Familiar spirits and generational spirits target our families and situations that are familiar to us. These spirits have been assigned to our genealogy and know our families’ past mistakes and weaknesses. We also need to be aware of the word curses and generational curses in our family members’ lives so that we don’t repeat the past and bring what is dead, buried, and gone into the future. We need to make sure that we are speaking life and freedom and not cursing and bondage. By the words we speak, we can replant and build what the enemy has stolen of our past.
What curses are you putting on yourself? What generational curses are you putting on your children? Statements such as the following should not be spoken:
“She can’t read.”
“She sings off key.”
“He always drops something.”
“My kids are loud and obnoxious.”
“Her middle name is Troublemaker.”
Don’t curse your children and spouse with your words. If it doesn’t edify, encourage, or exhort, don’t say it. Find a way to speak about a condition or happening that is not going to speak against anyone. Better yet, don’t speak it at all if you aren’t trying to find a solution to the problem.
How many times do we speak over ourselves and aren’t even aware of it?
Never say, “That makes me sick,” when someone tells you something. It can open a doorway to sickness. You are speaking or claiming that something makes you sick!
Never say, “She’s driving me crazy” or “I can’t take it anymore.” Such statements can lead to emotional doors being opened. Do you really want to lose your mind and go crazy? How many times have you spoken that out over the years? Remember the law of sowing and reaping.
Never say, “My daughter has the flu, and I’ll catch it next.” We are redeemed! We don’t have to get the flu or a virus. Don’t claim that it’s going to attack you. Expectation is the breeding ground for miracles. Expect not to get sick; don’t expect to get sick!
Never say, “I can’t afford to tithe!” Change your poverty mentality; you can’t afford not to tithe.
Never say, “Over my dead body,” “I’m going to kill you for that,” or “You’re going to kill me for this.” Such statements open a door for spirits of death to come in.
Never say, “They irritate me.” That statement leads to a spirit of irritation. When you say that you are irritated or frustrated, you can’t get rid of it in a few days because you opened the door to those spirits by speaking it. Now you need to cast out a spirit of irritation or frustration.
1. They’ve been brainwashed by decades of feminist social engineering into believing that a wife not working full time outside the home is a freeloader not contributing to the household.
2. Related to number 1, they realize that their own ability to adequately provide for a family on their income alone has been deliberately undermined and destroyed by the existing feminist order, which has saturated the workplace with women, thus driving wages downward to levels incapable of supporting a family. For this reason, they’re determined that their wives should “live the ‘feminist dream’” and work full time (“you and your feminist sisters have made your – and our – beds hard, now sleep in them!”).
3. They know how miserable, “unfulfilled,” and “oppressed” their wives will feel having to stay at home and raise the children they’ve spat out because they felt some vague societal obligation to do so (“I gave birth to them, isn’t that enough?! … What, you want me to RAISE them too??!! Are you nuts???!!!”). These men know that they’ll be in for nothing but misery, contentiousness, and marital strife if they “oppress” their wives by making them stay at home, so they make them go to work in the (vain and misplaced) hope of ensuring some domestic tranquility.
4. Sadly, most husbands today don’t seem to give significantly more thought or priority to their children’s long-term spiritual and emotional well-being than do their wives. Children, in the modern western world, and for both sexes, are a commodity, an abstraction, and ultimately a burden, not joys or treasures to be delighted in, cared for, and nurtured to grow up in God’s image. Making mom stay at home to raise them is just not an option for most dads, for all the reasons cited above.
I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that’s why he’s there and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.
Sexuality in Western culture is a mess. Within the last hundred years or so, we’ve devolved from a society that had, broadly speaking, a general understanding of, and compliance with, the Bible’s parameters for sex to today’s sexual mores that barely stop short of child molestation and bestiality, and permits – even encourages – nearly every other form of perversion.
It can be difficult to know how to approach these issues which have been suddenly thrust upon us, and with which the average person – Christian or not – has very little experience. How are Christians to think about, believe, and address these issues in our families, churches, and communities? Do we just go with the “live and let live” flow of modern society? No. As with every other issue in life, our thinking, our words, and our actions must be shaped by and in submission to the authority of Scripture. Not public opinion. Not political agendas. Not our own personal feelings, opinions, and experiences. Scripture.
The Bible makes sexuality and gender identity very simple for us. God created two sexes of people– male and female¹. God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. God created human sexuality and confined its use to a man and a woman who are married to each other. Every form of gender identity or human sexuality that falls outside these parameters is sin.
Christians should not attend same sex weddings (or receptions, showers, bachelor parties, housewarmings, etc.) for any reason. (When it becomes legal, this will also apply to plural marriages and other unbiblical forms of “marriage”.) Regardless of your motives for attending, it appears to others and to the same sex couple as though you approve of their sin.
Often, the reason Christians will give for feeling they should attend a same sex wedding is that they are afraid declining to attend will cause the couple to cut off the relationship with them, closing the door to any future opportunity to share the gospel. But if you’re close enough to the couple to be invited to the wedding, shouldn’t you have already shared the gospel with them? Do you not trust that God can save someone, either immediately or in the future, from one instance of sharing the gospel? This person’s salvation does not rest on your shoulders. It can only be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and only in His timing. And whether you have or haven’t yet shared the gospel with the couple, what could your attendance at the wedding accomplish other than creating confusion? How can you support their “marriage” by attending the wedding and then turn around later and tell them they need to repent of this sin?
Additionally, attending the wedding sends the message to your children, family, church, friends, co-workers and others that you approve of the sin of homosexuality. We all have people watching us to see whether we stand with Christ or with the world. It’s imperative that we set a godly example.
Yes, if you decline to attend the wedding, you might lose your relationship with that homosexual friend or loved one. But Christ calls us to separate ourselves from the world and be loyal to Him even if it costs us everything — including those we love the most.
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.]