The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is inerrant, unmalleable and eternal.
It begins with the established truth that God exists, necessarily, as Genesis 1:1 says: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It predetermines God’s existence in a universe devoid of anything, and depicts Him as the Creator of everything. Without God, there can be nothing, as something can’t come from nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
Us Christians understand this, at least when we put our minds to it, and trust in the Word of God as Truth. And this is not a blind trust either, as the Bible, if nothing else, is a basically reliable historical document, depicting stories and events throughout history which are backed by archaeological discoveries.
The Word of God is Truth, and seemingly, this is what psychologist Jordan Peterson has come to realize very recently.
Peterson appeared on a recent episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, in which they discussed culture, society and the Bible, with Peterson saying that the Bible serves as the bedrock of culture.
“If categories just dissolve, especially fundamental ones, the culture is dissolving, because the culture is a structure of category,” began Peterson. “That’s what it is. So and in fact, culture is a structure of category that we all share. So we see things the same way. But that’s why we can talk, I mean, not exactly the same way, because then we have nothing to talk about. But, roughly speaking, we have a bedrock of agreement. That’s the Bible, by the way. So, I just walked through the Museum of the Bible in Washington. That was very cool. It’s [a] very cool museum.”
Joe Rogan then asked Peterson: “So the structure, that’s what the Bible provides?”
To which Peterson gets into the meat of his argument and revelation:
“Yeah, that’s what I figured out. I just figured this out this week. So it was a cool, it was cool thing to walk through, because it’s, it’s chronological, they have one floor, which is the history of the Bible… it’s really what it is, is the history of the book. Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally, because at one point, there was only one book, like, as far as our western cultures concerned, there’s one book. And for a while, literally, there was only one book. And that book was the Bible. And then before it was the Bible, it was, you know, scrolls, and it was writings on papyrus.”
“And… we were starting to aggregate written texts together. And it went through all sorts of technological transformations. And then it became books that everybody could buy, the book everybody could buy, and the first one of those was the Bible, and then it became all sorts of books that everybody could buy. But all those books, in some sense, emerged out of that underlying book. And that book itself, the Bible, isn’t a book, it’s a library. It’s a collection of books.”
“And so what I figured out was, partly because I was talking to my brother in law, Jim Keller… we were talking about meaning and text, because we were talking about translation and the problem of understanding text. And Jim said, the meaning of words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another, and the postmodernist make that case that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That’s wrong, because, well, what about rage? That’s not words. And what about moving your hand? That’s not words. So it’s wrong, but part of it is right, because the meaning we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So now, then you think, well, let’s think about the relationship between words while some words are dependent on other words, some ideas are dependent on other ideas, the more ideas are dependent on a given idea, the more fundamental that idea is… that’s a definition of fundamental.”
Peterson then brings up the idea that, whatever texts exist in a civilization, there must be a fundamental text on which all the other texts depend, and that the Bible is said fundamental text. He brought up authors like Shakespeare, Milton and Dante for being part of the “Western canon”, as he put it, as they influenced other texts in the West. But even those books have the Bible at its base, as Peterson said.
Peterson concludes his lengthy and rather round-about explanation by saying: “And so it isn’t that the Bible is true. It’s that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth, which makes it way more true than just true. It’s a whole different kind of true, and I think this is… not only literally the case, factually, I think it can’t be any other way.”
What I believe Peterson to be arguing is that, in order for anything else to be true, the Bible must be the first and fundamental Truth.
Whatever truth other books and texts provide must first be true according to God.
For example, the truth of binary genders. There is only male and female, as Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
God never created “transgenders”, because there is no such thing as “transgender.” If you are male, you cannot become female, no matter what body deformations you put yourself through. The same is true of females. Any book which acknowledges the truth of binary genders, namely biology textbooks which haven’t been corrupted by their woke publishers, is thus speaking a truth which first relies on the Truth of Scripture.
Another example is anything pertaining to other things which are uncontestably true, such as gravity, the sky being blue, the way human or animal bodies work, cellular biology, etc. Scientists may not all have everything figured out, at least when it comes to the scientific studies of the universe, but what they do say as truth is first dependent on the Higher Truth, or Ultimate Truth.
For example, we don’t really know how black holes work, but we know they are there because God created black holes. As a result of that lack of knowledge, we can’t presently tell people whatever truth pertains to black holes apart from the fact that they exist and that they usually are formed when massive stars reach the end of their lifespans and implode, collapsing in on themselves and forming a small but massive black hole.
Funny enough, in researching this very matter, I came across an article which talks about how black holes form, and it talks about two twists regarding what we know about black holes, only one of which is really important.
It reads: “[I]t would take longer than the universe’s current age for black holes that started as dead stars to grow to galaxy-center-sized black holes. So astronomers also think the universe may have jumpstarted the process by creating giant primordial black holes in the moment just after the Big Bang – though this is just as weird and problematic as you might think.”
One doesn’t really think it’s all that weird, let alone problematic, if one understands the Truth of God.
The theory here is that black holes take longer than the universe’s current age to form into the massive black holes that we see at the center of galaxies, such as the one in the middle of the Milky Way, or the closest galaxy to us, Andromeda. As a result, the fact that such massive black holes not only currently exist but have existed for a very long time has godless scientists scratching their heads in confusion.
How can it be that they exist if black holes take longer than the age of the universe to form? Assuming that their calculations are correct, both regarding the age of the universe and how long it takes for black holes to become that big or massive, the only logical explanation is close to what the article provides, though with a different source.
God, not the universe, created giant primordial black holes after the Big Bang (or when God created the universe) to situate planets and solar systems, thus creating galaxies. Though regarding the age of the universe, God created Adam and Eve to be adults rather than mankind's usual starting age of infancy, so He could have created the universe to appear aged as well (either that, or age is an effect of sin, but that's a different discussion entirely).
Regardless, God designed and created a universe that makes sense and isn’t random (for such a universe would be contradictory to the idea of intelligent design), and made things work in particular ways. He created the Earth to be habitable, created the animals which roam it, and created man and woman to live on it.
He designed the other planets to not be habitable, as they were unnecessary for the purpose of creating life. Though, if He desired to, obviously, He could change that either gradually or immediately.
Regardless, God created the heavens and the earth, and this is knowledge we derive both from the world we inhabit and the Word of God, which directly tells us so. The Word of God is Truth, and without it, nothing else can be.
I am glad that Jordan Peterson is beginning to see the Truth of God and I hope this means that he is saved.
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
The Book of Genesis covers a great deal of people throughout a great deal of time. From the creation of the universe to Adam and Eve in and out of the Garden, Cain killing Abel, Seth being born to Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, Abraham being the forefather of the faith, his son Isaac’s long-awaited birth, Jacob and Esau’s rivalry, ending with Joseph’s story of betrayal and hardship until reaching the second highest position in the land of Egypt and helping his family move there.
The Book of Exodus, in turn, covers the story of Moses, for the most part. And in the beginning of Exodus, starting from verse 6, we read the following:
“Then Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. But the people of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them.”
“Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, ‘Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.’ Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves.”
“Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, ‘When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.’ But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this, and let the male children live?’ The midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.’ So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, ‘Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.’”
The reason I bring this story up, at least up to this point, is because much like Pharaoh, it seems as though Chinese President Xi Jinping is afraid of the surge in numbers of people of faith.
According to The UK Express, who quote Director of Strategic Research at Christian charity, Open Doors, Dr Ron Boyd-MacMillan, “China’s premier is becoming increasingly concerned by the size of the Church – currently estimated at 97 million people.”
Dr. Boyd-MacMillan claimed that the size of the church in China is expected to increase rapidly in the next couple of decades, reaching 300 million people by 2030 at the rate it’s currently growing (roughly 7-8%), thus “creating a group big enough to challenge Xi’s government.”
