Friday, June 30, 2006

Treacherous Traitorous Treasonous Times

What the New York Times did this week in revealing a CIA/Treasury antiterrorism program was simply put, treason. The NYT ignored th e pleas of both Democrats and Republicans not to publish the details of the program. Quoting from the Agape Press News Service:

“Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (AIM) says he was stunned by the newspaper's report. "The New York Times has decided that they have the right to decide what should be classified and what should not be classified," he observes. "They have put themselves up above the government of the United States and the people who elect that government." And the Times' arrogant attitude -- "freedom of the press but without responsibility" -- has made America less safe, he adds.

“For that reason, Kincaid wants to know why the newspaper is not being prosecuted. "Section 798 of the Espionage Act absolutely prohibits the publication of classified information dealing with the communications intelligence activities of the United States government," he says. "This is an open-and-shut case

Actually this is the second time that this liberal paper published detailed information about vital national security programs. In 2005 it disclosed a National Security Agency surveillance program of people in the U.S. with suspected al-Qaeda ties.

The Agape Press report continued:

“According to (Gary) Bauer's report, Lt. Tom Cotton -- who is currently serving in Iraq -- feels strongly that Times officials should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Bauer quotes from Cotton's letter:

“"You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here," he writes. "Next time I hear [or feel an explosion] ... I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance."

“". . . By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars."”

The New York Times needs to be held accountable for its action. We must stop looking the other way and see Iraq turn into Vietnam all over again.


You can make A Good Choice today when you go
here right now and send a message to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez demanding that all those involved in the treasonous New York Times article be charged under the Espionage Act!

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Ode of a 'Homophobe'

The following is a little ditty I wrote after sharing opposing views with left-leaning liberals on whether homosexuality was a behavioral choice or something else.

The discussion took place at Open Forum, Ohio Politics. After the discussion the conclusion was let's agree to disagree. That left me empty and implied that there was no right answer, when I knew that there is.

Ode of a 'Homophobe'
You think all I say is "it’s Pepsi",
and you say "Coke"?
Or, maybe you think I say "less filling",
and you say "tastes great"?
I say "it is deadly serious". You say "it is a joke".

I say "choice". You say "chance or happenstance".
I say "sin". You say “no way” a’gin'.
I say "unnatural". You say "natural".
I say "it's evil".
You say "it's good or maybe neutral"?
I say "wrong".
You say "it's right or maybe or it doesn't matter".
I say "it hurts society".
You say "it doesn't affect me or my family".
I say "ban it". You tell me to "can it".
I say "God loaths it". You say "APA approves it".
I say "one man and one woman".
You say "man and woman, or
man and man, or woman and woman."
I say "what's next"?
You say "whatever comes down the pike".
I say "it's a black cloud over America".
You say "it's just part of Jesse's rainbow".
I say "no". You say "yes".

We can agree to disagree,
yet only one of us is correct.
I will place all my bets on God's call . . .
That's all.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Slavery, Two Thousand and Six, A.D.

In a recent discussion on the In the News forum, a writer quoted my assertion that “moral absolutes do exist, they are timeless, changeless principles that applied thousands of years ago and they apply today....The best, and really only reliable source of ultimate truth is the Judeo-Christian Bible.” He was implying that if what I said was actually true then “Slavery in the Bible is not forbidden. Why then does the world today outlaw slavery? It is biblical.”

Before I share in a subsequent post what essentially I wrote in response, let me make a comment, especially in light of my fellow A Good Choice . . . for Ohio et al. poster, Matt's series on slavery (see part 1-3 below) as discussed in the Judeo-Christian Bible. The Bible does not encourage or foster slavery. Slavery is discussed on many levels and circumstances. See Matt’s postings for a comprehensive discussion.

However, there were specific reasons for the existence of slavery; one was the preparation and refinement of the people of Israel for God’s greater purpose and plan for them. The major purpose that God allowed Israel to be enslaved was to purify them to carry out His eventual redemptive plan for the entire human race.

Slavery in most instances was wrong. Actually instead of Israel’s obeying God’s instruction destruction to destroy some of its enemies, she chose to enslave them, which eventually caused some difficult problems for Israel, including her being infected by the rampant idolatry and immorality practiced by their slaves.

God used slavery in the Bible to accomplish his purposes. See Matt’s series for a detailed explanation of how slavery is used in the Judeo-Christian Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

Slavery was generally considered wrong in biblical times, except in certain situations. However, even though it is “outlawed’ in most of the “civilized” world today, slavery does exist even today.

The following are just a few thoughts on the slavery, which exists in the world today.


First, slavery exists across the continent of Africa where the Islamist and Arabic northern Moslems enslave southern Sudanese Moslem and Christians. This outrage is practiced today by the proponents of the religion of peace. All across northern Africa slaves are bought and sold and trafficked through the world. Slaves are sold to households in Europe. Some of this trade is illegal, but some is overlooked or, I suspect that some is actually condoned by or even conspired with by some governments.


A second instance of slavery is in communist
utopias, such as China and North Korea, where governments enslave political and religious prisons, mostly true faith-based Christians and some others. Some of our Christmas tree lights and assorted other junk and products we trade with China for and many third world countries are produced by forced child labor or virtual slaves of their masters, both government-managed and other-managed. This is the dirty little secret that Wal-Mart and other greed-driven marketers and our government executive and legislature branches deliberately overlook.


The third and most vile form of slavery fueled to a great part by “rich” decadent European and American men are sex slaves. Poisoned by the pernicious pornographic-ridden internet these men become so degraded and perverse that they buy children, young men and young women from third world countries and use them to quench their unquenchable sexual desires. This is the natural result of having so much freedom and so much wealth that we abuse it and uses others to try to buy more and more gratification. Runaway children can also be slaves of the traffickers of sex right here in the US. These unfortunate children get swept into the street and picked up by pimps. Their self-worth systematically destroyed and made to feel absolutely worthless. These children are used by their pimps for profit and by their philandering demoniac perverse purchaser’s illegal sexual gratification.

So the poster’s statement that “the world outlaws slavery” is true on the surface. You don’t have to look too far to see that slavery is still being condoned or conveniently ignored by some governments. Slavery still is even condoned by and even engaged in by some governments and some individuals. Slavery exists. Slavery is evil in 2000 B.C. and it is evil in 2006. This is one of those moral absolutes that I was referring to in the original quote above.

