Archive for February 22nd, 2006

Jesus and the Miracles of Healing

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

And as Jesus returned, the people welcomed Him, for they had all been waiting for Him.
And there came a man named Jairus, and he was an official of the synagogue; and he fell at Jesus’ feet, and began to implore Him to come to his house; for he had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying.
But as He went, the crowds were pressing against Him.
And a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped.
And Jesus said, “Who is the one who touched Me?” And while they were all denying it, Peter said, “Master, the people are crowding and pressing in on You.”
But Jesus said, “Someone did touch Me, for I was aware that power had gone out of Me.”
When the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed.
And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Luke 8:40-48 (New American Standard Bible)

Hamas tells Arabs: Eliminate Israel

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

And somehow this surprises people?

Confronted by confusion in the Arab world over its stance on Israel’s right to exist, Hamas Political Bureau deputy head Musa Abu Marzouq affirmed to an Egyptian interviewer that the terrorist group that won the recent Palestinian Authority elections believes the entire Jewish state must be eliminated.
In an appearance on Egypt’s Dream 2 channel, Marzouq was pressed by an interviewer who insisted Hamas says one thing in English to foreigners and another in Arabic to Palestinians.
Meanwhile, the head of Hamas’ Political Bureau, Khaled Mash’al, reiterated the group’s views of Israel in a visit to Sudan in which he was honored with a poetry reading in a meeting with local intellectuals. Abdallah Abu Qiqa’s poem declared: “We will unite the armies, and they will cry ‘Allah Akbar’ to Tony and to Bush.”
The Feb. 13 conversation in Egypt with Marzouq went like this, according a translation by the
Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI. [MEMRI provides a video excerpt of the interview here.

Read the rest here.

‘Hate crime’ victims:Young, poor, white

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

Very interesting…Not what the ACLU and Rainbow what you to hear at all. I’m sure they will be coming out against the report in the near future with their “own” statistics.
I’ve always been against “hate” crime laws. They are too open to what people where “thinking” at the moment they committed the crime. Unless our law enforcement officials have somehow become clairvoyant and can “read” minds, they have no idea what the person was thinking.
God sees all crimes as “hate” crimes. They are all sin to him. If you read the Old Testament, you find page after page of directions from God as to how awful cirme is and how it is to be delt with. Jesus took it a step further by saying in Matthew 5:43-45:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

WASHINGTON – The most likely victim of a hate crime in the U.S. is a poor, young, white, single urban dweller, according to an analysis of Justice Department statistics collected from between July 2000 and December 2003.
A November report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics detailing a study of 210,000 “hate crimes” a year during that period has gone virtually unreported by the U.S. press.
But it does contain some surprising numbers. While race is, by far, the No. 1 factor cited as the reason for hate crimes, blacks are slightly less likely to be victims and far more likely to be perpetrators, the statistics show.

As defined by the report, a collection of data compiled by the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, an ordinary crime becomes a hate crime when offenders choose a victim because of some characteristic – race, religion, ethnicity, religion or association – and provide evidence that hate prompted them to commit the crime.
The NCVS is a database of 77,600 nationally representative people interviewed every other year about their experience with crime, while the UCR data is based on law enforcement reports to the FBI.
About 56 percent of hate crimes were motivated, at least in part, by racial hatred, according to the study, and most were accompanied by violence.
While nine in 10,000 whites and nine in 10,000 Hispanics are victimized by hate crimes, only seven in 10,000 blacks are targets, according to the report.
“Generally, per capita rates of hate crime victimization do not appear to vary based upon victim’s gender, race, ethnicity or educational attainment,” says the report on all hate crimes reported by victims and police. “However, young people; those never married, separated or divorced; those with low incomes; and those living in urban areas did report experiencing hate crimes at higher rates.”
In fact, those between the ages of 17 and 20 were far more likely to be victims than in any other age group – with 16 incidents per 10,000 people. Those never married, with 16 incidents per 10,000, or separated or divorced, with 26 incidents per 10,000, were also much more likely to be victims of hate crimes. Those with incomes less than $25,000 faced worse odds of victimization, 13 per 10,000, as well as those in urban areas, also 13 per 10,000.
The report says 38 percent of all those reporting hate crimes said the attacker was black, and in 90 percent of those cases, the victim believed the offender’s motive was racial. In incidents involving white attackers, only 30 percent attribute the hate crime to race, while 20 percent attributed it to ethnicity.
The report says 40 percent of white hate crime victims were attacked by blacks, adding, “The small number of black hate crime victims precludes analysis of the race of persons who victimized them.”
The report by the Justice Department is the one most often cited by hate-crime experts as depicting the true national story. It shows the number of incidents is more than 15 times higher than FBI statistics alone reflect.

