, the ONLY polemic from Jews – who saw the rise of Christianity as a threat to Judaism – was that Jesus’ disciples had stolen His body from the tomb.  That was the only rival explanation that was offered.  Jesus died and stayed dead, and His disciples stole His body and started preaching a lie.  But here’s the thing: that explanation has largely been abandoned by even the most skeptical scholars today.  Do you know why?  Because in the thousand years SINCE the end of the first millennia, critics have had to contend with a brutal fact of history: that these twelve men who claimed they had seen Jesus resurrected from the dead CHANGED THE WORLD preaching about that resurrected Jesus they claimed they saw and heard and touched.  The calendar on planet earth is dated in A.D., Anno Domini, In the Year of Our Lord, BECAUSE of the testimony of the apostles about Jesus.

History records the fact that Jesus’ disciples traveled across the known world preaching about what they witnessed that Easter morning.  With the sole exception of St. John – who was himself tortured for his testimony – all of these men gave their lives as martyrs proclaiming that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, whom they had seen crucified and whom they saw raised gloriously from the dead.

Here’s the problem for skeptics and for those who prefer the Easter Bunny Jesus: these disciples were in a UNIQUE position to know whether or not they had really witnessed what they claimed they had seen and heard and touched.  While it is possible for people to be sincerely mistaken, the disciples were in a UNIQUE position to know for certain whether they saw, heard and touched what they claimed they had.

Would you be willing to die for something that you categorically KNEW was false?  Do you think you could assemble a dozen other people who would likewise all be willing to die for something that they knew was not true???  No.  Nobody dies for a lie.  Everyone pretty much agrees that the disciples clearly, sincerely believed that they had seen their Lord Jesus gloriously alive after His death by crucifixion and after having spent three days in a tomb.  There are some who want to argue that Jesus was the one who pulled off the fraud, having somehow survived being crucified, having a Roman spear shoved through His heart, waking up in a tomb and climbing out to deceive His disciples.  But the problem with that is that it makes JESUS a horrible, lying fraud and in fact the greatest villain in all of human history.  Does that work for you that the Man regarded as the greatest moral teacher who ever lived was a dishonest imposter???

So modern skeptics have devised a phenomena of mass hallucination, whereby all twelve of the disciples over and over again all thought they were seeing the same thing, hearing the same thing, even TOUCHING the same thing, but of course they had to be somehow mistaken every single time.  And when 500 people all saw and heard the same thing at the same time, well, what else could have happened except that they were suffering from a mass delusion?  A delusion so powerful most of them ultimately sacrificed their lives as martyrs for what they thought they had seen but of course hadn’t really seen.

I find it easier to simply believe that there really is a God who can do what the God of the Bible says He can do.

St. Paul provides three specific witnesses that we have to briefly discuss: Cephas (or Peter), James, and last of all, Paul adds himself to the list in verse 8.

These three men cover the panoply of possibilities and responses to Jesus: When Jesus was crucified, Peter – who had believed in and followed Jesus – was a completely broken man even before Jesus was crucified.  He had fled like a coward from the One he had previously declared he would die for.  He had denied Jesus three times that night while Jesus was on trial for His life.

Question: what would it take to make this completely broken man the boldest of the disciples who would preach until his own martyrdom by crucifixion?  What would it take to make such a man – facing his own cross of execution – ask the Romans to crucify him upside down because he did not feel worthy to die in the exact same manner as his Lord Jesus?  What would it take to restore Peter?  Only one thing: an appearance by the resurrected Lord of Life who forgave him and restored him and gave him a mission that he would doggedly pursue to the moment of his own martyrdom.

Take James, the half-brother of Jesus.  The Gospels record that James was highly skeptical of his half-brother Jesus.  John 7:5 openly declares that James didn’t believe.  Mark chapter 3 indicates that James was one of those who literally thought that Jesus had lost His mind.  Here comes the question: what would it take for you to believe that your oldest sibling was the Creator God of the Universe???  Because THAT is the point that James the brother of Jesus had to somehow arrive at.  What would it take?  How about seeing his half-brother, having been crucified, gloriously risen from the dead in proof that everything He had said about Himself was true and that He really WAS the Savior of the world???  We know that James became a believer at the worst possible time, right after his half-brother was brutally executed by Rome as a warning to anyone who would believe what Jesus had believed.

And history records that James, known as James the Just for his godly character, was murdered by a mob as a martyr for preaching, yes, that his half-brother Jesus really was Lord and God.

And we arrive at St. Paul.  Verse 8 says, “and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”  St. Paul started out as Saul, a rabid Jewish Pharisee who despised Christians and literally wanted them all either dead or in chains.  Until something knocked him off his high horse when he was on the road to Damascus to persecute more Christians and changed his mind – and more – his heart forever afterward.  And so Saul the most ardent persecutor of the Church became St. Paul, the most ardent evangelist of the Church he had tried to destroy.  What could cause such a transformation?

Paul repeatedly offered only one answer: he saw the risen Jesus and he believed what he saw and heard.

On this Easter morning, I it is my privilege to declare to you that it all really happened just as the Scriptures declare: that Jesus the Christ, the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, really came, really lived a perfect life in your place, really took your sins upon Himself at the cross, taking the blame for what you’ve done, and really rose bodily from the dead so that you could be raised to the Resurrection Life of Easter with Him.

And all you have to do to have that eternal Easter life is believe in the Lord of Life, believe in Jesus.

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2): How God Revealed Himself To Man

December 2, 2013

See Part 1 here: http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/jesus-son-of-man-son-of-god/

Much of this work is a distillation of Bruce Milne in Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, pages 25-62.

Statement #1: “If you don’t know Jesus, then you don’t know God at all, and that’s just that.  Jesus is the only way to the Father and the only way to have peace with God.”

Statement #2: “That’s not true.  Jesus may be your way, but God has revealed Himself in lots of other ways.  My friend is into New Age religion and she says she really feels God within her.”

Discuss…. But what I want you to realize is that such divergent viewpoints are often determined by a prior discussion about the nature or grounds of religious authority.  What should our authority be?  Should we appeal to what we feel personally?  Or is there something more ultimate?  How do we decide what is correct teaching?  To what source can we appeal to resolve differences and conflicts?  What is our criterion for truth?  If you don’t know, you end up where the wind blows.

What IS “authority”?  Authority is the right or power to require obedience.  I submit that the world is experiencing a crisis of authority in culture today – and it is largely self-imposed as we have rejected the biblical authority that our ancestors assumed.

Over the centuries, various Christian sects have appealed to a variety of voices as sources of authority, such as: the historic creeds or confessions (the 39 Articles of the Reformation, the Westminster Confession); the mind of the Church (i.e. the main trend/consensus of Christian opinion); subjective Christian experience and “the inner voice” (which largely began in the 19th century); Christian reason as the belief that truth consists in what we can demonstrate about God via logical reasoning.

All of these have some degree of validity.  But none of them are adequate to bring us to God’s mind and thus be the authoritative source of Christian truth.  The ultimate source of authority is the triune God Himself as He is made known to us through the words of the Holy Bible.  This view combines three truths: 1) God has taken the initiative.  We know of Him because of His decision to make Himself known to us and reveal His will to us (revelation).  2) God has come to us Himself in Jesus Christ, the God-Man.  As the eternal Word and Wisdom of God, Christ is the mediator of our knowledge of God (John 1:1ff; 14:6-9; 1 Cor 1:30; Col 2:3; Rev 19:13).  3) Our knowledge of God comes through His Revelation in His Scripture.  He caused it to be written and speaks to us through His eternal Words given to all generations of believers.  And as we submit ourselves to its authority we place ourselves under the Living God who is supremely revealed to us in Jesus Christ.

What is “revelation”?  Revelation means unveiling something hidden, so that it may be seen and known for what it truly is.  The principal OT word is “gala,” which comes from a root meaning “nakedness” (e.g. Exodus 20:26 cf. Isa 53:1 and 52:10 where the arm of the Lord is literally “made naked”).  In 2 Sam 7:27, the literal rendering is “You have made naked your servant’s ear.”

But how has God revealed Himself to us given that: 1) We are creatures.  There is a vast distinction between “God created” in Gen 1:1 and “God created man” in Gen 1:27.  God the Creator exists utterly apart from us, while we as creature depend utterly on God for our contingent existence.  We are literally “dust” and to dust we shall return (Gen 3:19).  That said, this distinction is NOT absolute: we are made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27).  God communicates with us (v. 28).  Ultimately, God became a man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14); God the Spirit indwells Christians and brings us into personal relationship with God (Rom 8:9-17).  There is a profound correspondence between God and man; but the profound and irreducible distinction remains as a barrier that only God can overcome.  For instance, only God truly knows God and the thoughts of God.  God’s knowledge includes our self-knowledge (Ps 139:1-6), but our knowledge does not include God’s self-knowledge.  Our creaturehood requires God to reveal Himself if we are to have any adequate knowledge of Him.  2) We are sinners.  Our need to have revelation from God is immeasurably increased by our sinfulness.  The fall has affected every single aspect of our being – including especially our perception of moral and spiritual reality.  Sin leaves us spiritually blind and ignorant (Rom 1:18; 1 Cor 1:21; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:1-5; 4:18).  That means there is absolutely no road from our intellectual and moral perception to be any kind of genuine knowledge of God.  The ONLY way to knowledge of God is for God to freely place Himself within range of our perception and renew our fallen understanding.  Which makes revelation from God crucial.

What is the likelihood of such a revelation from God?  Is there a reason we ought to expect God to reveal Himself?  If God is our Creator, revelation in some form becomes overwhelmingly probable because we can presume that God made us for a purpose.  And since His creatures are clearly responsive beings with inherent capacities for relationship, we may also presume that God’s purpose for creating us involved some kind of relationship and response to Himself.  Such a relationship requires revelation in some form.  Would a wise, intelligent, relational Creator leave His creatures to grope helplessly in the dark without making Himself known?  The thought is plausibly absurd.  And when we presume that God is loving, the likelihood of revelation becomes overwhelming; no loving parent would deliberately keep out of His child’s sight and range of reference so that His child would grow up ignorant of His existence.  The alternative would be a “Susan Smith” God, who gave birth to her children only to load them into a car and push the car into a lake to perish.

God has revealed Himself in Creation.  In Rom 1:18-32 Paul explains God’s judgment on the Gentile world.  God “gave them over” (1:24, 26, 28) to the self-destructive tendencies of their fallen natures because, though they knew God, (by His creation), they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him (1:21).  Instead, they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God” and “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” and “did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God (1:23, 25, 28).  This spurned knowledge of God consisted of their not recognizing “God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature [which] have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (1:20).  Therefore they are “without any excuse” (1:20).  In short, the creation of the world obliges mankind to acknowledge God and give glory and thanks to Him (1:20).  Similarly, at Lystra in Acts 14:17 Paul informs the pagan crowd that God “has not left Himself without testimony.”  And in Acts 17:26 refers to the Creator’s ordering of the affairs of individuals and of nations “so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him.”  God has also revealed Himself in moral experience.  In Rom 2:14, Paul points out that “when the Gentiles, who do not have the [OT] law, do by nature things required by the law… they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”  There is clearly some awareness of God’s moral will on the part of [even non-Christian] humanity.  The Bible confirms the fact that God has revealed Himself to all within our moral experience, which is to say that He has revealed Himself in the conscience of the NON-Jew/Christian.  Yes, sin causes a moral obtuseness which distorts all of our consciousness of God and His will, but nevertheless, all humanity has some awareness of the sense of obligation to do good and to spurn evil that reflects the image of God to whom we are all finally fully responsible.  Further, God has revealed Himself in our universal religious sense.  The instinct for worship is a universal human phenomenon.  Anthropologists have NEVER uncovered so much as a single people or group, no matter how primitive, who lacked a sense of awe before the supernatural.  I submit that John 1:9 and Psalm 139 (esp. 12-16) testify to this universal religious sense.  Which is to say that atheism is NOT “natural”; it is rather bizarre and abnormal.