Make A Good Choice and educate yourself as to what the Judeo-Christian Bible says about slavery. Above all, do not get drawn into the subtle enticement of soft-core or hard-core pornography because it can lead to your enslavement as well as the enslavement of innocents from the four corners of this world.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Short List of Suggested Books for Summer Reading

Summer is here. This summer I am reading the three books that I am discussing on this post. I enjoy reading more than one book at a time. I am currently reading two of the three books on my recommended summer reading list. I plan to complete reading all three before the end of summer.

If you are into love stories, you will simply revel in your reading about a man who thoroughly loves his God and his country. I am almost through reading So Help Me God by former Alabama Chief Justice Moore. This book is about his struggle to acknowledge God in the courtroom and in the court buildings of our land. Read this eye opening story of a dedicated, hard working, principled person, who has fought his own government for the right to give God His just due. Judge Moore walks in the footsteps of this nation's founding fathers. The book is written in plain southern prose and tells the step-by-step account of the "Ten Commandments Judge" and the famous (or infamous to the ACLU-types) stone monument. This is both an inspirational and a chilling story at the same time. It is chilling to see how far our nation has strayed from its founding principles, its moorings. It is inspirational in that Judge Moore stuck to his beliefs to the point of losing his job, and has brought to America's and American Christian's attention the need to reverse its present course.

If you are into horror-histories, you will enjoy get frighteningly enlightened as you read this sad historical and up-to-date expose. Read the scary truth about the American Civil Liberties Union in The ACLU Versus America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values by Alan Sears and Craig Olsen.

Ann Counter follows in the tradition of her earlier books, Treason and Slander with her "gentle" commentary, Godless: the Church of Liberalism, actually her hypodermic-needle mainlining or maligning the religion of Liberalism. The tome is meant to educate the masses on the inner workings of the most un-church church organization in America today. Along the way she will show the key role that the reprehensible ACLU plays in this clandestine Liberalism religion.

You can get any or all of these masterpieces, each selling for under $20, at either or You will be making A Good Choice is you decide to read these three books this year and become better educated and better equipped to stop the ACLU and a few of their friends, as well.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Slavery Part 3: Slavery in Roman World in the New Testament

In my last article I talked about slavery under the Law of Moses. Under the Roman rule, slaves had few rights. However, each territory under Roman control, including Galilee, Samaria, and Judea could place their own restrictions on the institution. All of the laws of Moses concerning slavery basically remained in tact in Israel.

When St. Paul wrote his various epistles, he was writing to many different churches in different regions—not just Palestine. He was writing primarily to Gentiles (but his words apply to all cultures). When he says, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters…” (Ephesians 6:5), he not advocating any particular political position on the subject, but he was merely instructing slaves to obey the law of the land. There are more general statements which express the idea that people should obey the civil laws and authorities (I Peter 2:13, 14, 17). One should not obey laws which require one to do something contrary to scripture or to not do something that the Bible says that we should do. This same exception applies to the obedience of children to their parents.

Like Job (Job 31:13-15), St. Paul considered slaves and masters to be equal before God (Ephesians 6:9) and asked masters to treat slaves better than the law required (yes, Christians were permitted to have slaves in New Testament ethics). Jesus was willing to do the duties of a slave, in service to his own disciples, a stunning example of Christian service that was meant to be an example for us today (John 13:4-7).

In some instances Paul encouraged, but did not demand that Christian masters free their slaves (Philemon 8, 14). In Rome, freed slaves automatically became citizens (which was ordinarily obtained only by birth, at a high price, or for some heroic deed). There were, at times, restrictions on the manumission of slaves because they feared that the native citizenry populace would become too diluted with foreigners. St. Paul encouraged slaves to obtain their freedom if they could (I Corinthians 7:21) and encouraged the free not to become slaves (I Corinthians 7:23). Paul encouraged slaves of unbelieving masters to take advantage of their position so that they might win their masters for Christ (Titus 2:9-10). Even though slaves who were Christians sometimes had to remain slaves, they lived under a higher law which made them free in reality (I Corinthians 7:22). Slavery in America is next.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Blinded Bishop’s Pernicious Pronouncement, or the First Missteps of a New Religious "Ruler"

Family Research Council responded to the newly appointed Bishop of the US Episcopal Church by commenting: “We are witnessing a great divide within the Church in America giving rise to two churches - one that believes and adheres to the teaching of the Holy Bible and the other that rejects it. Yesterday the newly elected head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said scripture was not relevant to the debate over homosexuality, because homosexual behavior was not a sin. Jefferts Schori, the first woman selected as leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church, will take office later this year. She is likely to increase the strained relations between the U.S. Episcopal Church and its sister churches in the worldwide Anglican Communion over the ordination of the openly homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop, whom she supported.”

This is America. We welcome all faiths and beliefs, even false beliefs and false-teachers. The true faith-based Christian Episcopal-Anglicans around the world are only going to be further outraged by this pernicious pronouncement from their new blinded "shepherd".

You can deny the truth all you want. Homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle choice. This remains solidly true and absolute, no matter what any white collared-cleric Ms. Bishop, or Mr. Bishop or anyone else claims to the contrary.

Jesus, Himself, called the religious rulers in His day, which could very easily apply today to the good (sic) lady bishop: "Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind and if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Despite popular opinion moral absolutes do exist, they are timeless, changeless principles that applied thousands of years ago and they apply today. We are not talking politics here. We are talking what is right. Truth is truth. The best, and really only reliable source of ultimate truth is the Judeo-Christian Bible. Our Forefathers new it, many an Americans knows it.

The problem we have today is that the creature has replaced the Creator as ultimate authority. On thing that God clearly declares about homosexuality is that it is an abomination. That means that it is essentially evil, of no redeeming value. He is not talking here, nor am I, about the homosexual, but the homosexual’s behavior. There is a great need in the churches of America to wake up and again look to God and His Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible for its wisdom and light, not a man’s or a woman’s human understanding.

Make A Good Choice and pick up and read, study and apply God’s Word, the Judeo Christian Bible Today!

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Homosexuality: Inclination or Immorality?

A writer on another forum (e-the people) on which I also occasionally participate asked me how I justified being a “Christian” and at the same time supporting a (former) candidate and fellow blogger here on “A Good Choice . . .” (“Sam” Keiser), who favored having homosexuals “automatically receiving the death penalty.” Part of my response follows below.

On that same forum I asked the question: Is homosexuality an amoral natural inclination or is it an immoral behavioral choice? So far more than 2/3 of the respondents have indicated that they think it is an it is an immoral behavioral choice. This is heartening to me, because that is precisely what I believe as well.

The former candidate you are referring, Merrill “Sam” Keiser, Jr., stated that he would not stand in the way of anyone proposing legislation providing the death penalty for a person convicted of homosexuality if that person refuses to repent of their immorality. It is not the law of the land right now. “Sam” believes that it should be the law of the land, based on God’s injunction found in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Until it becomes the law of the land, however, he is not advocating vigilantism, the killing of homosexuals or anyone without due process including a proper trial.