Read the rest here.

MSM Anti-Christian Bias In Full Force

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

Jennifer at the Scriptorium has once again been able to show us the hypocracy of the main stream media (MSM) concerning their almost complete lack of coverage of muslim riots against Christians in Nigeria, that is until the Christians got tired of being targets and decided to standup for themselves. Suddenly, the MSM‘s find their voice and pronouce loud and clear:
“Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly”

Forget the fact that before this, we have to dig into the African press to even find mention of:
“Nigeria: Muhammad Cartoon Protests Spark Attacks on Christians” and Nigeria bans anti-cartoon protest”.

And facts like these are not reported in the MSM:
“At least 17 people, including a Catholic priest, were killed and 30 churches burned in the northeast Nigerian city of Maiduguri when Muslims protesting cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad turned on local Christians” and “Matthew Gajere, in charge of St Rita’s Catholic Church, was burned to death by rioters inside his church”.

What we do hear from the MSM’s, at the bottom of the article, after talking about how bad the violence against the muslems has been:
“Saturday’s protest over the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in Maiduguri marked the first violent demonstrations over the issue in Nigeria. Police say at least 18 people, most of them Christians, died, and 30 churches were burned down. The Christian Association of Nigeria said at least 50 people were killed in the violence.”

But clearly written at the top of the article :
” Residents and witnesses in the southern, predominantly Christian city of Onitsha said several Muslims with origins in the north were beaten to death by mobs which also burned two mosques there.”

So let me get this straight. Fifty Christians are killed and Thirty churches are destroyed, some with people burned to death inside, but this is not considered news worthy to the MSM’s. But take six muslims killed and two mosques burned and this is worthy of a headline of “Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly”.
Yup, leave it to our self proclaimed un-biased press to make sure the whole story comes out.
Give a me break!!

Homosexual Activists’ War Against Christianity

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

Stay committed to Biblical Truth and Moral Obsolutes. Pray to God that He will show the homosexuals the sin of their lifestyle choices and protect the young ones from blindly accepting the homosexual agenda they are exposed to daily.
This is a long article, but worth reading.