By the way, it is BECAUSE of this role of God in all our hearts and in our governments that a stabilizing of human society due to the sanction of moral law – whereby good and evil are distinguished and evil is held in check – is a fruit of God’s general revelation regardless of how little it is acknowledged by sinners.  Without this Providence of God, human society would swiftly unravel into chaos, anarchy and nihilism.  Because of God’s general revelation, even in spite of the blinding effects of sin, no one can plead entire ignorance of God.  Everyone alike is confronted by God and therefore carries responsibility for the lack of a true relationship with their Creator.

Further, God’s revelation is not static like the sun’s rays or electricity; rather, it is dynamic as God sovereignly chooses upon whom He will shine His light.  We find that God repeatedly reveals Himself to mankind but that mankind repeatedly resists, obscuring and even perverting the revelation (Rom 1:21-28).  It is only in an attitude of utter submission and obedience that God’s revelation can truly be encountered.  When people refuse the revelation they have and refuse to adopt an attitude worthy of revelation, God may close the door to further revelation (Matt 25:29; Mark 6:21-28; Luke 8:18; 23:9).  And a person who repeatedly resists God’s revelation may eventually become incapable of recognizing or responding to it.  By contrast, as a person responds to the light God gives him, God will send more light/revelation such that he will be saved.

The supreme/ultimate form of God’s self-disclosure was His becoming incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14).  In the Incarnation, God bridged the gulf separating Creator from Creature by “taking the form of a servant…being found in appearance as a man” (Phil 2:7-8).  In Jesus Christ God is present in the world in person, and His character and essential nature are “naked” to us: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:10).  This identity of Father and Son is critical for our knowledge of God.  Jesus is not a partial or temporary image of God which needs to be complemented by anything or anyone else afterward.  He is “the exact representation of God’s being” (Heb 1:3).  In Jesus Christ we see and confront the beating heart of God.  Jesus Christ is the center/summit of all divine revelation.

Nevertheless, apart from the Twelve disciples, special revelation comes to us in and through the Bible first and foremost.  God has always communicated to His people through His written Word mediated through the lives of chosen patriarchs, prophets and apostles.  A written Word (according to Abraham Kuyper): 1) achieves durability, with errors of memory and intentional or accidental corruption being minimized compared to any other form of communication; 2) can be universally accurately disseminated through reproduction and translations; 3) has the attributes of fixedness and purity; and 4) has a finality and normativeness which all other forms of communication cannot attain.  The Bible as God’s written Word is objective and eternal, never changing as men’s subjective feelings of God change.  It is in the Bible that we learn about and meet Jesus Christ.  It is the Bible that is the basis for all Christian teaching and preaching.  And just as Jesus taught through the Bible of His day in His earthly ministry, He teaches us through His Word today.  This it is written, “The grass withers, the flower fades but the Word of our God stands forever” (Isa 40:6).

It is worth asking, ‘Why should anyone believe that God could communicate with a different order of being such as man?’  The answer is that God is well able to communicate with His own rational, verbalizing and image-bearing creatures on their own level (i.e. by human language) because He created us to be able to communicate with us.  To deny the reality of God as Communicator (as some do) is in effect to deny the reality of God as Creator.  Psalm 94:9 says, “Does He who formed the ear not hear?”  We could also say, “Does He who formed the mouth not speak?”

That having been said, the Bible is not exhaustive in giving us all knowledge of God.  We retain our human limitations, for instance.  And while the Bible is God’s Word to us, the language of the Bible remains human and therefore limited.  There is more to God than even the Bible can convey.  Scripture itself distinguishes the “secret things” which belong to God (Deut 29:29) from “the things which are revealed” which “belong to us and to our children forever” (Isa 55:8-11).  Francis Schaeffer pointed out that in His Word, God tells us truly about Himself, but not exhaustively.  Human language – particularly written human language – remains the best medium we have for communicating God’s truth to us.  And to the extent that human language is not finally completely adequate, we have the Holy Spirit.  According to John 14:15-17, Jesus sent us the “Spirit of Truth” as an advocate who will help us and be with us forever.

What was Jesus’ view of the OT?  Jesus accorded complete divine authority of the OT Scriptures.  1) He quoted the OT in a manner in which He clearly viewed it as the divine Word of God (Matt 4:4; Mark 14:27) and 2) even referred to it as “the Word of God” (Mark 7:11-13; John 10:34-36).  3) He spoke of its divine inspiration (Mark 12:36).  4) Jesus indicated His ministry was in complete accordance with the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27, 44).  5) He accepted OT history as completely true (Matt 22:29, 32; John 8:56; Mark 12:26; Luke 11:30-31; Matt 25:35: Matt 12:3; Luke 17:26-28; John 3:14). 6)  Jesus assumed the normative character – applying to all people throughout all time – of OT ethics (Matt 5:27-48; 19:3-6; Mark 10:9).  7) Jesus rebuked those who did not believe the Scriptures (Matt 22:29-32; Luke 24:25-25; Matt 15:3).  And crucially, 8) Jesus viewed the OT Scriptures as previsioning His own unique mission (Matt 5:17,19; Luke 24:46-47; John 5:46-47).

Significantly, although as Incarnate Deity Jesus exercised the very authority of God, Jesus at no point opposed His personal authority to that of Scripture.  Even further, being persuaded that He was the long-awaited Messiah of Israel through whom God’s Kingdom was to come, Jesus modeled His Messianic role in terms of OT teaching – such as the inevitability of His rejection and suffering on the cross (Matt 26:24; Mark 8:31; Luke 22:37).  Jesus recognized that Scripture was God’s divine blueprint.  Jesus clearly believed in the complete authority of the Scripture as God’s Word, and the One who was Himself the eternal Word and wisdom of God (John 1:1-14; 8:58; 17:5; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20), and who possessed a perfect and sinless human nature(John 8:46; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 1:19), simply could not have been wrong.

Jesus gave His apostles special authority.  Jesus deliberately chose certain men to be His disciples and gave them a special endowment of the Holy Spirit (John 20:22 cf. Acts 1:5).  He commanded them to go and teach in His name ((Matt 28:18-20; John 20:21; Acts 1:8).  And He promised the Holy Spirit would guide their teaching and their witness of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13-16).

The apostles claimed direct experience of this unique authority and divine insight (1 Cor 2:9-13).  They proclaimed the gospel in the boldness and confidence that they spoke “by the Holy Sprit” (1 Pet 1:12), to whom they attributed both the content and the form of their message (1 Cor 2:13).  We also note the special concern in the Book of Acts for the apostles’ role as specially appointed witnesses (Acts 1:21-26; 2:32; 4:26,33; 5:32; 10:41-42; 13:31).  And thus they were authoritative proclaimers with the corroborative witness of the Spirit (Acts 2:32) of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  They spoke with complete assurance (Gal 1:6-8) and issued commands with authority (2 Thess 3:6, 12). In fact, a person’s claim to have the Holy Spirit was measured by whether he or she recognized this divine authority of the apostles teaching (1 Cor 14:37).  Peter actually classifies Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:16) and Paul commanded that the letter to Colossae be “read in the church” (Col 4:16).

Naysayers claim that this argument is circular (e.g., the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible calls itself the Word of God), but we need to point out a final reason for the authority of Scripture: how else could one establish a claim to ultimate authority other than by reference to that authority???  Wouldn’t any other authority to establish that ultimate authority itself become the ultimate authority?  This same approach is used in other fields of human investigation: we don’t keep having to establish the “laws of science” by appeal to other science; it is the laws that give the rest of science its foundation.  The fact of the matter is that, in the final analysis, only GOD can be the proper authority to Himself.  There can be no other.  That said, ultimately Christians escape the charge of circularity quite easily: I believe the Bible is the Word of God because Jesus believed the Bible is the Word of God – and Jesus was not only the greatest man who ever lived, but the Son of God, and thus in a unique position to know the truth.

It’s not that history and the historicity of the Bible don’t matter; nor is it that the correspondence of Scripture to logic, philosophy, psychology, science and medicine don’t matter.  But if we’re always looking to corroborate the Bible we never get to the thing that we refuse to simply BELIEVE.

I was somebody who at one key point in life needed “convincing.”  I wanted proof.  I spent many hours searching for that proof.  But here’s the thing: I found it (past tense).  I don’t walk around wondering if there’s a God anymore; I don’t walk around wondering if the Bible is His Word anymore.  I resolved those things.  I moved on to weightier stuff, such as “Now that I believe, what am I going to do about it?”  I think that’s what James is getting at in his verse, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder” (James 2:19).

Click here to see Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3)

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 1): The Fool Says In His Heart There Is No God

November 4, 2013

What is this class going to be about?  It’s going to be about Jesus according to His words in John 14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me.”  This class is going to be about Jesus as the only possible fulfillment of desperate human need.

I titled this, “Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God.”  Let me try to explain why.  The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was fully human in every way, human in every way that it is essential to be human, and fully God.  Passages such as Philippians 2:6-8 teach “the kenosis,” the emptying of Jesus as He laid aside aspects of His deity – WHILE REMAINING IN HIS NATURE GOD – in order to become fully human and experience the essence and the angst of human limitation.  How was He able to do this?  The short and simple answer is the Virgin Birth in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6.  Jesus, according to John 1:1-3, was the Word who was with God and was God.  We’re taught that ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY CHRIST.  And so when we read Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” we now know that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  And so when we read Genesis 1:27 which says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

God created man.  But we can be even MORE specific: The Son of God created man.  Christ created man.  Christ, who would assume human image, created that very human image that He knew He would one day assume.  How could Christ assume human image?  Because Christ created man in His image, and more precisely because Christ created man in an image that He could one day assume Himself.

There’s a beautiful, simple poem: He came to die on a cross of wood, but made the hill on which it stood.”

Consider again John 14:6.  No one comes to the Father except through Jesus.  Jesus is the unique answer to the human condition, the only antidote to the fatal disease of sin.  He is THE way, THE truth and THE life.

So the title: Jesus as the Son of Man, in His humanity, shows you what is necessary to live a life that is pleasing to God.  Jesus as a human being showed us what kind of life – THE ONLY LIFE EVER LIVED – can earn/merit/deserve the reward of heaven rather than the judgment of hell.  If anyone thinks he or she is good enough to deserve to go to heaven on their own merit, all he or she has to do is live as perfect a human life as Jesus did.  What we find in studying Jesus’ life is that if you ever had so much as a single sinful THOUGHT, let alone act, you don’t measure up to God’s standard of a righteous life.  Everything Jesus thought and said and did were in perfect alignment with the will of the Father.  YOU try living up to that.  But Jesus in His humanity, in coming to seek and to save us, lived a perfect human life on earth because He knew we could not in our fallen state live the sinless lives a perfect holy God demanded.  As the Son of Man, Jesus lived a perfect human life in our place – the same way that Adam as the first man stood in our place and represented us (but led mankind into sin).  And Jesus in His deity, Jesus as Son of God, showed us what kind of life – AGAIN THE ONLY LIFE EVER LIVED – can gain heaven for any other human being.  In His deity as the Son of God, Jesus was able as GOD ALONE IS ABLE to save the entire human race by uniting in Himself as the Son of Man and the Son of God.

