Friday, January 25, 2019

A Holocaust by Any Other Name


Sunday, January 27, is Holocaust Memorial Day, when the world remembers more than six million people, mostly Jews, who were systematically exterminated under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in Germany.

It is stunning to the mind of any civilized human being that a national government could systematically, through its official channels, murder anyone—much less millions—of its own citizens, though the world has become more conscious in recent years of genocides in other countries (such as the millions allowed to starve to death or killed by other means in Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, and other countries).

As one who has a number of Jewish friends, I know it is very touchy to compare any other genocide with the one Jews experienced in Nazi Germany. But one week ago, we commemorated another--for lack of a better word--holocaust that has been going on in the United States for the past 46 years, when our Supreme Court ruled that, due to a right to privacy, a woman could legally abort the baby in her womb, and the remaining laws in almost every state against it were unconstitutional.

This holocaust has claimed roughly 60 millions lives. In 2018, abortion was responsible for 25% of all deaths in the US ; and, globally, "Abortion Named Leading Cause of Death in 2018 With 42 Million Killed."

But, even as committed as I am to the pro-life position, having founded or served on the boards of alternative Crisis Pregnancy centers in three major cities, it is still tempting to see a difference.

Seeing videos of adults being ushered into "showers" that turned out to be gas chambers and seeing the piles of bodies waiting to be put in the incinerators somehow seems more vile, more heinous than merely seeing the figures on those whose lives were silently extinguished in utero by surgical means.

But both are vile; both are heinous. And both are the result of allowing an ideology to determine the value of a life—to decide who is a person and who is not.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Popular Megachurch Pastor Says the Ten Commandments Don’t Apply to Christians


Faithwire is reporting the story this week, but Andy Stanley preached the sermon in which he is reported to have said that the Ten Commandments don’t apply to Christians anymore" in May 2018, and much of the Christian community took him to task for it, and rightly so.  Wesley Hill, of Trinity School for Ministry, wrote an excellent critique in First Things.  The Christian Post jumped on the story too:   But then they published an opposing opinion two weeks later.

My take on this when it first arose (and still is) that we are witnessing a dangerous trend among some popular evangelical preachers to jettison "unpopular" parts of Christianity.  They think that by doing it they are appealing to seekers and preserving their ability to evangelize them.  But in reality they are preaching poor theology, misconceptions, and half truths about the nature of the Bible and the Gospel, and no one can make genuine Christ-followers by doing that.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correcting, for training in righteousness..." (2 Tim. 3:16)  The Apostle Paul who wrote those words obviously had the Old Testament in mind when he said, "All Scripture..."  Paul also had plenty to say in the rest of his New Testament writings about the law as it pertains to justification by faith.  He is clear that we are not saved by keeping the law:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin" (Romans 3:20).  "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16).  "Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because 'the righteous will live by faith'" (Galatians 3:11).

But notice the line Paul quotes in Gal. 3:11, "the righteous will live by faith."  It is a quotation from Habakkuk 2:4.  Ah, so the Old Testament teaches salvation by faith also!  But is the Law—specifically the Ten Commandments, which Andy Stanley mentions in his sermon—is the Law abrogated or abolished in the New Testament?

The Law frequently appears in the teaching of Jesus.  In the Sermon on the Mount he refers very specifically to it:  "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets" (Matthew 5:17).  Here the term would seem to mean the whole of the Pentateuch: "I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished" (Matthew 5:17,18).

What Jesus really does is to bring out the fullness of meaning that is in the Law, and he declares that the righteousness of his disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20).  The righteousness of the Pharisees consisted largely in a punctilious observance of the external requirements of the Law; but Jesus' disciples must yield their hearts and their obedience to the inner spirit of the Law.

Jesus goes on to cite the Ten Commandments precept by precept and to show the inner meaning that the disciples must obey:

Matthew 5:21-22, “You have heard that it was said 'You shall not murder..."  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

Matthew 5:27-28, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5:31-32, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’  But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 5:33-34, “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’  But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all..."

Matthew 5:38-39, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.  But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Matthew 5:43-44 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."

Does any of this sound like Jesus is abolishing the Law?  No. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17).  So how did Jesus fulfill the Law?

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophets in his birth, ministry, death and resurrection.  He fulfilled the moral law by obeying it and by bringing out its true spiritual significance.  And he established it on a surer basis than ever as the eternal law of righteousness.  Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, not only by conforming to its requirements, but by fulfilling it with his offering of himself as the once-for-all sacrifice for sin, so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the Passover or repeat the daily Temple sacrifices.  But the moral law, epitomized in the Ten Commandments, remains as a reminder of the righteousness that God requires; and, thanks to the teaching of Jesus, we know that it is binding, not only on our outward actions, but on the attitudes of our hearts.

