Verse Of The Day

Support Our Dear Friend And Brother Nelson Domingues

Friday, October 31, 2008

Christians Backing Obama

This was sent to me by my good friend and Pastor Dan, Incredible!  What's incredible you say? That so many Christians are voting to place this man in office despite what he believes and dispite what he says he will do once he is there.  Once again the term "Born again Christian" needs to be clearly defined when reading statistics.   I have also placed a link to an article that was  posted on another page which one of the associate Pastors of my church, New Covenant Community Church posted on his facebook page.  Very interesting reading.  As always all comments are welcomed.


Why 'born-again' Christians are backing Obama

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Vote Your Faith

For those who feel that our, and by our I mean Christians, have had no influence or currently do not have any profound effect on our nation, should read the article.  Lets not forget that the Lord moves his hand over politics as well.


Vote Your Faith

The past few years have shown that evangelical-Christian voter turnout has a huge impact on our culture. It’s estimated that there are about sixty million evangelical Christians in America. During the four elections between 1992–2002, the number of voting Christians declined. In 2002, however, something sparked an interest and polls showed a 2% increase in Christian voter turnout. As a result, 36 of the 54 new House members were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (67%). Likewise were 8 of the 10 new Senators (80%).


In 2004, the trend continued with a 93% rise in Christians voting! That dramatic increase gave pro-life candidates huge majorities in the House and Senate. In fact, 25 of the 40 new House members were pro-life (63%) and 7 of the 9 new Senators were pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family (77%). 

What impact did this have? Historian David Barton summarizes: "The result was the congressional enactment of the first four major stand-alone pro-life laws since 
Roe v. Wade: the Infants Born Alive Protection Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and the Fetal Farming Ban...Furthermore, the addition of so many new pro-life Senators resulted in the confirmation of two new pro-life Supreme Court Justices and dozens of pro-life court of appeals and federal district court judges."

But in 2006, something 
changed. While 92.5% of homosexual men and 91% of lesbian women voted, there was a 30% drop in Christians voting. What happened as a result? Only 17 of the 54 new House members were pro-life (30%) and only 1 of the 10 new Senators was (10%). The Baltimore Sun reported that America voted in "the most pro-choice Congress in the history of the Republic."

In short, Congress never reflects the values of the nation; rather, it only reflects the values of those who voted in the last election. When a Christian votes according to biblical convictions, it makes a huge difference! 

CSE encourages you to exercise your Christian civic duty and vote for your pro-life, pro-faith, and pro-family candidates and issues on November 4!

For more details and information:

Adobe Acrobat

Christians And Halloween - Big Deal Or Not?

Well folks it's that time of year again, Halloween.  And this nearly marks the one year anniversary of one of my first postings on this blog Should Christians Celebrate Halloween?

I have Incorporated a different and short article on Halloween and once again no matter what you decide to do this Holiday please be careful.  However, there is one thing I would love for believers to keep in mind during this holiday.  No matter how you attempt to "sugarcoat" this holiday with the picture of a little baby dressed up as a bumble bee or a lady bug, don't kid yourself.  There is more going on in the spiritual realm than you are aware of, Paul said "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

C.S. Lewis once stated in his book, The Screwtape Letters,  "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils.  One is to disbelieve in their existence.  The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.  They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."  

Enjoy the article......


A Night When Evil Is Celebrated

Few festivals give Christians in the Western world more cause for debate than Halloween. To some Christians, it is merely a harmless time of year when children get to dress up and play games. To others, it is indicative of the prevailing godless worldview—a celebration in which children are encouraged to beg from their neighbors, while playing with traditions that date back to the most dangerous pagan occult practices.

The history of Halloween should give cause for concern. It was originally the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain. This was a night when the spirits of the dead allegedly walked abroad, and it was thought that they could be conjured to do the will of those who summoned them. So, as the church in medieval times began to replace pagan festivals with Christian celebrations, Christmas replaced the Saturnalia festivals, and Samhain was replaced by All Souls’ Day on November 2, All Saints’ Day on November 1, and All Saint’s Eve on October 31. An old English word for holy (sanctified) is hallow, so October 31 was Hallows’ E’en.