But having said that by way of introduction, let’s step back and consider the alternative to Jesus as “Son of Man, Son of God.”  Let’s suppose that the human race were left to its own devices, and that we were the answer to our own salvation, as secular humanists and atheists claim.  Let’s present the alternative scenario that the human race is the byproduct of meaningless, purposeless, random evolution and take some time to see where this scenario leads mankind in the question, “Where does morality come from?”  I want to argue for God on the basis of the simple fact of moral laws and our resulting moral intuitions .

When I got out of the army my knee was ruined and I was broken more than merely physically.  I was like many who couldn’t understand why God would have allowed me to go through such an ordeal or why He hadn’t healed me.  Frankly, had I had a better grounding in the Scripture, I would have known that God never said that bad things would never happen to His people.  I would have known that God has a plan that weaves things that we consider bad at the time to create an ultimately much greater good for us.  But I was young in years and young in my faith.  And I became bitter.  I went from wondering where God was, to wondering if He cared, to wondering if He was even there at all.

It’s interesting that the Bible never really seriously addresses the objections raised by atheists, other than to say it is fools who say that there is no God.

Here’s a great quote about “intellectuals” and “fools” from George Orwell: “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”  It is amazing to contemplate how utterly divorced from reality many – if not most – intellectuals are.

Basically, God is simply presented as a fact of reality in the Bible.  And if you want to know why you should believe in God, all you have to do is look around you and see the purpose and beauty and design of creation (e.g. Romans chapter one).  God is an obvious brute fact, and it is fools who entertain foolish speculations to suppress the truth in their wickedness.  They can’t believe because they won’t believe.  All the evidence in the world won’t change what amounts to a bitter, cynical, poisonous attitude.  I think this is true, and as an example I think that the field of psychology backs it up: you can’t change a heart or mind that doesn’t want to be changed. Until someone is ready to change, all the logic, all the reason, all the facts in the world simply won’t matter.  And I present myself and my weight as an example.  Until I was ready to do what I had to do, NOBODY was going to be able to argue me into doing what I had to do to lose weight and get healthy.

There’s an appropriate line of dialogue that was said many times in Three Stooges episodes: “I can’t see, I can’t see!”  “You’ve got your eyes closed.”  “oh.”  When you are finally ready to open your eyes, you can see all the light you want to.  I was NEVER an atheist, but I had been spiritually traumatized into closing my eyes to God.  And I simply couldn’t see all the reasons I had to believe because I wasn’t looking.  Now I can see so many; but atheists won’t look at all those reasons.  Their eyes are closed.  2 Cor 4:4 takes it even further, pointing out that Satan as “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel.”  Open your eyes.

Last night on my walk, it occurred to me at a certain point as I walked in the dark that I’d better check for coyotes.  Once a coyote had tried to come up from behind and ambush my dog at this point.  So I turned on my flashlight and my blood pressure shot up as I saw a coyote moving toward us.  Only it wasn’t a coyote; it was a plastic bag caught in a shrub at just the right height to fool me.  We tend to see what we expect to see, don’t we?

But let me take you to a realization that I had during my quest for light (while like a “stooge” I was wandering around with my eyes shut).  I realized something important: it occurred to me that if in fact there were no God, and if evolution were true, that there was no real, objective morality – and that I could literally do whatever I wanted no matter how “evil” society claimed it was.  Murder, rape, you name it: there is no ultimate penalty for these things if there is no God who rewards or punishes.

I knew enough about the natural world at that point to understand that it is impossible to look at nature and find any grounds apart from God or religion for morality.  As an example, many matings in the insect and even mammalian world would for us constitute acts of rape.  And in the case of praying mantises or black widows, the females often get even by killing and eating the father of their children as soon as the mating is completed.  I watched a documentary about higher primates that showed a dominant female chimpanzee’s baby dying because she couldn’t produce milk.  As dominant female, what did she do?  She seized the baby of a less-dominant female.  And what happened?  That baby died because the dominant female couldn’t produce milk.  Is that wrong?  That’s NATURE, baby.  In the world of nature, do we arrest lions for crimes: “You murdered that zebra.  We’re going to have to put you in prison for your crime.”  It would be idiotic.  Anyone who understands the nature that humans ostensibly come from according to evolution understands that nature is utterly cold, utterly cruel and utterly amoral.

You can’t give what you don’t got.  Nature can’t “evolve” morality in humans because it never had it to give to begin with.  And the entire history of the natural world screams that cold hard brutal fact.

Does morality come from nature?  Not.  Would you like to depend on the amorality of nature to save you from anything?  I sure wouldn’t.  What about “herd morality”???  Does morality depend on what society says?  When we stand before God, will he turn to an opinion poll to judge us for our sins???

Where does morality come from, then?  Does it come from human government?  We can look at THE two most totalitarian forms of human government in history – communism and fascism – and see that theory get blown apart.  Surely if morality comes from government, then the more control exercised by government the better, right?  It turns out that the more government the WORSE.  Communism is identical with “state atheism”; every officially state atheist government with the exception of the French Revolution has been communist, and every single communist regime has been officially state atheist.  And no form of government has crushed the human spirit with more brutality than communism – which is responsible for the murder of more than 100 million of its own citizens just during peacetime alone.  Communism is the closest thing humans can come to “a boot stomping on a human face – forever.”  We can also consider the Darwinian and atheist project of Nazi fascism.  One of the greatest scholars of fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence.”  I.e. a transcendent God and an objective, transcendent moral law.  The great French thinker George Steiner noted that “By killing the Jews, Western culture could eradicate those who had ‘invented’ God.

Proto-Nazi 19th century German scholars such as Julian Wellhausen and Friedrich Delitzsch began in the 19th century with the theological project to undermine God, undermine the Bible and undermine the Jews who wrote the Bible.  Proto-Nazi 19th century German philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and then Martin Heidegger, savagely undermined any grounds for God, for Christianity, or for any kind of objective moral values.

Nazism was inseparable with the “Gottglaubiger,” the Nazi Party member who declared that he had officially rejected Christianity.  The men closest to Adolf Hitler noted in their personal journals that Hitler was an atheist.  Consider Joseph Goebbels, who in a 1939 diary entry noted a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”  Hitler said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”  And just as Hitler wanted to solve “the Jewish problem,” we find that he also intended to solve “the Christian problem.”  In 1941 Hitler declared: “The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure.”

Adolf Hitler summed up the ultimate Darwinian philosophy, saying, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

What else is Darwinism if not the struggle for survival in which the stronger kill or replace the weaker???

Does morality flow from the power of human government?  Adolf Hitler certainly believed it did.  He said, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”  Chairman Mao certainly believed that it did.  He said, “Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?” God is the State.  The State is God.  And whatever the State decides is moral is moral and whatever the State decides is immoral is immoral.  Does that work for you???

The Bible reveals a big problem with “human morality” from the LAST TIME God judged man’s sins: “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5).  I see this as something that neither nature nor governance can solve.

One of my problems with morality coming from government or human culture is the way morality “evolves.”  I think of the United States and homosexuality.  On April 17, 2008, as epitomized in Barack Obama, morality was the view that: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”  But that view is no longer “moral”: now a person holding to that view is intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and cruel.  Now the moral thing to believe according to our culture and recognize that homosexuals’ relationships are every bit as valid as those relationships between a man and a woman and that the moral person must respect the full and equal rights of gay citizens.

I mentioned Nazism’s project to destroy objective, transcendent morality: such morality holds that objective moral laws apply to all times, to all cultures, period.  It is wrong to torture a baby for fun.  It has always been wrong.  It has always been wrong no matter what any culture or any group of people thought about it.  And it will always be wrong even if the whole world says otherwise.  That view of morality has largely been destroyed as much in our world as it was in the world of Nazi Germany.  And it has been replaced with the secular humanist/atheist concept that morality (like everything else) “evolves.”

What makes something “right” or “wrong”?  What makes something “moral” or “immoral”???  If something isn’t moral just because Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin said so, why would it be different if Barack Obama – or ANY leader ANYWHERE – said so???  Who makes human rules for humanity?  If it’s some group of humans, just what is it that makes them so superior to the rest of us that they get to make the rules for the rest of us?  And if there is no group of humans that gets to make the rules, then where else would any true moral laws come from???

Is it human nature to merely be a herd animal, which chews its cud and does what the rest of the herd does?  That doesn’t seem to be the way we are, given all the arguing and discussion rather than all the cud-chewing and mindlessly following.

In my own case, to return to my realization as an adrift young man, if there is no God, there ARE no moral rules.  I could do anything I wanted.  No one had the right to tell me that something was right or that something was wrong.  They were merely imposing their own values on me and they didn’t have any more right to make the rules than anybody else.  The Bible described such thinking: “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

What kind of world do we invariably end up with when it is up to human minds to decide what is right and what is wrong???  I think history has already declared that it is a very ugly world.

Is mass human death a tragedy?  Not according to the leaders of big government, who don’t care how many of their own people die as long as they have enough others to continue to do their bidding:

Chairman Mao:

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.”

Chairman Mao:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

I submit to you that we’re seeing the exact same demonically ideological disregard for the lives of one’s own people in Barack Obama with his ObamaCare rollout.  There was no question that the website was not ready, that it would crash, that it was unsafe and that people who trusted its use would be subject to widespread identity theft and hacking.  Obama didn’t care; he cared only about getting the turkey to fly whether it was ready to fly or not out of pure political considerations rather than any concern for the American people.

We’re seeing pure lies pumping out of the Obama White House to justify the fact that the president of the United States lied to the American people and became, in effect due to all his exposure, the most documented liar in the history of the entire human race.  White House officials and their spinners are claiming that there’s nothing about the Affordable Care Act that is causing millions of people to lose their insurance, and they demonize the greedy insurance companies and say that Obama can’t do anything about what the insurance companies do.  That is – just like Obama’s promise ,”If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” – a complete lie.  Not only are 15 million Americans finding that out right now, but 93 million more Americans are set to learn it the hard way in January 2014.  The insurance companies are cancelling millions of Americans’ insurance policies because ObamaCare loaded up policies with required regulations that none of these plans can meet.  Again, the White House knew in 2010 that ObamaCare would FORCE insurance companies to cancel over 70% of individual insurance plans within three years of ObamaCare’s implementation.  And so we are now seeing horror stories such as a woman with severe cancer who had not “substandard insurance” but “WORLD CLASS INSURANCE” in mortal danger of losing her insurance and therefore her LIFE because of ObamaCare.

Obama: “No matter, keep going.”  And none of the catastrophe he’s created matters because like Mao Obama is a rabid ideologue who demands his “signature legislation” be implemented now matter how awful it is or how terrible its consequences will be on America and its people.

What I’m trying to tell you is that when it comes to looking to your government for morality, you can’t look at the communists and the fascists – who ought to have THE most moral governments if morality in any way, shape or form comes from government – and say, “that’s just them.”  No government is moral, and morality comes from no government.  Least of all our own as we have now nearly completely abandoned the Judeo-Christian worldview that gave the United States a chance at becoming a moral city on a hill.  No nation that has mindlessly spent itself into well over $200 trillion in unsustainable and unpayable debt has any right to call itself “moral.”

I previously told you how bloody and dark and amoral and indifferent “the world of nature” apart from God was.  Does the morality of human government seem any better?  It has been frequently pointed out that any government that can give rights can just as easily take them away.  Now we are living in a time when what was right has become wrong and what was wrong has become right.

I think of some of Jesus’ most powerful words: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).  What did He mean?  Is He referring to people that nature lost?  Is He referring to people who aren’t yet eligible for some government program to help them?  Or is He referring to a far deeper and more fundamental problem with human nature that can’t be transformed by Nature and can’t be transformed by Nurture (i.e. a government nanny state)???