(AgapePress) – “All churches who condemn us will be closed.” That was what Michael Swift, a “gay revolutionary,” declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
“Michael Swift” was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant — which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record — claimed that the entire piece was a “cruel fantasy” that explained “how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”
The “dream” was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d’etat: “All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked …. [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men …. The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished …. All churches who condemn us will be closed.”
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
Not many Christians, however, saw the humor in Swift’s sentiments, such as the following: “We shall sodomize your sons …. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.”
Identifying the OpponentWhether or not the ravings of this “gay revolutionary” were intended as satire, what is striking is the remarkable success of the plan found within the article. Who can doubt that the legal system — especially following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) striking down sodomy laws — has been brought to heel by gay activists? Or that Hollywood has freely committed its tremendous resources to the fight for homosexual legitimacy? Or that the family unit will virtually cease to exist in any traditional sense should gay adoption and same-sex “marriage” become legal everywhere?
While they claim to want only equal protection under law, the real agenda of homosexual activists is simple: the complete alteration of American society to fit the homosexual view of human sexuality, marriage and family.
This is not an overexaggeration. Paula Ettelbrick is former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ettelbrick stated, “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so …. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society …. We must keep our eyes on the goal … of radically reordering society’s views of reality.”
That is a pretty comprehensive goal, and activists face a daunting task if they hope to accomplish it. They must change the views of a culture that still remains somewhat anchored in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which considers homosexuality unnatural and sinful. For Ettelbrick and her ilk to convince the American people to change their mind on this issue, the foundation of our culture must be shifted to a new way of perceiving reality that rejects the Judeo-Christian view.
However, that leaves one major institution standing in the way: the Church. Christians who still hold to the Judeo-Christian views of human sexuality, marriage and family are called by religious faithfulness to resist the homosexual movement.
That makes Christians the enemy. In 1987 Steve Warren, a spokesman for the controversial homosexual group ACT UP, wrote an article for The Advocate, a magazine for the gay community. Titled “Warning to the Homophobes,” Warren spoke of “the mean-spirited nature of Judeo-Christian morality.”
Even in 1987, Warren felt that the homosexual movement could not be stopped. And as activists continued to find success, he promised that “we are going to force you [Christians] to recant everything you have believed or said about sexuality.”
Warren said the Bible, especially, would require a face-lift. “Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others,” he said, “eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages.”
Battle TacticsSo a homosexual utopia awaits these activists, if only they can deal with those pesky Christians. But if removing the obstacle of the Church is the strategy, what are the tactics through which this victory might be achieved?
That question was answered as far back as 1985, when in their article for Christopher Street, a gay magazine, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen caused a sensation with their blueprint to “persuade straight America” to accept homosexuality. Their article was expanded into a book on the subject, the national number-one best seller After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.
Kirk and Madsen focused the heart of their strategy on using the media as a propaganda tool in persuading the majority of Americans that gay is OK. But they also addressed the question of what to do with the hardened opposition — that is, at least in institutional terms, those following the “religious authority” of the Church. Gay activists, the authors said, should take a two-pronged approach to neutralizing the threat of a vigorous Christian-led opposition.
First, to “confound” what Kirk and Madsen called “the homophobia of true believers,” they suggested that gays “muddy the moral waters.” This would be accomplished in part by “publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches” and “raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings.”
This has been done with amazing success in mainline Protestant denominations, such as in the Episcopal Church USA, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church USA. Homosexual activists in each of these major denominations have so clouded the issues regarding the biblical view of homosexuality as to threaten each with schism and ruin.
For those churches which resist the siren call to complete moral relativism, Kirk and Madsen submitted a secondary strategy. They suggested that gays “undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times ….”
It should come as no surprise, therefore, when Christians see themselves portrayed on countless television shows as self-righteous bigots or hate-filled lunatics who simply refuse to accept the fact that things have changed in America.
Nevertheless, Kirk and Madsen knew that the religious authority of Christian denominations in the U.S. would be difficult to dispel; churches would therefore continue to act as a powerful braking mechanism on any momentum for the acceptance of the homosexual agenda. Kirk and Madsen understood, for example, that simply poking fun of “bigoted Southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred” would not be enough.
Instead, they said, “Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed ‘secular humanism’). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion.”
Thus Christians involved in this theater of the culture war have become accustomed to defending the Judeo-Christian view on sexuality against claims that science has “proven” that homosexuality is genetic. The same is true of the claim that all major mental health and medical professional groups have declared that being gay or lesbian is as natural as being left-handed. Such “scientific” claims have no doubt been instrumental in the dramatic shifts of American public opinion on this topic.
End GameBut beyond these tactics, Kirk and Madsen said plans must also be drawn up to deal with “the entrenched enemy,” which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary schemes. They said: “At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.”
Again, astute Christians who are paying attention to what is happening in our culture can already see this occurring. On high school and college campuses, for example, believers who dare to speak up against the homosexual agenda are being ridiculed and smeared. In corporations where they work, some Christians who refuse to acquiesce to the reigning pro-gay environment are reprimanded or fired.
Nor does it require prophetic insight to understand that churches will not be immune from coercion, either. In fact, gay and lesbian activists at the 1986 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights made this demand: “Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status.”
Is it conceivable that in the near future, churches could be threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they refuse to hire a homosexual employee?
Some might scoff at such a threat, relying on the Constitutional protection of religion in the U.S. as a shield. But some homosexual activists seem to view religious liberty as an obstacle to be overcome. For example, lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay predicted that “the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.”
If sexual orientation is ever enshrined as a protected status in federal and state laws, which right will win that showdown?
For the time being, activists can simply attempt to suppress religious free speech whenever the mood hits them.
For example, when a church in Boston hosted a 2005 conference with a message that Jesus can free gays and lesbians from that lifestyle, they were harassed and terrorized by hundreds of homosexual activists and sympathizers outside — while Boston police stood by and did nothing (See
related article).
Finally, if activists ever achieve their goal of having sexual orientation included in federal hate crime statutes, many pro-family groups fear such a moment will be a beachhead on the way to criminalizing “anti-gay” speech and thought.
In his article, Warren’s final warning should cause wise Christians to accurately discern the times in which we live: “We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. And we have the spirit of the age on our side. You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now.”


Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006

Jesus is Lord Online Dictionary
Main Entry: toon-o-pho-bia

Pronunciation: toon-o-‘fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable, irrational and illogical fear of blasphemous line drawings and cartoons, resulting in random acts of violence, destruction and bloodshed against anything remotely perceived to be in any way related to, or in a perceived relationship with, the source of the drawings.