I have been attending a Messianic congregation for 6 months now after leaving the Seventh Day Adventist church. I am really enjoying the fellowship and the new things that I am learning.
So how is being a Messianic different from being an Adventist? We go by the Bible only and not the Bible and Elen G. White. We keep the Biblical festivals such as Passover, etc. instead of Christmas and Easter. We are allowed to drink alcohol in moderation. We are allowed to wear jewellery. We have a good relationship with other church denominations. We are allowed to drink coffee and tea.
The services resembles more like a Jewish synagogue than a traditional church service. There is a lot of Hebrew spoken. I am glad that God has called me out of the Adventist church and fellowshipping with Messianics.
A common misconception is the idea that embracing Messianic Judaism makes me Jewish. I am not Jewish. Jews are the ethnic group that are the physical descendants of Abraham. I am a Gentile (non-Jew) who now practices Messianic Judaism, but I am still a Gentile. I am now an adopted son of Abraham's people and I am glad to be a part of it.
Monday, 2 January 2012
Saturday, 19 November 2011
From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventist's Attitudes Towards Abortion
A study of Adventist literature showing the dramatic shift by the Seventh-day Adventist North American Church’ attitude towards one of the most fundamental rules designed by God for the protection of human life—the Sixth Commandment which forbids the murder of innocent human beings. A careful research indicating that financial profit moved the church leadership to tolerate the offering of abortion on demand services to the patients of several hospitals owned and managed by the Adventist organization.
Individual Adventists will have differences of opinion on the issue, but the Adventist organization has a lukewarm view on abortion that is very embarrassing when a pro-life person who is an Adventist finds out about it. We need to pray that the Adventist organization changes their views to a truly pro-life stance and puts it into practice.
The book is available here:
link
It will eventually be available at Amazon.
Individual Adventists will have differences of opinion on the issue, but the Adventist organization has a lukewarm view on abortion that is very embarrassing when a pro-life person who is an Adventist finds out about it. We need to pray that the Adventist organization changes their views to a truly pro-life stance and puts it into practice.
The book is available here:
link
It will eventually be available at Amazon.
Monday, 5 September 2011
I've left Adventism
I have finally decided to leave the Seventh Day Adventist church! My main reason is because they have a lukewarm approach to the abortion issue. Adventist hospitals support abortions for rape, incest, serious disabilities, etc.
Link
They claim that they do not support elective abortions (abortions for any reason), but whether or not that is true is very questionable:
link
link
I believe that most Adventist laypeople in the pews are pro-life, but that the leaders at the top of the organization itself are not as strong in that area as we would like. The Adventist organization refuses to allow for an official Adventist pro-life ministry.
Another problem I have is the trademark of the Adventist name. They are threatening lawsuits towards not only businesses that use the Adventist name without permission, but even forums and blogs! Most lawyers charge a minimum of $250 an hour and I do not feel comfortable paying my tithes and offerings towards this kind of thing.
Unlike a lot of other former Adventists you might read on the web, I still keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws. I'm also keeping the Biblical festivals as well. Instead of going to a regular church, I've decided to convert to Messianic Judaism and attend a Messianic congregation. Mine in particular is affiliated with Chosen People Ministries.
Keeping the Sabbath in Messianic Judaism is very different from keeping it with the Adventists. For example, the Sabbath in Messianic Judaism is only one of the teachings of God. It is not put on a pedestal as if it were the most important doctrine; as is the case with the Adventists. We have a good relationship with other church denominations as well.
I would be interested in meeting with other former Adventists who have joined a non-cultic Sabbath-keeping alternative to Adventism.
Link
They claim that they do not support elective abortions (abortions for any reason), but whether or not that is true is very questionable:
link
link
I believe that most Adventist laypeople in the pews are pro-life, but that the leaders at the top of the organization itself are not as strong in that area as we would like. The Adventist organization refuses to allow for an official Adventist pro-life ministry.
Another problem I have is the trademark of the Adventist name. They are threatening lawsuits towards not only businesses that use the Adventist name without permission, but even forums and blogs! Most lawyers charge a minimum of $250 an hour and I do not feel comfortable paying my tithes and offerings towards this kind of thing.