The Bible reveals something that we should all know from our self-introspection:  “ He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Ecc 3:11).  That is that we have eternal souls.  No temporary fix will work for beings that live on forever long after our bodies are dust.  The only solution is an eternal solution; and therefore the only one who can save us is an eternal God.

Nature cannot save us because amoral nature cannot give us what it never had to begin with.  Herd morality, society says morality, or government morality can’t save us because human beings are individuals and not herd animals and because governments are THE most immoral entities on earth rather than the most moral.  And human beings cannot save us because no matter how they present themselves as messiahs, the fact of the matter is that they are fallen human beings tainted by sin and they are merely liars and charlatans and demagogues.

We are a world in desperate need of salvation.  My generation was literally born into a world that had become capable of utterly destroying itself within a matter of minutes with nuclear annihilation.  And that threat continues to hang over this world that common sense assures will one day erupt into WW3.  We need a Savior.  We need a Messiah.  And no human government and no human leader can take the place of the true Savior of the world that the world needs – Jesus of Nazareth.

Click here to see Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2)

Click here to see Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3)

In Passages Like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15 Jehovah’s Witnesses And Mormons Actually Refute Their Own False Theology

July 18, 2013

I recently had a Jehovah’s Witness try to “witness” to me.  When I told him that I could not be a Jehovah’s Witness because this false religion refused to acknowledge Christ in His rightful deity, he immediately cited Colossians 1:15.

It starts off sounding a little promising for heretics who try to argue that Jesus was merely a created being, rather than the Son of God as the Scriptures, the early Church, the Church Fathers and the Seven Historic Universal Councils of the Church all state to the contrary.

Colossians 1:15 says:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Let’s not ignore the little phrase, “He is the image of the invisible God,” which of course means that Jesus too is likewise “the invisible God.”  If you look in the mirror, is that image of you or is it somehow of a lesser being?  Or an even more literal analogy in terms of what the Greek word “image” means, if you were perfectly cloned, would your identical twin having your identical DNA be human, or would it somehow be less than human?  Hebrews 1:3 allows us to understand this term “image” better: “Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature.”  But probably most informative of all is the exchange between Philip and Jesus in the Gospel of John.  In John 14:8, Philip says, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”  And how does Jesus respond?  He says, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.”

Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father.  How could that in any way be true if Jesus is not Himself God?  What does the Father look like?  Aside from the fact that Christ added to His divine nature a human nature so that He could live a perfect life on earth for us and then die in our place, The Father looks exactly like Jesus.  In His character, in His goodness, in His glory, the Father looks just like Jesus.  When the Father looks in the mirror in this sense, He sees His Son.  And when the Son looks in a mirror, He sees His Father.

But if you simply ignore that first problematic phrase, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons invariably do in their rush to get to Christ as “firstborn of all creation,” that means Christ must have been a created being, rather than God, right?

Wrong.  Let’s read that passage in its full context.  Let’s read the whole paragraph and trace the argument that St. Paul is making in this passage:

He is the image of jthe invisible God, kthe firstborn of all creation. 16 For by6 him all things were created, lin heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether mthrones or ndominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created othrough him and for him. 17 And phe is before all things, and in him all things qhold together. 18 And rhe is the head of the body, the church. He is sthe beginning, tthe firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For uin him all the vfullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and wthrough him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, xmaking peace yby the blood of his cross.

I left the links – awkward as they make the passage appear – for good reason: they provide the scriptural context in which each phrase is used.  As you click on each link, what you find is, wow, each verse that St. Paul alludes to is a direct reference to GOD.  That is not an accident.

Let me simply say it right at the outset: I can EXPLAIN the “firstborn of all creation” phrase completely logically and rationally in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy.  However, there is no possible way that Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or any other pseudo-Christian heretics can explain the rest of the paragraph and make any kind of logical sense.

I argue as ALL true Christians have argued since Thomas first said, “My Lord and my God!” after Jesus revealed that He had just bodily risen from the dead proving all of His claims to be the divine Messiah in complete fulfillment of the Old Testament.

So what does “firstborn of all creation” mean?

Well, part of the answer is revealed as Paul develops his argument in the very next verse.  “For by Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created.”  If Jesus created all things, as Paul categorically states in the very next verse that Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite as their proof text, then it most certainly means that Jesus was NOT CREATED.

If “all things were created” by Jesus Christ, then how could Jesus Christ have been created???  You have two categories: God and creation.  And since Jesus created all things, Paul is clearly stating that Jesus is God rather than a created thing.  That is simple logic.  There is no escaping that logic.

Even on the Jehovah’s Witnesses incredibly flawed and demonic theology of Christ, Jesus Christ existed prior to when He appeared in Mary’s womb and was “born.”

I cite what they argue:

He was created whenever Jehovah the Almighty God began to create, he was the first to be created, he’s OF CREATION. Jehovah is not OF CREATION, because Jehovah was NOT created and did not have a BEGINNING.

Notice again that this false understanding of Christ is utterly refuted in Colossians 1:16, that “by him [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”  If by Christ all things were created – and Paul then produces an exhaustive list of all the things that Christ created – and then we are told that “all things were created through him and for him,” then why are we not to believe that Christ is “of creation” rather than “NOT of creation”????  How is it that Jesus is “before all things”???  How is it that in Jesus ” all things hold together”???

Jesus is literally the force that prevents every single atom from flying apart, according to this passage.  Christ is literally the power holding the universe together.  That sounds like a job for God to me.

But let me get back to the point I was beginning to make, namely, if Jesus existed prior to when He was “born” – as Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves do – then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take “firstborn” in the sense that they demand it be taken in.  Because Jesus PRE-EXISTED His birth even on their own account!!!

The Person of Christ did not begin to exist in Mary’s womb; He pre-existed His birth by at least thousands of years.  Which means that “firstborn” means something very different from what they want it to mean as heretics who deny the deity of Christ.

So we literally all agree that “firstborn” is NOT to be intended in the literal sense.  Because Jesus was only literally, physically “born” one time – out of Mary’s womb – and even Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that that birth is very clearly not what is being described.  Which means that “firstborn” is clearly intended to be a figurative statement in St. Paul’s argument.

What we are talking about here is a term used to describe supremacy or priority of rank – and very clearly NOT a statement or description of when or even IF Jesus was ever “born.”  Rather, Paul begins by basically stating in His “firstborn of all creation” metaphor that Jesus is supreme over creation, and then proceeds to describe Christ as Creator of and over all creation.

P.T. O’Brien in The Dictionary of Paul and His Letters has a fascinating and conclusive article on this subject of “firstborn.”  I shall summarize his findings in a few paragraphs.

The term “firstborn” is used in the plural in the New Testament twice:

By faith he [Moses] left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. — Hebrews 11:28

And:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. — Hebrews 12:23

Note first of all that “firstborn” in the plural sense in the only two occasions the term is used in the plural sense is used to apply NOT TO BIRTH OR TO CREATION, but to BELIEVERS.  And then note that Christ is then mentioned separate and distinct from “the firstborn” in Hebrews 12:24.

That stated, the term “firstborn” is used three times in the New Testament – and in each use it applies to Christ who is:

1. Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)

2. Firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18)

3. Firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29)

Now, again, think of this term “firstborn” in terms of supremacy or priority of rank and it very easily fits: who is Jesus?  He is supreme over all creation by virtue of the fact that HE IS THE CREATOR.  He is supreme over the dead by virtue of the fact that HE OVERCAME DEATH by the power of His Resurrection from the dead.  And He is supreme among the many who would believe in Him by virtue of the fact that HE IS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR.  And everything that these Christian brothers and sisters will share in they will share with Jesus Christ and BECAUSE of Jesus Christ.

You see how easy it is to sensibly understand the term “firstborn” in terms of Trinitarian orthodoxy?  You know, the theology that dominated the early Church, and which was repeatedly and conclusively stated in every single one of the first SEVEN universal councils of the Christian Church as they expressed their understanding of Christ and the one true Faith delivered once and for all to the saints that is in Him???

“Christ is firstborn of all creation” expresses Christ’s relationship to creation.  Because, as Paul IMMEDIATELY proceeds to argue in his very next words, “all things” were created by the very Christ who is “firstborn of all creation.”

Again, I demand that Jehovah’s Witnesses answer their OWN problem with the passage that they often cite: just how can Christ “create all things” and yet Himself have been created???  He would – unless He is truly God and truly pre-existent as God is truly pre-existent – have had to have created Himself.  Which is philosophically and metaphysically utterly absurd.

So what does a good Jehovah’s Witness have to do?  He has to throw down the Bible and start adding stuff.  He has to start adding words that are very definitely NOT in the Bible and therefore change and pervert both the Word of God and the argument from St. Paul that they themselves love to cite.  They have to say that “Christ created all other things after He was Himself created.

But that is very definitely NOT what the Bible teaches.  Which is to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to understand the “firstborn of all creation” passage without perverting it to fit their deeply flawed theology.

Rather, the Bible, the Word of God, declares that Jesus Christ created ALL things.  And St. Paul goes on to categorically state how exhaustive that is:  Jesus Christ created everything in heaven.  Jesus Christ created everything on earth.  Jesus Christ created everything that is visible.  Jesus Christ created everything that is invisible.  And whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, it was Jesus Christ who created them all.

Also read John 1:1-3 to see the same line of argument:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.    All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Note again: ALL things were created through Jesus, the Word.  And in fact nothing was created that ever WAS created.  Which is to say that John 1:1 plays on Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  Only now we learn that it was God the Second Person, a.k.a. Christ, who was the Creator.

There’s a poem that says, “He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood” that beautifully and simply sums up that incredibly powerful truth.  Christ created man in His own image so that one day He could assume that image – and thus sacrificially offer Himself for the sins of a lost world that would have perished without Him.  That is the beauty of Christ that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to pervert.

What do Jehovah’s Witnesses do here to pervert the Gospel of John literally from the very first verse?  They decide that “God” is an anarthrous noun, which means that there is no article preceding the noun.  And so they declare “the Word” – Jesus Christ – to be “a god” rather than “God.”  But their rule here is so idiotic that they break it themselves even before they can get to it in the first verse of John’s Gospel.  Because, you see, “beginning” is also anarthrous, meaning there is no article there, either.  And so if their “rule” had any merit, they would have translated the verse, “In A beginning…”  And of course that is merely one of the numerous times they break the rule they created in order to pervert Jesus from God to merely “a god.”  Because you have this exact same situation 282 times, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses “translators” only follow their own “rule” on sixteen occasions – just SIX PERCENT of the time.

Consider that if the Jehovah’s Witnesses consistently followed their own rule just in the opening verses of the Book of John:

- “beginning” in verses 1 and 2 would have been translated “a beginning.”

- “life” in verse 4 would have been translated as “a life.”

- “from God” in verse 6 would have been translated as “from a god.”

- “John” in verse 6 would have been translated as “a John.”

“God” in verse 18 would have been translated as “a God.”

And yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses break their own “rule” in every single one of these instances.  The “rule” was created for one ideological purpose only: to blaspheme Jesus Christ and deny Him His rightful deity.  Which is why no baptized in good standing Jehovah’s Witness has ever been shown to have been granted a post-graduate degree in biblical Greek.  EVER.

The beauty of these three opening verses in the Book of John is enhanced by a theological understanding of what John succeeded in accomplishing.  In declaring that “The Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John’s use of the anarthrous “God” is exactly correct; because had he written “the Word was [the] God,” he would have been fomenting the heresy of Sabelianism or modalism- which held that Jesus WAS a “mode” of God, or that “God” was one Person wearing three hats: the hat of the Father, the hat of the Son and the hat of the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say that John HAD to translate “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” exactly as he did.

There is absolutely no escaping the logic of the passages that Jehovah’s Witnesses love to cite so they can fundamentally pervert and misrepresent them.