After talking to “Sam” today he reiterated his view: “God established government precisely to carry out, to execute, His laws and His wrath (justice) on mankind. This includes punishing evil-doers. You can read about this principle in the Judeo-Christian Bible in the New Testament book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7. It is the first duty of government to uphold God’s law and execute vengeance on those who do evil. This then brings about a peaceful and prosperous society.”

The primary reason that “Sam” takes this seemingly extreme view is, first, it is prescribed by God, Himself, codified in the Judeo-Christian bible. Therefore it is morally wrong. Second, it has brought attention to the fact that our society has accepted, condoned and has begun to promote this immoral lifestyle. Society, in essence, has caved into the whims of a few activist judges and radical homosexuals in carrying out this highly influential, moneyed minority’s intent on destroying some of the most cherished American principles and values. “Sam” was responding to the growing American decadence is to purge society of this abominable practice. The Judeo-Christian Bible and “Sam” warn of the repercussions if homosexuality continues to be welcomed and assimilated into the mainstream of society as acceptable and normal. Society as we know it will be destroyed from within. Moreover, it is subject to the removal of Almighty God’s favor and blessing on this nation. He, ultimately, will allow this once godly and great nation to become a memory as has the mighty Roman Empire and the great Greek Empire before America.

Many Americans, some very good and honorable people, have fallen for the lie. Homosexuals live the lie. Homosexuals believe the lie. Homosexuals spread the lie. The lie is that homosexuality is natural, normal, and even genetic; homosexuality is viable acceptable alternative completely harmless lifestyle. What a lie.

The truth is that homosexuality is abnormal, perverse, unnatural, not inherited, unacceptable and harmful to the individual and to society as a whole. The bottom line is that homosexuality is a corrupting influence on society and must be eliminated. Otherwise God will eliminate us! This is the Judeo-Christian biblical view which I share in common with “Sam”. You, too, would be making A Good Choice if you rejected the homosexual lie and accepted God's truth that it is an abominable evil.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Slavery Part 2: Mosaic Law

In my last article I talked about unjust forms of slavery. Under the Law of Moses, it was punishable by death to force someone into slavery without just cause (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7). (Joseph’s brothers would have been put to death if they had been under the Law of Moses.) But what were the just causes of enslavement under the Law of Moses?

Prisoners of war were sometimes made to slaves by the victor of the war (Deuteronomy 20:10, 11, 21:10, I Kings 9:21). The Israelites were commanded to go to war with various nations at various times because of unprovoked attacks and also because of detestable practices.

If a thief could not make restitution for the property he stole and for any damages, the affected parties could make the thief a slave (Exodus 22:3).

Under the Law of Moses, if a man was poor, he could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay his debts (Leviticus 25:39-43).

Ecclesiastes 2:7 mentions people who were slaves at birth. In Joshua 9:27, it indicates that people and their descendents could be kept as slaves forever in some cases. But this happened because of a covenant that God had not approved of (Joshua 9:14, 15). These Gibeonite slaves and others who came later, were slaves at the temple, and did not have private masters as other slaves did.

In Old Testament times, if a borrower could not pay his creditors, then they could enslave him (2 Kings 4:1, Nehemiah 5:5, 8). But these cases are not mentioned in the scriptures until after the time of Moses, and these ways of enslavement are not necessarily approved by God. The Law of Moses is unclear on these points.

What were the rights of slaves?

Israelites were given the right to buy permanent slaves from other nations and from the other people living among them (Leviticus 25:44, 45). But there is no means by which a person who was not already a permanent slave could be forcibly made a permanent slave under the Law of Moses, except for prisoners of war.

Anyone who had been enslaved had the right to own property. If someone was enslaved because of debt or poverty, and they could pay off their debt, then they could be freed (Leviticus 25:47-49). Families of such slaves were commanded to redeem them if they could. The maximum amount of time that a person could be enslaved for this reason was six years (Exodus 21:2, Deuteronomy 15:12). But if a slave loved his master, then he could voluntarily choose to become his slave for life (Deuteronomy 15:16). This was typical in cases where a temporary slave married a permanent slave of the master (Exodus 21:5). All debts were cancelled every seven years (Deuteronomy 15:1-11) and all temporary slaves were always freed in the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:54).

All masters of slaves were required to provide for the needs of their slaves (Exodus 21:11). When a slave was freed, the masters were required to give them supplies that they would need in order to sustain themselves (Deuteronomy 15:13, 14), which would prevent them from becoming enslaved again.

If a master seriously injured a slave, then the slave would be freed (Exodus 21:26, 27). The same law “Thou shall not kill” applied to masters and slaves just as much as anyone else (Exodus 21:20). Everyone was forbidden from working on the Sabbath day, and slaves were no exception (Exodus 23:12). They were also allowed to participate in the various festivals and feasts of the Jewish tradition. If a master had no children, then his slaves could inherit his property, even if they were foreigners (I Chronicles 2:34).

If a foreign slave escaped from his master, claiming mistreatment or unjust enslavement, then the Israelites were required to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to live in the Israelite cities. They were not supposed to give him back to his master (Deuteronomy 23:15, 16).

In conclusion, the strict definition of slave, “a person over whose life, liberty, and property someone has absolute control” simply does not apply to Biblical slavery. None of the dictionary definitions completely describes the Biblical concept. Slavery is not something that God intended in the beginning, but it is a consequence of sin. In my next article, I will examine slavery in the Roman world and St. Paul’s statements concerning it.

Exposing a Republican Governor’s Intolerance

The American Family Association reports that: "A public official in Maryland has been fired by the Republican governor because he merely expressed his personal beliefs and the teaching of his church that homosexuality is immoral. Robert Smith was fired from his position on the metro (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) board by Gov. Robert Ehrlich, Jr. after a homosexual complained.”

"Gov. Ehrlich said he is intolerant to any view that opposes the full social acceptance of homosexual behavior and its promotion in government. He said Smith's comments were "highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. They are in direct confli
ct to my administration's commitment to...tolerance." Gov. Ehrlich contradicted his own statement! He is promoting tolerance toward homosexual practice while being intolerant to Smith's Christian beliefs and the teaching of his church."

In part the 6/16/06 Baltimore Sun story reads: “Smith’s remarks came during a show taped June 9 that has aired at least three times since. The discussion included a proposed federal gay marriage ban (the Marriage Protection Amendment). "That doesn't mean that government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviancy," Smith said in the conversation about the rights of gays and lesbians."