He said: “We think the evidence as to why the Chinese Church is so targeted, is that the leaders are scared of the size of the Church, and the growth of the Church. And if it grows, at the rate that it has done since 1980, and that’s about between seven and eight percent a year, then you’re looking at a group of people that will be 300 million strong, nearly by 2030. And, you know, the Chinese leadership, they really do long term planning, I mean, their economic plan goes to 2049, so this bothers them. Because I think if the Church continues to grow like that, then they’ll have to share power.”
The UK Express also shared an infographic depicting China’s military power (which they claim is accurate as of November 2020, so the numbers are probably a bit higher at this point, assuming that the CCP would even share these numbers to begin with), as you can see below.
As you can see, it depicts a few notable things. First, the population, which currently stands at 1,384,688,986. The fact that, already, the Chinese Church stands at 97 million is rather bad for Xi, as they make up 7% of the total population, and as I have already mentioned in prior articles, it only takes 3.5% of the population actively protesting peacefully to drive meaningful change. With the Chinese population growing at approximately 0.3% per year, the 300 million Christians would be roughly 20% of the Chinese population by the year 2030.
These are not insignificant numbers, whatsoever. Second, they show China’s military power in terms of military personnel and vehicles.
2.7 million total personnel is not insignificant, unfortunately, as the U.S.’s total military personnel is roughly 2.4 million. Those numbers may not be too far apart, but during times of war, the personnel tend to go up (following 9/11, the military saw a surge in enlistment, and that was just to hunt down illiterate savages sleeping in sand), and there are roughly a billion Chinese compared to 330 million Americans. Not that every single resident of the countries would be fighting, of course, but I’m largely talking about total possible manpower.
We do, however, have an advantage in terms of vehicles, most likely. I don’t know the estimated number of military vehicles we have available, but I know for sure that we have more than just two aircraft carriers unlike China.
But these numbers are only interesting to know in the event of war against China, which isn’t the main point of this article. Like I mentioned before, the Chinese Church makes up roughly 7% of the Chinese population and that number is increasing year-over-year at a rate of seven or eight percent.
With Christians being the natural enemy of communism and communists, it’s no surprise, really, that Xi would feel threatened by such a massive surge in faith every year. Particularly as he has tried his darndest to oppress and Chinafy the Church, trying to turn people’s faith away from God and towards himself.
But as Exodus 1:12 says, “But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad.”
My comparison to the Book of Exodus isn’t to say that we might one day see a Christian exodus from China. What I’m trying to do is draw comparisons between Xi and Pharaoh, the conditions of their targets in their own times, and what faith in God will do for the believers. God delivered the Jews out of Egypt. He might do the same for Christians in China, or He might even lead Christians in China to rule the future former-communist country.
Can you imagine how delightful it would be for China to become a Christian nation, run as a Republic, and faithful to God? Instead of an economic and political rival, we would have an economic and political friend (assuming Christianity further grows in the U.S. as well and defeats the Satanic Left).
I don’t know the plans that God has for His people in China, but knowing His goodness, I know that He will deliver good things to them, even if there is hardship along the way.
I pray that the latter option happens, and Christians begin ruling China, dealing a deathblow to communism worldwide.
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
In a recent video released by PragerU (below), psychoanalyst and author Erica Komisar made the argument that children should be exposed to God and religion, even if the parents aren’t believers themselves.
She explains that, as a therapist, she is often asked questions about anxiety and depression and why they are so prevalent in children and teenagers. She argues that one explanation for it, which is “almost surely the most neglected” is declining interest in God and religion in the U.S.
Komisar cited a Harvard study which shows that children who attended a religious service at least once a week “scored higher on psychological well-being measurements and had lower risks of mental illness.” This weekly attendance was also linked to “higher rates of volunteerism, lower probabilities of both drug use and early sexual initiation, and a sense of purpose.”
Regardless of the psychological benefits of weekly church attendance, there has been a 20% decrease in weekly religious attendance in the last 20 years. And in 2018, the American Family Survey showed that “nearly half of adults under 30 do not identify with any religion.”
Komisar commented on those surveys saying: “From a purely psychological point of view, this is not a good trend. Nihilism – the belief in nothing – is a rich fertilizer for anxiety and depression.”
As a result, Komisar argues that parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if those parents are themselves unbelievers.
Generally, I agree with Komisar and also believe that people ought to come to faith, in part, because of the moral and psychological benefits it would bring.
However, my one issue with JUST making this argument is that it’s no different from arguing that religion is a crutch for people to deal with their daily lives. This is an argument I often hear from unbelievers “Oh, you just believe in this pie-in-the-sky nonsense because you can’t properly deal with the daily stresses of life. It’s just a crutch for you and those who don’t believe in this unscientific nonsense have more mental/intellectual maturity.”
Obviously, such an argument is false and rooted in a misconception of religion, but it’s arguments like the one Komisar gives that sort of fuel that. Again, I am not disagreeing with Komisar on this, and I even understand why she’s making this argument. She’s a therapist, after all, and she wants to help people be better off psychologically and recognizes the mental benefits of religion, belief in God and regular church attendance.
I’m not taking away those benefits because they are, of course, very much there. If you’re going to teach your child something, better it be that God has them in the palm of His hands than that the world is on fire and they might not even get to see their adulthood.
However, to only argue in favor of religion and God in this manner is to lower them to crutches to deal with the truth of life. It ignores the very fact that there can BE no life in the first place without God.
I’m not saying that that’s the argument Komisar is making whatsoever, or that she believes that this is the only purpose of belief in God, but it does have the issue of giving those unbelievers credence they neither have nor deserve.
Parents should 100% expose their children to God and religion even if they don’t believe themselves. Komisar actually makes a fantastic point in the video that there are parents who say “I want to give my children the ability to choose what they believe themselves rather than force anything on them.” If that’s the case, then, Komisar argues, shouldn’t you be more willing to expose your children to God and religion? How else are they to make a free and informed decision about what to believe if they aren’t exposed to such options?
And that is a great argument. For parents to say that they don’t want to force a religion on their children, and so don’t expose their children to religion, because they want their children to choose for themselves is like parents saying they don’t want to force children to eat a particular type of food, so they don’t expose their children to that food, because they want them to choose for themselves.
Ultimately, they are accomplishing the exact OPPOSITE of what they claim to want. They are making that choice for their children to NOT be part of a religion by depriving them of the experience of it.
After all, who chooses to be part of something they have no idea what it is about? “I don’t want to tell my child what he should do when he grows up, so I’m not letting him do anything in any field so he can choose for himself what he wants to do.” That is a dumbass argument when put that way, and yet, it’s the standard operating procedure for some parents when it comes to their child’s beliefs?
If you expose children to nothing, they will know nothing and believe in nothing.
But at any rate, like I said, I generally agree with what Komisar is saying about God, religion and the psychological benefits of both. They definitely are true, and the benefits can be seen in anyone who is actually faithful to God.
God teaches us a myriad of things throughout the Bible, from that which He commands of us in the Ten Commandments to what Jesus said was the most important commandment “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind,” as well as another commandment which He said was equally as important: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
We are told by God, who is the author of morality (among all other things except for evil and sin), what is good, what is profitable, what must be done and how, all for His glory and His kingdom.
I am reminded of a guest speaker I once had for my Religion class in high school who was an atheist but argued in favor of the teachings of the Bible because they were, according to him, “good moral teachings.”
They certainly are, and had I known then what I know now, I would have made the same argument I had been making earlier in this article. God is, indeed, moral as He is the author of morality. We are taught that there is no sin in Him and He is not the author of sin and evil. So the speaker wasn’t technically wrong in that regard. However, the Bible is FAR more than just a guide on morality and God and religion are far more than just safe havens from the stresses and harshness of life.