I think of the warning that St. John provides in the Book of Revelation:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. — Revelation 22:18-19

Jehovah’s Witnesses are routinely forced to “add to the words” over and over again as they deny the reality of the deity of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior and God.  And they are routinely forced to take away from the Book as they repeatedly take away clear ascriptions affirming the deity of Jesus Christ.  And they will one day burn in hell for their sin, just as John warned them.

You might want to view Jehovah’s Witnesses as well-meaning people, good people, decent people.  But they go door-to-door trying to lead lost soul after lost soul to the very same hell that they themselves will surely burn in.  Which makes them terrible agents of demonic wickedness.

Let me ask a question: who purchased the Church with His own Blood?  Acts 20:28 tells you if you didn’t know:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Who purchased the church of God?  God did.  That shouldn’t be all that hard to figure out.

Christ is one Person with two natures: one human, one divine.  He had to be human, and fully human in absolutely every way that it is essential to be human, in order to represent the human race.  He had to be God because as the Scriptures conclusively state:

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. — Isaiah 64:6

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. — Psalm 51:5

No one is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.  All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. — Romans 3:10

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — Romans 3:23

For the wages of sin is death — Romans 6:23

First of all, Christ had to be completely and fully divine, God in every meaningful way, because all humanity was trapped in sin and sinful man could not save sinful man.

Could Jesus have been an angel?  Not according to the Bible, He couldn’t.

Consider the crystal clear argument of Hebrews chapter one that clearly reveals that Jesus was NOT an angel:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,     today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,     and he shall be to me a son”?

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,     and his ministers a flame of fire.”

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,     the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you     with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,     and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain;     they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up,     like a garment they will be changed.[a] But you are the same,     and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand     until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Based on this passage, what heretic, what FOOL would dare to claim that the Bible teaches that Jesus is merely an angel?

Let me also ask the question, where in Scripture does God give man over to any angel?  Where is it that God tells the angels that they – and not God – are Savior to mankind???  Where does the Word of God tell us that the blood of an angel delivers sinful man from his sin?  Where does it teach us that any angel has the power to save us from the wrath of God and from hell?  Nowhere, that’s where.

What in fact does God say?  This:

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.  Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.  I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. — Isaiah 43:10-11

And just to add insult to injury, who is declared to BE that “Savior” in the New Testament?

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.  — Luke 2:11

If Jesus is NOT “God,” and every bit God, then Jehovah is refuted.  Because in Isaiah He boasts that there is no other Savior when in fact He was wrong and Jesus would ALSO be Savior.  ONLY if Jesus is God, as orthodox Trinitarian theology upholds, and is literally the fulfillment of this passage, is that not the case.

Well, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons claim that the Father is God (in the case of J.W.s, “Jehovah”) and that Jesus is “a god.”  Could that be (apart from the fact that that has already been refuted above?).  No.  What does God’s Word say?

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. — Isaiah 45:21

But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.

There is no other God besides the Triune Lord God.  And God’s Word assures us that Jesus is either a member of the Trinity or that He is neither “god” NOR “savior.”  And yet God’s Word assures us that He is in fact both God AND Savior.

… waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ — Titus 2:13

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ — 2 Peter 1:1

In the Person of Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, God purchased the Church with His own blood.  God assumed a human nature so that He could experience death through that human nature.  But being God, He couldn’t remain dead.  And so our God and Savior Jesus Christ saved us.

Let’s keep in mind that both Mormons (who assert Jesus is the “spirit-brother” of Lucifer) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (who assert that Jesus is Michael the archangel) believe that Jesus is a merely an angel.  And with that in mind, read Galatians 1:6-8:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

It’s interesting that Paul refers to people who are turning others to “a different gospel” and who “distort the gospel of Christ.”  And then Paul says, “Even if an angel from heaven should preach such a gospel to you, let him be accursed.”

I ask you, “What if JESUS preached a different gospel?”  Because since Jesus is merely an angel according to both Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness theology, that has to be an obvious logical possibility on their view.  Notice Paul clearly does not say, “an angel from heaven other than Christ.”  Paul doesn’t do that because there is simply no question that JESUS IS NOT AN ANGEL as Hebrews chapter one (quoted above) clearly states.

Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are accursed according to the Word of God.  They are deceived and they seek to deceive as many others as they possibly can.

The Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism is a lie.  And it is a lie that has no power to save.  Because only GOD has the power to save.  And Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons explicitly deny that Jesus has such power.
Furthermore, if Jesus is NOT God, Scripture tells us that He is also not Savior.  And those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior are still in their sins.

Please don’t allow these agents of Satan – no matter how polite they are when they come to your door – to lie to you about the true nature of the only Savior of the world.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are false, blasphemous cults whom St. Paul described by saying “they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach” and ” a different kind of gospel” from the Gospel which saves – the Gospel of the True Jesus Christ, the divine King of kings and the divine Lord of lords.

The doctrine of the Trinity is NOT a “problem.”  It is merely the solution to the clear data provided by Scripture which reveals that while God is ontologically one in being, that there are three distinct divine Persons who are all very clearly called “God”: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The Father, Son and Spirit are not “three gods” because they co-inhabit ONE and THE SAME divine nature or essence.  No human being this side of eternity can fully understand that, because God is ontologically superior to us in every imaginable way.  But suffice it to say that “fellowship” is at the heart of God because it is literally part of the essence of being God: the Father, the Son and the Spirit are and always have been in a state of ultimate and eternal fellowship with one another within the divine nature.

Florida Professor (And High-Ranking Member Of Palm Beach County Democrat Party) Orders Students To Literally Stomp On Jesus Christ

March 26, 2013

I have been saying it since I started writing this blog: Democrats despise Jesus Christ, despise Christianity, despise Christian morality and despise the Judeo-Christian worldview.

The Democrat Party is the Party of abject moral wickedness and depravity in America.  It is the Party that has murdered 55.7 million babies in America alone even as it has exported the culture of abortion to the rest of the world.  It is the Party of sodomy.  It is the Party of the depraved militant homosexual agenda.  It is the Party of Antichrist and the Party of the totalitarian government Mark of the Beast.

One day all of these sons of hell are going to receive the eternal destruction of their souls in hell that they have reaped in their bodies.

Take a look at the shockingly ugly demoniac face of liberalism and everything liberalism truly stands for.

Here’s the new daily dose of outrage that is the Democrat Party in God damn America.  And if you don’t think that Democrats will burn in hell, put this in your crack pipe and smoke on it:

Professor/Dem Party Official Makes Students Stomp on Jesus
by Jennifer Kabbany – Associate Editor on March 22, 2013

A Florida professor and high-ranking member of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party recently instructed his students to take out a piece of paper, write “JESUS” on it, then put it on the floor and stomp on it – and the Mormon student who refused to do so, calling the assignment morally offensive – was suspended.

“Anytime you stomp on something it shows that you believe that something has no value. So if you were to stomp on the word Jesus, it says that the word has no value,” the Florida Atlantic University student in question, Ryan Roleta, told a CBS news affiliate. “I am not going to be sitting in a class, having my religious rights desecrated.”

So Roleta – a junior at the school who is also a devout Mormon – told his professor, Dr. Deandre Poole, that he refused to do the assignment, calling it inappropriate, offensive and unprofessional – and his religious objections got him suspended from the class, CBS News’ WPEC reported.

After he complained to Poole’s supervisor, Roleta said he was suspended from the intercultural communications class and advised not to return.

“I’m being punished, and I am still waiting for an apology from somebody,” Roleta told WPEC.

In an emailed statement the university sent to CBS, campus officials stated “faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse. While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate.”

Apparently the exercise is a suggestion in the textbook, “Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition,” and the school would not say if Poole would face disciplinary action, WPEC reports.

After news of the incident spread Thursday, it came to light that Poole is not only a professor but also a high-ranking official in the region’s Democrat Party. In particular, reports BizPacReview, Poole is vice-chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party.

Poole’s bio blurb on the Palm Beach County Democratic Party website states that he is a member of Lighthouse Worship Center Church of God in Christ who “prides himself in being actively engaged in civic affairs.” It also notes Poole is a “new junior faculty member in the School of Communication and Multimedia Studies at FAU.”

According to his profile page on Florida Atlantic University’s website, Poole earned his PhD from Howard University and is writing a book called “Obamamania: The Rise of a Mythical Hero.”

Every single Democrat in America participated in this vile Nazi act.  These “progressives” have been progressively voting for more and more evil for the last fifty years.

It’s amazing.  Democrats love sodomy.  They love terrorist Muslims and the Muslim Brotherhood.  They love “mothers” who murder their babies.  They love everything but Jesus Christ and Christians and people having the right to defend themselves against the government fascism that Barack Obama is seeking to impose on what is left of this nation.

When Democrats haven’t been massacring babies by the tens of millions through their votes and their appointments and their policies, they have been destroying families and family values through their votes and their appointments and their policies.  Through their easy no-fault divorce, through their celebration of casual sex, through their elevation of single mothers to secular sainthood, they have destroyed as many families as they have babies.  And then in their wicked depravity they have cynically exploited the resulting tsunami of poverty they have created by destroying families by pimping welfare and a culture of dependency in exchange for votes.  Let’s take black people – the ultimate wards of the state due to the strategems of the Party that had actually enslaved them and fought an ugly Civil War to keep them in chains – and the 72% out-of-wedlock birthrate of the black community.  Let’s consider that these wards of the Democrat Party’s statism are five times more likely to kill their own babies through abortion than whites.  And let’s consider the crime and gang and homicide rates of blacks and understand that they are living out the causual-but-brutal indifference toward life that they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in.  Their poverty isn’t in spite of the efforts of Democrats; it is BECAUSE of the efforts of Democrats.

Hypocrite Democrats dishonestly and hypocritically slandered and demonized George Bush out of golfing as president while dishonestly and hypocritically celebrating Barack Obama as he played more than four times as much golf in his first four years than Bush played in eight.  It was immoral for Bush to play golf while our soldiers were perishing on the battlefield until it was right for Obama to play golf while our soldiers were perishing on the battlefield.  But would George Bush have ever taken a closed-to-the-press golf vacation with Tiger Woods after that turd had been caught red-handed committing adultery with women numbering in the scores???  I think not.  Because it takes a Democrat to endorse that kind of moral sewage.

This most recent example of Democrats’ walking all over that which is Jesus Christ is the continuation of false messiah Obama’s war on religion that he began when he declared war on anybody who didn’t want to be forced to participate in the holocaust of babies in America.

This is the poster boy for the Democrat Party.

In God damn America, people aren’t rewarded for doing the moral thing or the right thing; quite the contrary.  They are persecuted for doing what is right.  By Democrats.

In God damn America, right and wrong are turned on their heads.  Wrong is right and right is wrong.  And doing wrong merits reward and doing right merits punishment.  The one student who wasn’t so brainwashed by liberal Democrat hatred of Jesus Christ discovered that refusing to stomp on Jesus was a violation of the student code of conduct.  He received a letter stating, “You are requested to attend a Student Conduct Conference.”

Next time, when a Democrat Party professor tells you to stomp on Jesus, you’d better stomp on Jesus.  And do it with gusto, too.  Because when a Democrat asks you to stomp Jesus, you ask, “How high?”

This insane world will culminate in the Tribulation and the Mark of the Beast.  And that hell on earth when big-government liberals create mass suffering and death on a scale never before witnessed in the history of the world is coming soon.

Remember, true Christian, that you have heaven.  Democrats, aka secular humanists, have only this earth.  And while they will thrive in God damn America, the time is coming when they will reap what they have sown.