Throughout the ages, the old pagan ways began to creep back into these “Christianized” festivals—and none more so than Halloween. Far from a celebration of Christian souls, it returned to its roots of summoning the dead. One ancient English tradition has families lighting candles in a sinister attempt to draw back the souls of dead relatives to the house. In Northern England, this was associated in the Middle Ages with the practice of Mischieving—from which the tradition of “trick-or-treating” is derived. These mischiefs usually involved doing damage to property and blaming it on the spirits of the dead. In more modern times, this has developed into the practice, in some places, where older children demand treats or money in exchange for not cursing the property.

Many parents who encourage their children to go trick-or-treating may not realize the occult background to this practice and simply see the activity as harmless fun. This may unwittingly lay their children open to all sorts of evil influence. In recent years, the police services in the U.K. and the U.S. have put officers on high alert at Halloween because of the growth of anti-social and vandalous behavior.

While I would argue that Halloween has always been a dubious and anti-Christian festival, carefully observant parents have noticed that in recent years the godless nature of the event has increased and realize that even more caution is warranted. This problem has occurred hand-in-hand with the slide into godlessness generally associated with an evolutionary worldview, in which God is not central to our lives, and death and the occult are glorified, rather than abhorred.

This leads us to the important issue of how Christians should respond to the festival. I would suggest the following:

  1. I, personally, urge Christians not to take part in the festival. The world of evil is very real, and we should not carelessly expose our children to it.
  2. If your children are being encouraged to take part in Halloween-related activities at their schools against your wishes, then contact the schools and voice your concerns.
  3. Consider giving tracts (U.S. | U.K./Europe) instead of (or in addition to) giving them sweets or money. The ReachOut Trust (www.reachouttrust.org) also has many good tracts written for even very young children and include a gospel presentation for their parents.
  4. Consider an alternative. Many churches today are organizing “Light” parties or “Hallelujah” parties or other similar events that focus the children’s attention on the Bible and on Jesus. Another positive alternative would be to have a “Reformation Party” to mark the fact that October 31 is the anniversary of the day when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg.
- AIG

Saturday, October 25, 2008

How Profound Is Your Vote O' Christian?

About a week ago I was listening to the Albert Mohler show. You guessed the topic, they discussed Obama and focused on abortion. I was able to find the article version of the show and incorporated it in the posting below after my own comments. This has certainly been something looming in my mind over the past several weeks as various conversations have taken place at work and at home. I still fail to realize ultimately how Obama is gaining the vote of many Christians in this country. While I do realize that most of the U.S. "believe in God" this is an extremely false statement and not all of those who participated in the poll are actually born again Christians.


"Surveys regularly receive front-page coverage for reporting, as the 2008 Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey did, that nearly all Americans believe in God. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life concluded that 92% of Americans are believers and that only 5% of Americans don't believe in God (3% gave some other answer, didn't know, or refused to answer)..........."



"........And it makes it seem as though most of those who claim to be "believers" believe pretty much the same things — though this is manifestly false. It encourages the sense that there are two kinds of Americans, the overwhelming majority who believe and belong, and those few do not believe, and are outsiders. But the conventional wisdom that nearly all Americans believe in God is wrong."


The number of Americans who "believe in God" would drastically decline if you add some simple little filters in, such as "how often do you read your bible?" and "how often do you attend church?" etc.... Not everyone who says they are a Christian is actually a Christian just as the one who lives in a garage is not actually a car. And not everyone who says they believe in God is referring to the same God which in our case would be the Judeo Christian God of the Bible, but rather they are referencing what they believe God is to be. Do you see how the door is opened for so much of a variable?


So for the latter portion of my post I'm simply addressing those who actually consider themselves to be born again believers who are regularly in the word, repenting and exercising faith on an ongoing basis, and have an unending hunger for a renewing relationship with the Lord etc...