The Bible is God’s very word to us. It depicts the history of not just the Jewish and Christian faiths, but of the entire world and its existence. It shows us who the author of the universe is, with the declaration of the very first words of the Bible being: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” showing the reader that before everything was, He IS. He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, omnipresent, and the Creator and originator of all.
He created the heavens and the earth, all living things on it, above it and underneath it, including mankind. Mankind then was deceived by Satan into rebelling against God, and thusly was punished, along with Satan, for such rebellion, taking away their eternal life and their place in paradise.
Following that, mankind continued to rebel against God, sinning and sinning and being evil by nature, which was once not the case but the punishment by God for their original sin of disbelief in God’s word that if they eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die.
Despite this continual, natural sinfulness and rebellion, God sent His only begotten Son to, among other things, die on the cross for the sins of the people who believe in Him, that they should not perish but have eternal life. God had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do that, and would be perfectly justified to have sent no savior at all and punish all mankind for its sins. And yet, He did send us a savior, because He is a kind and merciful God who loves His children.
When you understand this about God, one cannot possibly relegate Him to being a mere comforter (though He is a comforter) of the downtrodden, anxious and depressed. One cannot relegate His word as mere good guidance for how to live a moral life. One cannot relegate belief in Him and His word to just a crutch for dealing with life.
Again, I don’t think that’s what Komisar was saying, at all, and don’t think she believes this is all religion and God are good for. And again, I agree with almost everything she said in that PragerU video, with my biggest gripe being that at one point, she said “[B]etter for kids to use their imagination constructing something positive – such as a God who cares about us – than the dark, nihilistic idea that there’s no creator and protector…” which is problematic because it implies that God is someone we create ourselves, according to our desires. God cannot be created by people and a “god” created by evil people will permit evil deeds. I understand what she was trying to say here, but it’s rather problematic how she put it together.
God is a comforter and a protector, yes, but it’s far more beneficial and important to know that He is the Master of the Universe and not a single thing that happens happens without His permission. Even Satan, in all his evil deeds, is held back by God in his wickedness.
God created the world. God controls the world. God created you. God is in control of your life and has you in the palm of His hands. More than just a good psychological answer to the stresses of life, He is the Lord Almighty, in whom people can find comfort. And they can find said comfort precisely because of who He is, not because of who we want Him to be.
Yes, parents ought to expose their children to God and religion, even if they don’t themselves believe, and even if they only do it for the psychological benefits of it, because it can lead to a calling from the Lord to Him. But it is also very important to understand WHY God is even a good source of comfort to begin with and that begins with understanding WHO He is.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
There have been plenty of stories surrounding this year’s Olympics which either irritate or utterly disgust anyone who is of sane mind, from men competing against women to Olympians representing the U.S. protesting when the national anthem is played, etc.
And these stories have been circulated plenty, giving these undeserving bastards more recognition than they deserve. While such horrid situations ought to be discussed in the negative light they deserve, I would like to focus on the exact opposite today: an Olympian who represents her country well and who is not only happy to do so, but considers it a blessing and gives all the glory of her victory to God.
Sydney McLaughlin is an Olympic hurdler, who this past week managed to edge out her teammate Dalilah Muhammad and beat her own world record in the 400-meter hurdles to win the gold medal for her country, with Muhammad taking home the silver (and also breaking the previous world record but being a bit slower than McLaughlin).
The 21-year-old Olympian spoke to the press following the race, where she said “Just trusting the process, giving the glory to God… I’m just really grateful to represent my country and to have had this opportunity,” also mentioning the “hard work and dedication” which went into the season.
McLaughlin was also able to see footage of her Catholic high school celebrating her victory.
She also made sure to give thanks to God for her victory on Instagram as well:
“The face of a woman who is in awe of God. I could feel this meet was going to be something special… but MAN. Weeks like these are some of the hardest in a track athletes life. The mental strain of preparing for the rounds in order to solidify your spot is heavy enough. But the amount of weight the Lord took off my shoulders, is the reason I could run so freely yesterday. My faith was being tested all week. From bad practices, to 3 false start delays, to a meet delay. I just kept hearing God say, ‘Just focus on me.’ It was the best race plan I could have ever assembled. I no longer run for self-recognition, but to reflect His perfect will that is already set in stone. I don’t deserve anything. But by grace, through faith, Jesus has given me everything. Records come and go. The glory of God is eternal. Thank you, Father. Congrats to everyone who made the team, as well as my awesome competitors!! Let’s go represent the USA the best way we know how!”
It’s not often you get to hear competitors speaking like this. Usually, we focus on the stories like the ones I mentioned in the beginning, where people make asses of themselves and somehow take pride in it, or generally push for some Leftist, anti-God agenda. And while, again, it’s worthwhile to talk about those things in the negative manner which they deserve, it’s equally as important to talk about situations like these in the positive manner which they deserve.
Sydney is proud to represent her country and more importantly is proud to be a Christian. She gives the glory to God, not herself, for her ability to break her own world record and bring home the gold. She admits that she deserves nothing, that by grace, through faith, Jesus has given her everything, and that mortal things like records will come and go but God’s glory is eternal.
These are things which we should be celebrating and promoting, perhaps more so than the other stories. Yet, it will be talked about far less for a number of reasons. Namely, the fake news media loves to promote the filth that the other Olympians are pushing like anthem protests and men cheating by competing against women, so it’s only natural that these other stories get talked about more.
But it’s still true that stories like McLaughlin’s ought to be shared and talked about far more, giving her the recognition she deserves for being willing to stand up for what is right and righteous in a culture which has long hated what is right and righteous.
She expressly is grateful to represent her country, while other Olympians simply take the opportunity to bash it and embarrass it on the world stage. She thanks God and gives all the glory and credit to Him, while other Olympians will be self-absorbed and talk about “their” accomplishments as if they were solely theirs and might even hijack the stage to talk about the disgraceful filth the fake news media and elites would love to hear.
McLaughlin stands apart from these competitors, and I am certainly glad to see that. She is the type of competitor we ought to be talking about more and celebrating. She represents her country very well, as opposed to the other Olympians who only represent the minority of the elites who push their Leftist agenda.
Not only does she do a fantastic job as an Olympian, but also as a Christian, witnessing to the whole world of the wonder of God. Of course, she doesn’t have a whole lot of time to witness, but she takes whatever opportunity she can get to do so, and I am certain that this is utterly pleasing to the Lord.
God bless Sydney McLaughlin.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
I am not a Catholic whatsoever and find many faults with the Catholic theology and doctrine. However, despite those differences, I know very well that to be a Catholic still means to be a Christian, and simply professing one’s faith does not mean that one possesses such faith.
That is the sort of faith that Joe Biden and other faux-Christian Democrats have professed for decades and even most recently, as the media has attempted to portray Joe Biden as a “devout Catholic” particularly before the election to try and take away some of the evangelical vote from Trump (even though evangelicals are not Catholic). That any of these killers of the young and old would consider themselves Christian is deeply insulting to anyone who actually is a Christian.
Despite that, they do, indeed, call themselves “Christians” or “Catholics” and have people within the Church backing them up (the devil attends church, after all). Actual Christians, however, recognize the fact that such people are not really Christian and do not stand for anything that is Christian.
Archbishop Jose Gomez, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is one such Christian who sees the evil morals that Biden holds, at least for the most part.
Gomez issued the following statement on Wednesday, saying that “working with [Occupier] Biden will be unique… as he is our first [occupier] in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.”
“Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor – all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.”
I’m far more certain it wasn’t his “faith” which brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, but remembering that he is obscenely wealthy and in a good position as part of the Washington Establishment to make far more money still. This, obviously, is where I wholeheartedly disagree with Gomez, as I find no actual faith within Joe Biden. Certainly, none of his policies and actions are indicative of someone who trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor? The economy is shut down and he wants MORE of that, which will only hurt the vast majority of people and especially those who were already poor.
