I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types [abortion] of decisions. I understand that they [women] feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant. So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.
— Justin “JJ” Humphrey, Oklahoma State Representative, The Intercept, February 13, 2016
“Since 2011, lawmakers in Oklahoma have passed 20 such measures, a number of which have been blocked by the courts or are tied up in litigation.” Jordan Smith, The Intercept
Representative Humphrey introduced HB 1441, a bill, if enacted, that would give fathers (sperm donors) the final say on whether a woman could have an abortion. The bill summary states:
The introduced measure prohibits the performance of an abortion without the written informed consent of the father. The pregnant woman seeking an abortion will be required to provide in writing the identity of the father to her physician. A person who contests paternity may demand such a test be performed. The measure would not apply in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger.
The enemy’s formidable weapon against men are enchanting women to entice you into adultery. According to Ephesians 6:10-18, demons are behind these women, they not being aware are being used to cause Jesus’ followers to sin against Him.
We men must keep our eyes pure because that is the entry way into our souls. This is Satan’s primary attack for entrance. How do we protect our eyes from letting darkness creep in?
Don’t watch anything that has women wearing almost nothing as to entice your minds.
Don’t read anything in WordPress that’s sexual in nature because your mind have eyes as well and will convert the sexual words into images.
Don’t look at porn magazines which is a landmine, throw it away immediately.
Most Christians have a difficult time distinguishing their spirit from their intellect. Your conscience is the voice of your spirit. The Holy Spirit is more closely associated with your conscience than your intellect. As you pray in tongues, you are praying from the channel of your conscience through which the Holy Spirit speaks.
Our problem is that we are more accustomed to looking for God’s voice in our intellect. Our intellect is generally an unsafe guide because it is usually clouded with a mixture of the world’s thinking, where much of our decision-making is based on our best interests. Most Christians have a difficult time hearing from God, because their soul which comprises much of their intellect, is clouded with self, mingled with the world and yet has some Word in it.
Some things are so shameful you hate to comment on them because doing so calls attention to them, and thus the shame multiplies.
A pair of bull-dykes protested our pro-life march at the county courthouse last Sunday afternoon and it was exceedingly hard even to look at them. The stomach churned, the face blushed, and eyes were averted as the crowd of fathers, mothers, children, and babes-in-arms walked by them as these women spewed blasphemies and obscenities.
This is our reaction to the bimbos, dykes, and hussies who marched in pink last week and shrieked on cue for their media pimps. We avoid the news. We turn away from the ugly. We cover our ears. To say these females are shameful doesn’t begin to…touch it. They trample the commons and no one tells them to shut their mouths and go home.
So what should the nation’s men do? Or rather, how should Christian men respond?
Thinking about it, at first I fell into my old habit of wishing Christian women would rebuke them. If there’s public dirty work to be done today, women can get away with it a lot easier than men can.
When women need to be told to be quiet and sit down—when women are flagrant in their trashing of God’s Creation Order of sexuality—what man wants to assert the privileges of his sex? What man wants to remind women that the “weaker” sex is commanded by God to have a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1Peter 3:1-7)?
The Christian men of our nation owe our wives and children the public rebuke of female immodesty, whether it’s the nakedness of the internet, the obscenity spewing bull-dykes on our courthouse square, or the shrieking shrews on our National Mall.
To my family and congregation, I try to explain it this way. Imagine standing in line at Sam’s Club and having a man who is stark naked come up and stand in line behind you and your family. Would you simply avert your eyes?
No, of course not. You would call the manager and demand the man be removed from the store so your children didn’t have to submit to his sexual assault.
So then, what if it was a pair of bull-dykes who took their place in line behind you? Would you call the manager? Would you demand they be arrested?
Surely you recognize their sexual assault is every bit as serious and shameful as a naked man, right? So why do you leave their trashing of the commons without rebuke? Why do you allow them to assault the modesty and innocence of your wife and children without the slightest protest?
The reason we allow these obscenities without rebuking them is two-fold.
First, we don’t realize public nakedness and public repudiation of one’s sexuality are equally scandalous and shameful. It is God who commands man not to wear woman’s clothing and woman not to wear man’s:
A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Like nakedness, women playing the man and men playing the woman are sins against the Seventh Commandment, “thou shalt not commit adultery.” Calvin comments:
This decree [Deut. 22:5] also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?”
Bull-dykes and flaming gays trampling the grass of the commons should be rebuked whether that commons is the National Mall, the courthouse square, or Sam’s Club.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:10).