What's the point? Well, for those who are voting for Obama and are not regularly reading their bible fail to see where he is in direct opposition with Jesus Christ. This, in my opinion, is the only way that I can see why genuine Christians are wanting to place Obama in the president's seat. It's obviously not God's will for both of these men (McCain and Obama) to be in office is it? So which would God have lead? I don't know for sure (but I obviously have my suspicions) and although God is sovereign we still have a responsibility to vote wisely and in the best interest of the future kingdom which is still being added to daily, praise God. I just want to make believers aware of the severity of how they vote. And while I'll attempt to respect who it is you end up voting for I can't help but feel the truth and sting of Albert Mohler's words;


"Our vote will determine whether millions of unborn babies live or die"


Is this not the truth? Is it possible that if we vote for Obama that we will aid in the killing of millions of Innocent lives? I am compelled to say "YES YES and YES! Judge for yourself after reading the article if you think your vote has no profound effect on the future of our country's values. And let me remind you that we are only focusing on abortion here, we have not touched on how everything will be re-defined if gay marriage is forced to be recognized. The words "husband" and "wife" will be obsolete and no longer exist but will be replaced for your children when learning it in school to "partner".


But maybe it's for you as I've heard one Christian state "it's no skin off of my back" (nothing personal to the one who made the quote)


Enjoy the article.

The shadow of abortion looms large over the American conscience. Over thirty years after Roe v. Wade, the abortion controversy has not gone away. If the U.S. Supreme Court majority really thought that their decision to create a new "right" to abortion would resolve the issue, history has rejected that assumption. The nation is even more divided on this question in 2008 than it was in 1973.

Each new presidential election is greeted by some with hopes that the abortion issue will go away. The controversy resists disappearance. It cannot merely go away, because both sides in the controversy see the issue in ultimate terms.

The worldview clash is never more clearly revealed than on this grave question. One side defines the issue in terms of a woman's right to control her own destiny. Then, as now, abortion advocates argue that access to abortion is necessary in order to level the playing field between men and women. Feminists argued that abortion rights were and are absolutely necessary to a woman's autonomy and privacy. Abortion rights advocates have argued amongst themselves over the question of whether to admit that the killing of an unborn child is even a tragedy. Whatever the admission, the unborn child's intrinsic right to life is denied. In the classic form of this argument, a woman must have the right to an abortion at anywhere, any time, for any reason, whether or not she can pay for it.

The other side of the argument looks to the unborn child as the most significant moral question. This side bases its assumptions on the claim that a human being, at any stage of development, has an intrinsic right to life that must be respected by all humanity. Thus, any pregnancy that ends in the death of the child is a tragedy. The only distinction between the death of that unborn child and the death of a child after its birth is that the unborn child is not yet known by others to the extent the child born alive soon comes to be known. A miscarriage, like any other natural death, is a tragedy marked by loss and grief. An abortion, like any other taking of innocent human life, is an act of moral treachery.

For the better part of four decades, some have attempted to find a middle ground between these two positions, but to no avail. The reason quickly becomes clear. If abortion is to be understood as a fundamental right, no woman can be denied the exercise of that right. If abortion is the taking of innocent human life, no justification can be offered for abortion as a means of ending an unwanted pregnancy -- none at all. Middle ground would be possible only if we can assume that the right to abortion is not fundamental, but merely provisional, and that the unborn child does not have an intrinsic right to life, but only a provisional right. Efforts to frame the issue in this way fail because neither of these assumptions can be qualified in this way and remain coherent.

Abortion is back front and center in the 2008 presidential race. Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party Platform call for a reversal of Roe v. Wade and are against any notion of abortion as a fundamental right. Both the candidate and the platform call for specific measures to curtail access to abortion and to lead, eventually, to the end of abortion on demand.

Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party Platform call for a stalwart and enthusiastic defense of Roe v. Wade and for expanded access to abortion. In the case of Sen. Obama, his advocacy of abortion rights goes considerably beyond where any major candidate has ever gone before.

In a recent essay, Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University makes the case that Sen. Obama is "the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States." Further: "He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress"

This is quite a claim, but Professor George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, argues his case convincingly.

First:

For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen.

Second:

He has promised that ''the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act'' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, ''a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.'' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would ''sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.''

Third:

Obama, unlike even many ''pro-choice'' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a ''punishment'' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing ''pro-choice'' about that.

In addition:

In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.