Saying on the campaign trail that he would help the poor or the working class or whatever is not actually doing any of those things, particularly if his policies will not help the poor but only serve to further enrich himself and his Wall Street buddies.
Biden serves only himself and those who can help him at any capacity. The poor are nothing to him except servants at his feet.
But at any rate, Gomez continued:
“[A]s pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new [Occupier] has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.”
“Our commitments on issues of human sexuality and the family, as with our commitments in every other area – such as abolishing the death penalty or seeking a health care system and economy that truly serves the human person – are guided by Christ’s great commandment to love and to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable,” Gomez continued.
For the most part, this is good stuff. I disagree on the issue of the death penalty, as the death penalty is reserved for those whom deserve its harsh punishment, namely killers. Genesis 9:5-6 says: “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.’” And Exodus 21:12 says: “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”
And regarding the health care system and economy, I agree only insofar as the Left has destroyed both and changed it enough to really only benefit the wealthy and not give the little people the ability to compete. Just look at Parler trying to compete with Twitter and getting utterly nuked off of the internet to see what I mean. Not to mention that the Wayfair ruling of 2018 (though a “conservative” majority was responsible for that ruling) is the primary reason as to why we don’t have a store to sell merchandise, as selling things online to people outside of our own state would require more financial and legal muscle than we have.
But with that small tangent out of the way, let’s get back to the overall grievances of actual Catholics against the faux-Christian Democrats like Joe Biden.
“For the nation’s bishops,” Gomez continued, “the continued injustice of abortion remains the ‘preeminent priority.’ Preeminent does not mean ‘only.’ We have deep concerns about many threats to human life and dignity in our society. But as Pope Francis teaches, we cannot stay silent when nearly a million unborn lives are being cast aside in our country year after year through abortion.”
This made a lot of faux-Christians mad, such as the Vatican and the Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich, though interestingly, most of their complaints were regarding procedure which seemingly Gomez broke with issuing that statement. That isn’t to say that the Chicago cardinals agree with Gomez, as they were pretty clearly in support of Biden and calling the statement “ill-considered”.
Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about this, and only said that Biden “attends church regularly” which is a non-answer. Attending church doesn’t mean someone is a Christian.
One of Biden’s first executive orders was about forcing educational institutions which receive government funding (that is to say, most of them) must allow biologically male athletes on the women’s teams and forces girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys if the boys wanted to use those facilities.
He has constantly reiterated his commitment to killing as many babies as he can with pro-abortion legislation and has told people he fully intends on lifting the Mexico City policy which bans NGOs which promote and provide abortion internationally, and intends on lifting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from going to domestic abortion providers.
For that one issue alone, he is utterly disqualified from even calling himself a Christian. No Christian would EVER be in support of abortion because abortion is murder, no matter how you dress it up.
So Gomez is entirely correct to note that Biden would advance moral evils. Biden is morally evil himself and there is NO defending him, no matter what one tries to do. The Left views evil as good and good as evil and when in power, demonstrate it at its worst.
I pray that we will one day crush the evils of the Left and make abortion as morally detestable as the Holocaust, seeing as abortion is a holocaust in itself.
“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”
It’s rather easy to search this, but do you want to know what was the very first article that was published on this site? What the topic was about? The very first article was about a very similar subject to this one: Christian persecution, and it asked the question of whether or not there is Christian persecution in the United States.
To summarize that article, yes, there is Christian persecution in the U.S., has been for a while, and it very well might get worse in the future if we allow it.
However, it’s worth pointing out that there pretty much has always been Christian persecution for as long as the religion itself has existed (and technically before, since Christ suffered that kind of persecution, despite Him having been Jewish and following Jewish law). I’ve already talked about that, nearly two years to the date.
Christians will always be persecuted and we have been for a very long time. One example of this in the history of Christendom is the story of Thomas Becket, an English archbishop who was persecuted and ultimately murdered for defending the Church and placing it ahead of the Crown.
The 850th anniversary of his martyrdom was very recent, on December 29th, and President Trump made sure to commemorate this anniversary and that moment in history, adding the need to end Christian persecution much like what happened to Becket.
In a proclamation, President Trump wrote: “Today is the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket on December 29, 1170. Thomas Becket was a statesman, a scholar, a chancellor, a priest, an archbishop, and a lion of religious liberty.”
“Before the Magna Carta was drafted, before the right to free exercise of religion was enshrined as America’s first freedom in our glorious Constitution, Thomas gave his life so that, as he said, ‘the Church will attain liberty and peace.’”
The president went on to give a brief summary of Becket’s biography, noting that Becket was an archbishop who was killed by four knights of King Henry II in his church, Canterbury Cathedral, on December 29, 1170, after Becket famously resisted the king’s attempt at dwindling the power of the Church with the Constitutions of Clarendon.
Trump’s proclamation went on to say that when Becket refused to accept Henry’s declaration, “the furious King Henry II threatened to hold him in contempt of royal authority and questioned why this ‘poor and humble’ priest would dare defy him, Archbishop Becket responded ‘God is the supreme ruler, above Kings’ and ‘we ought to obey God rather than men.’”
“Because Thomas would not assent to rendering the church subservient to the state, he was forced to forfeit all his property and flee his own country. Years later, after the intervention of the Pope, Becket was allowed to return – and continued to resist the King’s oppressive interferences into the life of the church. Finally, the King had enough of Thomas Becket’s stalwart defense of religious faith and reportedly exclaimed in consternation: ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’”
“The King’s knights responded and rode to Canterbury Cathedral to deliver Thomas Becket an ultimatum: give in to the King’s demands or die. Thomas’ reply echoes around the world and across the ages. His last words on this earth were these: ‘For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.’ Dressed in holy robes, Thomas was cut down where he stood inside the walls of his own church.”
“Thomas Becket’s martyrdom changed the course of history. It eventually brought about numerous constitutional limitations on the power of the state over the Church across the West. In England, Becket’s murder led to the Magna Carta’s declaration 45 years later that: ‘[T]he English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.’”
“When the Archbishop refused to allow the King to interfere in the affairs of the Church, Thomas Becket stood at the intersection of church and state. That stand, after centuries of state-sponsored religious oppression and religious wars throughout Europe, eventually led to the establishment of religious liberty in the New World. It is because of great men like Thomas Becket that the first American President George Washington could proclaim more than 600 years later that, in the United States, ‘All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship’ and that ‘it is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.’”
“On this day, we celebrate and revere Thomas Becket’s courageous stand for religious liberty and we reaffirm our call to end religious persecution worldwide.” Trump added that “the crimes against people of faith must stop, prisoners of conscience must be released, laws restricting freedom of religion and belief must be repealed, and the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed must be protected.”
The president concluded: “As long as America stands, we will always defend religious liberty. A society without religion cannot prosper. A nation without faith cannot endure – because justice, goodness, and peace cannot prevail without the grace of God.”
He is right, of course, in all of these regards. But given the nature of the Left, who are driven by Satanic beliefs, we will not see the end of Christian persecution any time soon.
Like I pointed out in that article from nearly two years ago, what the United States has done for those of us who are Christians is give us a moment of relief from that sort of persecution. Legally and constitutionally, we are free to exercise our religion. The problem comes when even those who are sworn to enforce the law and protect the constitution willingly decide not to do so. While there are a number of police officers who have defied their insane (often Democrat) governors and their tyrannical mandates, I have seen far too many videos online of police officers forcing Christians to disperse from public prayer and forcing churches to shut down.
The Chinese coronavirus gave people in power with already some dictatorial tendencies to freely and with impunity rule their states and cities with an iron fist. I’ve already detailed how Cuomo and de Blasio have targeted synagogues and churches by forcing them to shut down while allowing mosques to still operate, and there are stories of churches in California being fined and threatened with permanent closure for defying Newsom’s orders.