My oldest granddaughter, Ruth Bell, just turned 15. She is spectacularly beautiful, with a sweet, strong spirit. One of the birthday traditions in our family is that each of us gives the one who is being celebrated a Bible verse.
My selection of the verse I felt led to choose for Bell this year was affected by what I saw on news reports the day after the Inauguration of the 45th president of the United States.
Various news outlets played video and audio reports of hundreds of thousands of women all over the world marching in protest of President Trump. It was an incredible sight to see women flooding the streets, not only in Washington, but also in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, London and dozens of other major cities. They were peaceful, vulgar, at times obscene—marching for what? They claimed to represent all women, yet a common denominator seemed missing, unless it was fear of President Trump and the possibility that he may interfere with their right to easily accessible abortion for anyone and everyone, at any time and for any reason.
When I opened my Bible the morning following the march of women, this is what I read in my previously scheduled devotions for the day: Proverbs 9:13-15, 18 (NIV): “The woman Folly is loud; she is undisciplined and without knowledge. She sits at the door of her house, [wives, mothers, soccer moms] on a seat at the highest point of the city [in the workplace, in leadership positions], calling out to those who pass by … But little do they know … that her guests are in the depths of the grave.”
My heart aches for many of the women I saw marching, women who have joined a “movement” that is deceptive and in the end, will be destructive and lead them to a spiritual and moral “grave” (see 2 Tim. 3:6-9). I pray earnestly for them to turn to the one, true, living God, who is the only One who can give them the deep, permanent peace, love, hope, and security we all long for.
With these sights and sounds still fresh on my mind, the verse I have chosen for our beloved Bell is one I share with you, too: “Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised” (Prov. 31:30)…
First, there won’t be nearly as many news cameras.
Second, there won’t be any vagina costumes or vagina signs or vagina hats. There won’t be any reproductive organs on display at all, except perhaps by the counter protesters. The participants will be putting their message — not their genitals — forward.
Third, the speakers won’t be going on any vulgar or profane tirades. The march will be family friendly.
Fourth, there won’t be any discussion of blowing up the White House.
Fifth, the marchers will not be demanding any special entitlements. They will not be looking for free birth control, or free tampons, or free anything. They will not be making any personal demands, because this march is not about them. The people who make their voices heard today do so not for their own sake. They do so for the sake of those who cannot speak for themselves.
The march participants stand to gain nothing from this. Their motivations cannot be selfish because their demands are not self-serving. Every single person — hundreds of thousands of them — will be marching in the place of someone else. The march last week, and so many others of its type, have been made up mostly of people saying, “Do such and such for me. Give me something. Help me. Me. Me. Me.” But the March For Life is different. The March For Life says, “Do this for them. Give them a chance. Give them their rights. Help them. Them. Them. Them.”
And the “them,” of course, are pre-born children. Whereas the people at the so-called Women’s March said, “Forget them, let them die,” we at the March For Life say, “Remember them, let them live.” These are the two competing points of view. Here is the great dividing line in our culture. The question is asked and must be answered: “Should these children be given a chance to live or not?” How you answer that question will determine on which side of the line you belong.
Our culture has answered with a cruel and callous “no” for the past 40 years. The so-called Women’s March echoed that answer. The feminist movement, liberalism, the media, the Democratic Party, academia — all of these powerful forces join together in shouting “no.” No, give them no chance. Give them nothing. Take everything from them. Take their dignity. Take their rights. Take their lives. And when they are dead, take some more. Take their limbs, their livers, their brains, their hearts, carve them up and make use of the pieces. Take it all. They are nothing to us. They are insects. They are lower than insects because we would sooner acknowledge the life of an insect than the life of this “clump of cells.” They are dirt. Let them die, then. Pick apart their carcasses and throw the rest in the dumpster. This is the answer the pro-aborts shout proudly from the rooftops.
Well, today in Washington DC a great many people will gather to deliver a different answer.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18
Fornication is defined as a man and a woman sleeping together before marriage. This sin is condemned throughout the Bible, especially in the New Testament. We are all sinners, but not all sin is equal. The Bible teaches that fornication is so serious that it can get you thrown out of the church.
If you are saved and sleeping with someone you aren’t married to, you need to repent of that sin. If you are living together, and you’re not married, then you are living in sin. If you plan to keep coming to church, your options are to get married or stop living together.
The Bible teaches that we should only have physical relations within marriage, so if you aren’t married yet, you need to deny that ungodly lust and wait until you get married to enjoy the benefits of marriage. If you aren’t ready to marry the person you are dating, then you shouldn’t be sleeping together. Have some self-control and respect for your body!