Unlike a lot of other former Adventists you might read on the web, I still keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws. I'm also keeping the Biblical festivals as well. Instead of going to a regular church, I've decided to convert to Messianic Judaism and attend a Messianic congregation. Mine in particular is affiliated with Chosen People Ministries.
Keeping the Sabbath in Messianic Judaism is very different from keeping it with the Adventists. For example, the Sabbath in Messianic Judaism is only one of the teachings of God. It is not put on a pedestal as if it were the most important doctrine; as is the case with the Adventists. We have a good relationship with other church denominations as well.
I would be interested in meeting with other former Adventists who have joined a non-cultic Sabbath-keeping alternative to Adventism.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Why I support net tithing? (Gross vs Net tithe)
There have been lots of arguments about whether people should tithe on their gross income or their net income. I think it is best to let the individual decide, but after doing a lot of research, I have decided to tithe on the net income.
1) It is more affordable and possible to do even if a person is in a high tax bracket. But gross tithing is not practical or even possible if a person is in a high tax bracket. Middle-class Americans might be able to tithe on their gross, but what about the European who is taxed at a much higher rate? What about the person who lives in a country where he might be taxed as high as 90% of his income? What about the person who earns a gross pay of $50,000 but is taxed half of his income and has a net pay of only $25,000? In a case like that, giving 10% of gross pay would be equivalent to giving 20% of your net pay! That's way too cost prohibited. Gross tithing is not practical or possible in these cases, but net tithing is always possible regardless of how much a person is taxed.
2) There is at least some evidence in the Bible of net tithing on crops. For example, the farmer would tithe on what he harvested from his crop, not the entire field. He didn't include the crops that were left in the field, or the ones that got spoiled, eaten by insects or wild animals, or damaged by bad weather.
3) While most Christians believe that they should tithe, many do not tithe in actual practice. Many people would be willing to tithe on a regular basis if the tithing amount is reasonable and not cost prohibited. Net tithing qualifies in that category. A lot of church leaders advocate gross tithing because they think that they are getting more money. However, they are actually getting less money that they would have gotten. If church leaders insist that gross tithing is the only acceptable way to tithe and that net tithing is not good enough, then people will give up on tithing altogether and not bother to tithe at all; especially if they find gross tithing too cost prohibited.
Whether you agree or disagree with me, I encourage you to respond and tell me what you think. (Please do not write if you believe that tithing is not for Christians. That is a different topic and I won't allow it to be posted here).
1) It is more affordable and possible to do even if a person is in a high tax bracket. But gross tithing is not practical or even possible if a person is in a high tax bracket. Middle-class Americans might be able to tithe on their gross, but what about the European who is taxed at a much higher rate? What about the person who lives in a country where he might be taxed as high as 90% of his income? What about the person who earns a gross pay of $50,000 but is taxed half of his income and has a net pay of only $25,000? In a case like that, giving 10% of gross pay would be equivalent to giving 20% of your net pay! That's way too cost prohibited. Gross tithing is not practical or possible in these cases, but net tithing is always possible regardless of how much a person is taxed.
2) There is at least some evidence in the Bible of net tithing on crops. For example, the farmer would tithe on what he harvested from his crop, not the entire field. He didn't include the crops that were left in the field, or the ones that got spoiled, eaten by insects or wild animals, or damaged by bad weather.
3) While most Christians believe that they should tithe, many do not tithe in actual practice. Many people would be willing to tithe on a regular basis if the tithing amount is reasonable and not cost prohibited. Net tithing qualifies in that category. A lot of church leaders advocate gross tithing because they think that they are getting more money. However, they are actually getting less money that they would have gotten. If church leaders insist that gross tithing is the only acceptable way to tithe and that net tithing is not good enough, then people will give up on tithing altogether and not bother to tithe at all; especially if they find gross tithing too cost prohibited.
Whether you agree or disagree with me, I encourage you to respond and tell me what you think. (Please do not write if you believe that tithing is not for Christians. That is a different topic and I won't allow it to be posted here).
Friday, 30 July 2010
Pescetarians Forum
I moderate a forum for pescetarians. A pescetarian is a person who eats a plant-based diet plus fish/seafood. Dairy and eggs are optional. Many people adopt this diet to be healthier or as a stepping stone towards a vegetarian diet.