Christian persecution exists in different forms at different times. One thing I will say is that even this current persecution is not quite as bad as it used to be in the past, or as it is in other parts of the world like in China or some Middle Eastern countries. Christian leaders today aren’t being killed in cold blood by police for defying the lockdown orders. Thomas Becket was killed in cold blood by the king’s knights (the equivalent to today’s police) for defying a piece of legislation specifically because of its clause which subjected priests charged with a serious felony to being judged by a secular jury and being given a “secular punishment”.
I don’t know everything about how the criminal justice system used to work in 12th century England under the rule of King Henry II, and I have no idea what “secular punishment” means, but it’s clear that it was far easier for tyrants to exercise extreme measures against what they consider to be pests for things which are, from what I can see, considerably less of a big deal in comparison to impeding the religious liberty of assembly and worship of Christians in states across the country. I don’t want to trivialize or minimize what Christians had to go through back then, but I consider this present crisis to be worse than the Constitutions of Clarendon, seeing as it affects far more people than just priests who are charged with serious felonies (and who knows what constituted as a “serious felony” in those days?).
Even still, it’s not like Newsom or Cuomo can order cops to shoot and kill church leaders for their defiance. Even de Blasio has made numerous threats to permanently close down synagogues but has yet to actually go through with that, despite those synagogues’ persistent defiance.
So in many ways, this kind of Christian persecution is not nearly as bad as it was back then (again, church leaders aren’t being extrajudicially murdered for their defiance), so we should count our blessings, but any Christian persecution must be fought against anyway.
We will continue to see it, undoubtedly, and it could potentially get far worse. Again, the law and the Constitution protect us but only insofar as there are those who are willing to enforce the law and Constitution. Otherwise, law is just words written on paper and utterly worthless.
The country has the laws necessary for protecting and securing our borders – we just need to enforce those laws. The country has the laws necessary for protecting us against election fraud – we just need to enforce those laws. The country has the laws necessary for protecting religious freedom – we just need to enforce those laws.
The good news is that, either way, we are blessed in the Lord. If we are not persecuted, that’s great; if we are, that’s fine too. God will recompense us all our sorrows, our worries, our pain. All that we lose, God will multiply. If the enemy takes away our wealth, God will multiple that wealth. If the enemy takes away our families, God will multiply those families. If the enemy takes away our lives, God has guaranteed us eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ.
The enemy has power, but that power is nothing compared to God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
In Hellywood, it is extremely rare that we would see or hear of a major actor being unapologetically Christian and/or conservative. It isn’t because there aren’t any, but because the town is so owned by radical Leftists who have only grown more and more violent and vitriolic towards differing schools of thought that one could risk their careers being utterly ruined if they were to speak out against the things that they support or even not do things that the Left is supportive of.
As a result of such intolerance, Christians and conservatives usually opt to remain in silence about politics or religion, at least until they get so big they are basically uncancellable.
In some way, this is the level that Matthew McConaughey has reached, as he is such a major star that he could probably hit Leftist Hollywood like he did and not suffer greatly in his career moving forward.
During an interview with famous podcast host Joe Rogan, McConaughey recalled some times when fellow actors whom he has prayed with would sit in silence as opposed to clapping whenever the A-lister would thank God following an award win.
“I have had – and I won’t throw any people under the bus – but I have had moments where I was on stage receiving an award in front of my peers in Hollywood, and there were people in the crowd that I have prayed with before dinners many times, and when I thanked God, I saw some of those people go to clap, but then notice that ‘bad thing on my resume’ and then sit back on their hands.”
“I’ve seen people read the room and go, ‘whoa, that wouldn’t bode well for me in the future,’ if for getting a job or you’re getting votes or what have you. I have seen that; I’ve witnessed that… I don’t judge them for it, I just wish, you know – that it seems like a silly argument.”
It is not only a silly argument; it is a sad state of affairs that one’s very career in Hollywood could be in jeopardy if they were to CLAP when a fellow actor thanks God for his or her award win. But it is the reality in far-Leftist Hollywood, where the Left owns just about everything there. They own the studios which employ the stars. If a star is a conservative, they can get blacklisted for their beliefs. It happened to James Woods, after all, and perhaps even to some others as well.
Off the top of my head, here are the following actors whom either are conservative or whom I believe are conservative but have not really made any notable political statements that would indicate they would be a Leftist:
Chris Pratt, Matthew McConaughey (largely because of this on its own), Renee Zellweger, Vince Vaugh, Rob Schneider, Jon Lovitz, and Adam Driver (mostly because he keeps his private life more private and doesn’t really talk much about politics, as far as I have seen, which is usually a conservative trait in this hellish town).
Now, there might very well be others that I am missing, but this is the list of actors that I could think of that either are definitely conservative or strike me as fairly conservative (at least in relation to the rest of Commiewood).
Suffice to say, the list of far-Left radical actors is far bigger than this. And since they all have to work together in order to make a living, the more conservative actors have to keep a tight lid on what they say or do, and even that is beginning to not be a viable option, seeing as Chris Pratt was attacked for not attending a Biden fundraiser (though fairly liberal colleagues of his did come to his defense, including Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, whom I know to be far-Left people).
So while I won’t excuse those actors and actresses’ hesitation in clapping whenever McConaughey thanks God when receiving an award, seeing as Jesus was perfectly clear when He said: “But whomever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven,” in Matthew 10:33, and doing so is extremely dangerous, I can at least explain why it is that they do this. In my opinion, it is better to forsake one’s acting career than one’s soul (and I do hope those people repent for their sins following such an action).
Now, one could make the argument that they are not necessarily denying Christ, only not clapping when someone else thanks God but still acknowledging Christ as their Lord and Savior, but it’s a bit of a moral mess, if you ask me. They demonstrate a feeling of embarrassment about acknowledging God, or at least, demonstrate prioritizing their career over acknowledging God. Even if it doesn’t go as far as to denying Christ, it does still present a problem for the soul of anyone who does this, in my opinion. It is better for all Christians to appease God, even if that leads to making enemies of men, than to appease Man, if that leads to making enemies with God.
At any rate, McConaughey did not end there. He also hit the “illiberal” Left as being “condescending and patronizing” to half of the world.
“One of the things that… some people in our industry, not all of them, but there’s some that go to the Left so far – as our friend Jordan Peterson [says] – that go to the illiberal Left side so far that it’s condescending and patronizing to 50% of the world that need the empathy that the liberals have.”
Frankly, that is just about the only thing I slightly disagree with him on. Not the part about the far Left being condescending and patronizing, he’s right on the money there. I’m talking about the part about liberals having empathy. Some of them might, but for the most part, liberals have taken the word “empathy” and forced it to mean something else entirely.
Empathy is the ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings. It’s a feeling all humans can have, even liberals, but liberals have largely taken it to mean “tolerance and supportiveness of something that is anti-Christian or anti-conservative.”
We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the transgender who is trying to rape a kid in a bathroom because we don’t know exactly how they feel. We’re supposed to feel “empathy” for the homosexual man because, despite the fact that the Bible is perfectly clear about it being a sin and that one who embraces sin and does not repent of it is not regenerate, we don’t “know how they feel” being so marginalized. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the illegal immigrant who killed an American girl while playing around with a gun he is not legally allowed to have. We’re supposed to “feel empathy” for the black thug who attempted to kill an officer with a car door or with a taser or even with a gun. All because each of these people is “marginalized”.
The Left has taken the word “empathy” to mean we have to be tolerant of their actions when their actions are as egregious as that. We can feel empathy for these people (not for the child rapist) without attempting to excuse their actions or even justifying them as somehow being correct. Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.”