The day is coming when Democrats will stand before Jesus Christ and claim that they were Christians.  And Jesus will sadly tell them, “I was a baby in my mother’s womb and you murdered Me.  I was never able to live a perfect life on earth and die in your place for all of your vile wickedness.  Depart from Me.  I never knew you.  Especially when you were desecrating Me by placing Me in a jar of urine and calling it “art” and stomping on My name.”

Piss Christ

Vote Democrat.  Vote to burn in hell forever.

Your time is coming.

Progressive Liberals Are The Pharisees And Sadducees Of Modernity In America

January 16, 2013

Liberals love to castigate conservatives by labels such as “fascist” and “pharisiacal.”  But in both cases, they are actually looking into a mirror when they point their finger and hurl out that label.

First, allow me to make a very important distinction between “progressive liberalism” and “classical liberalism.”

Here is classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy.[1][2][3]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[6] utilitarianism,[7] and progress.[8]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[9]

With that understanding, the fact of the matter is that conservatives are the inheritors of classical liberalism.  We are the ones who want limited government under the rule of law with a laissez-faire economic policy.  The progressive liberals who dominate today are the “social liberals” whom we can now accurately call “socialist liberals.”

Liberalism is good in the classical sense; it is truly evil in the socialist sense.

I have many times asked liberal Democrats to explain how they disavow Karl Marx’s central defining statement of economic Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  To this day I have never received a response.

But I understand that our liberals are not honest people and will not wear the label “socialist” no matter how much it applies to them and to their purpose in establishing a giant totalitarian government that increasingly centrally plans the economy.  So I’ll call them “progressive liberals” instead.

The word “progressive” helps us understand Obama’s prophecy that his administration would “fundamentally transform America.”  That’s what they want: to reshape America not in the founding fathers’ image, but in their own self-image.

I have described liberals as trying to establish “Government as God.”   It is also called “statism.”  Here’s another way to put it: Who is your Savior? Do you turn to the God of the Bible – Who actually rather specifically warned man against big government – to provide to you?  Or do you want to turn to your government to meet your needs?  Our coins say, “In God we trust,” and progressive liberals have been trying to stomp that nonsense out for decades.  Because they trust in human government, not in God.

Here let me again cite Karl Marx.  In one of his most famous statements, after first stating that man invented religion, Marx said:

“Religion is … the opium of the people.  The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

Aside from the obvious fact that it is the Democrat Party who removed God from their party’s platform and cynically and frankly illegitimately put Him back in to a loud chorus of boos by the Democratic National Convention, aside from the fact that it is the Democrat Party that is at open war with religious freedom in America today, what did Karl Marx mean by this statement?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the economic haves and the economic have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today by the Democrat Party and by progressive liberals who energize that party.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves, in both Marx’s and Democrats’ understanding.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and taking what is theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, they were happy in their religion, which had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Since religion is an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

And how is the Democrat Party today not arguing the same damn case that Marx made?

As we shall see, this is important.  Marx’s anti-God message has been supplanted by a cynical Democrat Party who has replaced God with a flagrantly anti-God ideology (e.g., homosexual marriage and abortion) while dishonestly refusing to acknowledge that they did so.

The message of Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party is not the message of Jesus Christ, who most assuredly did not come to earth to either make Caesar’s government larger or to replace him with another version of big human government totalitarian tyranny.  The message of the former is that the poor should be angry and rise up to seize what is rightfully there’s either by vote or by force; the message of the latter was for the poor to be cheerful and content in the God Who watched over them and to trust in Him for His provision.

It’s interesting what does not happen when Jesus says, “Show me a coin.”  What Jesus does NOT say is that giving to Caesar (human government) is the same thing as giving to God.  Jesus makes a very clear contrast between the two.  Which do you want to empower?  Which do you want to give to?  Giant totalitarian human government, or God?  I want to give more to God; liberals want to stop me and force me instead to give more to government.

So why do I call the progressive liberals the “Pharisees and Sadducees” of modern America?

Well, first understand who the Pharisees and Sadducees were.  The Sadducees were the secular branch of Judaism.  They did not believe in a resurrection or an afterlife; they were the closest things to secular humanists or atheists in their day.  And thanks to the Romans the Sadducees largely controlled the lucrative Temple and the money and political clout that went along with it.  The Pharisees were a group who had the people behind them because they were the champions of the Law.  And yet they were no longer using the Law of Moses as their guide; they had long since turned to the Mishnah, which they considered “a hedge around the Law.”

Basically, the Pharisees piled laws on top of laws on the backs of the people that had nothing to do with the Word of God.  That’s what Jesus rails on them for in Matthew 23.  When I hear Jesus say, “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger,” I think of Barack Obama taking away guns from parents’ while his own family will be safely protected by men with guns for their entire lives.  I think of the liberals like Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who put people in prison for not paying their taxes when he himself was a tax cheat.  I think of Jesus’ takedown of the most vile human beings in the world of His day – government-power-seeking thugs who used the law to exploit and burden the people – and I think of the Democrat Party and the stubborn ass that is its symbol.

If you broke the laws as handed down by the Pharisees and Sadducees, you were punished by the system.  With the full weight of the government backing that system.

Which is the same thing the progressive liberals who run the Temple of big government do.  They burden the people with taxes and regulations and laws and tell the people that thinking like them is the only way to be a good person.

Pharisees and Sadducees had different agendas, but John the Baptist said they were both the same in their hostility to God and called them both “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7).  Jesus also lumped them together (Matthew 5:17).  Both exploited the Law to get what they wanted and to burden and oppress those whom they wanted to burden and oppress.

In Jesus’ day, when you talked about “the law” it connoted the religious laws.  But our progressive liberals today talk about the law, the law the law every bit as much with every bit as much of an intent to impose their will on the people they are determined to dominate and rule over.  I can assure you that there are a LOT more laws that have been erected in the United States than there ever were in the Mishnah – as burdensome and unjust as that was.

Democrats are the Pharisees and the Sadducees of American culture today.  They are the priests of big government who demand more and more control the laws and by controlling the laws they exploit and burden the American people.  They erect more and more and more onerous and burdensome and loathsome laws and force us to abide by them or be punished.

By the way, Jesus did a lot of denouncing of the scribes, too.  Who were they?  They were the lawyers of the day.

Just look at which party the lawyers of our day support and which party has a buttload of system-manipulating lawyers, and my case is made complete.

The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees murdered Jesus in his day.  They are murdering America in our own.

Obama The Narcissist Pseudo-Messiah: Republicans Only Want To Punish Me Because, Really, Everything Is ALL About Me.

December 20, 2012

I heard Obama say the following and was happy that I always carry my mental barf bucket with me these days when a president who loves the sight of himself on television suddenly pops up and starts blathering:

But you know, the fact of the matter is, is that what — what would violate my commitment to voters is if I ended up agreeing to a plan that put more of the burden on middle-class families and less of a burden on the wealthy in an effort to reduce our deficit. That’s not something I’m going to do. What would violate my commitment to voters would be to put forward a plan that makes it harder for young people to go to college, that makes it harder for a family with a disabled kid to care for that kid.

And there — there’s a threshold where — that you reach where the balance tips, even in making compromises that are required to get something done in this town, where you are hurting people in order to give another advantage to folks who don’t need help. And we had an extensive debate about this for a year. And not only does the majority of the American people agree with me, about half of Republican voters agree with me on this.

So, you know, at some point there’s got to be, I think, a recognition on the part of my — my Republican friends that — you know, take the deal. You know, they will be able to claim that they have worked with me over the last two years to reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package, that we will have stabilized it for 10 years. That is a significant achievement for them. They should be proud of it. But they keep on finding ways to say no, as opposed to finding ways to say yes.

And I don’t know how much of that just has to do with, you know, it is very hard for them to say yes to me. But you know, at some point, you know, they’ve got take me out of it and think about their voters and think about what’s best for the country.

And if — and if — and if they do that, if — if — if they’re not worried about who’s winning and who’s losing, you know, that they score a point on the president, that they extract that last little concession, that they — that they — you know — you know, force him to do something he really doesn’t want to do just for the heck of it, and they focus on actually what’s good for the country, I actually think we can get this done.

Republicans don’t have any values to defend or advance, you see.  Anybody who tells you Republicans believe in lower taxes and less spending are just liars, I guess.  They’ve never had any commitments to voters.  Nope.  Only Obama’s voters matter.  They’re only doing this because of their [racist, of course] hostility to Obama.

Please recall, ye dumbasses, that the Republicans won the election, too.  Nancy Pelosi predicted Democrats would retake the House.  Voters instead re-elected Republicans by a large majority to stand up to Obama.  Republicans made promises to the voters who re-elected them, too.

As I heard Obama wax narcissistic, I couldn’t help but think of the words of Jesus when He told His disciples:

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.  If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’  If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.  But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.” — John 15:18-21

Obama is telling the liberal world, “If the Republicans hate you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.”  And actually history is rather clear that it was the other way around.  Republicans despised Democrats long before the name “Barack Hussein” meant a damn thing.  Do you remember when the government shut down under Clinton’s war with the Republican House over mostly the same stuff?  Do you think THAT was because Republicans hated Obama, too?  Do you think Republicans were united saying to each other, “Let’s shut down the government because we can’t stand that Barack Obama guy” back in 1995?

You start to see just how truly narcissistic and deluded this guy is to even THINK that kind of crap, let alone actually say it.

You see, when Jesus said “They hate you because they hated Me first” it was because it was true; when Obama says it it’s because he’s a narcissistic pseudo-messiah – and a complete hypocrite, as you’ll see soon.

This reminds me of a line I heard in a debate.  Allow me to paraphrase it for Obama’s sake:

“Obama, I serve Jesus Christ, I know Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is a friend of mine.  Obama, you are no Jesus Christ.”

I know that your campaign guru David Axelrod said you were “Black Jesus.”  I know that you think that there are no red states or blue states, only Obama states.  I know that you literally altered the American flag to impose yourself onto the nation.  I know that you think that the human race will read about your exalted magnificence “generations from now” and marvel about how you lowered the level of the oceans and healed the planet.  I know that your same followers who say that “the white man is the skunk of the planet earth” have called you “the messiah” and have claimed that history will be rewritten so that instead of “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” the world will be divided into “Before Barack” and “After Barack.”  I know that your followers consider you “prophecy fulfilled.”

Barack Obama, I know that you really, really think you’re the messiah.  I know that you truly believe that the entire world revolves around you.  I know that if you don’t get your way, you believe that it could only be because the people who don’t think just like you do must be out to personally sabotage you.

I know how sick and toxic and delusional and truly demon-possessed you and your followers are.  I also know that you are totally wrong about damn near everything you stand for.  And I know that the Republicans oppose you out of their values and out of the Republican Party Platform that was there long before YOU came along.

Republicans CAN’T “take you out of it,” Obama.  As much as we’d like to do that, YOU’RE the damn president.  We’re painfully aware of that fact.  You’re the man who has presided over the worst economy in my lifetime.  You’re the Slanderer in Chief.  We can’t just “take you out of it.”

But I tell you what, Barry Hussein: prove me wrong.  Because I’m here to promise that if you agree to the Republican demands, you would immediately find that they will agree with you and vote with you and even publicly praise you.

Which is another way of my telling you that I know that you are a liar and a demagogue and a slanderer without shame, honor or decency.  Because for all your rhetoric, you know as well as I do that if you gave the Republicans their way the way you want your way, they would take that deal in a heartbeat.  And I know that because you would be a genuine sociopath NOT to know that.

Your tactic to demonize as the nation slides off a cliff couldn’t be more vile.

Please stop pretending that somehow it’s all about you and that if Republicans oppose you it’s only because they are people with no values and no commitments and that somehow all they want to do is hurt you out of your pseudo-messiah persecution complex.