People who commit fornication for the first time often do not end up marrying that person but go on to be with person after person. Our bodies were not designed to exchange bacteria with hundreds of different people. In fact, there are infections people can get that are not considered STDs per say but are virtually unheard of in people who got married as virgins and have had only one partner. I realize that people die and their spouse can remarry, but sleeping with more than a few people in your lifetime is very unhealthy. In fact, the Bible calls it filthy.
So many women today are in relationships where they would like to get married, but the guy won’t marry them. These jerks need to do the right thing, but the women are also to blame. Unfortunately, the old adage still holds true: Why buy the cow if you can get the milk free?
— Steven Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church, Flee Fornication, January 16, 2017
All of us, virtually every moment of every day, exchange bacteria, viruses, dead skin, feces, urine, dirt, buggers…..shall I go on?….with hundreds of different people. The very act of breathing exposes us to countless bacteria and viruses. I wonder if Anderson is aware of the fact that he has likely been exposed to “atheist” bacteria, even without having carnal relations with atheists.
I don’t believe that there are any true atheists – men who are born without any awareness of the existence of God and who involuntarily sustain that absence of awareness of God throughout their lives. There are only pretenders who, for moral rather than intellectual reasons, profess to be atheists; usually they have the intellect and the vocabulary to verbalise [sic] and record their positions better than most people are able to. It is for this reason than many noted philosophers have professed atheism.
Lesser men, like Mark Wignall, who profess to be atheists, come off looking silly, for we can readily see through their pretence.
In the case of Mark Wignall, his profession of atheism on the pages of this newspaper is a pathetic attempt to serve nonsense on a platter of mawkishness. I will spend no time on his last effort. I will only say this – he should stick to what he does best: ferreting out the machinations of the two political parties and displaying his schoolboy fascination with sex.
The confession of many who profess atheism goes something like this: ‘I once believed there was a God. I went to church as a child, then later something happened, some injustice – to me or in the world – and I asked how could a good God let this happen? And so I no longer believe in the existence of God.’ This confession indicates the existence of God, for those who confess that they once believed in the existence of God, but no longer do so, admit the existence of God.
If there is no God, how at one time did they believe he existed? To say I once believed God exists but no longer do so, says nothing about God, but says something about me.
Where did professing atheists, like all other men, get the knowledge that there was a God whose existence they later came to deny? From God himself who created every man with a knowledge of his existence, however nebulous or precise that knowledge is.
Romans 1 at verse 19: “Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.” And verse 20: “For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” This says that imprinted on man’s consciousness and displayed in the created order is the evidence of the existence of God.
This is why the above verse say men are without excuse. It is this knowledge which men, for one reason or another, seek to suppress and deny by claiming that God doesn’t exist. They do so usually because they can’t reconcile the innate knowledge of a just, holy and righteous God with Him allegedly doing certain things or permitting certain things to happen. It even goes beyond that. They made God in their image and what they see contradict that image.
It’s the same with men today who profess that there is no God – they are fighting against what they know in their heart to be true.
One Texas lawmaker is trying to make no-fault divorce no more in the Lone Star State.
Texas State Rep. Matt Krause of Ft. Worth filed a bill that would effectively disallow divorce on the grounds of “insupportability,” meaning no-fault divorces.
Currently “all 50 states offer some type of no-fault divorce, (and) in 17 states and the District of Columbia, you can only file for divorce on no-fault grounds,” said a KXAN-TV news story.
Meanwhile, evidence shows that a majority of divorces in Texas are filed on no-fault grounds, and Krause believes this policy will lead to a decline in divorce and family breakdown.
“I think people have seen the negative effects of divorce and the breakdown of the family for a long time. I think this could go some way in reversing that trend,” he said.
Currently, Texas offers six categories of fault-based divorces, including: “adultery, cruelty, abandonment and a felony conviction, living apart for at least three years or confinement to a mental hospital.” Krause said the bill would establish “some type of due process. There needs to be some kind of mechanism to where that other spouse has a defense.”
The idea of re-introducing fault is not about assigning blame as much as it is about treating divorce more seriously and substantively. Krause cited a Heritage Foundation report that said, “A recent University of Texas study of divorced spouses found that only a third of them felt that they had done enough to try to save their marriage. Moreover, children of divorce disproportionately suffer from such maladies as depression, compromised health, childhood sexual abuse, arrests and addiction.”
