"It is good for a man not to touch a woman..."

1Cor. 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

If pre-marital physical contact is sin, then so is getting married at all.

Don't like it? Argue with God, I couldn't care less what you think.

Evolution? Are you nuts!?!

Besides the obvious fact that institutions of "higher learning" are breeding grounds for Evolutionist infidels, an article from FOX regarding a recent Gallup poll shows that less than 40% of Americans believe in evolution, and less than 25% of high school-educated people believe in the ridiculous nonsense.

Well, with no evidence for the "theory," no "transitional fossils" (which were a problem for Darwin and still give Evolutionists epileptic fits) and belief only in places full of educated idiots, proponents of this nonsensical pipe dream need to crawl back into their scummy little holes and suck an egg.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html

Can We Have Some Balance Here, Please?

Lately there has been a lot of talk in blog land about marriage, and “Titus 2” women. This can be extremely beneficial, or extremely detrimental. All I am reading on the blogs of both men and women is all about the women. A friend of mine once said that all cults are always concerned with women and what they need to do and be.

All women need to strive to be “Titus 2” women. But, wait a minute. Do you know that Titus 2 ALSO mentions the roles of MEN? That’s right, although it seems to me as if we’d hardly know that since we are so unbalanced that in conservative Christianity we tend to focus much more on the women. Even the men sit around writing to women telling us how to be “Titus 2” women. If they spent that much time worrying themselves about how to be “Titus 2” men, maybe there would be more balance.

I have seen feminism blamed for a lot of things. I have seen blogs from men who hate women with a passion. Both man hating and woman hating is WRONG. We CANNOT fix the problems feminism has caused by the men turning around deciding not to marry women because they think that there are no virtuous women.

Women are NOT helping other women by telling them that any problem in their marriage is due to them as women not being submissive enough. Last time I checked, marriage took two people and God has given different roles and responsibilities to BOTH those people and a lot of the problems I see are because BOTH man and woman are doing something wrong.

What's so hard to understand about Eternal Security??

I just chatted with a young lady that I hadn't talked to in a couple years, and to my chagrin she has gotten involved with a "Community Church" thingamajig. You know the drill: gotta' learn Greek, no final authority but God, no eternal security, speaking in tongues, healing, the whole bit.

My question to her, which she was unable to answer (even though she's attending "Bible" school through her church), was simply "where does the Bible say that a person can rescind their salvation?" (Ok, I didn't use exactly those words, but it's the same idea.)

First thing, people that believe like she does have no clue what the New Birth of John 3 means. They don't understand that people are reborn into God's Image, the Image that Adam lost by his disobedience. Jesus, the LAST ADAM, retrieved that Image by His obedience, allowing us to again be "made in His image." Not since Adam's sin, until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, had anyone been "reborn." Jesus hadn't paid the penalty and retrieved the crown of the Kingdom of God (spiritual) yet!

Secondly, they have no idea about Spiritual Circumcision. It's laid out so clearly in Scripture, but their belief in optional Security prove that they have no clue about predestination to the conformation of Christ or what the "operation of God" is in Colossians 2:12.

Note: every time Paul says "I would not have ye to be ignorant, brethren," the brethren are ALWAYS IGNORANT!

Clearing the Air

I decided that it was time to put something else up, so the first thing visitors see is no longer a complete bashing spree on Abraham Lincoln. I certainly don't regret anything, take anything back, or apologize for anything that I said; why apologize for speaking the truth?

Anyhow, the Lord has been working in our lives and bringing us to the place (I believe) where he can use us and further us more visibly toward getting to the field.

On another note, my wife and I have already picked out some names for our kids; being a Grey-Blooded Southern boy, at least three of the boys' names will be Robert Edward, Nathan Bedford, and James Ewell Brown. Girls we've decided to name with Bible names and Biblical virtues as middle names. That way we can be historical and Biblical all at the same time, and our kids can be thankful of their heritage and know their names stand for truth and integrity.

"Honest" Abe

In a list of America's great leaders, you'll invariably find George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and, of all people, Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, thanks to the liberal media and "political correctness," few really know the truth about Lincoln: who he really was, what he did and what he believed. Let's take a second and uncover some truth about the man that "freed the slaves."

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

Ooohh...didn't see that one coming, did ya'? So Lincoln believed that the white man should be superior to the black man! How different from the "Fourscore and seven years ago" man the history books extol!

I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.

The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed.

Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address

Wow, what happened to that "the South seceded because Lincoln was gonna' free their slaves" garbage? Looks like someone has their facts WRONG!

Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy , that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.

Letter from Lincoln to A.H. Stephens
Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150

So then, why did the South secede? Let's give you a little hint:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Where did that come from? Why, the Declaration of Independence, the original Founding Document of this nation! In it, Thomas Jefferson clearly states that it's not only their right, but their DUTY, to declare independence and create a new government that will satisfy the needs of their people. So how can one say that the South's secession was any different from the "rebellion" of the 13 Original Colonies?

Rev. John Killian preached a sermon titled "Would the Religion of Abraham Lincoln Save You?" and it can be found online HERE. Lincoln is quoted as saying:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the sriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield,
after the death of Willie Lincoln

Further, Abraham Lincoln invaded the Southern states without a Declaration of War or Congressional approval; it has recently been approved that the president can operate troops in foreign lands for a set period of time without Congressional approval, but this was not in place at that time: Mr. Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional boundaries by invading the South.

There is so much more that can be revealed: the moral differences between the sides, the actual reasons behind the secession and the actual state of slavery in the US, but the fact remains that a popular historical figure has been portrayed incorrectly by ignoring historical facts about him and glorifying him for "saving the Union" even though it was done by glaringly Unconstitutional means.

The danger of God's "permissive" will

Everyone loves Peter: loudmouth though he was, there's a fighting spirit about him that just doesn't quit. One of the best-loved and oft-preached stories is that of Peter walking on the water. Let's recap:

Matt. 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Matt. 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

First point: Jesus told them to get in the boat. Jesus never left room for getting OUT of the boat: He said GET IN AND GO ACROSS.

Second point: Peter did NOT ask permission to go across: he said "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." In effect, he was QUESTIONING Christ's claim about Who He was, and giving Jesus an ultimatum about His identity! Peter was AGAIN shooting off his mouth without using his head.

Like one preacher said, Judas was a better example of FAITH and OBEDIENCE than was Peter: he (and all the others) stayed in the BOAT like Jesus told them to, and they didn't question Jesus when He declared Who He was!

This just goes to show us that God's permissive will requires faith as well, but should we really be there? Christ allowed Peter to come to Him, and all the while Peter was flat disobeying and showing off. Time and again Peter gets into trouble: before AND after Christ's resurrection! Even Paul stood him up for being out of line! How then are we going to view direct disobedience and LACK of faith as a great example for us in our Christian walk?

STAY IN THE BOAT!