Pescetarians Forum
Pescetarians Forum
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Pediatricians Warn Educators: 'Pro-Gay' Attitude toward Gender Confusion Damages Children
By Kathleen Gilbert
GAINESVILLE, Florida, April 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American College of Pediatricians has cautioned educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion, saying that a pro-homosexuality attitude could disrupt a natural uncertainty in youth for the worse.
“As pediatricians, our primary interest is in the health and well-being of children and youth,” Dr. Den Trumbull, Vice President of the College explains. “We are increasingly concerned that in too many instances, misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion.”
These concerns are outlined in a letter and fact sheet sent by College president Thomas Benton, MD, to all 14,800 school district superintendents in the U.S.
Dr. Benton also alerts them to a new web resource, FactsAboutYouth.com, which was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.
The College reminded school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation, and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, the doctors warned that schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion.
Such premature labeling, they said, can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.
Because there is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered, the College noted, schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.
Family Watch International, a pro-family advocacy group, backed the pediatricians' letter and urged parents to spread the crucial information.
"While the ACP can lay out the facts to educators, it is up to parents and other concerned individuals to now follow up with them," wrote FWI president Sharon Slater in an email to constituents. "We must make sure schools do not simply ignore the facts for such reasons of personal bias or political correctness."
Arthur Goldberg, a board certified counselor and expert on assisting individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that, "Unfortunately prior to the American College of Pediatricians' (ACOP) effort to develop the new web site www.FactsAboutYouth.com and the factual material they sent to school district superintendents, hundreds of false and misleading books, pamphlets, films, and other materials were absorbed - with our taxpayer dollars - into America's public school systems."
Goldberg cited as one example a pamphlet distributed in 2008 by the National Education Association and the American Psychological Association entitled "Just the Facts," which he says was "issued for the distinct purpose of radically impacting how schools dealt with the sexual consciousness and behavior of school age children." The booklet discourages discussion of therapy to change same-sex attraction, and upholds homosexuality as a "normal expression of human sexuality."
Contrary to the booklet's claims that homosexuality is unchangeable, said Goldberg, "there is clear and convincing evidence that many factors can lead an adolescent into homosexual behavior - including curiosity, a feeling of not fitting in, the experience of earlier molestation, and a desire for attention or a sense of belonging. Teen years often serve as a transitional phase when affectional, emotional and identification needs can be too easily sexualized."
"Because the premature gay self-labeling that is encouraged by 'Just the Facts' and other such material presents major public health risks, ACOP, as a medical organization dedicating to best practices in child-rearing, has performed a major public service by making their material available to school administrators, students and their parents," he said.
For more information, including printable factsheets on the dangers of encouraging homosexuality in children, visit FactsAboutYouth.com.
GAINESVILLE, Florida, April 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The American College of Pediatricians has cautioned educators about the management of students experiencing same-sex attraction or exhibiting symptoms of gender confusion, saying that a pro-homosexuality attitude could disrupt a natural uncertainty in youth for the worse.
“As pediatricians, our primary interest is in the health and well-being of children and youth,” Dr. Den Trumbull, Vice President of the College explains. “We are increasingly concerned that in too many instances, misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion.”
These concerns are outlined in a letter and fact sheet sent by College president Thomas Benton, MD, to all 14,800 school district superintendents in the U.S.
Dr. Benton also alerts them to a new web resource, FactsAboutYouth.com, which was created by a coalition of health professionals to provide factual information to educators, parents, and students about sexual development.
The College reminded school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation, and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, the doctors warned that schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion.
Such premature labeling, they said, can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.
Because there is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered, the College noted, schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.
Family Watch International, a pro-family advocacy group, backed the pediatricians' letter and urged parents to spread the crucial information.
"While the ACP can lay out the facts to educators, it is up to parents and other concerned individuals to now follow up with them," wrote FWI president Sharon Slater in an email to constituents. "We must make sure schools do not simply ignore the facts for such reasons of personal bias or political correctness."