It is only by grace that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8-9); but when we are saved, we come to know that "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).  And by the power of the Holy Spirit working in us we manifest the "fruit of the Spirit... against which there is no law," in contrast with "the works of the flesh," which are against the law! (Galatians 5)

Now all of what I have just said, Andy Stanley could have learned if he paid attention in seminary, or read the right books, or even read a good article in a theological dictionary.  But this points to the real danger I am seeing in a lot of contemporary Christianity: the emphasis is more on salesmanship than it is on faithfully and accurately representing the product.

But the seriousness of this becomes clear when we realize that the Gospel is a message of words; it consists of teaching.  So when we fail to faithfully and accurately represent the product, we actually change the product.  And, to use an analogy from Chemistry, if instead of our words being sodium chloride (salt) which the Bible tells us they are supposed to be, they become potassium chloride which, in sufficient amounts, is the substance that stops the heart in a lethal injection!  And the theological shallowness of the entertainment culture that is influencing the contemporary Church is spiritually just as lethal.
 

Tuesday, January 01, 2019

Some thoughts on Bible Translation and the Textus Receptus

At the end of the 3rd century, St. Lucian of Antioch, known as Lucian the Martyr, compiled a Greek text of the New Testament that became the dominant text throughout Christendom.  It was produced prior to the Diocletian persecution (about 300 AD), during which many copies of the New Testament were confiscated and destroyed.  After the Emperor Constantine came to power early in the fourth century, the Lucian text was propagated by missionaries and bishops from the Antiochan school throughout the eastern Empire, and it soon became the standard text of the Eastern Church, and formed the basis of texts produced in Byzantium (later Constantinople).

From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium.  In 1525 Erasmus, using five or six Byzantine manuscripts from the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press, and this has subsequently been known as the Textus Receptus (or Received Text).  The translators of the King James Version had around 5,000 manuscripts available to them, and most of these were based on the Byzantine manuscripts and Erasmus’ compilation (Textus Receptus).

By the 1800’s archaeological discoveries were turning up manuscripts that were substantially older than the ones used by the King James translators, in particular the Codex Alexandrinus (Alexandrian manuscript), the Codex Vaticanus (so named because it is housed in the Vatican Library) which has been dated to the 4th century AD), and the Codex Sinaiticus (the Sinai manuscript) which is mostly identical to the Codex Vaticanus.  All three of the critical texts include at least part of the Septuagint (LXX) for the Old Testament.

B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort began work in 1853 that resulted in a Greek New Testament based on these older manuscripts.  Their work, published in 1881, has been a major influence in most modern translations such as the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, and the NIV.  The Textus Receptus is available to us today through the 1550 Stephanus New Testament and the 1894 Scrivener New Testament.  These two texts as well as Wescott and Hort’s 1881 critical text can be seen among the Greek (Koine) translations at www. biblegateway.com

When one looks at the care with which the Textus Receptus manuscripts have been preserved and especially the consistency among them, I believe the Textus Receptus is worthy of greater consideration than scholars have tended to give it.  So how should we view the differences between the Textus Receptus and the critical text?  I notice that the differences between the two consist almost entirely of additional words or phrases in the TR that do not appear in the critical text.  So, we can choose to believe either that words from the TR were inadvertently or intentionally left out at an early point in the history of the manuscripts so that what we know as the older or critical manuscripts do not contain them.  Or we can choose to believe that the extra words in the TR were the accidental or intentional additions of later scribes.

Let me illustrate with three examples:

(1) Colossians 1:14 in the TR says “in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.”  The oldest manuscripts do not contain the three words, “through his blood.”  So did a careless scribe leave them out, or did a pious scribe, perhaps thinking of the identical words in Ephesians 1:7, add them?  In any event, the fact that we are saved through the death (by the blood) of Jesus is the clear teaching of the New Testament, so the doctrine is not dependent on this one verse.

(2) Acts 8:37 does not appear in critical texts.  But in the TR, when Philip explains the passage from Isaiah that the Ethiopian eunuch is reading and the eunuch asks to be baptized, the TR says: “And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’  And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”  So which is it?  Did a careless scribe leave these words out, or did a pious scribe add them?  In this case, I think it is more likely that the words were added to the TR than that they were left out of the critical manuscripts.  But it is important to note that being saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is taught many places in the New Testament, so no point of doctrine hinges on the presence or absence of this particular verse.