Anyone who takes the issue of abortion with moral seriousness should look closely at Professor George's essay, for it makes his case convincingly, adding many points of argument and evidence to those cited above. Beyond Professor George's essay, take a look for yourself at the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA] Sen. Obama has pledged to sign -- even as a first act in office as President.

The FOCA establishes the right to an abortion as a fundamental right, ensuring that abortion rights would remain in force even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. The act would also repeal provisions that limit federal funding of abortion, strip doctors of "conscience clauses" that allow them not to perform abortions, and nullify state provisions that allow for waiting periods, counseling, and parental notification when a minor is involved. Support for this provision would alone suffice to characterize Sen. Obama's position as radical and to sustain Professor George's argument.

The fact is that Sen. Barack Obama has never voted to support any measure that would, in itself, lead to any reduction in the number of abortions performed. He also appears never to have failed to support any provision -- however radical -- that would expand access to abortion. He even opposes a ban on partial birth abortions.

Some now argue that pro-life voters can nevertheless vote for Sen. Obama. As Professor George argues, this is delusional.

There are signs of fatigue among Christians on this issue. Some argue that the sanctity of life issue is simply one among many important issues. Without doubt, we are faced with many urgent and important issues. Nevertheless, every voter must come to terms with what issues matter most in the electoral decision. At some point, every voter is a potential "single issue" voter. Some issues simply eclipse others.

This is the case with the sanctity of human life. I can understand the fatigue. So little progress seems to have been made. So much ground has been lost. So many unborn babies have been aborted. The culture has turned increasingly hostile to this commitment, especially among the young. There is a sense that many want to get on with other issues.

There is fatigue and frustration with the Republican Party and with limited progress. There is frustration with mixed signals and missed opportunities. There is the acknowledgment that we have too often been told what we want to hear and then been ignored.

There is the sense that the battle has grown old -- along with those who are fighting it. There are signs that the culture is closing its ears. We all have other concerns as well. Can we make any progress on those if we remain tenaciously committed to opposing abortion?

Yet, there is the reality that we face a choice. This is a limited choice. And we cannot evade responsibility for the question of abortion. Our vote will determine whether millions of unborn babies live or die. The Freedom of Choice Act, if passed, would lead directly to a radical increase in the numbers of abortions. The abortion industry has told us that themselves.

The question comes down to this: How many lives are we willing to forfeit -- to write off as expendable -- in order to "move on" to other issues of concern? There is no way to avoid that question and remain morally serious. The voting booth is no place to hide.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Something Christians Should Be Aware Of - A Great Possibility If Obama Is Elected

I wanted to share this article with you because I believe it's something to be extremely aware of when voting for a candidate.  And while I'm not attempting to dissuade anyone's vote I can't help but feel that I have an obligation to expose false notions made by some who profess to be Christian.  When it comes down to it all, I believe it is very simple.  In my opinion, everything that Barack stands for and most of the laws that he is trying to pass goes against the law of God.  People who say things such as "what does it matter who we choose?" and "we don't draw our beliefs from our countries president...." fail to realize that when they elect a president they are also electing all those under him in authority who will either set laws in place or rid of existing laws that we have already worked so hard to put in place.  For the person who claims  they draw their beliefs from the word of God, if Barack is appointed, may not be able to believe and have the choice they once had.   This is not a Christians bash Obama session!  This is about choosing wisely the person who is most in line with our views which we draw from God and His Word.  Lets stop putting our own opinions in and start reading what His word says.  We can know the mind of God now because He left us this precious, infallible, historically accurate and trustworthy love letter


B
arack Obama is an impressive speaker who presents himself as a “bridge builder” that will unite Americans of all political persuasions. Obama also speaks openly about his faith and his respect for pro-life and pro-family voters in a way not seen in many recent Democratic candidates for President. Because of these things, many Christians have been considering voting for Obama. 
What Christians and other people of faith need to understand is that in spite of Obama’s rhetoric about being a “uniter” who will work for common ground, Obama’s policies could not possibly be more opposed to the views of social conservatives. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to state that an Obama presidency could undo every single gain that has been made in recent years by pro-life and pro-family Americans. Furthermore, an Obama presidency could usher in a new era of difficulty—or, dare we say, even a persecution—for Christians in the United States the likes of which we have never seen.
All Christian voters need to take their political responsibility seriously and give weighty consideration to these reasons not to vote for Obama. And when you’re done reading, please pass this along to others so that Americans will be informed about the very real potential threats to Christians should Obama become our next President.