Arthur Goldberg, a board certified counselor and expert on assisting individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that, "Unfortunately prior to the American College of Pediatricians' (ACOP) effort to develop the new web site www.FactsAboutYouth.com and the factual material they sent to school district superintendents, hundreds of false and misleading books, pamphlets, films, and other materials were absorbed - with our taxpayer dollars - into America's public school systems."
Goldberg cited as one example a pamphlet distributed in 2008 by the National Education Association and the American Psychological Association entitled "Just the Facts," which he says was "issued for the distinct purpose of radically impacting how schools dealt with the sexual consciousness and behavior of school age children." The booklet discourages discussion of therapy to change same-sex attraction, and upholds homosexuality as a "normal expression of human sexuality."
Contrary to the booklet's claims that homosexuality is unchangeable, said Goldberg, "there is clear and convincing evidence that many factors can lead an adolescent into homosexual behavior - including curiosity, a feeling of not fitting in, the experience of earlier molestation, and a desire for attention or a sense of belonging. Teen years often serve as a transitional phase when affectional, emotional and identification needs can be too easily sexualized."
"Because the premature gay self-labeling that is encouraged by 'Just the Facts' and other such material presents major public health risks, ACOP, as a medical organization dedicating to best practices in child-rearing, has performed a major public service by making their material available to school administrators, students and their parents," he said.
For more information, including printable factsheets on the dangers of encouraging homosexuality in children, visit FactsAboutYouth.com.
Friday, 18 December 2009
Salute to Crushmaster and Gamespot's anti-Christian actions
I got moderated on Gamespot for speaking my mind on the anti-Christian tactics the mods/admins on Gamespot have done. Since they decided to censor my comments over there, I'll post it here where it is outside their jurisdiction.
It is with sadness to report that the leader of the Christian Witness Union, Crushmaster, has been banned from Gamespot. I don't know of all the details, but it has something to do with him expressing the Christian viewpoint on something. He is a strong Christian who will be missed very much.
It is no secret that expressing the Christian viewpoint on any issue on Gamespot has become harder as time goes on. I have also noticed that a lot of the Gamespot mods/admins, even some of those who claim to be Christian themselves, will be hostile towards the Christian user. What they claim violates the TOU is so subjective, that they might as well say that any viewpoint that they don't like violates the TOU.
I know that Gamespot is primarily a video game site. But we do a lot of talking on other subjects. The Christian perspective on many issues is not a politically correct perspective and never will be. If Gamespot doesn't want the Christian perspective expressed, then they might as well come out and say it, instead of making Christians do an enormous amount of "verbal acrobating" in an attempt to word the Christian perspective in accordance to their personal interpretation of the TOU.
I know that Gamespot wants everyone to be respectful. However, being respectful should not require softening or compromising the Christian persective on the issues.
In addition to not being able to express the Christian perspective on various issues on Gamespot, there is also evidence of other people saying insulting things about Christians with the mods/admins not removing it despite it being reported.
Here is a 1 hour video called Speechless - Silencing The Christians
http://www.silencingchristians.com
I am getting sick and tired of the mods/admins trying to hide behind the TOS to justify giving Christians a hard time and to promote immorality.
When I agreed to the TOS, I didn't agree to having the Christian world view on the issues being censored.
What happens is that when someone says something about homosexuality that someone doesn't like, they report it to the mods/admins. Then the individual mod/admin use their own judgement (not the TOS) to decide if the statement is offensive and then *claim* that it violates the TOS. I do not advocate any violence against those who practice homosexuality, but I cannot change the fact that homosexuality is contrary to God's teachings. If saying that is contrary to the TOS, then the TOS is anti-Christian.
When the mods/admins go before God on the day of Judgement, He will not accept the excuse, "we went by the TOS" if the TOS is contrary to God's law.
The mods/admins should not take the view that questioning homosexual actions is some kind of "stereotyping" or being offensive. For example, when I'm in a political discussion talking about the reason why homosexuals are not wanted in the military, the issues should be left open to discussion or debate. It should not be arbitrarily decided by a mod/admin that the reasons themselves are offensive when they are genuine concerns of the military, and then moderate the post and hinder discussion on the issue in the process.
The mods are trying to make it look as if it is limited to the tos, but it's much more than that. The mods are moderating for things not specifically mentioned in the tos and then saying that it violates the tos. So they really are using their own interpretation and not going by what is specifically mentioned.
