Zeitgeist should be iced since it’s lies can’t suffice

Throughout history, those who oppose God, his word, and his people have tried all kinds of tactics to rid the world of worshiping him. One of the main tactics is to cast aspersions about who God is and what he has accomplished.

After Noah’s grandchildren turned away from worshiping Jehovah to worshiping Nimrod and Semiramis at Babel (Babylon), leaving God no choice but to confuse their languages at the Tower of Babel to divide them across the face of the Earth, they conjured up myths and legends about the worldwide flood to dilute the true story of how Jehovah saved Noah and his family. After God used Joseph to save Egypt for the sake of preserving Israel and his descendants, the Egyptian pharaohs after Joseph became ungrateful and erased what Jehovah and Joseph did for them from their national history, betraying the Hebrews with lies to enslave them.

They also struck their defeat by God at Moses’ hands from their history to make it appear as if pharaohs always defeated their enemies. Fast forward to Jesus’ time, and we see that the Jewish leaders, knowing full well that Jesus rose from the dead, conjured up and spread the lie that Jesus’ cowardly disciples somehow mustered up the courage to steal his body from the tomb in spite of the fact his tomb was guarded by a unit of well-trained Roman soldiers who were known for killing Jews who attacked them.

In our time, we are witnessing lies coming from the Zeitgeist movement claiming the whole account of Jesus’ life in the New Testament was stolen from various myths of the pagan gods. Some who are part of that movement are too ignorant to do fact-checking so they repeat the lies out of blind faith in whoever told them those lies, while others in the movement know very well that Zeitgeist is based on lies but believe that lies are okay when they’re done to get people away from Christianity and into supporting their group. Nevertheless, God’s truth always finds a way to shine forth in the midst of all the lies since his kingdom lasts forever.

Now there are a good number of YouTube videos out that systematically debunk and refute Zeitgeist’s deceptions, but trolls and other deceivers still scatter throughout the Internet to continue broadcasting their lies. One guy who has a series of nicely done videos to debunk Zeitgeist is Elliot Nesch, who has his own YouTube channel. They’ve been out for several years now. I’ve featured the first two in his 12-part series based on his documentary DVD below in case you’ve never seen or heard of them.

Harry A. Gaylord

al-taqiyya shown at Islamic Detroit conference with leading ‘Christian’ & former President

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has been holding a conference in Detroit this weekend with some prominent people on their program. ISNA is an affiliate of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist pro-sharia organization that has given the world Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations. In a brazen display of al-taqiyya (the Islamic practice of putting on a false display of agreeing with the “infidels” when they outnumber you), the conference includes a Boy Scout troop leading the pledge of allegiance, the singing of the national anthem, Michigan’s governor, the presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and former president Jimmy Carter (wisdom and discernment were never his strong suit).

In her comments to the crowd of 300, ELCA’s bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, made it seem as if Christianity and Islam are on the same spiritual level and similar in their goals. “I realized, looking at some of the lectures that you have scheduled, that if we were just to exchange ‘church’ for ‘mosque’ I would see I was in the same place with typical Lutherans. …We could say the same thing,” she stated.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder praised them for scheduling programs that “are well-selected and meaningful to all of us … about healthy culture and effective engagement, both taking account of the good work the Muslim community is doing in bringing Detroit back.” Yeah…with the ultimate goal of bringing Detroit into sharia.

ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator with the Muslim Brotherhood in funneling money to support terrorism around the globe. But maybe I shouldn’t say anything bad about Islam since so many are in denial of its true intentions or in fear that saying anything bad about it makes them want to blow you up or many are just turned off whenever the truth is spoken about it. Of course, none of that has stopped me before.

When “Christian” leaders like Ms. Eaton and President Carter associate themselves with such organizations, what does that say about their relationship with the Lord? Are they spiritually blind? Are they uninformed about what the Bible says and/or current events? Or are they in cahoots with them for the sake of the coming one world religion and global governance?