To liberal Democrats or Republicans this so-called 'tolerance' is demonstrated to be a one-way street. Unfortunately, it is “My way or the highway”. What a shame.

The Family Research Center reports that “At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hosting several homosexual activists as speakers here in Washington for its officially sanctioned observance of June as "gay pride" month. There is a clear connection between the EPA and the actions of Ehrlich. When the government affirms homosexuality, it must suppress religious freedom. . .”

Take Action:

Contact Gov. Bob Ehrlich and ask him to borrow a backbone and stand up for his appointee and reinstate Robert Smith. Also, contact the White House at and ask them to stop creating a hostile environment for Christians by allowing their agencies to publicly endorse and promote homosexuality.

Here is the gist of what I sent to the governor and something similar to the White House:

Dear Governor Ehrlich:

I became aware of your action regarding metro board member Robert Smith. He was stating his personal view about homosexuality and you terminated his board membership for this.

Where is his freedom of speech? Where is his religious freedom?

The Republican Party seems to be equivocating principles for the sake of expanding its political base? This is wrong, let us stand for American values such as the traditional family and traditional marriage.

I ask you to reconsider your decision and reinstate Mr. Smith.


Friday, June 16, 2006

Lowering the Decency Deficit

Now the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) can get serious with indecency on the broadcast airwaves. Fines have been increased 10 times, from $32,500 to $325,000 thanks to President Bush, who signed S. 193, the 'Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005' into law on Thursday June 15.

In a press release
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins commends the action, stating "No longer will indecency fines be considered by major media broadcasters as an insignificant cost of doing business. The era of 'slap on the wrist' has ended, and a message has been sent...violate the public trust on the nation's airwaves, and you'll pay the price."

Like the Federal deficit, indecency has grown to immense proportions in America today.

When I mentioned this topic on a forum earlier today, one writer asked where my priorities were. He asked if I didn't realize that there were more weighty issues than a few curse words.

Our priorities have indeed been messed up . . . When we are more concerned about protecting criminals, than we in seeking justice for the victims themselves . . . When we are more concerned about protecting some endangered animal, insect or plant, than we are protecting human life (babies being aborted by the millions). . . When we are more concerned about protecting Howard Stern's right to vulgarity, than we are permitting any mention of God and Jesus Christ in public. Yes, indeed I'd say our priorities were sorely, messed up.

Indecency is also toxic. Polluting the environment is wrong, however, polluting society & culture is even more harmful. Thanks to extremist environmentalists there are plentiful laws and penalties protecting the environment, but until yesterday the laws protecting the society from indecency have been without financial clout. Now, hopefully, we will begin to enforce these laws and the fines will hurt the purveyors of pornography on our broadcast airwaves, the true air pollution problem.

This new law is A Good Choice and a good start at cleaning up America.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Slavery Part 1:

Greg said,

"Personally, I believe that Paul’s expression 'slaves obey your master' is as true today as it was almost 2000 years ago. We no longer have slaves, but if we did the biblical mandate would apply today."

Brian Murphy said,

" 'Slaves' is a word with a very clear definition, then and now. It means 'one bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.' I am not the property of any employer. Nobody is. A slave is someone unable to escape their condition, and I can just say 'I quit!' "

Here is the dictionary definition of it from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, fifth edition:

slave 1. A person held in bondage; a thrall. 2. One who has lost control of himself, freedom of action, etc.; as, a slave to ambition or of drink. 3. A drudge.

I also found a definition in Funk & Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary which seems more precise:

slave 1. A person over whose life, liberty, and property someone has absolute control. 2. A person in mental or moral subjection to a habit, vice, or influence. 3. One who labors like a slave; a drudge.

The word drudge is defined as :

To work hard at wearisome or menial tasks, or one who drudges.

Therefore, Greg’s use of term slave in this way is correct, even though it is the least common use of term. But since slavery under the first definition is what Brian Murphy was talking about (and probably was what St. Paul was talking about as well), this is worthy of further investigation. I will begin six part series on the topic, starting with slavery in Egypt and Canaan before the Mosaic Law.

I will consider six instances of slavery in Egypt in the book of Genesis and Hebrew slavery in the book of Exodus.

1. The pharaoh of Egypt in Abram’s (Abraham’s) time gave slaves to him (Genesis 12:16). One of these slaves was probably Hagar, who Abraham later took as a concubine (a wife) because Sarah could not conceive (or so they thought). It is not clear from the scriptures whether Hagar had a choice or if she was compelled to do this. Hagar was later sent away.

2. Jacob agreed to serve Laban for seven years in exchange for permission to marry his daughter (and ended up working for him 13 more years).

3. Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:27) because his brothers were envious of him. (Genesis 37:11) He was sold to the Ishmaelites who sold him in Egypt.

4. After Joseph had become governor of Egypt, he acquired the best land for crops for the Pharaoh at the beginning of the seven years of plenty and stored the surplus grain (which therefore belonged to Pharaoh). After the seven years of plenty were over and the famine started, people began to buy the Pharaoh’s grain. Their money soon ran out and so they pleaded with Pharaoh to “Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh.” (Genesis 47:19, 25) Joseph made a covenant with them that they could continue to use the land and keep four-fifths of the grain grown on the land (the other fifth went to the Pharaoh). This was still the law hundreds of years later during the time of Moses (Genesis 47:26).

5. When Joseph’s brothers came to buy grain, Benjamin was accused of stealing the governor’s (Joseph’s) cup. The punishment that Joseph proposed for this alleged crime was that Benjamin would become his slave. (Genesis 44:16) (Benjamin, of course, was innocent and this never happened.)

6. The enslavement of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus is described as “bitter bondage”. It was acceptable for Hebrew slaves to be beaten (Exodus 1:11). The reason that the Hebrews were enslaved was because the Pharaoh was afraid of the Hebrews. He was afraid that they would revolt or join the enemies of Egypt if there was a war. The value of the life of a Hebrew was regarded so low under the law by this Pharaoh that he ordered that all male Hebrew babies be murdered. This was a culture that thought that the life of animals should be protected under the law. The slavery was ongoing as long as the Pharaoh ordered it, with no possibility of redress. This seems to be the only pre-Mosaic case in which slavery can be proven to fit the first dictionary definition.