The fact that the mods/admins are making rules that make Christian expression on Gamespot harder is proof of that.
It's not just Crushmaster, but on how the mods have been treating Christians as a whole lately. They are no better than the police in my links who are arresting them for things that do not break the law.
Moderations of these types seem to be in accordance to the individual opinion of the moderator that happens to come across it. For example, btaylor2404 might not moderate a person quoting Bible verses against homosexuality, but another moderator might. The TOU says not to make offensive comments, but what constitutes being offensive seems to be up to the individual moderators. Homosexuals and the people who support them as a whole are known to find any negative comment about homosexuals as offensive, regardless on how diplomatic the wording is, so I would not trust that kind of judgement to decide what is offensive.
It is with sadness to report that the leader of the Christian Witness Union, Crushmaster, has been banned from Gamespot. I don't know of all the details, but it has something to do with him expressing the Christian viewpoint on something. He is a strong Christian who will be missed very much.
It is no secret that expressing the Christian viewpoint on any issue on Gamespot has become harder as time goes on. I have also noticed that a lot of the Gamespot mods/admins, even some of those who claim to be Christian themselves, will be hostile towards the Christian user. What they claim violates the TOU is so subjective, that they might as well say that any viewpoint that they don't like violates the TOU.
I know that Gamespot is primarily a video game site. But we do a lot of talking on other subjects. The Christian perspective on many issues is not a politically correct perspective and never will be. If Gamespot doesn't want the Christian perspective expressed, then they might as well come out and say it, instead of making Christians do an enormous amount of "verbal acrobating" in an attempt to word the Christian perspective in accordance to their personal interpretation of the TOU.
I know that Gamespot wants everyone to be respectful. However, being respectful should not require softening or compromising the Christian persective on the issues.
In addition to not being able to express the Christian perspective on various issues on Gamespot, there is also evidence of other people saying insulting things about Christians with the mods/admins not removing it despite it being reported.
Here is a 1 hour video called Speechless - Silencing The Christians
http://www.silencingchristians.com
I am getting sick and tired of the mods/admins trying to hide behind the TOS to justify giving Christians a hard time and to promote immorality.
When I agreed to the TOS, I didn't agree to having the Christian world view on the issues being censored.
What happens is that when someone says something about homosexuality that someone doesn't like, they report it to the mods/admins. Then the individual mod/admin use their own judgement (not the TOS) to decide if the statement is offensive and then *claim* that it violates the TOS. I do not advocate any violence against those who practice homosexuality, but I cannot change the fact that homosexuality is contrary to God's teachings. If saying that is contrary to the TOS, then the TOS is anti-Christian.
When the mods/admins go before God on the day of Judgement, He will not accept the excuse, "we went by the TOS" if the TOS is contrary to God's law.
The mods/admins should not take the view that questioning homosexual actions is some kind of "stereotyping" or being offensive. For example, when I'm in a political discussion talking about the reason why homosexuals are not wanted in the military, the issues should be left open to discussion or debate. It should not be arbitrarily decided by a mod/admin that the reasons themselves are offensive when they are genuine concerns of the military, and then moderate the post and hinder discussion on the issue in the process.
The mods are trying to make it look as if it is limited to the tos, but it's much more than that. The mods are moderating for things not specifically mentioned in the tos and then saying that it violates the tos. So they really are using their own interpretation and not going by what is specifically mentioned.
The fact that the mods/admins are making rules that make Christian expression on Gamespot harder is proof of that.
It's not just Crushmaster, but on how the mods have been treating Christians as a whole lately. They are no better than the police in my links who are arresting them for things that do not break the law.
Moderations of these types seem to be in accordance to the individual opinion of the moderator that happens to come across it. For example, btaylor2404 might not moderate a person quoting Bible verses against homosexuality, but another moderator might. The TOU says not to make offensive comments, but what constitutes being offensive seems to be up to the individual moderators. Homosexuals and the people who support them as a whole are known to find any negative comment about homosexuals as offensive, regardless on how diplomatic the wording is, so I would not trust that kind of judgement to decide what is offensive.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Veganism is crazy over the honey issue!