This is another example of Peter’s prophetic warnings–“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of,” (2 Peter 2:1). However, devoting yourself to what pleases the Lord will ensure “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened…” (Eph. 1:17), to avoid being duped by such people.

Sources:

TK Barger, Big names at Islamic conference in Detroit, Toledo Blade, August 30, 2014.

Ryan Mauro, White House Partners with Muslim Brotherhood Front, FrontPage Mag, March 20, 2013.

Idolatrous humanist heretical doctrine of Osteens expressed by his wife

Just in case you missed this story that is spreading like wildfire around the Internet, Victoria Osteen (Joel Osteen’s wife) has expressed their doctrine on what they believe doing good and worshiping God are really about. According to the Osteens, it’s all really about yourself.

Mrs. Osteen gushes the following with her ever-grinning husband on stage beside her: “I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God—I mean, that’s one way to look at it—we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we’re happy … I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

The Osteens want us to say never mind to the fact that we do good in loving obedience to the Father because he’s worthy of it. Never mind that through his prophet Samuel, the Lord told us he delights in our obedience to him way more than any of our sacrifices (1 Samuel 15:22). Forget about the fact that we love him because he first loved us (1 John 4:19) when, for instance, Jesus died for our sins.

To view the video of this heretical statement and a pastor’s true Biblical views about it, see this article at Christian News Network by Heather Clark.

Jesus Christ wouldn’t be caught dead embracing socialism

In recent days, there has been a lot of international news about Brazil’s Socialist Party presidential candidate, Marina Silva. Much of it has focused on her “evangelical” background and how she seems to have the votes of the young people and evangelicals locked up. When I saw how the press has intertwined her “evangelicalism” with her being a socialist, it raised a red flag with me–no pun intended. These ongoing attempts by lieberals, the globalists, and their puppets in the mainstream media to push the idea Christianity is compatible with socialism has inspired me to point out why Jesus was not a socialist, which by default will highlight why no true child of God would be a socialist.

Lieberals/socialists often justify their worldview and criticize genuine Christianity with the false argument that Jesus Christ was a socialist or communist. To back this up, they tend to point to Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16). Then, like Candida Moss in the YouTube video below, they will claim that Jesus said you can’t go to heaven unless you give away all your earthly goods to the poor.

 

 

Jesus was making several points in that parable, but the idea that one only gets to heaven by giving their possessions to the poor was nowhere near one of the points he made. Jesus and his apostles taught heaven was obtained by grace, not by works like giving to the poor. In his parables, Jesus taught it was wrong to be callous toward the poor or to trust in material things, but had no problem with people possessing earthly goods with the proper perspective on those goods. Let’s look at some comparisons:

► Socialism teaches that all religion must be suppressed and that all allegiances and devotion must be to the state and its leaders, whereas Jesus and his apostles taught that he is part of the one Godhead that should be worshiped (John 3:13-18) and governments should be God’s tools to reward the morally good and punish the morally evil (John 19:10-11).

► Socialism not only suppresses religion, but denies God’s existence, whereas Jesus preached that God was real and that he was God in the flesh (John 5:18).

► Socialism is based on envying others’ possessions and coveting them, whereas Jesus said covetousness is an evil which defiles people (Mark 7:20-23).

► Socialism teaches it’s okay to forcibly take what belongs to others without probable or justifiable cause and give it to others who haven’t earned it whereas Jesus taught that theft is an evil which defiles people (Mark 7:20-23).

► Socialism is based on the belief the government should own everything and should dictate what employers should pay their workers, whereas Jesus taught that private ownership was good and that employers should determine in contractual negotiations directly with their workers as to what they should be paid (parable of the vineyard laborers, Matthew 20:1-15, esp. v. 15; parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14-30).

► Socialists have persecuted or killed millions just for confessing belief in Jesus Christ, whereas Jesus hates it when people persecute and murder innocent people, especially his believers (Matt. 19:16-19; Acts 9:1-5).

The Bible reveals that when liberals claim Jesus was socialist or a communist, they are simply speaking their native language known as “lying.” That’s why I call them lieberals.