You can feel pity for those who commit wrongdoing without justifying the wrongdoing. What liberals have done in the last few decades is justifying wrongdoing, but that’s not the definition of empathy whatsoever.
One might try and argue that I’m a bigot because I *correctly* pointed out that homosexuality is a sin, but that is not a true statement whatsoever because, unlike the Left, I actually DO care about these people and do not want them to sin any more. Much as I do not want the prostitute or the adulterer to sin no more, I want the homosexual to sin no more.
This is about one’s salvation. Jesus justifies the person, not the sin. He justifies the person in spite of the sin, only if the person repents of their sin. This is not a popular take anymore in part due to the fact that many “Christians” would try and push back on this, but there isn’t a single homosexual person today who is regenerate. They may be conservatives and Trump supporters, ardently so, which is great. They might even acknowledge God and Christ and call themselves a Christian, but the full embrace of sin does not justify anyone.
We are all sinners, that is true, but we repent of those sins, even of the ones we are not aware of. A homosexual fully embraces a sin which does not lead to one’s salvation. The liberal has always pushed back on this idea because he hates God (while claiming he does not believe in God) and wants to be perfectly free to sin as much as he wants. He twists the definition of words like “empathy” and “tolerance” to mean things that they never meant purely for political gain.
The liberal is considered “tolerant” even if he venomously hates those who do not share his political view point, which as we all know, is the exact opposite of tolerance. The liberal is considered “empathetic” if he supports transgender bathroom laws or open borders. They give us sob stories about “poor migrants just trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their young ones” when talking about an illegal immigrant who has illegally crossed the border dozens of times and is on trial for murder.
The idea that these people are “empathetic” is a complete lie. They support whatever is good for their own political side. They hate this country and illegals vote for Democrats, so they support illegal immigration. If illegals voted for Republicans, Democrats would make a wall at the southern border and make the illegals build it before kicking them out.
At any rate, with that little tangent out of the way, McConaughey also hit the Left for cancel culture, pointing out their arrogance and hypocrisy, and noted that his openly Christian faith did not hinder his career.
At one point, Rogan and McConaughey got into a bit of a discussion about science and religion, with the award-winning actor noting that he is a believer and also believes in “science”, and pointing out that there is no contradiction between the two which is perfectly correct.
God would not reveal in nature something which contradicts what He says in scripture, and vice versa. The complexity of our universe, as scientists have discovered the smallest of subatomic particles and the biggest of galaxies, denotes that the only possibility for things existing is intelligent design.
The idea that the universe is a cosmic accident or that it created itself defies logic, as for something to create itself would require that thing to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship, which is a logical impossibility. Nothing can’t do something. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or out of nothing, nothing comes. So the universe could not have come into being by itself. If anything exists, there has to at the very least be a being which exists within itself and is eternal.
No scientific discovery that has ever been made argues against the existence of God. Not even the theory of evolution argues against the existence of God, as the existence of that first amoeba – the first living organism – could not have come from nothing, as that defies logic, and could not have created itself. We also know it was definitely not eternal, as there used to be no Earth a long time ago, and it initially was a massive rock of lava before it cooled down; an environment which no living organism can survive in.
The only reason people believe there is a divorce in religious thought and scientific thought is because of the enlightenment era belief that “the God theory” was no longer necessary to explain the origin of the universe, which itself is a theory which has not been proven (and can more easily be disproven).
Atheists took that and ran with it, saying “see? Scientists don’t think God exists, so clearly He doesn’t exist.” But religion and science are not at odds with one another, as again, God would not reveal something to be true in nature which contradicts what He reveals in scripture, or vice versa.
I am glad that McConaughey pointed this out in his exchange with Joe Rogan, who is himself more liberal.
I just wish more people in Hollywood had the guts to say these kinds of things and be more open with their Christian faith and conservative beliefs, even if it goes against the mainstream of Hollywood and even if it could potentially cost them some amount of employment.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
This year has so far been rather challenging, to say the least, for a lot of people. What with the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, the strict and idiotic lockdowns that came as a result of it, the social and racial unrest that has led to wanton destruction of property and numerous deaths, all leading up to an election which if won by Trump will almost certainly lead the Left to… continue doing the things they’ve been doing so the threat of riots is not quite as effective as it otherwise would have been.
One silver lining in this dark cloud of a year, however, is what I believe to be the potential revival of Christian America. It is often at our lowest point that we seek the Lord for comfort, and while some might be angry at God for allowing these things to happen, many more will come to God in search of refuge from the evil one. Many more people will begin praying to God, or pray more often, that their current situation – both personal ones and larger, social ones – will turn around. As a guest pastor for a church I often watch online said, “If it’s not good, God’s not done.”
This has not been a good year for many of us, but since it’s not good, that means that God’s not done. Good things will come out of all of this. We may not see it now, or understand how it could possibly come to be, but even while we don’t see a way, God most assuredly does.
Undoubtedly, there will be plenty of people who won’t change no matter what. Who will refuse to acknowledge God’s existence (for the most part; they acknowledge Him when they have something to be angry with Him about) and who will foolishly even declare themselves an enemy of God (as I have met one such fellow on Twitter who has outright said that he would kill God if he met Him, as though he had any power at all to stand against the omnipotent One).
Such people will reject and even mock prayer. We often see it whenever a tragic event like a shooting or natural disaster occurs, there are those who offer prayers and those who mock those who offer prayers, declaring it to be a waste of time and effort which accomplishes absolutely nothing and that we must seek evidence-based solutions to the problem.
The thing about prayer is that it absolutely works and multiple studies show it is an evidence-based solution to problems.
For example, one study of older adults found that “the negative effects of financial problems on health were significantly reduced among those who regularly prayed for others,” according to National Review.
In other words, the people who regularly prayed, and prayed for other people, were noticeably less affected by the strains of financial problems than those who did not pray. When you turn your trust and faith over to God, you recognize that your job is not your income source, the economy is not your income source, but God is your income source.
And hallelujah for that because of the following passage:
Luke 11:9-13: “So I tell you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
One could say: “Well, Freddie, the context is clearly about the Holy Spirit, not about finances or other things.”
And one would be half right.
The context of the passage is clear: Jesus is talking about salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit. Indeed, whomever asks for forgiveness, they will be forgiven. The Lord is merciful to such people. But recognize that God doesn’t only give His children the Holy Spirit. In the rhetorical questions, Jesus talks about parents giving their children fish or eggs if they ask of it. While, obviously, human parents cannot give the Holy Spirit and Jesus needed an analogy that would be understandable to His audience, God also gives us many other blessings. The proof that God is happily willing to give other things to His children is in the fact that He DOES and we express our thanks to Him as a result.
Why else would we give thanks to God for, say, getting a new job or a promotion, or doing well on a test, or finding the love of someone’s life, if God only gave His children the Holy Spirit? When we ask God for things, a number of things can happen:
1. God gives us exactly what we want.
2. God doesn’t give us what we want because what we want is not what we should have, or God is protecting us from something.
3. Or, God doesn’t give us what we want because He has something even better in store, giving us more than what we even asked for.
God is delighted in giving us things that we ask for when those things help us achieve our God-given destiny. So when praying to God, He is even more delighted by the faith and trust that is placed on Him by us.
We pray not merely to ask for things like children asking for a new toy. We also pray for help, we pray for clarity, we pray for strength, for wisdom and understanding, as well as for others that they might get those things.
And studies have shown, like I mentioned earlier, that prayer is extremely helpful. One research study found that prayer is of great psychological benefit to those who perceive God to be a loving God. They also found that, on the flipside, it caused anxiety and distress for those who perceive God to be distant and uncaring.