In the third instance, though Joseph was treated well, his enslavement was definitely unjust. The sixth case was also unjust enslavement. One could argue that there could have been a better way to settle cases 4 (hypothetically) and 5 besides enslavement, but at least there were legitimate reasons for the enslavement (or potential enslavement) in these cases. We are dealing with Egyptian law in these cases, so in any case, this is no reflection on what a Biblical stance on slavery is, except possibly in cases 4 and 5 since Joseph was considered a righteous man. But Joseph would have had to have acted within Egyptian law and it had to be acceptable to Pharaoh. I will bring out the Biblical stance in my next two articles. I will examine slavery under the Mosaic Law next.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Planned Parenthood: Profiting from Premeditated Murder

Planned Parenthood has been recently described as an “evil enterprise” by the Family Research Center. Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute says “Planned Parenthood continues to be the nation’s primary abortion provider . . . Abortion is where its profit lies and abortion is the heart of its so-called ‘service’ to women.”

I was personally appalled when I learned recently that we, American Taxpayers, funded more than ¼ of a billion dollars to this despicable organization.

The American Life League recently reported that “after an unexplained seven month delay, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America released its 2004-2005 Annual Report a few days ago. . . This report shows that Planned Parenthood had a record year financially. It took in more total money ($882 million), more government money ($272.7 million) and more clinic money ($346.8 million) than ever before. . . [The following statement really shocks me.] ” Its total net assets have now risen to $784.1 million - $478.7 million in cash or investment.” You can see for yourself these shameful figures in the full Planned Parenthood annual report, which is in a PDF document online.

Further, a Concerned Woman for America news release makes the following observations about Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report:

· “While depicting itself as a benign health service for women, Planned Parenthood conducted 20 percent of the nation’s abortions –– over 255,000 abortions in 2004 (up 4.3 percent over 2003).

· “While claiming to be pro-adoption, Planned Parenthood referred only slightly more than 1,400 customers to adoption agencies (down 20 percent from 2003).

· “Nearly one third ($272.7 million) of Planned Parenthood’s income comes from taxpayers. That’s four times the amount given to abstinence programs.

· “Planned Parenthood sold nearly one million (up over 21 percent over 2004) “emergency” birth control kits in 2004 (these include the morning after pill –– Plan B).”

An email that I received from Family Research Center concluded that “One way to view Planned Parenthood is as the U.S.'s largest political party. It gets far more than either the Democrats or the Republicans from the federal government. Although it does not run candidates, it CONTROLS them--and intimidates them. Its platform is sexual license. I call upon the leaders of Congress to de-fund Planned Parenthood. . ."

Please do sign the petition below and also contact your legislator:

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Funeral Protestors

(I blanked out the curse words in picture above)

There is a group that has been reported in the media called the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, which protests at funerals for soldiers. (I should mention that this group has no connection with mainstream Baptist conventions.) This group has caused much distress to the families and friends of these soldiers. I do not believe that what these people are doing is good and the way that they are going about things is all wrong.

This is what they are saying:

God is punishing America for its sins (specifically tolerance of homosexuality) by allowing the war in Iraq and allowing our soldiers die in the war. They have signs that say, “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates … (I won’t use the word that they use for homosexuals)”. They want even more of our soldiers to die. They say that we should stop praying for America because it’s already too late. They say that God hates America.

Now here is my commentary on what the WBC is saying:

I agree with the first statement. It seems obvious to me that God is punishing America for its wicked ways. But I am not glad that this is happening. I wish that America had never gone to war with Iraq. (I disagree with Sam and Greg on this point.) I don’t want anymore of our soldiers to die. I wish that America would repent.

Romans 12:14-15 says, “Bless those persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.” I Corinthians 13:6 says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth.” Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem in Luke 19:41 (see also Luke 13:34, Obadiah 12). It seems to me that it would be acceptable to thank God for punishments if the people who have been punished have learned the error of their ways, but not otherwise. The WBC claims, “It is a sin NOT to take pleasure in the wrathful out pourings of God's justice on this nation.” They quote Psalm 58:10, "The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.” I take the position that this is a prophecy that will be fulfilled when Christ comes back to put the all of the followers of the Beast to death (Revelation 19:11-21). It will then be too late for them. THEN God will wipe every tear from our eyes (Revelation 21:4). I take the position that God will not cause us to forget unsaved people who we knew in this life, but somehow we will not be saddened when they are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is a profound mystery. At that point, and not before, we will see things completely from God’s perspective and it will be OK for us to rejoice in everything that God has done.

God does not hate anybody, right? But what about Psalm 26:5, 31:6, Malachi 1:3, Luke 14:26, John 12:25, and Romans 9:13? God does hate people who do evil (Psalm 5:5) in some sense. The meaning of this is that those hated by God are his enemies (Psalm 139:21, 22) and they are “always under the wrath of the LORD” (Malachi 1:4). Commentators say that the real meaning of Luke 14:26 is explained in Matthew 10:37, but I don’t know if this is true or not. It’s just not biblical to say that God only hates sin, but not the sinner (at least not the way the Bible defines God’s hate). How then do we reconcile these passages with passages like Leviticus 19:17, Matthew 5:43, 44, and I John 2:9-11, 3:15, 4:20? There is hate which comes from pride and the flesh, called “hate without cause”, but there is also a righteous hatred. You won’t find two different Greek or Hebrew words for hate. You just have to know it looking at the context. The same concept is true with the word anger (Compare Matthew 5:22 with John 15:25). The meaning of God’s agape love is that He does not want for us to be under his wrath or to be his enemies (Ezekiel 18:23, Romans 5:6-10). This love is so strong that He was willing to take all of the wrath and all of the curses of sin upon himself on the cross so that we wouldn’t have to. II Peter 3:8, 9 indicates that God loves everyone with this type of love. But as long as a person does not repent, God’s wrath is still upon him. Thus, it is possible for God to both love and hate the same person at the same time. Called by some “hyper-Calvinistic”, the WBC does not believe in this, because they believe in the doctrine of limited atonement. This is disproved by verses that I have already quoted and further by John 3:16, 17 and II Corinthians 5:15. One could argue that one could commit so much sin and/or reject God so many times that God would stop loving that person (Hosea 9:15, Matthew 12:31, and Romans 1:24). The passage in Hosea is future tense and the other two also do not really give this conclusion.

Even if God did stop loving some person (before they have died) or nation, that is something for Him to judge and not us. I can’t think of verse to prove that it isn’t too late for America except II Chronicles 7:14 and Luke 1:37. We should assume that it isn’t too late until proven otherwise.

While the WBC’s statement that God hates homosexuals is technically correct, it would not be good thing to say for many reasons. Most people think that love and hate are mutually exclusive and don’t understand the meaning of righteous hatred. This should be explained first. It would especially not be a good thing to say at a funeral! These people just aren’t Christ-like. When we witness, we shouldn’t just ignore issues like specific sins, death, hell, and wrath. But their way of getting their point across is mean-spirited. Though they quote scriptures, their purpose is seems to be to hurt people and not really to win souls for Christ.