(3) Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the oldest manuscripts.  Is it more likely they were left out of these oldest manuscripts or added to later ones by a pious scribe perhaps reflecting on some of the miracles in the Book of Acts?  Unless one wishes to advocate snake handling as a standard church practice, as they do in a few parts of Appalachia, it really doesn’t change any doctrines taught elsewhere in the New Testament.

It is important to note that advocates of biblical inerrancy always say the Bible is inerrant “in the original manuscripts,” which, of course, we do not have.  While some skeptics see this as a convenient dodge, I believe it is the only realistic and practical way to look at the question of inerrancy.  We can accept as an article of faith that God inspired the Scriptures in the beginning to teach us inerrantly all that he wishes us to know.  So while there may be small differences in manuscripts, they do not affect any point of doctrine.  Therefore we can be thankful that the Holy Spirit not only superintended the writing of the biblical manuscripts when they were written, he has overseen their preservation and transmission so that the Scriptures in any of the faithful translations that we have today are entirely reliable and trustworthy in all that they teach.

Addendum: In 2014, the Gideons International were looking for a new modern-language English translation to distribute alongside the venerable King James Version, which they continue to distribute.  They had been distributing the New King James Version, but Thomas Nelson publishers, which owned the NKJV was purchased by Harper Collins, and the Gideons were not able to reach an agreement to continue to use that version.  Crossway, publishers of the English Standard Version (ESV) offered to provide the Gideons with rights to use the ESV, which is a respected translation among evangelicals, but which is based on the critical text, not the Textus Receptus, which is the text underlying the King James Version.  The Gideons agreed to this arrangement, provided that they could work with Crossway to create a special edition of the ESV that included passages from the Textus Receptus that are omitted in the commercially published versions of the ESV and other translations based on the critical text.

Comparing the changes made for the Gideons to the ESV is a good way to see the differences between the Textus Receptus and the critical text.  If you are interested, you can see a table comparing the changes in this article: Gideon changes to the English Standard Version New Testament.



Friday, December 28, 2018

If You’re Over 50, Chances Are the Decision to Leave a Job Won’t be Yours

Age discrimination was supposed to be a problem we solved years ago; but alas, it is still with us.  And, in my experience, it is especially true if you are clergy.

When I was a seminary dean/president, church search committees often got in touch with us looking for a new priest.  Every congregation wanted (though they didn't realize what they were asking) a priest who was under 40 with 20 years experience!  It got to be a joke among seminary faculties.  Our response: "Yeah, and it will happen as soon as we start ordaining them fresh out of high school!"

It was especially a problem in the Episcopal Church in those days because, while congregations wanted younger priests, Commissions on Ministry were only sending older candidates to seminary and telling younger candidates to go experience the real world and come back in 5 or 10 years.  I argued at the time that we were losing a whole generation, because the brightest and best were not coming back.  That is not to disparage the second career students I have known who became excellent priests, but it did result in a statistic (at one point) where the average Episcopal priest was 57 years of age, which is not sustainable from a pension standpoint, nor does it build healthy congregations for the ranks of its clergy to be monogenerational.

Now, in the Anglican Chuch in North America (ACNA), I am seeing the opposite extreme.  Every congregation wants, and most are getting, younger priests, even if it means skipping a traditional seminary education as the normal route toward ordination.  These congregations may as well hang out a sign, saying "Older clergy need not apply."  Along with this, I saw a post on Facebook the other day chiding Anglican churches for jettisoning liturgy, emulating the neighboring megachurch, and becoming, in effect, Anglicans in name only.  What do these have in common?  The common thread is a lack of regard for liturgy, tradition, age, and wisdom--and the pursuit of the newest, latest thing, even if the benefits from that new thing are largely imaginary.

If you're an Anglican, you need to remember that a crucial part of our heritage is standing in the tradition of genuine catholicity--that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [meaning all the faithful] ("ubique, semper, et ab omnibus" in the words of the 5th century fighter of heresy, St. Vincent of Lerins).  Philosopher George Santayana's maxim "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" is nowhere more true than in theology.  There are no new heresies.  We jettison the past and those things that keep us in touch with the past at our peril.  Yet that is precisely what the Church in many places is doing today.  And, while I have met older clergy who should have been jettisoned long ago (for their heterodoxy, not their age), by and large, we need to respect our elders and the wisdom we can learn from them.

So be an advocate for the older folks you know (clergy and others).  God willing, you'll be one of them someday.