1. If Obama becomes President, Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be reversed for years to come
A vote for Obama is not just for Barack Obama himself, but the people whom he would place in positions of authority, most importantly, his appointments to the Supreme Court. At the time of the election five of the Supreme Court justices will be at least 70 years of age, and Justice John Paul Stevens is a ripe old 88! Therefore, it is highly likely that the next President will appoint multiple justices to the Supreme Court.
The Court is currently sharply divided and most believe that Bush’s appointments of Justices Alito and Roberts provide four of the five votes necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade. One or two more conservative justices would certainly result in reversing Roe v. Wade, which for the first time since 1973 would allow states to protect the unborn by law. On the other hand, if Obama is elected then his judicial appointments will likely provide a cushion to the current pro-abortion majority, possibly ensuring that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land for decades to come.
During this election South Dakotans will vote on a law to restrict abortion except for cases of rape, incest and maternal health. Pro-life leaders believe that this has a strong chance of passing and would be likely to come before the Supreme Court in 2011 or 2012, setting up the next major test case to Roe v. Wade. Thus, the next President is likely to determine whether Roe v. Wade stands or falls.
No other issue can compare with the gravity of the nearly 50 million precious unborn lives that have been lost—as well as the countless women and men who have been emotionally scarred—thanks to abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Christians have a duty to seize the opportunity before us in 2008 and say no more to legalized abortion and the candidates who support it.

2. Obama’s first act as president would erase every existing common sense restriction on abortion. 
Obama openly declared that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”[1] The pro-abortion rights National Organization for Women claims that this act “would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies" at all levels of government.[2] With one stroke of the pen, Obama and the Democratic Congress would wipe out all of the common sense restrictions that have been placed on abortion over past decades, including the following: [3]
· All 50 states’ requirements for state abortion reporting
· 44 states' laws concerning parental involvement
· 40 states' laws on restricting later-term abortions
· 46 states' conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
· 27 states' conscience protection laws for institutions
· 38 states' bans on partial-birth abortion
· 33 states' laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
· 28 states' laws requiring a waiting period before an abortion, and
· 16 states' laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion

3. Obama steadfastly opposed a “Born Alive Infants Protection law” in Illinois. 
While Obama was a state senator in the Illinois legislature, he defeated a bill nearly identical to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed by a vote of 98-0 in the U.S. Senate in 2001. Documents prove that Obama led his fellow Democrats on the legislative committee to kill the bill over concerns it would endanger legal abortion.[4]
These laws were introduced in response to multiple accounts of botched abortions resulting in infants being born alive and left to die. For example, Jill Stanek worked as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago and went public with the hospital’s practice of inducing premature labor for women seeking late-term abortions. Sometimes the babies were born breathing and alive, and were then left on the counter to perish. Stanek testified that one time she held a precious baby for 45 minutes until he died.
It is astonishing that Obama was so committed to protecting abortion that he could vote against this act in the face of evidence that it was going on in his own state. Obama now claims that he would have supported the federal law, but his actual voting record puts him in a more pro-abortion position than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer—and that’s hard to do! 

4. Obama and the Democrats want taxpayers to fund abortions.
The 2008 Democratic Platform states that the party “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay” (emphasis added). In other words, if a woman can’t afford an abortion, Democrats plan to force taxpayers to pick up the tab. Obama voted against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion and believes that Medicaid should cover abortions.[5] Obama would also continue giving hundreds of millions of federal funds each year to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions, as evidenced by his votes against cutting off funding for the agency as a Senator.

5. Obama would reverse the "Mexico City Policy." 
This policy, which had been started by Ronald Reagan, discontinued by Bill Clinton, and restored by George W. Bush, prevents international funding from going to organizations that promote or perform abortions. Under the Bush administration the United States government has been a thorn in the side of the powerful pro-abortion forces at the United Nations. If Obama is elected, the U.S. will switch sides and begin throwing its huge influence behind those trying to define legal abortion as an “international human right” and impose it on the rest of the world.