Whether or not the bill ever becomes law, the policy idea itself raises some important issues for Christians to consider. As Christians, we understand the devastating effects of divorce and have seen it in our own families, neighborhoods, churches and communities.
If we are perfectly honest, we will admit that divorce has become all too commonplace and convenient. We further recognize that “God hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16) and that, according to Jesus, it was because of the hardness of their hearts, that God permitted divorces among the Israelites, “but it was not this way from the beginning” (Matt. 19:8).
Even though Jesus and the Apostle Paul have outlined some limited Scriptural grounds for divorce, we have institutionalized divorce in a way that would have shocked Paul. We also have lost sight of the fact that divorce is a tragic step. To that end, churches should not leave it to politicians to address runaway divorce and family breakdown.
When people come to the church office asking for money, I ask them where they went to church on Sunday. If they name another church, I tell them to go ask that church for money. If you have an account at Bank of America, you don’t walk into Wells Fargo asking to make a withdrawal. The truth is, most of these people don’t go to church anywhere, and there are certain criteria in the Bible about who we are supposed to help.
“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27
“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Galatians 6:10
Our first priority should be members of our church who have a genuine need, especially the widows and the fatherless. Even the widows have to meet certain criteria as outlined in 1 Timothy Chapter 5.
The Bible does not teach that we should give away free money to every drug addict and whore that shows up on a Tuesday asking for money. These people have despised God’s commandments, despised chastity, and despised the institution of marriage. They are wasting what little money they have on lottery tickets, cigarettes, and worse. They go from church to church asking for money yet lack the character it takes to show up and even sit through one church service.
These lazy bums don’t want to hear what the Bible says, but they want God’s money. They want to use our church as an ATM machine when they don’t even have an account here. If you can’t stand the Bible and can’t stand preaching, then you should go somewhere else looking for money instead of a church.
With all of the government programs and charities available, people in the United States are not financially destitute. If they were really that hungry, they would be willing to sit through the service. These people need spiritual help more than financial help, but unfortunately, most of them are not interested in hearing the Word of God.
David declared in Psalm 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” There have always been men who have denied the existence of that supreme being whom we acknowledge as Creator and Lord of all. Not only have those who are opposed to religion made such claims, but today men of religion, self-styled theologians, are also saying that God does not really exist except in the minds of those who think He does. Yet, they themselves offer no demonstration or proof for their allegations besides their own philosophy and reasoning. We ought to have more objective evidence one way or the other. Is there any? Yes there is.
First, we have the existence of the universe to contend with. To deny it exists is absurd (although some have tried it) because our own senses indicate it is here. The immediate question that comes to mind is, how did it get here? There is a scientific axiom, called cause-effect, which states that something cannot come from nothing; every effect must have an adequate cause. Christians believe that God was the First Cause. Moses wrote, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). No more reasonable explanation has ever been offered.
Next, there is the design of the earth to be reckoned with. Our wonderful world, with the perfect timing of its revolution around the sun and rotation on its axis, the water-evaporation-condensation cycle, the movement of the winds from the equator and back, and the ocean currents, runs like one giant piece of clockwork. Now we all understand that a well-constructed house does not just spring up out of the ground. Nor does a watch, with all its minute organization, gather itself together from sundry bits and pieces. Why is it then that some try to tell us that the earth, in all its beauty and precision, is the result of blind chance?
Finally, the nature of man is worthy of notice. It is impossible to deny that man has certain capacities which animals do not. For instance, man has a conscience that helps him determine right from wrong; he can appreciate that which he considers beautiful; and he is rational, having the power to reason and communicate logically. Although animals do have powerful instincts, they do not have these characteristics. So we ask, where did man get them? Science cannot even explain where man came from, much less how he became superior to the animals. If evolution were true, man could not have inherited these qualities from his supposed animal ancestors because they did not have them to pass on; Nor does the environment provide an adequate source as some have hypothesized. The only reasonable answer offered so far is the one that includes God.
We believers need never be daunted by the onslaughts of modern, atheistic philosophy, because evidence for the existence of God is there and it is sufficient. We must also remember that when a person makes the claim, “There is no God,” he is obligated to prove it, and that is something he cannot do. It is self evident that God is invisible from human sight. We cannot see God or hear God (Jn 1:18 cf; 5:37), but we do have His Word which has been proven to have derived from someone who has to be at least 5 thousand years or more. Since no man has ever lived to be so old, this leaves us with only one conclusion_it must be God.
Therefore, if man believes God’s Word proceeded from God, then man will believe in God….Naturally, if man does not believe the bible derived from God, he will not believe in God’s existence. It’s just that simple.