For further reading:

If You’re Over 50, Chances Are the Decision to Leave a Job Won’t be Yours

Monday, November 12, 2018

Anti-Semitism and Conservatism

Two observations based on recent events:

#1 The wave of anti-Semitic hate spreading around the world right now is frightening.  To any objective observer it should be clear that President Trump is the strongest supporter of the Jewish people we’ve ever had leading the free world.  The worst thing the left could say with any credibility is that his support for Jerusalem might anger anti-Semites, but we don’t make decisions based on the heckler’s veto.

What is causing this rise in anti-Semitism?  Who are the biggest threats?  Muslim extremists?  White Nationalists?  Could it be that those on the political left are the leading cause of anti-Semitism by their constant verbal attacks on Israel, which paint them as the oppressors and the Palestinians as the heroes?  I think so; at least they have the biggest voice, since they control most of the media.

#2 The kind of violence we have seen lately (the massacre in Pittsburgh, the vandalism of a synagogue in Irvine, CA) plays into the hands of liberals and their attempts to blame conservatives for Anti-Semitism, even though an increasing part of it is coming from liberals.  But we do occasionally see anti-Semitic expressions and actions on the part of people who otherwise identify as political conservatives.  So I strongly wish that conservatives could disown and disavow anti-Semites once and for all.

I look at the Pittsburgh shooter and I wonder what did a Jew or Jews collectively ever do to this man to make him hate so much?  The answer is probably nothing; it's just that he filled his head with all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories.  Life dealt him a bad hand, and he had to blame somebody.  But this kind of insane violence isn't the constitutional republic we call America; and principled conservatives need to drive a stake through the heart of this evil so it no longer rears its ugly head.
 

Saturday, September 08, 2018

Statehood for Washington, D.C?


There is a petition going around to grant statehood to Washington, DC.  Proponents argue that "The United States is the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies voting representation in the national legislature to citizens of the capital.  In addition to paying federal taxes, District residents pay local taxes and bear all the responsibilities associated with citizenship."

The proponents even quote Vice President Pence, who supported statehood for the District of Columbia in 2009, when he was a Representative in Congress (prior to being Governor of Indiana).  They conveniently omit mention of the fact that Vice Pres. Pence has changed his opinion in the years since.

What proponents of statehood for D.C. don't consider is, if the US is the only nation that denies voting representation in Congress to its capital city, then why not abolish the District of Columbia and return the land and population to Maryland and Virginia?

A little history: The "Residence Act" on July 16, 1790, approved the creation of a capital district located along the Potomac River on the country's East Coast.  The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress and the District is therefore not a part of any state.  The states of Maryland and Virginia each donated land to form the federal district.

So returning the land and the people living on it to those respective states would give them voting representation in Congress.  Rhode Island may be a small state, but a one-city state with the voting power of a state is preposterous.  Why not the State of Chicago?  Or the State of Los Angeles?  Or maybe a separate state of New York, New York?

If every city the size of Washington, D.C. wanted to be a separate city, it would add 22 states to the US.  The New York City boroughs of Manhattan and The Bronx are twice the size of Washington, D.C.  The Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn are four times as large.

There are 693,000 people in Washington, D.C.  I don't have the exact numbers of people who would be added to Maryland and Virginia if the land were returned to each state.  But if it were divided anywhere close to equally, that would be slightly under 350,000 people added to each state.

The population of Maryland is 6 million; the population of Virginia is 8.5 million, making them 12th and 19th among the 50 states.  The addition of 350,000 people would move Maryland up one notch and not move Virginia up in the rankings at all.  They can handle it.  And if they say they can't, it is most likely because they and the residents of Washington, D.C. want to add seats in Congress for one particular political party.  Care to guess which one?

(Before anyone objects, I readily admit my own biases in the matter.  But I also believe my argument stands on its own merits.)

Friday, August 17, 2018

Antifa vs. Brown Shirts: Two Peas in a Pod

It appears that I was ahead of my time. As a freshman in high school (well before anyone postulated the "horseshoe theory), I wrote a paper (not as a class assignment but for myself) in which I I concluded that the commonly-regarded "two ends" of the political spectrum not merely formed a horseshoe but, in fact, a complete circle.

The real spectrum is between totalitarianism on the one hand and the constitutional rule of law with democratic elections and freedom of choice on the other. But these are better represented as opposite sides of a circle than either a straight line or a horseshoe.

Fascism and Socialism both oppress people in totalitarian systems, regardless whether it is popularism on the left or right that draws people toward one of these views. Both draw people into regimented movements where freedom disappears.