6. Obama wants to begin new federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Even though recent scientific advances have rendered this type of research unnecessary, Obama still wants to use taxpayer dollars to do research on stem cells that require the destruction of human embryos. John McCain previously supported federal funding embryonic stem cell research, but his website gives reason to believe that he no longer holds that position.[6] It is also worth recalling that while adult stem cells have resulted in numerous cures, embryonic stem cells have yet to produce a single cure.

7. Obama’s judicial appointees could require same-sex “marriage.”
Decisions by the state Supreme Courts in Massachusetts and California are requiring the states to recognize same-sex “marriages” for both residents and non-residents who come to the state seeking a marriage license. Not only does this give legal blessing to what Christianity has always deemed as disordered and immoral, but it has important ramifications for the rest of society too. Same-sex "marriage" by law affects business laws, threatens the tax-exempt status of churches, and shapes what is taught in schools.[7] For instance, in California, a state “tolerance” initiative now requires schools to promote a positive view of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality in the classroom.[8] Educational organizations are legally barred from receiving any state funding unless they conform to the state’s policy against the traditional family, and public schools could even be required to allow boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose. Given Obama’s stated liberal views and radical pro-gay agenda[9], it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Obama will appoint judges on the Supreme Court with similar judicial philosophies to those on the State Supreme Court in California, thus resulting in similar rulings at the federal level for the entire United States. 

8. Obama wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). 
DOMA” was passed by President Clinton and said that states could not be forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states as they ordinarily would be required to do under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. If this is overturned, then states no longer have the strength of federal law behind them if they choose to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, and could end up being required by courts to accept same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states. Obama’s website states that he “believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”[10]

9. Obama’s support for "gay rights" threatens churches and Christian organizations.
The battle over “gay rights” holds numerous threats for Christian churches and organizations. For example, in Massachusetts, the state’s largest provider of adoption services, Catholic Charities, lost its state licensing because it would not provide adoption services to homosexual couples. The same thing also recently happened to Catholic Charities in the United Kingdom. It should be noted that Obama’s website states that his support for same-sex unions specifically mentions giving gay couples "equal legal rights ... including adoption rights.”
In countries like Canada and Sweden, Christian pastors have been taken to court for “hate speech” crimes for preaching from the Scripture about the immorality of homosexual acts. Even in the United States, the Boy Scouts had to go to the Supreme Court to defend their organization’s ability to prevent homosexuals from being troop leaders. The Scouts had lost their case at the state level and only won at Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 vote. Note that the Court was within a single vote of requiring a private organization to accept leaders whose views were clearly at odds with the organization’s core Christian values. With one or two more liberal justices on the Court, the Boy Scouts and other traditional organizations could find themselves on the losing side of such cases.

10. Obama could force Christian pharmacists out of business.
Obama’s website speaks of ending “insurance discrimination against contraception.”[11] Should Obama get elected, there will be little concern given to Christians who have qualms with contraceptives, the “morning-after pill” (Plan B), and the like. Some states have already passed laws requiring pharmacists to provide so-called “emergency contraception.” In Obama’s native Illinois, the Governor issued an executive order that resulted in Christian pharmacists losing their jobs for declining to dispense the morning-after pill on conscientious grounds. Christians can expect such battles to grow nationally if Obama follows through and signs legislation requiring insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cover and provide drugs that act as abortifacients.