Which is why it’s important to also know who God is. I remember seeing on social media a post that quoted someone about how many (too many, according to that person) Christians view God as all-loving, forgetting the wrathful side of God. The thing about that is, while God is wrathful, He is only wrathful to sinfulness which was not forgiven by Him; which was not asked to be forgiven.
God doesn’t express His wrath against His children. His children are forgiven! His wrath is reserved for those who are unrepentant and unsaved – those who deny Christ consciously or subconsciously.
In understanding who God is, putting one’s trust and faith in Him, and having been saved by His Son, prayer is a great reliever of stress and it helps people spiritually, psychologically, and often times, physically.
Like I said, there are a number of studies that show such things, and that National Review article I mentioned earlier talks about many of them.
I hope that in reading this, you will come to better understand (if you haven’t already) just how important prayer is. In terms of both helping people feel better, such as in a group of cancer patients who were instructed to pray focusing on thankfulness and concern for others and were found to have the least symptoms of depression, and in terms of better accomplishing tasks, such as a study which found that those who prayed for 10 minutes about a personal life issue (even those who are less religious) were better able to accomplish focus-driven tasks than those who were instructed to think about the personal issues or were distracted with a puzzle, prayer is a magnificent and efficient way to solve problems.
When ignorant people criticize prayer, they don’t realize that prayer actually has value and effectiveness which has been backed by empirical evidence.
Prayer is extremely helpful, not only for our own souls but also for life in general. I firmly believe that if we prayed more as a country, things would be a lot better than they are.
“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”
I have long held the belief that one cannot be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time and for very long. Either one is a Christian and momentarily a Democrat, before recognizing that Democrats are fundamentally anti-Christian and will leave the party, or one is a Democrat and calls himself a Christian, but holds Left-wing beliefs and values such as abortion, open borders, homosexuality, etc. and is not a true Christian whatsoever.
Seemingly, though perhaps not totally surprisingly, California megachurch pastor John MacArthur believes the same thing: one cannot be a Christian and support Leftist beliefs and people.
Grace Community Church pastor John MacArthur has been a recent example of a wartime Christian, choosing to fight an authoritarian dictatorship in Los Angeles which stands in clear violation of the Constitution by trying to force MacArthur’s church to remain closed and holding him and the church in contempt and violation of such unconstitutional orders.
The Satanic local government is trying to destroy the church’s ability to spread the gospel and MacArthur has actually decided to stand up to them for such a clear violation of his First Amendment rights.
Recently, MacArthur told the Falkirk Center that President Trump has recently reached out to the pastor and the two held a conversation on the “pillars of faith and their importance with regard to the upcoming election”, according to Fox News.
MacArthur explained: “We love God, we desire to honor Him, and upholding righteousness in a society is what a church is supposed to do. So I said, any real, true believer is going to be on your side in this election because it’s not just an individual, it’s an entire set of policies that Christians cannot, in any way, affirm.”
“We talked a little bit about why – certainly from a Biblical standpoint – Christians could not vote Democratic. Because there’s no way that a Christian can affirm the slaughter of babies, homosexual marriage, or any gross immorality. No way we could stand behind a candidate who’s affirming transgender behavior… these things aren’t even political for us… these things are Biblical.”
I could not agree more with MacArthur here (which is ironic, considering there are plenty of things that I disagree with him about, particularly on matters of eschatology). No true Christian believer could bring themselves to vote for Biden or any other radical Left Democrat.
What the Left believes runs contrary to what God teaches us and commands us to believe and follow. The Left believes in a government which replaces God, basically. Of course, it cannot actually do that, but their allegiance is to government, not to God, and they worship government, not God.
The Left believes in a woman’s “right” to kill her own baby, and they are moving closer and closer to arguing in favor of this even AFTER the baby has been born. Every Christian worth their salt knows that abortion is murder and murder is explicitly PROHIBITED by God, going all the way back to Cain. Murder is explicitly prohibited by the sixth commandment. To be at any capacity in support of abortion, at ANY stage in the pregnancy, is an affront to God and in support of plain, clear murder.
No Christian can, therefore, support abortion because to do so would be the effectual rejecting of God. Man is created in God’s image. Murder is the illegitimate elimination of said image (keep in mind the reason I say “illegitimate” here is because the death penalty is a legitimate elimination of a person, reserved only for the worst kind of criminal).
Homosexuality, transgenderism, and other sexual sins (including straight sex when done outside of marriage) are an abomination to the Lord and are wrong. God created Man and Woman to be together. Man and Man together is an affront to God, as is Woman and Woman. And, of course, this means that there is no “third” option for one’s own gender, no matter what the Satanist heathens might try and argue.
When a political party stands in such direct contradiction to the teachings of the Bible, how can anyone who proclaims to follow the teachings of the Bible then go on to vote for such a party?
Now, one might try and argue that Trump isn’t much better, though they can only argue in terms of personality, not in terms of systems of belief or policy. The ONLY argument Never Trumpers have nowadays is that he is supposedly a “deeply” flawed individual and has severe personal problems.
They claim that Trump is not exactly a good representative of Christ due to his Twitter fights and other supposed character flaws. Okay, but then, are we Christians supposed to wait for someone with a perfect personality, no issues or flaws whatsoever, if we are to vote for someone? Doing so would require us to wait for Christ Himself to run for POTUS, a position FAR beneath Him.
What, then, shall we do without Christ literally running Himself? Abstain from voting and wait until Christ runs? Vote for a party which clearly does not represent our beliefs?
Which is another thing right there: what sense does it make to vote for a party which very clearly does not represent your beliefs over a party or candidate which does?
Some people might try and argue that the Bible doesn’t say that Christians are Republicans or Democrats, which is obvious considering the two parties were created roughly TWO MILLENNIA after Christ, but again, I ask, what sense does it make to vote for a party which does not represent your beliefs over a party which does?
That’s not to say that the GOP is a perfect representative or even that all or even most in the party are such representatives of Christian values (GOP establishment types come to mind as inherently non-representative of Christian values). However, no one can honestly tell me that the Democrat Party better represents Christian values than the Republican Party.
“Oh, well, they support and believe in charity!” the ignoramus will argue. No, they don’t. Their celebrities will virtue signal because being depicted as charitable is good for PR. Their politicians will often not donate a lot of their income to charity (and considering Trump donates 100% of his Presidential income to charity, he’s hard to beat on that front) and argue that charity is communism and vice versa, when it is not.
Charity is the willful giving of your things to another who needs it more. Communism is the state forcing you to give up your things (like land, other possessions, and rights) supposedly for “the greater, communal good”, which at the end of the day is simply the government.
So, if the Democrat Party stands in such clear contradiction to the values taught to us by Christ, what reason does any true believer have to vote for a Democrat over a Republican (provided the Republican is a better representative of Christian beliefs)?
“Oh, but God is loving and Trump is hateful, just look at the wall he’s trying to build to separate us with our fellow humans south of the border,” the ignoramus will continue. Yes, God is loving, but He is also just. When one breaks the law, that person must be punished. Illegal immigrants break the law; they must be punished and their actions deterred. God doesn’t let people get away with breaking the law, even Man’s law, provided Man’s laws do not contradict God’s Law.
Also, Trump is not hateful. That he wants to prioritize American citizens is not an act of hate. That he wants to see justice for people who have been negatively affected by illegals – people who shouldn’t even be here and have NO RIGHT to be here – is not a sign of hatred from Trump. Does Trump love people like God does? No, because God’s love is agape love, meaning “the highest form of love and charity”, which is a form of love inaccessible to mankind, at least for one another. We have philia love, brotherly love, and filikos love, or neighborly love, but not agape love because that is a love relationship between God and man.
So Trump fundamentally cannot love people like God does, but his actions, particularly in his decision to run for President of the United States when he is just about the last person who needed to do that, shows that he loves America and Americans.