I’ve got to ask you Democrats: if you really needed to make a deal for your business or for your personal life, why would you viciously attack and slander and demonize the people you needed to deal with you?  How can you possibly think that this is a good negotiating tactic and that Obama is doing anything other than trying to do do anything other than piss into every pot from which a good-faith deal could possibly happen?

People who listen to Obama’s pure, distilled bullcrap ought to learn the truth about Obama as revealed even in the New York Times:

[...]

Even by the standards of the political world, Mr. Obama’s obsession with virtuosity and proving himself the best are remarkable, those close to him say. (Critics call it arrogance.) More than a tic, friends and aides say, it is a core part of his worldview, formed as an outsider child who grew up to defy others’ views of the limits of his abilities. When he speaks to students, he almost always emphasizes living up to their potential. [...]

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this. [...]

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley. [...]

Mr. Obama’s fixation on prowess can get him into trouble. Not everyone wants to be graded by him, certainly not Republicans. Mr. Dowd, the former Bush adviser, said he admired Mr. Obama, but added, “Nobody likes to be in the room with someone who thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.”

Even some Democrats in Washington say they have been irritated by his tips on topics ranging from the best way to shake hands on the trail (really look voters in the eye, he has instructed) to writing well (“You have to think three or four sentences ahead,” he told one reluctant pupil).

For another, he may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Now Mr. Obama is in the climactic contest of his career, about to receive the ultimate judgment on his performance from the American people. It is a moment, aides say, he has been craving: during some of the darker days of his tenure, he told them that he wanted the country to evaluate him not in isolation, but in contrast to the Republican alternative. The tough, often successful attacks from the right have hardened and fueled him, aides say, driving him to prove that “we’re right and we’re better,” as one ally put it. [...]

Not only do the White House, the Supreme Court and a budgetary crisis hang in the balance, but so does a national judgment on whether Mr. Obama’s agenda was a good idea in the first place. So perhaps it is not surprising that he cites not just his record, but also every other accomplishment he can think of.

Then again, he is just as competitive in private, when there is little or nothing at stake. At one of his farewell meetings for White House interns, Mr. Obama dispensed some life advice.

THIS is the man demonizing Republicans about worrying over “who’s winning and who’s losing”?  Seriously?  Democrats are that seriously stupid and hypocritical that they buy this guy’s giant load of bovine feces?

Obama wants America to go off the cliff.  That way, he can spend the next four years blaming Republicans for his failure to lead the same way he spent the last four years blaming Bush for his failure to lead.

And while Obama is not the Antichrist, he 1) is one of the false messiahs Jesus warned us would come in the last days before the ultimate Antichrist; and 2) an example of how the true Antichrist to come will deceive with politics, rhetoric and lies with a media machine that is in love with him and literally worshiping him reporting it all in glowing terms.

A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 4-5

December 4, 2012

See part one: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 1-3

Every believer from the Old to and through the New Testaments has dreamed of eternity with God.  But what’s the process?  How does it happen – and most important of all WHEN does it happen?  We find that it doesn’t fully happen when we die: we are with the Lord, but those who have died up to now have not yet received their glorified bodies.  So when does it happen?  How?

For the first three chapters of the Book of Revelation, the word “church” – referring to believers in Jesus Christ on earth – is mentioned seven times with the word “churches” being mentioned twelve times.   That’s a total of nineteen times, all ye math whizzes.  For the first three chapters, it’s church, church, church.  And yet, after referring to the church and addressing the churches over and over again, “the church” is not referenced in any way, shape or form until Rev 19 when Christ returns to earth with His saints.  And the only believers referenced in between are the  two witnesses and the 144,000 Jews– and we aint them.  So what explanation makes sense?

This one: Rev 4:1 begins with the phrase “after these things” (NIV “after this”) and we hear the command to “come up here.”  And next thing you know we’re in heaven with John.  And the Church mysteriously appears to remain in heaven until we return with Christ as King of kings in Rev 19.  This can be nothing other than the Rapture of all true believers that occurs prior to the Tribulation.  No other answer makes sense to explain the complete absence/omission from the Church on earth during the Tribulation.  Want a little more proof?  In Rev 1:12 we have a reference to “seven golden lampstands.”  In Rev 1:20 Jesus Himself explains that the seven golden lampstands are the seven churches that He tells John to write to.  John is called up to heaven, and what does he immediately see?  Among other things surrounding the throne of God, he sees “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne” (Rev 4:5).  And I’m just going to tell you that those seven lamps are going to be resting on seven golden  lampstands!  Because the Church is in heaven where it belongs serving as the seven golden lampstands for those lamps.  As a further proof, Jesus seven times says in chapters 1-3, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”  Yet in Rev 13:9 we hear, “If anyone has an ear, let him hear.”  Either God is so angry at the churches He’s no longer even talking to them, or He isn’t talking to them because they’re in heaven and in Rev 13 God is urging the inhabitants of the earth to wisdom.  Another proof that the church is now in heaven is the twenty-four elders.  We know they aren’t angels because they are wearing crowns  (Rev 4:4) – and angels NEVER wear crowns ANYWHERE in the Bible because that honor is reserved only for God and for believing humans whom God honors.  The Bible mentions five crowns for believers: 1) the imperishable crown for believers who faithfully run their race (1 Cor 9:24-25); 2) the crown of rejoicing to those who win new believers for Christ (1 Thess 2:19-20; Dan 12:3); 3) the crown of life for Christians who endure trials even to death (James 1:12; Rev 2:8-11); 4) the crown of righteousness to those who love the appearing of Christ (2 Tim 4:8); and the crown of glory to shepherds who faithfully minister their flocks (1 Pet 5:1-4).  Further, “24” is symbolic of priestly service and priestly service is associated with human believers, not with angels.  As an example, there were 24 classifications of priests in 1 Chronicles 24-25.

Rev 3:10 promises that believers will be “kept from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world.”  We have the promise of the sign of Noah and the sign of Sodom where Noah, Lot and their believing families are removed before divine  judgment falls upon the earth.  There’s a clear pattern: God prophetically warns the world of judgment; God removes His people; judgment falls.

So, by way of conclusion, John epitomizes a glorified believer prophetically called up to heaven at the beginning of events in Revelation 4 just as we shall be, and then seeing the rest of events through the eyes of a glorified believer.  We will have “a bird’s eye view” of what happens if there ever was one.

And we’ll be surrounding the throne of God, with the throne of God being the central focal point of the book of Revelation.  Everything that proceeds does so first from God on His throne.  John’s description of God on His throne is awesome in its majesty: God’s glory radiates like a precious multi-faceted gem (Rev 4:2).  Jasper is a white diamond representing divine purity; the sardius stone is a blood-red ruby symbolic of divine wrath and judgment.  God’s judgment is tempered,  however.  Because both God’s purity and wrath are enveloped in a rainbow of emerald representing divine life and mercy.  The NIV correctly says “encircled.”  Circles represent continuity and eternity.  And apparently every Christian is going to find out quickly that surrounding the throne of God is the place to be.

Surrounding the throne are four living beings (Rev 4:5-8).  They are apparently a class of angel in addition to the seraphim (Isaiah 6:1-7) and the cherubim (Gen 3:24; Ezekiel chap 1).  These four living beings may be a type of cherubim because they guard the throne of God (Psalm 89:1; 99:1).  What is most interesting about them is that their features resemble the description accorded to the different portraits of Christ in the four Gospels:  In Matthew Jesus is presented as a lion, the king.  In Mark Jesus is described as the hard-working ox who is fully obedient to the will of the Father.  The living being with the face of a man is recognized in Luke’s portrayal of Jesus as the perfect Man.  And the soaring eagle is fulfilled in John’s emphasis of Jesus’ heavenly and divine origin.

The word “sea” is also important.  In Rev 13 “the sea” is used to describe sinful humanity tossing around in fury and violence and confusion.  Isaiah repeatedly uses the metaphor of a restless ocean to describe the nations as “a troubled sea in a storm” (see Isaiah 57:20).  See also Jer 49:23 and Jude 1:13.  By way of contrast, we who surround God’s throne will be the picture of divine calm and peace, like a sea of crystal flowing out from the throne of God.  I like that picture a lot more than the always-raging sea of sinful humanity.

As we view the throne of God we begin Revelation 5: the exalted majesty of God on His throne leads to one thing – to the exaltation of the Lamb “standing in the center of the throne” (Rev 5:6).  Consider the incredible concept of God’s throne being a battle chariot from Daniel 7:9-10.  The battle chariot used by Old Testament warriors was a 2-3 man operation, with one steering the chariot while an archer/s and/ or spearman fought.  God’s throne is a Trinitarian throne.  And it is a throne that goes wherever God goes.

You see in Revelation chapter 5 Christ receiving worship in a manner that is impossible to deny.  As an example, in John 20:28 Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!”  And Mormons and JWs say it’s just an exclamation rather than a recognition of deity.  Jesus stands in the center of the throne of God (Rev 5:6).  The elders fall down on their knees before Jesus (5:8).  They and the angels pronounced Jesus as “worthy” (Rev 5:12).  And then God the Father and God the Son TOGETHER are worshiped (5:13-14).  It is merely unbelievable unbelief to deny that Jesus  is truly and fully God given the statement of Rev 5.

Now, we have a seven-sealed scroll with writing on both sides on the hand of the Father with the question, “Who is worthy to open it?”  And NO ONE is found who is worthy except one and ONLY one Person: the Lamb who was slain.  The physical characteristics of the scroll make one thing abundantly clear: it is a legal document that was seen in the ancient world: the contract would be written on the inner side, rolled up and sealed with seven seals, and a short description would be written on the outer side.  There are actually six different interpretations of what this scroll represents in various schools of thought.  But I’ll only mention the two that are genuine candidates.  The scroll is either: 1) the title deed to the earth (God gave man dominion over the earth, but Satan usurped that dominion; and Christ won the title deed back but had never exercised His claim until now); or 2) the decree to issue the judgment that will result in the eschaton (end of days) and ultimately in eternity.  I believe it is this second possibility because Christ opens the scroll and we initiate the unfolding of judgment and the beginning of the ushering in of the glorious eternal state.  So on that view, why does John weep when no one is found worthy (“qualified”) to open the scroll?  Because mankind is in this terrible state and nothing can be done to advance their condition and bring this terrible condition of the human race and planet earth to a good conclusion.  Only by Jesus opening the scroll can history move to the conclusion that a righteous, holy and merciful, loving God had foreordained for the world.

The seven years of the Tribulation will be the most fateful years in all of human history.  They initiate the countdown to the end of human law and lawlessness, and at the culmination of these seven years Jesus will finally personally return in a cataclysmic appearance on earth to establish the long-anticipated Kingdom of God.

The Tribulation will result in the Millennium in which Jesus Christ sits on the earthly throne of David in the earthly city of Jerusalem and rules over the world as is His right that He won for all time on the cross.  What is the purpose of all this?  It is twofold: 1) to literally fulfill every single promise that God gave to Israel, to God’s physical DNA-people the Jews.  Every promise of prominence, of blessing, of wealth and abundance, of shalom, in which Messiah rules from His David throne while all the peoples of the earth come to Jerusalem to worship Him, will be literally and completely fulfilled.  And 2) to also literally demonstrate to secular, unbelieving, sinful humanity that they can NOT create a better world – or even a world capable of surviving – apart from God and most especially apart from Jesus.  The world is saying, “We could evolve to our highest potential and solve all of our problems if only it weren’t for those damned Christians.”  Jesus is going to give them their chance: and in only seven years they will degenerate to the point that they will destroy themselves and literally destroy the planet they’re living on unless Jesus comes to personally intervene and take control.  By the time the Tribulation ends, no one will be able to say, “We were doing fine until Jesus showed up and ruined everything.”