Some might dismiss these ten reasons as “fear-mongering” from the religious right. But should Obama get elected—and especially if he is joined by a Democratic-controlled Congress—these potential impacts are entirely reasonable to predict. In fact, most of them are simply goals that Barack Obama and the Democrats have publicly stated for all to hear. The examples cited above show that these dangers are real and are already taking place in our own country. Christians and others concerned with traditional values need to be made aware of the very real threats to their religious liberties they could face should Obama get elected.
Clearly, John McCain and Sarah Palin are worlds apart from Barack Obama and Joe Biden. McCain chose for his running mate Sarah Palin, who not only speaks about being pro-life, but has lived it out by choosing to give birth to her son with Down’s Syndrome, whom she describes as “perfect.” A McCain-Palin administration would not only be strongly pro-life and pro-family, it would provide a living testimony and constant reminder of the beauty of embracing life.
Consider John McCain’s words below and contrast them with Obama’s positions above, and the choice for people of faith in 2008 is clear:

I will look for accomplished men and women, with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment, to strictly interpreting the Constitution of the United States. I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Sam Alito, my friend the late William Rehnquist, jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference. I have been pro-life, my entire public career. I am pro-life, because I know what it is like, to live without human rights, where human life is accorded no inherent value. And I know that I have a personal obligation to advocate human rights wherever they are denied, in Bosnia or Burma, in Cuba or the Middle East, and in our own country, when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn. That is a personal testament, which you need not take on faith. You need only to examine my public record, to know that I won't change my position.
John McCain's Remarks in Speech to National Pro-Life Convention, July 22, 2008. 

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why Huntly Brown Will Not Vote For Obama

Some of you may have received a forwarded email with this info in it. I wanted to make sure this was legitimate (actually written by Huntly Brown himself) And it appears to be the real Mcoy. In any event this is definitely food for thought. These are Obama's views and should be very disturbing whether you are a Christ bearer or not. These views are not new to me as I have read them before and follow several blogs and podcasts which talk about what Obama believes. However, I do like how Huntly has compiled them here. And if you will recall the posting (which you can search for using the search tool to the right) "Bioethicists and Obama In Agreement?" this also explains some of Obama's views. Let me know what you think. Thanks

Dear Friends,

A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the
corner I decided to complete my perspective.

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support.
Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.

I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does
because He is the leader .

I can't vote black because I am black, I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should
anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be
asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell
research, and human cloning wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.

We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I
don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.

His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short
years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito.These two judges are conservatives and they have since
overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.

Lets take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist gra b s the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
B. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
C. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The
dead baby is then removed.
God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law.

Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental
notification. This is insane.

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years.

Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's
sermons. I wonder why now?

Obama said Jeremiah Wright le d him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 -
20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you
believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a

1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community .
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.

Would you support a President who went to a churc h l ike that?

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a
church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside.

This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The
church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.

A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not
matter if its a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get
my vote.

Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of
Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is
not iden tified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and
we had better kill him.

Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?

So what does all this mean for the nation?

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.

Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king.

First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over
them will do.'
Then God says
1 Samuel 1:18-22 ' When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer
you in that day.' But the pe ople refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the
other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' When Samuel he ard a ll that the people said, he
repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'


Here is what we know for sure.

God is not schizophrenic

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot
stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.

Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt
it.

For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for
Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four
supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know
he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even tho ugh yo u destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the
other way because of the economy.

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.

Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation.

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?

Blessings,
Huntley Brown

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Quote Of The Day And A Witnessing Tip

"Soul winning is the chief business of the Christian minister; indeed, it should be the main pursuit of every true believer. We should each say with Simon Peter, ‘I go a fishing,' and with Paul our aim should be, ‘That I might by all means save some.''

- Charles H. Spurgeon


Witnessing tip from Way of the Master:

What is the balance of assurance between salvation and examining oneself to see if he is in the faith?

Think of what you would do if you were wearing a parachute and waiting to jump out of a plane. You would have faith in the parachute, but you would also regularly check to make sure that the straps are firm. Once you have put on the Lord Jesus Christ through conversion (repentance and faith), you should regularly examine yourself to see how firm your relationship is with the Lord. Are you reading the Word daily? Do you have regular prayer? Are you fighting sin, or giving in to it? Are you living in holiness? Are you confessing sin? How is your relationship with other Christians? Is there any hidden bitterness against anyone? Are you sharing your faith? What is your greatest passion? Is it the Lord, or are material things more important? Do you love the world and the things in the world? On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your walk with God? It should be a ten. If it's not, strive to make it a ten . . . and at the same time relax through trust in the integrity of the God who cannot lie (after all, He issued the parachute).