He doesn’t hate the immigrants that obey the law (for crying out loud, HE’S MARRIED TO AN IMMIGRANT) and I doubt he outright hates the illegals who come here, just hates that they break the law to come here and hates the criminal actions that they typically commit.
For anyone to argue that Trump, even despite his personal flaws (which he obviously has, considering he’s human, but I believe they have been unfairly accentuated by the media), is in any way a worse representative for those with Christian beliefs than Joe Biden or anyone on the Left is ridiculous and a complete lie.
God doesn’t require that we be perfect, and that includes Trump. I’ve made this point in the past, but it bears repeating: No one in the Bible, apart from God and Jesus (who are the same essential being in different persons), is perfect.
I’ve heard people wishing that we had a leader like David, but they forget that David committed adultery and basically murder by sending his loyal soldier to die in battle so he could screw his wife.
God uses imperfect people for His plan. Abraham, the father of the Jewish faith, was impatient and committed adultery before he was given his promised son. Moses killed an Egyptian guard and was running from the law for forty years before his encounter with God. Jacob was a liar and a ritualistic sinner before he was given the name Israel by God Himself (and was given that name after he literally wrestled with God). Sampson succumbed to sexual immorality but he was still redeemed by God in the end.
Trump has flaws, of course, but for any Christian to believe such flaws disqualify him from being president or earning our vote is ludicrous. For a Christian to support Biden or abstain from voting (which only helps Biden and the Democrats) is to run contrary to his or her own professed belief.
Like John MacArthur said, any real, true believer and follower of Christ will see the two options presented to us this electoral season and come to the conclusion that, despite whatever flaws Trump has, Joe Biden represents and carries with him beliefs that not only run contrary to Christianity, but are outright damaging to it (and no, it doesn’t matter one bit that he is a self-professed Catholic. Profession of faith is not the same as possession of faith).
Keep in mind, MacArthur is currently fighting DEMOCRATS who say that he is not allowed to open his church and share the gospel with his congregation and are actively seeking to punish him for wanting to do so. Clearly, given the chance, Democrats will leap at the opportunity to destroy our constitutionally protected rights of freedom of religion.
Once last time, I ask: what sense does it make for any true Christian to vote for a party which does not represent his or her Christian values and actively works to undermine them?
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
To paraphrase Tucker Carlson, you have to be extremely stupid to work at CNN because you will never stray from the topic that is handed to you. You never have to think on your own, you just have to repeat what is on the teleprompter or your notes, and when not speaking, mindlessly nod at whatever someone else said even if what someone said is monumentally stupid, incoherent, illogical or even extremely bigoted.
The dumbest man on news, working alongside Fredo Cuomo, let some of his idiocy shown recently when talking about the Founding Fathers and, more specifically, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In a discussion with the man who has as many IQ points as he does brothers, Don Lemon criticized the Founding Fathers, “So why are we deifying the founders of this country, many of whom owned slaves, and in the Constitution – the original one – they didn’t want, they put slavery in there, that slavery should be abolished because it was the way the king wanted. And then the Congress said, ‘No way!’”
The man’s stupidity knows no bounds, as he unwittingly praised the Founders whom he is trying to crap all over (and I’ll get to that in a brief moment).
Yes, many of them owned slaves because that was a violent and disturbing time in history when people owned other people. This has been the history of humanity for millennia and the idea that people shouldn’t own others is relatively new. White people used to own black people. Black people also used to own black people, both in Africa, with the tribes that fought and enslaved other tribes, and in the States, with black people legally owning other black people. Native Americans owned other Native Americans, at least, the ones that chose to enslave the tribes they conquered. Often times, tribes like the Comanche would simply choose to slaughter the tribes they defeated.
The Jews used to be slaves in Egypt and Babylon. Romans had slaves. Europeans would enslave one another when possible, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Slavery has been a part of humanity’s history for ages and is not something that has strictly applied to black people (especially considering there were black people back then who were either never slaves or outright owned other people). And let’s not ignore the fact that slavery is still a thing in this day and age, specifically in the Middle East.
Now, does this justify the horror that is slavery? Of course not. But it does put necessary context in a discussion that the Left chooses to not put any into just to get a chance at delegitimizing the United States. These people want Americans to believe that slavery was strictly an American thing, created by the U.S. and every other country in the history of the world was more “civilized” and “progressive” while the U.S. was anything but.
Ironically, Lemon PRAISED the Founders by noting that they wanted to abolish slavery in the first iteration of the Constitution. If these people were senseless barbarians who saw no issue with owning people, why would they try to put the abolishment of slavery into the original Constitution? Never mind why it was not actually put into it (the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North didn’t want that, but prioritized keeping the Union together and kicked the can of slavery down the road, though made provisions for the eventual abolishment of slavery), the fact that they DID WANT TO put it in there shows that they were not demons who wanted perpetual slavery.
At any rate, the dumbest man on news went on to further show why he has earned the moniker from President Trump by saying: “Here’s the thing: Jesus Christ – if that’s who you believe in, Jesus Christ – admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this earth.”
On who’s admission, Don? Yours? Because it’s certainly not to Jesus’ own admission or God’s own admission or any of the human authors of the Bible’s admission.
Jesus Christ was perfect, otherwise He would not have been an adequate sacrifice for the sins of those whom God has called. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says: “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Hebrews 7:25-26 says: “Therefore He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest truly befits us – One who is holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”
John 7:17-18 says: “If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether My teaching is from God or whether I speak on My own. He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is a man of truth; in Him there is no falsehood.”
Luke 1:35 says: “The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’”
The One who is holy cannot be imperfect. Not that I expect the dumbest man on news to understand this. Furthermore, it’s not even about how dumb or smart he is (though he is definitely not the latter). Intelligence matching that of Albert Einstein is not required in order to understand that Jesus Christ is perfect, and was perfect while He was walking on the Earth. What is required is faith and at least a basic level of understanding of the Christian tenets. It is made abundantly clear, day in and day out, fake news story after fake news story, that Don Lemon possesses neither of those requirements.
Don Lemon is not a Christian, so it’s not exactly a surprise that he would know nothing of the Lord. He has no excuse, of course, given the prevalence of evidence of God’s existence, Christ’s divinity and holiness, and availability of the Bible, both in book form and via the internet, but still not surprising that he would not know who the Lord is, even to this level.
The guy is a charlatan and is employed by the Charlatan News Network. That Chris Cuomo, who is supposedly Catholic, mindlessly nodded along (like I said was a requirement for working for CNN if you weren’t the one speaking), is also not surprising because he is every bit the charlatan that Don Lemon is, that his genocidal governor brother is, that Nancy Pelosi is, etc. They are not true Christians in the least.
Don Lemon is like the sort of person spoken of in 1 John, specifically chapter 2, verses 22 and 23: “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”
Denying the perfection of Christ is denying the holiness of Christ, as the two are inseparable. Denying the holiness of Christ is denying the deity of Christ. Denying the deity of Christ is denying the deity of God. Denying the Son is denying the Father. That is precisely what Don Lemon (and Fredo) is doing, of which he should repent immediately, knowing that Jesus said, in Matthew 10:33: “But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
Denying the Son is not the path to salvation; in fact, it’s literally going the opposite direction. Do I think Don Lemon is seeking to be saved? No, otherwise, he likely would have been, because if he was seeking to be saved, he would have been called to the Lord. But regardless of whether or not Lemon is seeking to be saved, or believes he must be saved from the punishment of his sins, what he did was deny the Son, which is to deny the Father.
Claiming Jesus was not perfect is extremely ignorant and shows the state of his soul. It also shows the state of Fredo’s soul (and the emptiness of his head) that he mindlessly nodded along as Lemon publicly rejected Christ on live TV.
I pray that these two repent of their abhorrent sin and come to the Lord in repentance and submission.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...