Finally, the twenty-four elders, as glorified human saints, also give us a glimpse into our future work and ministry.  God will give believers crowns to honor our faithful service to Him while on earth, but we will primarily use those crowns not to exalt ourselves but rather to have something to exalt our God with as we cast our crowns at the feet of Jesus (Rev 4:9-11).  But in Rev 5:5-9 we also see these glorified believers being able to encourage and explain (“Stop weeping; behold!”); they carry “the golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” as priests who minister before God.  And, yes, we WILL have harps in heaven and the ultimate capacity to make a truly joyful noise before the Lord.

Part Three: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 6-7

Part Four: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 8-9

Part Five: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 10-11

Part Six: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 12-13

Part Seven: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 14-15

Part Eight: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 16-18

Part Nine: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 19-20

Part Ten: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 21-22

United Nation’s Global Tax, Amazing Liberal Hypocrisy And The Frightening Reality Of How Truly DANGEROUS Obama’s Policies Are To America’s Poor

October 2, 2012

Ask your liberal friends to finish this sentence: “If the rich get richer, the poor get ______.”

Betcha a dollar your liberal will reflexively say, “poorer.”

The problem is that that is simply not true.  Unless an economy is a fixed sized pie such that if you get more of the pie, I by definition get less.  And as I shall try to explain, that is NOT the way a free market economy works.

The reality that liberals are too morally stupid to understand is that if I start a business, I start making my OWN pie.  By starting a business and becoming successful, I’m not stealing from anyone and I’m not exploiting anybody; rather, in direct opposition to what Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren – the brains behind Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to go along with a genuine fake American Indian (read, “fake oppressed minority = fake victim”) believe - I AM BUILDING SOMETHING if I create a business.  And no, you liberal dumbass, I am NOT stealing from somebody else; I am building something where there had been nothing before.  I am putting a positive attitude that you have never had and will never understand into action and I am starting something.

That’s right. I said the “A” word, liberals.  I said ATTITUDE:

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company… a church… a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you… we are in charge of our Attitudes.”  — Charles R. Swindoll

That 10% versus 90% is particularly relevant with Obama, who has the tiny little insect testicles to say he’s ninety damn percent not to blame for his insane and frankly demonic government spending.  When like everything else the man thinks he’s completely back assward.

That’s right, liberal.  Nobody’s taken anything from you; nobody’s oppressed you; and the only reason that you’re a victim is because you have spent your life victimizing YOURSELF and allowing your messiah Obama and liberals like him to talk you into being a weak, useless human being.  If you have the kind of positive attitude that Swindoll is describing, nothing is going to hold you down or hold you back – and the LAST thing you’re ever going to do is start whining like a liberal victim who is pathetic and cannot do anything unless government does it for you.

Here’s the thing: I’d love it if somebody asked Obama to complete that sentence I began with: If the become richer, the poor become ______.  And after the Marxist said “poorer,” I’d ask him what he thinks Americans should do given the fact THAT AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT THE WEALTHIEST DAMN LIFESTYLE ON THE PLANET.  I would demand that Obama explain on his view why Americans should redistribute trillions of dollars of American gross domestic product so that the desperately poor people in Africa and China and India and the Middle East and pretty much all over the damn planet could have more.

Here’s the thing. “If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer” the way liberals will invariably say, then what about the question, “If America gets richer, the rest of the world gets ______”???  How would the answer not be the same???  If America gets richer, then by liberal doctrine the rest of the world – particularly the poorest regions of the world – must necessarily get poorer.

Go to the Congo, where the GDP per capital is just $348.  That means the average person is forced to live (“subsist” is probably more fitting) on the currency equivalent of just 348 dollars per year.  That’s 29 bucks a month total.  That’s living the good life on 95 cents a day.  These people have NOTHING.  They don’t have houses; they have tiny little shacks that they build from whatever they can find; they don’t have air conditioning or refrigerators or laundry machines or for that matter electricity or plumbing.  Their kids don’t have disposable diapers.  Because they’ve never tried the free market economics or limited government you liberals despise, they’ve got squat diddly butkus and they’ll never have anything BUT squat diddly butkus.  And so hey, liberal poor person, unless you’ve never had more than $348 of welfare benefits or permanent unemployment benefits or allowance from daddy or however the hell you get your money and benefits in the course of a year, YOU DAMN WELL OWE THAT TRULY POOR SONOFABITCH IN THE CONGO.   And by your own rhetoric if you don’t send pretty much everything you get to the Congo, to Liberia, etc. etc. etc., then you are a greedy one percenter and shame on you.  You owe those poor people every single SCINTILLA as much as the rich guy in America owes YOU.  And what you know if you’ve ever had an honest moment in your entire life is that you keep demanding somebody ELSE give to YOU but YOU’VE never given people who’d rejoice on a tiny fraction of what you’ve got SQUAT.

I’m talking to you, resident of Detroit’s poorest neighborhood.  Because if you aint nearly starved to death you’ve got it FAR better than most of the population of the planet have it.  And it’s damn time you quit reaching your hand out and being a liberal TAKER and instead putting it in your wallet and becoming a liberal GIVER.

I’m talking to you, you damn liberal socialist hypocrites.  All you know how to do is justify redistribution when it applies to YOU or, in the case of liberal politicians, when it applies to your constituency as you pimp somebody else’s money in exchange for your damn votes so you can live like a fat cat like Charlie Rangel.

So a truly consistent liberal must therefore need to require America to lose wealth so the rest of the world can get richer instead.

So what’s Obama’s answer to the United Nations imposing a global tax?  Is Obama going to say he’s against the people of the Congo getting richer?  Then how DARE he allow America to produce more wealth?!?!?  What’s YOUR answer for why YOU shouldn’t have to pay right out of your ass because if you live in America, then compared to the majority of people on earth, you are a greedy one percenter compared to them???

The UN says America should pay a tax:

Global Taxes Are Back, Watch Your Wallet

Like a bad sequel to a rotten horror movie, the debate over global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head — courtesy of the United Nations. And, despite lacking the requisite hockey mask and chain saw, the seemingly countless proposals for the imposition of global taxes are truly terrifying.

In July, Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he “strongly supports finding new sources of funding” for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. “The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing,” Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.

Global tax proposals are not new. Various plans have been flitting around in academic circles and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades. And while the United States and other developed nations have staved off such proposals in the past, third world nations have increasingly dominated the U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970. As a result, they have begun to see promise in their quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of citizens from nations like the United States — specifically using the term “redistribution.” Recent U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set the stage for the third world to not only renew its pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for eventual success.

What do the poor liberal whiners in America have?  They not only have television sets (plural); they have CABLE television.  They’ve got refrigerators.  They’ve got air conditioning.  They’ve got cell phones.  They’ve got computers and video games.  They have got stuff coming out of their EARS compared to the poor in most of the rest of the world.

A lot of conservatives hate using the good word “liberalism” to describe liberals.  That’s because classical liberalism is actually a refutation of everything your progressive “liberal” Democrat stands for:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates individual liberties and limited government under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

That aint modern liberalism, boys and girls; that’s MODERN CONSERVATIVISM.  And the more you explain what classical liberalism is, the more modern liberal progressives are disqualified from it.

So if modern liberals aren’t really “liberals” at all, then what are they?  They are a bunch of self-centered, greedy, narcissistic little whiners who harbor the basic worldview, “Everybody owes me something and forced redistribution is wonderful as long as its somebody else’s money that’s getting redistributed.”  That’s what they are.  They are people who have perverted the teachings of Christ and warped American history and the Constitution and system of government our founding fathers gave us to mandate socialism.  Unless you can find where Jesus taught, “Rendering to Caesar IS rendering unto God.”  Unless you can find where Jesus taught that a giant socialist government (or ANY kind of government for that matter) should forcibly seize and redistribute people’s property based on naked demagoguery and cynical political partisanship.

Hey, tell you what: just show me where Jesus taught, “If you earn less than $200,000 a year, you don’t have to give ANYTHING to the less fortunate; you get to use the raw power of government to take stuff from others so you can vote to redistribute it to yourselves.”

No, that’s not in the teachings of Jesus and it’s not in the writings of the founding fathers who forged a republic for Americans based on the principles of liberty and freedom.

Instead you pervert the wisdom of Jesus and of the American founding fathers and distort them to falsely claim that they taught the doctrine of your REAL ideological master:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

If you want to know where modern liberalism comes from, THAT’S WHERE IT COMES FROM.

Jesus never absolves the poor from giving; to the contrary, HE calls for the poor to give:

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.  Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.  They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” — Mark 12:41-44

So you aren’t off the hook any more than that rich guy you feel so self-righteous to hate and demonize and demagogue, poor liberal.

You, who judge and condemn the rich and demand the state confiscate more and ever more of what they work to earn, another teaching of Jesus applies to YOU:

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” — Matthew 7:2

It’s time you lived up to your own damn hypocritical rhetoric and slogans, you liberals (and especially you POOR liberals).

But don’t you worry, you pathological hypocrites who would never DREAM of paying taxes yourselves that you want everybody else to pay for YOU, if Obama gets reelected, HE’LL FORCE YOU TO REDISTRIBUTE YOUR WEALTH THE SAME WAY YOU WANTED HIM TO FORCE RICH PEOPLE TO REDISTRIBUTE THEIRS.

If the so-called “rich” don’t deserve their money because they’ve got more than you do, poor, stupid liberal; what the hell makes you think that YOU deserve YOUR money given that you’ve got a damn sight more than most of the world’s poor?

Somebody ought to take all your stuff away that the poor people in the Congo don’t have, have never had, and probably never WILL have (because the poorest countries are usually also the most socialistic countries and their failed economic system guarantees the constant destruction of wealth as corrupt government officials keep “redistributing” a shrinking economy into their own pockets).  Because that’s “economic justice” by your own rhetoric.

And Obama’s just the man to do it.  Because that’s the way he thinks; it’s the “Dream From His Father.”  And Obama literally “became” an American in order to chop America down to the size he believed as a “citizen of the world” that it ought to be.

And Obama has done an incredible job advancing that vision of America.

He’s the man whose entire history is that of anti-colonialism and hating the West for its prosperity when the have-nots of the planet have naught.

If we taxed the wealth of those who earned more than $250,000 a year at 100% – literally confiscated their wealth and left them with nothing – we would ruin those people and still only get 38% of what we needed to close Obama’s massive budget deficitWe’d have to tax them at the logically impossible rate of 134%, which means we would seize everything they owned and them demand that they pay MORE than everything they owned.  And with the rich people ruined, where would Obama go to collect the other 62%?  We’d have to then have ANOTHER group of people to demonize and confiscate from, wouldn’t we???

You can’t win with what the left is saying.  What they claim is guaranteed destruction and it is only bought by bad people who are selfish and greedy hypocrites who demand that somebody else should be forced to take responsibility for their failed lives.

As I pointed out earlier, liberals often use an incredibly flawed perversion of the Bible to try to justify their flawed Marxist economic system.  But when you understand what the Bible has to say about taxation, you realize that the left pretty much takes everything the Bible actually says and turns it completely upside down.

The truth is this: Wealth is not a fixed-sized pie.  The left is wrong; human creativity and ingenuity is such that people can always come along with new ideas that make them rich and create jobs for other people and improve the lives of other people who use their product or service.  They won’t be getting rich at somebody else’s expense; they’ll be building a pie where no pie existed before and that pie will make the overall pie of an economy larger.  If the rich get richer, other people can learn from that rich person’s example and be encouraged by it and also get richer.  The left is simply flat-out wrong.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers