Have we idolized the sickness? Has it become all-powerful to us? Has it become the center of our lives? Is it the controller of all we say and do? It is the center of every message we give? Do our words glorify Jesus as the healer of all, including this sickness, or do they insinuate this sickness is more powerful than Jesus? I know these are hard questions to ask ourselves, but in order to dethrone this sickness we need to know what we are glorifying.
Have we become a walking billboard for advertising the disease? Are we its new poster child? Are we walking down the catwalk modeling the disease for the world to see? Have we turned the spotlight onto the sickness? Are we highlighting the strength of this disease with every breath that we breathe?
I don’t think we set out to idolize the sickness. I think it sneaks into position, and before we know it, we bow down to it and comply to its every demand. Instead, we should take our stand and by a faith-filled command, curse it and bind it back to the land from where it came: the pit of hell. Take hold of our spiritual claim, the redemptive power of the blood to deliver and heal us from these filthy chains that try to bind us. It’s time to set ourselves free from this golden calf of sickness and disease.
We need to stop promulgating a false doctrine that says God gave this disease to us. This message goes against the Word of God, and devalues the blood that Jesus shed for us at the whipping post so that we could be healed from sickness and disease. With every fiber of His precious being He shed His blood for our healing.
Again we have a choice to make. Are we willing to admit and repent of all our doubt and unbelief to our Healer, Jesus? Or will we hold onto our right to a false doctrine and glorify this sickness? Are we ready to dethrone this disease in our lives? And are we going to lift up Jesus higher and place Him, our healer on the throne of our hearts, and cleanse our temples from the filth of this disease?
This is what the Democrat Party believes in. This is what they are about. They are murderers. They are evil. They are racist. They want to open our borders to illegal aliens. They want to raise our taxes. I’ll tell you what, they are a scary, frightening party and as the righteous people of God, we must stand against them.
If you went out there and you voted Democrat this last time, you need to take a hard, long look in the mirror. The Democrats are the party of evil. They’re the party of death and open borders. Look at all the crime and the disease and the drugs these illegals are bringing across the border, look at how they’re driving down wages for hard-working Americans. And yet you’re voting for that. You’ve lost your minds. If you’re a Democrat and you’re voting Democrat, you’ve lost your mind and you’d better check your soul too, because you are voting for stuff that God is not for.
Now, having said all of that [about why yoga is okay], women need to stop wearing yoga pants in public, or she must wear some kind of warm-up pants over them. Just as a Christian needs to consider that practicing yoga might cause someone else to stumble [you won’t stumble, pastor if your eyes aren’t on women’s asses], a Christlike woman needs to keep in mind that exercise pants are very form-fitting, and a man’s mind works differently than a woman’s does [really, pastor? the “men are visual, women aren’t” bogus argument?]. Some of those yoga poses can also be… let’s just say awkward [don’t look]. A woman is instructed to adorn herself in “respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control” (1 Timothy 2:9). There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this, sisters: be considerate and cover your bum [ Baptist for ass].
We have raised our five year old to know that Santa Claus isn’t real. Now that he’s getting old enough to have conversations with his little friends, how do we explain to him what to say to them when they talk about believing in Santa? I don’t want him to crush their dreams but I also don’t want to teach him to perpetuate the lie for his friends.
This is a great question, and one my husband and I also had to address with our own children, since we raised them to know that Santa Claus isn’t real.
Before I tackle your question, I’d like to address Christian parents who tell their children Santa Claus is real, that he is the one who brings their presents, etc.
I’m sure you have the best of intentions and only want to make Christmas fun for your children, but when you tell them these things about Santa Claus, you are lying.
Santa Claus isn’t real. If you tell your children he is, or that he is the one who brings their presents, or that he knows whether they’ve been naughty or nice, you’re lying. The Bible says that lying is a sin, period. There’s no exception for jolly old elves who pass out toys (or for tooth fairies or Easter bunnies, either, for that matter). And not only is lying a sin, it is extraordinarily hypocritical to lie to your children about Santa Claus and then turn around later and punish them when they lie about something. Lying to your children about Santa Claus teaches them that it’s OK to lie (i.e. sin) when you want to or when it would be to your advantage. Excerpted from: The Mailbag: What should we tell our kids about Santa Claus?
And this reader has raised another ripple effect of your sin of lying. You’ve now put your brothers and sisters in Christ in the difficult position of figuring out how not to blow your cover when their child (who knows the truth) interacts with yours. Do they teach their child to take part in your lie, or do they risk their child telling the truth, disappointing your child and possibly angering you? And think about the pressure on a five year old child to try to keep something like that a secret, knowing someone will be disappointed if he doesn’t. You’ve created a no-win situation for people you are supposed to self-sacrificially love, encourage, and edify.
Leggings are immodest. They are tight and clingy and show every curve. Men and even teenage boys are attracted to women’s bodies, regardless of how much the feminists want to reinvent and tell men how they should act and what they should prefer. What right do they have to demand that men change yet they can act, dress, and do as they please? What about not causing a brother to stumble? What about women being commanded by God to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9)? Do you notice God did not give this command to be modest to men because He knows that it is men who are more visual and women are more apt to dress immodestly to attract men. He’s the One who created men to be attracted to the female body and He did it for a good reason – to bond them in marriage and be fruitful and multiply.
No, it’s not shaming women to tell them to cover up and be modest. It’s what God commands of us. Since when are God’s commands shaming women? I am accused often of shaming women because I teach them to be keepers at home, chaste, virgins before marriage, not teaching men or being leaders in the churches, and modest. No Christian woman should be shamed by God’s Word. If they are, they must check their hearts to make sure they are in the faith.
Those in authority at this junior high have every right to tell the girls to wear leggings with a long shirt over them so they won’t distract the boys. Boys and men should be able to go to school and church without having to see women who are dressed immodestly. No, men shouldn’t lust and you must teach your boys about quickly bouncing their eyes [bouncing their eyes? Like a basketball?] because there will always be immodestly dressed women, but we must train our daughters to dress modestly in obedience to God and to not cause a brother to stumble. Neither of these are shaming girls or women. It’s truth.
The probability that the Bible is God’s word is inversely proportional to the amount of work it takes Christian apologists to defend it from objections to the contrary (that is, the more work its defense requires, the less likely the Bible is God’s word), and it requires way too much work to suppose that it is.
Consider the sheer numbers of Christian apologists/scholars and books that have been published by the following author/editors: C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Paul Copan, Alvin Plantinga, N.T. Wright, Chad Meister, J.P. Moreland, Gregory Boyd, Gary Habermas, Steven Cowan, Douglas Groothuis, Peter van Inwagen, Randal Rauser, Michael Murray, William Dembski, Richard J. Bauckham, Michael Brown, Dan Wallace, D.A. Carson, G.K. Beale, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, Stephen Davis, Donald Guthrie, Ralph Martin, Richard Hess, Dinesh D’Souza, and Timothy Keller to name some of the more noteworthy ones. While some of these authors deal with the same issues most of their material is unique to them, for further defending their faith. If we add in their magazine and journal articles we already have a small library of works. If we were to get and read the references they quote from we have a whole library of works in defense of the Christian faith, a comprehensive case. That’s what a comprehensive apologetic requires. The important question left unaddressed by them, as always, is why a defense requires so many books? Why does Christianity need such a defense at all?
The fact that it takes so much work to defend Christianity is a strong indicator, all by itself, that the Christian God does not exist, or he doesn’t care if we believe.
If God had done a better job of revealing his will, there wouldn’t be much of anything for Christian defenders, or apologists, to do but share the gospel message like evangelists do. But since the God of the Bible was in fact incompetent, Christian apologists are forced to defend their faith against the multitude of objections raised against it. It’s as if God gave Christian defenders permanent job security, while forgetting that there are eternal destinies stake, people who, on some accounts, will suffer conscious torment forever because of it.
When dealing with the problem of divine miscommunication, Christian defense lawyers seek only to get their divine client acquitted no matter what the intellectual or moral cost. Rather than face this evidence that shows their God to be nothing more than the product of ancient people, who didn’t have a clue about civilized matters, these apologists use convoluted legalese to obfuscate and confuse the jury.
Typically they’ll say we couldn’t possibly know what an omniscient God is thinking, so we have no right to judge him and his ways. However, even if this is the case, it changes nothing. Millions of people died because God didn’t correctly reveal the truth. Christians will further object by saying we just don’t know if God did anything to help the people who died, to which the obvious answer is that this is my point. If God did something to help these people, then there is no evidence that he did? Think about it. There isn’t any. This objection is based on faith, not evidence, the very thing reasonable people should reject if they want to honestly know the truth. And if God really wants us to believe in him and believe that he loves us, this is a strange way of going about things. For an omniscient God would have known that later generations of intelligent people would find him to be guilty of not doing what decent people would do if they could, and as a result, disbelieve in him and his love.
The best Christian defense lawyers are liberals who admit there are texts in the Bible that, to a great degree, are reflective of an ancient outlook rather than the rigid literalism of conservative believers. In their view, God’s revelation is progressive, becoming better as humans grope to understand the divine. In other words, theology evolves. Liberals didn’t come by this conclusion easily though. Down through the centuries, they came to it as the realities of life and the results of science forced them to accept it. Yet this view is exactly what we would expect to find if there is no truth to their theology. It’s what we would expect if there is no divine mind behind the Bible or the church. If there is a God, then his so-called progressive revelation is indistinguishable from him not revealing anything at all, and, as such, progressive revelation should be rejected as an unnecessary theological hypothesis unworthy of thinking people.
Furthermore, such a view actually undermines their theology, for it leads to theological relativism, since there was no point in the history of the church when any theologian could say that a final, unchanging theology had been attained. So the theology of yesterday was true for Christians of the past, as the present-day theology is true for others, as the theology of tomorrow will be true for still others. So don’t talk to me about an unchanging theological truth. Don’t talk to me about an absolute standard for theological truth either. It doesn’t exist. Never has. Never will. Liberals therefore cannot state any theological truth that is true for all time. As far as they can know, the end result of revelation could be the death of God, the conclusion that we don’t need God, which would make him effectively dead. As far as liberals can know, atheism may be the future of their theology. The only reason they won’t accept the relativism of their theology is that they perceive a need to believe. They are playing a pretend game much like the people in M. Night Shyamalan’s movie The Village. In my opinion, liberals should just stop pretending.
The bottom line is that the whole notion of progressive revelation is a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy. If their God had revealed the truth from the beginning, then these Christians would use that as evidence he exists. Because since he didn’t, they have introduced the concept of progressive revelation, which betrays their desire to believe no matter what the intellectual cost. What they’re doing is justifying their God “after the facts,” rather than asking “before the facts” what they would expect of their God if he lovingly communicated to human beings.
— John Lofus, Debunking Christianity, Excerpt from the book, How To Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, November 27, 2018
God commands women to be keepers at home. We are to work hard in our homes. Work is good for us and what God intended for us. He tells us that “whatever [we] do, do it heartily as to the Lord” (Colossians 3:23). This includes working hard in the home. It’s not doing our “chores” quickly so we can get back to scrolling through Facebook or Instagram or watching TV or shopping just to go shopping and spending more money. No, it’s doing our work in the home as best to the best of our ability. [Funny how Alexander doesn’t mention writing blog posts and replying to comments . . .]
I knew a woman years ago who was married and had no children. She did everything she could to make sure she had as little housework as possible. She bought her husband polyester shirts so she wouldn’t have to iron them. [These shirts are awesome, by the way. I own a number of them.] I remember thinking how odd this was since she had no children and she didn’t have a job. Why did she try so hard to make so little work at home?
Many women do this, however. They cook food from packages or get fast food, dry clean their clothes, use housekeepers often even though they don’t need them, and other things like these so they don’t have to work much at home. I understand why career women would do these things since they are home so little but why would full-time keepers at home do this unless they were ill or injured and couldn’t do these things? We already have so many things to make our work easier at home from dishwashers, to washing machines, dryers, ovens, running water, refrigerators, stores to buy our food, and so many other conveniences. I think this is why women get easily bored at home. [Thar she blows, a Luddite Patriarchal Complementarian Christian Fundamentalist.]
No, we aren’t to be “busy” by getting our hair and nails done frequently, going to appointments, shopping to shop, and running here and there. We are to be busy at home but how can we do this when there’s not much to do because of all of the modern conveniences? If a mother has many children, then she will automatically be busy taking care of them but what about those who don’t have many children and are easily bored at home? [Does Alexander have electricity? Why is she on the Internet? Does she own a computer? I smell a hypocrite.]
The Bible has some very harsh things to say about those who put children in harm’s way. For those who are attempting to illegally enter the United States sovereign territory, in disrespect and contempt for the rule of law, any harm that comes to their children is the consequence of their own sin and lawlessness. Likewise, using children for the purpose of propaganda – knowing they are in harm’s way – is one of the most despicable abuses of children imaginable.
Simply put, those attempting to break into the United States with their children are child-abusers. Their children are in far more jeopardy because of the ineptitude of their parents than they are from whatever danger lies behind in Central America.
Although progressive professed Christians told us all along that the migrant caravan wasn’t attempting to illegally cross into the United States, but would just politely knock on the door to seek asylum, the horde attempted to forcefully invade the border wall at the San Ysidro border crossing. Some of the criminals threw projectiles at U.S. Border and Customs agents, and given the invasion and violence taking place, American security personnel tossed tear gas into the crowd of invaders to dispel the intruders. They would have been justified to fire bullets.
The real culprits in this sad account of the Soros-funded migrant horde are parents who voluntarily use their children as human shields and propaganda narratives, knowing that they are in harm’s way. Shame on those parents.
Here’s a question: What part of “If you forcefully enter the country we will shoot you” do they not understand? That’s exactly what has been very clearly articulated and these parents have been warned by the Trump administration. They chose to take their kids where President Trump promised them authorities had the right to open fire. That’s bad parenting, to put it mildly.
Asylum was never intended for people trying to escape poverty. And when the mass numbers of Undocumented Democrats become residents, they’ll remain impoverished under their enslavement to the U.S. welfare state. Asylum was designed for political refugees, not people trying to escape ordinary life issues.
Furthermore, these parents have been bribed with cash to put their kids in harm’s way, in hopes by propagandists that the presence of children will deter American authorities from protecting her borders. This tactic is no different than the Palestinian Liberation Organization or other terrorist organizations hiding terrorists at schools and orphanages so Israel doesn’t rightly bomb them to smithereens. When kids occasionally die in a war zone, it’s ultimately 100% the fault of the people who voluntarily brought them into a war zone.
Some may look at U.S. Border Agents or President Trump and say, “How dare you gas kids, you monster?!” Instead, they should look at the parents and say, “Wow. You are really, really bad parents.”
Homosexual behavior, in particular, demonstrates the exchange of what is good and natural according to God’s created order for that which is evil and unnatural. Thus, it is an especially blatant form of idolatry, of telling the Creator that one will not have Him as Lord but will worship and serve the creature (Rom. 1:24–27). This sexual twisting, however, is not the primal sin of humanity; rather, it is the ethical outworking of the fundamental transgression, namely, the refusal to honor and thank God (vv. 18–23).
Furthermore, homosexual behavior is not the only way our fundamentally idolatrous dispositions show themselves. As we will see in tomorrow’s study, there are innumerable ways in which idolatry bears unethical fruit. Today’s passage, however, introduces the vice list Paul provides in Romans 1:29–31, reminding us once again of the root of all evil.
The Apostle explains that God hands people over to a “debased mind to do what ought not to be done” as a consequence for failing to acknowledge Him (v. 28). If we will not have the Lord at the center of our hearts and minds, then God is content to give us over to our idols. To acknowledge God is to retain Him as our foremost concern and love, to respond to Him with thanksgiving and worship as He has revealed Himself in creation. Acknowledging God with our minds means that we think properly and reason correctly based on His revelation (see 12:1–2). If we do not do this, we will be unable to think correctly about God and make good decisions based on His will. Since we have rejected the Lord, this is the condition in which we find ourselves apart from divine intervention. John Calvin comments, “As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right.”
This does not mean that the unbelieving mind is incapable of reason or that it has lost all capacity for logical thought. Instead, it means that the unbelieving mind cannot glorify God in its thinking. It can deduce from creation that there is a holy God whom we should worship and thank, but it cannot make us worship and thank Him as we ought. There remains a point of contact between the believing mind and the unbelieving mind that allows us to present evidence for God’s existence and the Christian faith. Paul himself assumed as much (Acts 17:22–34). Yet apart from the work of the Spirit, we will take that evidence and pervert it. We will justify the unjustifiable and reason ourselves away from the Lord.
— Ligonier Ministries, Table Talk , Humanity’s Debased Mind
Before feminism and birth control, children were valued in America. The woman’s place in the home was valued and so was the man’s place as protector and provider. America was founded upon biblical principles and this is what made it great for many years because God’s ways are good, and acceptable, and perfect. Most today, even Christians, don’t value children and think that having only a few children is all couples should have.
This mindset is from feminism and birth control (Margaret Sanger – an agent of Satan) which influenced women to believe that it was their right to be liberated from the “tyranny” of reproduction and domesticity. Is this belief from God and is it biblical or is it from something sinister and evil; women being convinced they should have full control over their childbearing as the feminist’s leaders who hated marriage and children proudly proclaimed?
University of Oklahoma historian, Robert Griswold, cited an article published in the San Mateo Gazette in the mid-19th century that states, ‘Woman is set in the household and man is sent out into the world.’ Even a woman of modest means could ‘be happy in the love of her husband, her home, and its beautiful duties without asking the world for its smiles and favors,’ the article argued.’”
Women weren’t dissatisfied in their homes up until and through the 19th century, because this was all they knew. They knew their God-ordained role. Divorce was low. Children were plentiful and were being raised by their mothers from intact homes. Children were valued and most grew up to be emotionally stable and secure. Many families weren’t considered “wealthy” in terms of finances but they were considered wealthy in terms of what matters in life. (I am not trying to romanticize this time in history since I know full well that sin existed and was alive and well but simply pointing out a time in American history when roles were clearly defined and culture at large was better and safer since families were much stronger than they are today.)
That ladies and gentlemen is what we’re up against. It’s no longer a party. It’s some kind of religion that is basically God-less and as long as America, and this is represented by every Democrat I know, does not believe in the sacredness of the life in the mother’s womb God will not bless America or make us a great nation. [is it my imagination, or does every Evangelical political argument begin and end with abortion?]