I'm not vegan, but I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means that I eat a plant based diet with dairy and eggs. However, I am really turned off by the attitude that a lot of vegans have over the honey issue. Vegans say that honey is an animal product and that anyone who consumes it should not call themselves a vegan. Others disagree and say that honey is really processed flower nectar. Unlike meat, dairy and eggs, honey is a product that bees process, not produce from their bodies like the other three.
I believe that the vegan community should stop making a federal case over the honey issue, and accept people who call themselves vegan that use honey personally that still agree with the rest of the vegan philosophy. Making a major case over the honey issue makes the vegan movement look very dogmatic to outsiders and turns people off from considering becoming vegan. This attitude also hurts the cows, pigs, sheep, etc because less people join the vegan movement over the honey issue.
Fortunately, there are some vegan associations who are not dogmatic over the honey issue such as Vegan Outreach:
article
I hope that someday, the definition of the word vegan will be officially changed to allow for honey consumption. In actual practise, that may have largely happened already.
I believe that the vegan community should stop making a federal case over the honey issue, and accept people who call themselves vegan that use honey personally that still agree with the rest of the vegan philosophy. Making a major case over the honey issue makes the vegan movement look very dogmatic to outsiders and turns people off from considering becoming vegan. This attitude also hurts the cows, pigs, sheep, etc because less people join the vegan movement over the honey issue.
Fortunately, there are some vegan associations who are not dogmatic over the honey issue such as Vegan Outreach:
article
I hope that someday, the definition of the word vegan will be officially changed to allow for honey consumption. In actual practise, that may have largely happened already.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
The Aftermath of Sodom and Gomorrah
This 30 minute video shows all the scientific details of what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. A very visual and educational video of the Biblical account:
video
video
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Do you believe the Genesis account to be literal?
I am very surprised that many Christians do not believe that the creation account in the book of Genesis is literal. Many Christians believe that the creation account in Genesis is myth that is not accurate history and that God gave it just to satisfy man's "primitave" thinking back in ancient days.
I also know that these same people do not believe that Adam and Eve were literal people. From what I can tell from searches, Genesis 1-11 is the "myth" part of the book.
I have nothing personal against the people who hold this view, but I am very disturbed by the number of Christians who hold it. It's not just one place I've checked this, but with Christian at other locations as well. To me, it seems as if they are putting man-made teachings over the Bible and using man-made teachings to interpret the Bible. Don't get me wrong. True science can verify the Bible, but science tainted with evolutionary concepts or other man-made concepts that are not scientific to begin with, is not going to give the right answer.
I also know that these same people do not believe that Adam and Eve were literal people. From what I can tell from searches, Genesis 1-11 is the "myth" part of the book.
I have nothing personal against the people who hold this view, but I am very disturbed by the number of Christians who hold it. It's not just one place I've checked this, but with Christian at other locations as well. To me, it seems as if they are putting man-made teachings over the Bible and using man-made teachings to interpret the Bible. Don't get me wrong. True science can verify the Bible, but science tainted with evolutionary concepts or other man-made concepts that are not scientific to begin with, is not going to give the right answer.
Thursday, 13 November 2008
“Coming out” puts adolescents at risk
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Same-Sex "Marriage" Supporters Furious at California Loss: Lawsuits Filed Challenging Proposition 8
By Kathleen Gilbert
SACRAMENTO, California, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Hours after Californians won the battle to protect the true definition of marriage through Proposition 8, numerous lawsuits have been filed in California courts by frustrated homosexualist activists bent on overruling the voter-approved amendment.
Three lawyers filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday claiming that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, rather than an amendment. Proposition 8 adds to the state constitution the sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign, told the LA Times, in response to the flurry of lawsuits. "But they don’t. They go behind the people’s back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
In all three states in the US where same-sex “marriage” is or has been legal, it was imposed by a court decision and not by the legislature or the citizens.
Having won one of the most hard-fought battles in the 2008 election, Proposition 8 overturned the May ruling of four activist judges who declared same-sex “marriage” legal in California. This ruling was handed down despite the strong majority of Californians who had voted to include the true definition of marriage in the state’s Family Code in 2000.