This is why Orwell's "1984" could be describing either a Communist or a Fascist government. It does not matter: personal freedom has been destroyed in either case. There is only the will of a dictator that everyone must obey, whether that is termed as "the collective good" or whatever. So whether you go to the left or the right, when you move away from a constitutional republic, you end up in the same place.

And on a practical level, I would say that anyone who cannot see the similarity between Antifa and the Nazi Brown Shirts is biased and blind. Antifa may be opposing what they call fascism, but their violent intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them means that if they had the political upper hand, they would impose their ideology just as rigidly as any Fascist or Communist government ever has, most likely under the charisma of a leader who would rise to the top and become a Big Brother.

It is also worth remembering that Nazism stood for "National Socialist German Workers' Party." The only thing that separated German "National Socialism" from Soviet Socialism and the borderless, globalist socialism we are seeing today was pride in their nation and race and the fact that some private ownership of property was retained, as long as it served the national interest.

(For those not familiar with it, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite ends political spectrum, in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. This view tends toward the view I proposed except they didn't close the circle.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

See also: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/16/report-young-americans-prefer-socialism-to-capitalism/

Monday, July 30, 2018

Scientists identify mystery liquid in Egyptian sarcophagus

From here, where there are more photos.
A POOL of murky, red liquid found around three mummies in an Egyptian sarcophagus has been analysed by scientists.

THE unsettling red liquid pooled around three decomposed mummies found inside a 2000-year-old burial chamber in the historic port city of Alexandria in Egypt has taken on a life of its own.

Horrifying images of a trio of skeletons floating in the murky soup led to rumours the “mummy juice” contained medicinal or supernatural properties, with locals anxious to bottle the stuff.

Others feared its odd colouring signified the presence of a metal such as mercury.

The large, black granite sarcophagus was unearthed in the Sidi Gaber district earlier this month and cracked open despite fears that doing so would unleash an ancient curse.

The General Secretary of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Dr Moustafa Waziri dismissed early speculation the tomb could contain the remains of Alexander the Great, saying instead it may have belonged to a priest.

However, the discovery of possible arrow damage to one of the skulls means the bones probably belonged to military officials, according to a statement released by Egypt’s Ministry of Antiquities yesterday.

Authorities also revealed the liquid was neither “juice for mummies that contains an elixir of life” nor “red mercury” but something far more pedestrian — sewage water.

But the ugly — or in this case — smelly truth has failed to scare off the believers, even inspiring an online campaign.

A change.org petition entitled “let the people drink the red liquid from the dark sarcophagus” has attracted more than 16,000 signatures.
A screenshot of the change.org petition
“We need to drink the red liquid from the cursed dark sarcophagus in the form of some sort of carbonated energy drink so we can assume its powers and finally die,” petition founder Innes McKendrick wrote by way of explanation.

Workmen found the black granite tomb five metres underground during construction of an apartment building in the historic Mediterranean port city.

Dr Waziri said the skeletons had partially disintegrated because sewage water from a nearby building had leaked into the sarcophagus through a small crack in one of the sides.

The 30-tonne coffin, the largest yet found in Alexandria, prompted a rash of theories in local and international media that it may be the resting place of Alexander the Great, who founded the city that still bears his name in 331BC.

The legendary Macedonian leader died in 323BC in Babylon, in what is now Iraq, but his remains were later moved to Alexandria. The exact location of his burial remains a mystery.

Dr. Waziri said it was unlikely the remains found this week belonged to any notable members of the Ptolemaic dynasty (332BC-30BC) associated with Alexander the Great, or the subsequent Roman era.

Fears of an ancient curse stem from a string of deaths reportedly associated with those involved in opening of Tutankhamun’s crypt in the early 1900s.

“We’ve opened it and, thank God, the world has not fallen into darkness,” Mr Waziri said last week.

“I was the first to put my whole head inside the sarcophagus, and here I stand before you — I am fine.”

The sarcophagus is the latest of a series of notable archaeological finds this year in Egypt.

Others include a 4,400-year-old tomb in Giza and an ancient necropolis in Minya, south of Cairo.

The opening of this sarcophagus last week coupled with the total lunar eclipse on Friday (also referred to as a "Blood Moon") has made a number of people of varying perspectives from conservative Christians to New Agers speculate this could mean the end of the world.  I think a greater sign of the end of the world is the more than 30,000 people (the number was climbing at the rate of about one ever second while I was looking at it) who signed the petition on change.org so they can "finally die" (as the author of the petition put it).

I am certain these people aren't Christians.  God says in the Bible, "all who hate me love death" (Proberbs 8:36).  The increasing number of not merely "nones" (those having no religious affiliation) but the increasing lostness and despair (Nihilism) in our society is one of the signs given in Scripture that will precede the end times.  It is worth pondering the following passage:
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.  (2 Thessalonians 2:3-8)


Tuesday, June 19, 2018

The Left's Child Separation Scam Exposed With a Single Tweet

The latest scam by those on the Left is to claim that the Trump administration created the policy of separating children from their illegal immigrant parents at the border.

The scam is so ridiculous that it can easily be destroyed by a single tweet:


Exactly!

Separating minors from their illegal immigrant parents is NOT a new policy invented by the “cruel” Trump administration.  It was signed and enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and enforced by every President since then.

In a May 30, 2018 Newsweek article entitled, "OBAMA HELD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN SHELTERS COMPARED TO TRUMP WHITE HOUSE," the magazine reported:

Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency's custody on April 29, according to the Washington Post.

In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones.  (See also the video below.)
President Trump defended the prosecution of those who illegally enter the United States during a speech Monday before a meeting of the National Space Council: “The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility.  It won’t be.  You look at what is happening in Europe and other places, we can’t allow it to happen to the United States.  Not on my watch,” Trump declared.

Trump urged Democratic lawmakers to accept his immigration priorities in legislation which would end the practice at the border.  The President also referenced the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe, which he also tweeted about Monday morning:


The president is 100% correct.  The ones responsible for their children being separated from them are the adults who chose to cross the border illegally.  Further the law was created by Democrats and the Trump administration is simply following the law.

What is the difference between illegal immigrants having their children taken from them and American citizens who are sent to jail being separated from their kids?  None.  Break the law and you'll have your children taken from you.  It is strange that those complaining now said NOTHING during the Obama administration.  (Remember the picture circulating on the news last week of children sleeping in cages.   It was later debunked: THE PHOTO WAS FROM 2014!)

But there are some facts the President didn't mention (I guess the length of a Tweet makes it hard):

1. The United States is a compassionate country.  We admit two-thirds of the world's legal immigrants each year--MORE THAN ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED! According to Wikipedia:

Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving every year. Immigration led to a 57.4% increase in foreign born population from 1990 to 2000.
2. Under President Obama's "Catch and Release" policy, those who showed up at legal entry points with children were admitted with only a promise to show up for an immigration hearing, which many never did.  This led to an epidemic of abductions south of the border and child trafficking.  Many of those showing up with children were not actually their parents.  Separating children, which is what the 1996 law provides for and which is only temporary, allows authorities to verify whether the children are actually theirs.

A conveniently overlooked part of Trump's Tweet is his call for Congress to change the law.  Trump has repeatedly urged Democratic lawmakers to accept his immigration priorities in legislation which would end the practice at the border.  But Democrats don't want to do this as long as they have an issue they think they can use to their political advantage.

So what might a change in the law look like?  Well, here is my suggestion:

1. Build a border wall and employ border security that actually discourages illegal immigration.

2. Enlarge the legal border entry stations so that they can handle the number of legal immigration applications.  We did it for generations of immigrants at Ellis Island and other entry points.  We can do it now.

3. Establish guidelines and categories for legal amnesty requests that are so clear that determinations can be made at the border.

This can happen and it will as soon as those on the Left start working with the President instead of weaponizing the immigration issue.


Photos used to support claim that Trump keeping children in cages--all revealed to have been taken in 2014!






Democratic Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar admited to CNN that the Obama administration attempted to cover up the child migrant situation during that administration.  “It was kept very quiet under the Obama Administration.  There were large numbers of people coming in.  The Obama administration was trying to keep this quiet,” Cuellar told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield.

 

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

State Dept.: North Korea Using Executions, Torture Against ‘Serious Threat’ of Christianity


From here:
The U.S. State Department affirms in its annual International Religious Freedom Report, published Tuesday, that the communist regime controlling North Korea “considered Christianity a serious threat, as it challenged the official cult of personality and provided a platform for social and political organization and interaction outside the government.”

The State Department – citing United Nations reports, NGOs, and media organizations specializing in North Korea coverage – found that Kim Jong-un’s regime regularly employed “arbitrary executions, political prison camps, and torture amounting to crimes against humanity” against anyone suspected of adhering to any faith, but targeted Christians in particular throughout 2017.
Read the rest.