In conclusion, I would suggest that Christians use this as an occasion to good. If this topic of conversation were to come up at your work, you could use this as an opportunity to explain both God’s wrath and his love to give people a true picture of who God is. Too many churches are the opposite extreme of the WBC. We need to use both edges of God’s sword of truth. Christians should show up at these protests and make counter-protests with signs that say “God does not want anyone to die”, “God wants everyone to repent”, and “Mourn with those who mourn”.

If you are reading this, and you are not a Christian, and you want to know what REAL Christianity is, click on this link. Then read Romans 10:9, I Peter 3:18-22 and Romans 8:1.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

God Created Man in His Own Image

I want to comment on a previous statement made by Blogger Brian a few days ago:

“If you are truly a Christian you will abandon this hateful website, and help those around you who are in need, as opposed to complaining about people just because God happened to make them homosexual.”

We view homosexuality as being not only sinful, but harmful. We could not anymore condone it than we could condone pedophilia, eating disorders, or cutting (people have a disorder that causes them to want to cut themselves). These, like homosexuality and the like are destructive behaviors that lead to sickness and death. If you really care about someone who is doing something destructive themselves, then you will do all you can stop them from doing it. God’s wrath is upon such people and we want them to be free of God’s wrath. GOD DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE HOMOSEXUAL ANYMORE THAN HE MAKES A PERSON PEDOPHILIC, ANOREXIC, BULIMIC , OR A CUTTER. I heard a news story about people who have strange desires to cut off their limbs. Did God give these people these desires? First of all, all of these things are choices even if people have the tendency to do these things. Secondly, God does not give people these tendencies. It is a sin for a man to look at woman (other than his wife) with lust (to fantasize about having sex with her). I have an inherent tendency in my physical body to do this, but that does not mean that it is an acceptable or healthy behavior. In fact, if I were to really follow my tendencies, I would go ahead and try to convince the woman to have adultery with me. But this, just like homosexuality, would be an abomination to God. These tendencies come from what the Bible calls “the flesh”. Our flesh is corrupted because of sin (Read Romans 1). Sin causes more temptation to sin and it causes sickness and death and its degrading. When God created Adam, he did not have any sinful tendencies in his physical flesh. Adam did sin because Satan tempted him audibly. That got the ball rolling and here we are. But Jesus came to break this cycle.

My church’s former minister once admitted, in front of the whole congregation, that he a problem with homosexuality. He said that he was molested as a young boy. ONE’S SINFUL TENDENCIES ARE NOT ALWAYS CAUSED BY ONE’S OWN SINS, BUT CAN BE CAUSED BY THE SINS OF OTHERS. This cannot be used as an excuse—it is still a choice. The congregation was willing to forgive him and help him. He continued to pastor our church for a couple more years, and then stepped down to head up a ministry to help people overcome addictions. This ministry helps people overcome alcohol, drug, sex, and overeating addictions and helps people with anger management problems. The philosophy of the ministry team is that there aren’t “those people” and “normal people”, but rather, we all struggle with sinful tendencies and everyone needs prayer, encouragement, and knowing the love of Christ to overcome them.

This philosophy is different from that of Exodus International, which tries to change the sexual preference of homosexuals. The goal should be to overcome the temptations of homosexuality, not to gain a heterosexual bent.

The news media are out to get people to believe that sex is necessary. Homosexuals must have homosexual sex. Teenagers must have sex, and so forth. They talk as if you would die without it. The same ideas are being pushed in public schools. It simply isn’t true. Marriage is not necessary for salvation. I struggle with lusting after women and I am ashamed of this, but I am almost 35 years old and I am still a virgin! The reason why it seems so hard to prevent teens from having sex is that most parents, even most who call themselves Christian, allow their kids to look at sexually explicit things and put themselves into compromising situations. They allow their teens to dress inappropriately. They want to please their kids rather than disciplining them. Kids are shown pornography in schools in the name of sex education. The people who are pushing the idea that sex is necessary (therefore we must pass out free condoms to twelve-year olds) are the very people who are giving them temptation to have sex. Hypocrites!

If you want to know what the difference is between the mean-spirited bigots that you may presume that we are and what we really are, read my next article (I will post it soon).

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Slamming St. Paul

Blogger Brian Rebuts:

“Obviously, you are not going to argue any new points other than St. Paul.”Keep in mind, St. Paul also says that "slaves should obey their masters" and that "it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church." St. Paul's words are invalid today as well. Unless you are in favor of bringing back slavery and disallowing females from speaking in church, you are once again, guilty of picking and choosing.”

gregjaye responds:

Paul the Apostle wrote a major portion of the New Testament. His words were God-breathed as is the entire Judeo-Christian Bible.

Personally, I believe that Paul’s expression “slaves obey your master” is as true today as it was almost 2000 years ago. We no longer have slaves, but if we did the biblical mandate would apply today. As employees we are in a sense “slave” or servants to our employers. They pay the bill, they tell us what to do we do it. If we don’t we get canned instead of killed. The principles behind Paul’s exhortation are applicable today in the marketplace and in any employee-employer relationship. In most cases we have more latitude than does a slave and way more protections if we are treated unjustly.

I will anger a lot of feminists with what I am about to say, but it is my personal belief that in most cases women should not be teaching men in a church situation. Teaching other women and children is absolutely appropriate, but not men. I told you in an earlier posting that I am an intolerant, discriminating in a “good” sense faith-based Christian American.

I am not in favor of bringing back slavery, but I am in favor of applying Paul’s admonition to respectfully submit to our employers, to give them more than they bargained for, by which I mean give them more than what is expected. Dazzle them with your contribution; you will be a more valuable slave.

As for women I see no inconsistency with disallowing woman a role of teaching or of leading men in a church setting. There are many evangelical biblically based congregations that hold to Paul’s teaching today. I am one of them. I would not be an active member of a church which placed women in the role of leadership, based on this very teaching of Paul and others.

I am not so sure when it comes to women missionaries in societies and in areas where there are no available male teachers. I struggle with that one, leaning on allowing women to assume the role where there is no alternative.

In summarizing the major points of these three recent discussions follows:

One, tolerance is a word, whose meaning has been irretrievable corrupted by the immoral minority and related forces of evil working in America and the world today. It is no longer in my vocabulary or in my dictionary.

Two, there exists a dichotomy of good and evil. There are moral absolutes. Homosexuality is a choice people make. God calls it immoral behavior. It is in essence, sin. God hates sin. Therefore I must, in turn, hate sin. Jesus loves the sinner, as I must. We must love them to salvation.