Harry A. Gaylord

Why Jesus’ genealogy is Messianically valid through both Joseph & Mary

Israeli_blue_Star_of_DavidBased on Bible prophecy, one of the main ways for identifying the Messiah would be by his Davidic lineage. In other words, he would have to be King David’s descendant and rightful heir to David’s throne. Critics from both the Jewish and Gentile worlds who wish to dismiss Jesus as the one true Messiah enjoy coming up with any excuse they can to validate their rejection of Jesus.

Some have stated that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are contradictions and therefore cannot be trusted. However, this has been debunked with the explanation that Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s while Luke covers Mary’s genealogy. Nevertheless, not to be outdone in their skeptical stance, critics will then point out that a rightful heir to David can only come from the father’s lineage, that Joseph’s being adopted into Mary’s lineage in Luke would not count, and that Joseph is also disqualified from being a rightful heir because both Jehoiakim and his son Jechonias in Joseph’s genealogy in Matthew had been cursed by God from having any heirs to David’s throne (see Jeremiah 22:28-30; 36:30-31).

But, as is usual of anti-Messiah critics, they have overlooked God’s fine print on such matters and really don’t know the Torah/Bible as well as they think they do. The very first prophecy God gives concerning the Messiah in Genesis (which pre-dates Mosaic law) is when he tells Adam, Eve, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden, “And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,” (Gen. 3:15). So right off the bat, God lets us know the Messiah will be validated as the seed of the woman, not any man. If a man were involved in the process of Messiah’s conception, then he would not be sinless. This prophecy annihilates all the arguments. But because God always gives at least two or three witnesses to confirm his word, many more caveats are provided to knock down the critics.

When Mosaic law was established, the daughters of Zelophehad went to Moses over concern they would lose any inheritance from their father since he only had daughters. So Jehovah told Moses to establish the law that fathers who only had daughters should have their inheritance passed down to the daughters (Numbers 27:1-8). And to further insure their inheritance stayed with their family, the daughters would have to marry someone from their own tribe (Numbers 36:6-13). This law would have applied to Mary’s father, Heli, who only had daughters.

As a matter of fact, the angel Gabriel told only Mary, not Joseph, that the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever,” concerning her firstborn son (Luke 1:32-33). This was God’s way of telling Mary her line was the official, Jehovah-recognized heir to David’s throne.

But Jesus could also be recognized as David’s heir if one wanted to consider Joseph, who was of the house of David (Luke 1:27). The Jehoiakim/Jechonias curse pointed out by critics is easily dismissed by God himself. Jehovah never told either king that their line was banished from the throne forever. So that brings into play what God told Moses several times–“…I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,” (see Ex. 20:5; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9). Joseph was way past the third and fourth generation, so he would have also had a justifiable, valid claim to David’s throne. Jesus, as his adopted son, did as well.

No matter the angle from which you view Jesus’ ancestry, there’s no validity to denying his Davidic right to be called Messiah.

Harry A. Gaylord

 

According to atheist Dawkins, birth of Down Syndrome babies is immoral

Atheist Richard Dawkins endorses the eugenics of murdering the unborn if they are found to have Down Syndrome, according to tweets he posted this week, and criticized the nation of Ireland for being an advanced society that clings to its pro-life stance.

Dawkins said that if a mother should find out the unborn baby has Down Syndrome, “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” When he was questioned about his denial that a human fetus is human, his response was ‘Learn to think in non-essentialist ways. The question is not “is it ‘human’?” but “can it SUFFER?” …Suffering should be avoided. Cause no suffering. Reduce suffering wherever you can.’

When he received a torrent of feedback in opposition to his tweets, his two responses were, “In point of fact, a majority of Down Syndrome fetuses in Europe and USA are aborted. What I recommended is not outlandish but the norm,” and then, “Apparently I’m a horrid monster for recommending WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS to the great majority of Down Syndrome fetuses. They are aborted,” as if it’s okay just because it’s accepted practice in some circles. But his views are in line with the globalists. As a matter of fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if Dawkins was one of those atheists who is really a Satanist behind closed doors.