The victory of Proposition 8, and that of similar legislation in Florida and Arizona, was met with jubilation from pro-family advocates Wednesday as a strong sign of hope for true marriage protection across the country.
But homosexual couples and lobbyists nationwide are seeing red now that same-sex “marriage” has suffered a massive blow.
The first lawsuit against Proposition 8 came from the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles brought a second case against the new legislation to court. The third came from Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred on behalf of a "married" lesbian couple. Homosexual rights groups are arguing that the constitution's “core commitment to equality for everyone" has been violated by the true marriage amendment.
Besides the lawsuits, reports of threats aimed at Christian and other religious groups have been pouring in since it became clear that Proposition 8 would pass.
In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on Queerty.com, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”
“Jonathan” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”
Meanwhile, at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
And on the Americablog.com Web site, “scottinsf” posted, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, said, “This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they’re not happy with a political outcome.
"This is criminal activity. The homosexual lobby is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’"
But now that the homosexual lobby is on the defensive, says Barber, they pull out all the stops in expressing their violent hate for religious believers and supporters of true marriage.
"Imagine if Christian Web sites were advocating such violence against homosexuals," he emphasizes. "There’d be outrage, and rightfully so. It’d be national front-page news."
source
Jemdude's comments:
Do you notice that homosexuals claim to promote "tolerance" but do not practice it in return? What hatred and violence they promote!
SACRAMENTO, California, November 6, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Hours after Californians won the battle to protect the true definition of marriage through Proposition 8, numerous lawsuits have been filed in California courts by frustrated homosexualist activists bent on overruling the voter-approved amendment.
Three lawyers filed separate lawsuits on Wednesday claiming that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, rather than an amendment. Proposition 8 adds to the state constitution the sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign, told the LA Times, in response to the flurry of lawsuits. "But they don’t. They go behind the people’s back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
In all three states in the US where same-sex “marriage” is or has been legal, it was imposed by a court decision and not by the legislature or the citizens.
Having won one of the most hard-fought battles in the 2008 election, Proposition 8 overturned the May ruling of four activist judges who declared same-sex “marriage” legal in California. This ruling was handed down despite the strong majority of Californians who had voted to include the true definition of marriage in the state’s Family Code in 2000.
The victory of Proposition 8, and that of similar legislation in Florida and Arizona, was met with jubilation from pro-family advocates Wednesday as a strong sign of hope for true marriage protection across the country.
But homosexual couples and lobbyists nationwide are seeing red now that same-sex “marriage” has suffered a massive blow.
The first lawsuit against Proposition 8 came from the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles brought a second case against the new legislation to court. The third came from Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred on behalf of a "married" lesbian couple. Homosexual rights groups are arguing that the constitution's “core commitment to equality for everyone" has been violated by the true marriage amendment.
Besides the lawsuits, reports of threats aimed at Christian and other religious groups have been pouring in since it became clear that Proposition 8 would pass.
In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on Queerty.com, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”
“Jonathan” warned, “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”
Meanwhile, at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
And on the Americablog.com Web site, “scottinsf” posted, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel, said, “This is not just a matter of some people blowing off steam because they’re not happy with a political outcome.
"This is criminal activity. The homosexual lobby is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’"
But now that the homosexual lobby is on the defensive, says Barber, they pull out all the stops in expressing their violent hate for religious believers and supporters of true marriage.
"Imagine if Christian Web sites were advocating such violence against homosexuals," he emphasizes. "There’d be outrage, and rightfully so. It’d be national front-page news."
source
Jemdude's comments:
Do you notice that homosexuals claim to promote "tolerance" but do not practice it in return? What hatred and violence they promote!
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
How do I take my mind off the things of this world?
I'll tell you how I don't do it. It's not by going to "nosteliga boards" where you have moderators and posters like greenhornet, Mighty Markie, and Bloviator who support 21 Century political correctness over the family values that those earlier eras truly represented. I do it by watching TV Land and Dejaview in Canada and watching shows like Hart to Hart and Fantasy Island, and Three's Company, and Cosby Show, etc.
Monday, 29 September 2008
Jemdude is running for public office!
That's right. I am officially running as a candidate for the Christian Heritage Party. I am very proud that I am providing a moral alternative to the other parties out there.