Third, the Bible is rock solidly dependable as a guide for individual, corporate and government life and operation. The truth contained in the Judeo-Christian Bible is matchless and all of its principles and many of its precepts are timeless and truthful.

Finally, I consider myself to be an intolerant, discriminating, but loving, faith-based Christian American, who tries to live by the revealed will of God as outlined in His Word, the Bible. I believe that there is good and evil. I love what is good, I passionately hate all evil. I love all people, sinner and saint.

Make A Good Choice, Brian, and carefully examine the entire scripture studying the truth about good and evil and the reality and the person of Jesus Christ and the truth of Paul's writings expecially about the true nature of man.

It is time to stop the immoral minority, It starts with passing the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA)

An Open Forum: Ohio Politics contributor wrote in part today the following:

“gay marriage amendment [actually, and more truthfully, the Marriage Protection Amendment] is that it demonstrates the inability of those in power to address the issues that really matter to the public. . . resolving Iraq . . reducing the deficit . . .energy independence . . . preparing the workforce to be competitive . . . uninsured . . . immigration reform . . .deal with natural disasters . . .”

My response included the following:

It is a Marriage Protection Amendment first and foremost. It is not some so-called homophobic reactionary discriminatory hate-filled attempt to keep someone oppressed. Homosexuality is primarily a behavioral choice, it deserves no civil rights protection anymore than a thief, a burglar, a child molester, an embezzler, a corrupt judge should incur any special favor. It is absolutely illogical to protect such an abomination (God’s words not mine). Homosexuality is in no way deserving of any special class protection or any special civil rights protections.

Nothing wrong with your problem list . . . (above), but Marriage is a core value of this nation. Without it we are less of a society. It is fundamental and foundational to American life and society.

I really think that a meaningful vision, mission and values for any individual, company, organization or nation are foundational to any individual, company, organization or culture. If we have a strong, clear vision, mission and values - core beliefs that identify the culture, it will allow us to do the right thing in facing any and all of those issues.

It is the principled politician and a principled public that will collectively make the right decisions on the issues you name. Therefore, let us now examine ourselves individually and as a nation ad take back the freedoms and rights and values and beliefs that once defined us as a godly nation, including the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage. It is the only way it is God's way. We have been greatly blessed since our birth as a nation, despite some shortcomings, but we have been most blessed because for most of our national life we have been firm on our convictions. We knew right from wrong. Now some have mucked up, muddied and polluted the figurative waters of the life of this nation.

Let us make A Good Choice and call our Senators and urge them to do all they can to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment at this time in history. May it give us a renewed impetus to restore other core values stolen from us by the immoral minority including radical feminism, radical environmentalist, radical homosexuals, extreme leftlist liberals groups and politicians, activist judges, and secular humanist educators . . . to name a few. Let’s take back the America and make our Forefathers proud once again, before it is eternally too late.

Not More than Semantics?

Blogger Brian has more to say:

"Given that I am simply a twenty-year-old college student, the fact that you responded means something. It tells me that my comment was important enough that it merits response.


"By defining tolerance as a force which demands that you give up your Christian values, you are committing a very notable fallacy. That is, "your misrepresentation of tolerance is wrong, therefore tolerance is wrong." Tolerance is not something which demands that you give up on your sacred beliefs. By defining it that, way you are setting up a very poorly-built straw-man.

"Although I am not sure that I or my message about homosexuality is "sent from Hell" or "inspired by Satan" as you suggested, I do believe that your primitive message is wrong. You accused me of picking and choosing, but it's actually you who is doing that, reason being, you cited Leviticus, then accused me of picking and choosing. Indeed, it was you who picked the homosexuality ban out of Leviticus and then ignored the other asinine laws that the same ancient text subscribes. For example, no eating shellfish, planting a garden with two types of plants, and touching the skin of a dead pig. Why is it that you pick homosexuality out and ignore the other laws?

"You also talked about "True Christianity" which I believe is interesting. To you, true Christianity is picking the most asinine laws out of the Old Testament and following them, while ignoring the words of Jesus. To me, true Christianity is following the teachings of Jesus, instead of ignoring them."

gregjaye replies:

Brian, on this blog we can share our true beliefs and opinions.

My basic argument was that the very meaning of tolerance as used by the extreme left and their comrades [I call them the Tolerance Totalitarians close relatives of the Political Correctness Crowd] has supplanted the original meaning that the word has almost become meaningless. To be tolerant, as defined by the extreme left, and what has crept into society in general is making me subordinate my beliefs for the sake of peace and understanding. I don’t buy that. I will be civil. I will try to understand. I will love those who hate and despise me. I disagree with you that the TT and the PC crowd do demand that I not believe strongly in Jesus as to dare bring His name in Public in a prayer or otherwise.

What God said about homosexuality in Leviticus is echoed in the writings of Paul in the New Testament. The “other asinine laws” where not mentioned in the New Testament as much of the law was made complete in Christ, and therefore may not be as applicable for today. However, much of those “other asinine laws” do often have true principles scientifically accurate if followed, for example some of the farming related “laws”. God says “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” By all this I take it God means all. There is great unfathomable riches and unlimited truth in the Judeo-Christian Bible.

One of the basic tenants of God’s Word, the Bible, is to hate evil. It presupposes the existence of evil. Do you believe, Brian, that evil exists? We are to love the sinner [for we all fit the bill] but we are to hate the sin [ours, as well as all sin]. God pronounces homosexuality in many places in the Scriptures as abominable, as sin. Therefore, the conclusion must be that homosexuality is unacceptable behavior. Jesus Christ loved sinners in 31 A.D. as He still loves sinners in 2006 A.D. So must I. So do I.

Jesus made friends with and loved the unlovable, those who were hated by society, He loved the prostitutes, the tax gathers, the lepers. Today he would love the AIDS victims and the handicapped and the homosexual. He would not accept the sin, but He would love the sinner. He would offer repentance and He offers forgiveness, He offers redemption and He offers the power to change one's behavior no matter how bad. That is the example we need to follow.

There is a side of Jesus that many conveniently forget. It is His righteously angry side. He was incredulous when it came to seeing the religious and business people making a mockery of the House of God, the Temple. There was buying and selling and maybe even purchasing some dispensations, etc. Well, He was enraged and physically broke up the place and drove the unbelievers out.

He would do likewise if He came into a so-called Christian Church where a practicing homosexual was selling himself or herself to the pew sitters as a legitimate spiritual minister. Jesus would again be enraged and incredulous at that.