It’s scientific fact that the unborn are just as human as those who are born, but Dawkins is proof that science is unimportant to his kind in spite of the fact they argue they are all about science. All that matters to his kind is their self-centered lack of morals and prideful hubris in their attempts to worship themselves as gods.

Sold out or sellouts?: why I sometimes question Christian music

Let me say first in this post that I think Christian music is fantastic compared to secular music and that I enjoy a broad spectrum of Christian music. I think overall it’s more inspirational than the secular. However, I’ve learned I can’t always depend on Christian artists for doctrine or philosophy of life because when compared to what God’s word says, their lyrics many times fall short. I suspect they may not know better or that it’s sometimes because they, like Lady Gaga, “live for the applause, applause, applause” and are pressured by record executives to compromise for the sake of inflating the stats (record sales, concert tickets, etc.).

singing into microphoneThis has been a trying year for Christian music–not only because sales have gone down, but mainly because artists who portrayed themselves as being sold out to Christ and who sold a lot of music have made big headlines as being sellouts to the world system. Vicky Beeching and Tim Lambesis of As I Lay Dying are just two of the most recent sellouts who come to mind. I admit that I sometimes have to even turn off some Christian music I hear when the lyrics don’t seem to match up with scripture. It may also be a matter of my personal preferences in some cases.

 

 

One song that slightly irks me is Jason Gray’s “More Like Falling In Love.” Here’s a sample of the lyrics:

(Verse 1)
Give me rules, I will break them
Show me lines, I will cross them

I need more than a truth to believe
I need a truth that lives, moves and breathes

To sweep me off my feet, it’s gotta be

(Chorus)
More like falling in love, Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart, Than giving my allegiance

Caught up, called out, Come take a look at me now
It’s like I’m falling, oh, It’s like I’m falling in love

(Bridge)
Love, love, love, Deeper and deeper,
it was love that made me a believer

In more than a name, A faith, a creed
Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me

Some of it does have an element of truth, but the chorus is what rubs me wrong. It seems to me that falling in love, believing in the Lord, losing your heart, and giving your allegiance are all inseparable, simultaneous things that occur when you find the Lord. Yet the song separates them. Or maybe I’m too critical.

Another song I have objections to is Family Force 5’s “Let It Be Love.” A sample of lyrics follows:

 

 

(Verse 1)
I’ve never seen a soul set free
Through an argument
I’ve never seen a hurt get healed
In a protest
But I’ve seen sinners turned to saints
Because of grace
It’s love, love that lights the way
Love that lights the way

(Chorus)
Let it be a heart wide open
Bigger than the words we’ve spoken
Let it be a heart for the broken
If we’re gonna light, light
Light the way
Let it be love, let it be love, yeah
Nothin’ but love, nothin’ but love, yeah
Let it be love, let it be love, yeah
It’s love that lights the way

(Verse 2)
It’s not about the stand we take
But the grace we give
It’s not about the name we make
But the life we live
Heard about a King who sat down
Took my place
True love gave His life away
It’s love that lights the way

Regarding verse 1, there are quite a few young ladies who either worked in abortion clinics or were on their way to have an abortion who ended up getting saved when they encountered someone outside of the clinic who graciously and lovingly protested the clinic. Abby Johnson is a perfect example. There may be times where you have to make an argument to highlight weaknesses in the stance of those who oppose the gospel. Love doesn’t mean you never protest or never make an argument. Would a Christian arrested for their faith be expected NOT to make one in court?

And in verse 2, how is it not about the stand we take? When we take a stand on an issue out of our love for God and for the sinners we try to reach, God can use it to save someone. In Ezekiel 22:30, God pleaded with Judah for someone to “stand in the gap” against sin because he didn’t want to destroy them. Ephesians 6 commands us to take a stand against all the wiles (cunning plots and actions) of the devil. God didn’t call us to be the sappy, wimpy, passive Christians this song seems to imply. Is it me or is the Christian music industry caving to some of the same failed ideas that the church is?