I may have stated it earlier, but it doesn’t hurt repeating it again and again until someone listens and gets it. Homosexuality is a lie. Homosexuals believe a lie. The lie is that homosexuality is a natural, normal, acceptable alternative lifestyle equal to any other relationship such as marriage. Wrong. Homosexuality is a behavioral choice made by rebellious men and women that flies in the face of reason and sound judgment and, more importantly, it disobeys God’s law.

Again, I admit that I am an intolerant, discriminating Christian American. I hate evil. I discriminate what things are good from what are evil. I follow in the footsteps of an intolerant, yet loving, discriminating yet accepting, Jesus Christ, my Lord and my Savior.

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Words mean something, sometimes good, and sometimes evil

Blogger Brian commented today:

Honestly, I don't believe you are a Christian. You claim that you oppose tolerance, which strikes me as uniquely un-Christian. Indeed it was the Christians who first advocated the abolition of slavery, and it was American Christians who spoke out strongly against the Holocaust. Christianity is a tolerant religion and it is intolerant people like you who threaten to destroy the entire religion. The most important parts of the Bible are Jesus' teachings and it is interesting that you as a "Christian" ignore them. Jesus teaches us to give to the poor and to love our neighbor. What is hateful to us, we should not do to our neighbors. People like you also ignore an extremely important passage, which is "faith without deeds is dead." If you are truly a Christian you will abandon this hateful website, and help those around you who are in need, as opposed to complaining about people just because God happened to make them homosexual.

gregjaye replies:

First, thank you Brian for your comments.Second, be careful regarding the meaning of words, especially today. We have to be on the alert as to how words are being and the true meanings behind them.

The meanings have deftly and subtly undergone a diabolical metamorphosis. Words such as: life freedom, choice, evil and tolerance, all mean something different because of the effective work by what I call the Tolerance Totalitarians, who are close relatives to the Political Correctness crowd. All of who are part of the extreme liberals, leftist, globalists, and secular humanists all bent on destroying everything American, all our values, our sovereignty, our principles, even the meanings of some of our most important and cherished words.

What is tolerance? The definition has changed. The word is not in my lexicon anymore, because the “new” meaning is so diabolical, so perverse that it is worse than many cuss words to me.As I stated in an earlier posting: “Tolerance demands that I subjugate [or subordinate] my principles and the moral absolutes found in the Judeo-Christian Bible for the sake of getting along and understanding . . . Tolerance demands that the only absolutes be approved by the Taliban-like Tolerance Totalitarians. . . . Acknowledgement of God, True Christianity and Jesus Christ are all blacklisted from their approved list of acceptable worldviews or beliefs.

On one hand, evil such as: child molestation, homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, pornography, witchcraft, the occult, are now considered acceptable, even good in some circles. This evil is even peddled as good via our schools.

Conversely, good, such as: abstinence before marriage, celibacy, patriotism, God, Jesus Christ, moral absolutes, Christmas and Easter are considered unacceptable or bad by judges, the Supreme Court, sometimes by the Democratic and Republican Parities, and special interest activists, educators and the extreme left.

My Bible says let your yes be yes and your no be no. It also warns not to call evil good, nor good evil as is so prevalent today.

Brian, that is why I so hate real evil and the new tolerance. Call me a discriminating and intolerant American Christian, which would be true.

Finally, believe what you will, Brian, but God hates evil and expects each true faith-based Christian to likewise hate evil and sin. This may not be pleasant to hear, but although God is Love, He is also absolutely Just. Sin and evil are a reality. There are ultimate consequences to our misbehavior now and in the future.

You demonstrate what I have been saying in your statement: “God happened to make them homosexuals.” That is part of the meaning and definition of the new tolerance. What a lie from the pit of Preposterouscity (hell, actually)! What do you do with this truth: "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination"? Do you cut that truth out of the Bible; do you pick and choose what you want to believe out of the Bible?

Homosexuals live the lie. Homosexuals believe the lie. The lie is that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable lifestyle, regardless of what their Creator has pronounced.

Make A Good Choice, Brian, and seek the truth. That is why this web log exists to point people in the right direction. That direction is up, to the living almighty Triune God and to the One, who sits at His right hand, the Lord Jesus Christ.

True Christianity, as practiced and presupposed here, is not a religion, but a relationship with the namesake of a two millennium old movement, Jesus Christ, who is Lord and Savior.

Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) is a Must Pass Action

Marriage must be protected. President Bush talked about it today on his radio broadcast. We must have a constitutional amendment to forever protect this God-ordained institution from those who are relentless in their ambition to destroy it by broadening the definition to include homosexual and other relationships.

Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for CWA writes: "The Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT (MPA) next week. While some pro-family organizations like Concerned Women for America would prefer a stronger text than the MPA, there is no disagreement that marriage is worthy of constitutional protection. Congress should begin the amendment process instead of waiting until the Court of last resort desecrates the sanctity of marriage by reducing it to state-sanctioned sexual licentiousness."
Read more

Concerned Women for America: offers “Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment” :

1. The people oppose same-sex marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage violates freedom of conscience.

3. You cannot redefine a timeless institution. Marriage is what it is.

4. Every adult citizen already has equal rights. It's never been about benefits.

5. If you eliminate the uniqueness of marriage, you destroy it.

6. Same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and father.

7. Same-sex marriage would weaken an already fragile institution.

8. Government should not endorse a deadly lifestyle.

9. The words of the Massachusetts Constitution have not changed.

10. A "right" to same-sex "marriage" has not suddenly appeared.

Same-sex marriage hurts everybody. Read details about each of these reasons
here and write to your Senator. Below is a copy of the letter which I just emailed to Senators Voinovich and DeWine in Ohio.

You can listen to an interview with Senator DeWine, a supporter of the Marriage Protection Act (MPA), on a recent
Bob Burney radio show.


(1) Also please sign the petition
here. Let’s solve this "problem" once and for all . . .
(2) Email, fax, write and or call your Senator. Below is a copy of the letter which I just emailed to Senators Voinovich and DeWine in Ohio.

Dear Senator Voinovich,

I urge you to support the MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT, which is scheduled to begin being discussed on June 7th. Please do all you can to persuade your fellow Senators to do the same thing.

When I interacted with your staff some time ago, my impression was that you did not see a need at that time for such an amendment. I believe that today we have activist and renegade judges just waiting for an opportunity so they can overturn state law on many key issues such as marriage, life, etc.

A constitutional amendment is very much needed so that we can put this issue to rest. The cry of the strong homosexual lobby and their many liberal supporters to destroy the definition of marriage is deafening. Please do not listen to it.

Please do the right thing for our America and our children and grandchildren and do everything to pass this legislation.