Biblically Correct Blog

Biblically Correct Blog

Interpreting current events through the Bible's timeless truths

This blog is a ministry of the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality.

This site best viewed while holding an open King James Bible.



RSS feed Save this page to del.icio.us

We at the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality have started this blog to examine current events in the one light that matters — the King James Bible, which is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path (Ps. 119:105). We don't "interpret" away those parts of the Bible that are too politically incorrect for modern liberals, nor do we believe for one second that whatever Biblical teaching gets in the way of our modern lifestyles must have been "meant for the church back then" or "nailed to the Cross." If anything you read here offends you, then you're offended by the Bible, not by us.



December 11, 2009: Jesus wants you to stop “helping” Him.

We’ve been reading a lot recently about the troubles in both the Catholic Church and those groups most likely to oppose granting homosexuals the special privilege of equality. These troubles hurt our holy cause; after all, nothing says, “I scrupulously follow Biblically correct morality” like living a life of crime and unwed motherhood, with the exception of raping altar boys.

Those “Christians” to whom Christianity is whatever they want it to be often say that Christian misbehavior does not reflect badly on Christianity, but the Bible says something different. Our Lord said,

Matt. 7:1-5: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Such misbehavior even calls into question whether the churches involved have any saving power:

Matt. 7:15-20: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. top


December 8, 2009: Catholics and same-sex "marriage"

We're pleased to see the Catholic Church defend opposite marriage against sodomites who demand the special privilege of equality. Nonetheless, a quote from Patrick Branigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, gives us pause. He is quoted in the linked article as saying, “Marriage is a unique natural institution, and it is always between one man and one woman.” I guess you can achieve high status in the Catholic Church without ever having cracked open a Bible. top

November 9, 2009: Carrie Prejean (3)

Sunday Christians used to laud Carrie Prejean for bravely defending Biblically correct marriage, but then this came out. What happened to judging not, that ye be not judged, or to knowing every tree by its fruit? If Ms. Prejean thinks that she can make it to heaven solo, too, she's mistaken. top

November 9, 2009: We are the victims of anti-Christian hate speech.

Then again, Our Lord told us that we are blessed when that happens. A bit of unsaved trash has called us "one of the most frightening sites I have ever seen." Nonetheless, that person cannot refute the substance of anything we say and therefore has to resort to a typo flame. top

September 27, 2009: How to rebuke the unsaved (2)

We've updated this teaching. top

September 22, 2009: Bishop Harry Jackson, cafeteria Christian?

We were alarmed when we read this article quoting Bishop Harry Jackson. In fact, we were so alarmed that we wrote him this letter. We'll let you know how he responds. top

June 25, 2009: Republicans behaving badly (2)

Republican politicans like John Ensign and Mark Sanford have tried to protect the sanctity of marriage from homosexuals, but who will protect the sanctity of marriage from them? The following Scripture applies:

Matt. 7:1-5: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Perhaps this God-mocker is right when he says that we need a Constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage from Republican hypocrites. top


June 11, 2009: Carrie Prejean (2)

Carrie Prejean has lost her title because of continued breach of contract. Never mind that the Bible commands us:

Mark 10:19: Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

2 Thess. 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Apparently, Ms. Prejean wants to be Biblically correct only when Biblical correctness suits her. top


May 17, 2009: Carrie Prejean, Marion Barry, and Biblically correct marriage

We keep hearing these two people, among others, talking about “Biblically correct marriage” and their “moral compass.” We wonder whether Ms. Prejean plans to be Biblically correct about the following:

1 Timothy 2:9-10: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

We also wonder what Mr. Barry’s “moral compass” says about the following:

Luke 16:18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

Reading Matthew chapter 7 wouldn’t hurt either of them. Selective Biblical absolutism isn’t Biblical absolutism at all. top


April 15, 2009: Tax protesters

Tax protesters are actually protesting against God Almighty:

Romans 13:6: For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

There is also that bit about rendering unto Caesar. top


February 6, 2009: Barack Obama and the nature of God

The New York Times quotes President Obama as saying, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” Sorry, Mr. President, but we Bible believers can name at least one. We won't provide a complete list of God's holy genocides as recorded in the Old Testament, but we think that this one example will get the point across:

Numbers 31:17-18: Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. top


January 20, 2009: Barack Obama

We wish to congratulate President Barack Obama on his inauguration. “Christians” who suggest that his presidency is in any way un-Godly need to remember the following:

Romans 13:1-2: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Also, one thing that he said about the Bible inspired us to produce this tract. top


December 12, 2008: George W. Bush commits apostasy

You may have heard that when President Bush was asked whether the Bible is literally true, he said “You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,’” He also said that creation and evolution are compatible.

This is apostasy, pure and simple. Both of the Genesis creation accounts are literally true. If we do not accept the literal truth of the entire Bible, why accept any of it, including the parts that condemn homosexuals for their outrageous deathstyle choices? Also, Christ-hating liberals are sure to point to President Bush and say that no one actually believes in the Bible, including “Bible believers.” top


December 6, 2008: The Episcopal Church (3)

Conservative Episcopal bishops have decided to found a rival Anglican province, apparently based on Biblical literalism, but only on the issue of homosexuality. Indeed, they have agreed to disagree on women's ordination, which the Bible also forbids. Someone needs to remind those bishops yet again that selective Biblical absolutism is not Biblical absolutism at all. top

November 25, 2008: eHarmony

The Christian-run online dating service eHarmony has settled an anti-discrimination lawsuit brought by a New Jersey homosexual. While we're not happy about seeing homosexuals given the special privilege of equality, the fact remains that the Bible repeatedly commands Christians to follow secular law, and we're not aware of any exception for anti-discrimination law. top


November 9, 2008: Monks behaving badly

We’ve read about the brawl among monks at Our Lord’s tomb. This isn’t the first example of bad behavior among “Christians,” and we doubt it will be the last. What does all of this bad behavior among “Christians” say about the saving power of their “Christianity”?

We have already noted the teaching of Christ that we shall know them by their fruits. Here are the fruits that Christians should exhibit in their lives:

Gal. 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Are we the only ones who have noticed that so few “Christians” display these fruits in their lives? top


October 22, 2008: Sarah Palin’s wardrobe malfunction

We’ve read in the liberal MSM about the RNC’s sartorial spending spree for Sarah Palin and her family. What would Jesus buy? top


October 17, 2008: “Republican” Candidate Sidesteps Question, Denies Bible on Marriage

We sent the following e-mail to the campaign of U.S. Senate candidate Jim Gilmore:

Dear colleagues:

We are in the process of updating our site to include a Christian voting guide and wish you help with regard to your candidate. Please let us know whether Jim Gilmore would support a Constitutional amendment or federal act to bring our country's marriage laws back into line with Biblical marriage law.

Yours truly,

The Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality

We were shocked to receive the following response:

Former Governor Jim Gilmore, candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and supports a federal marriage amendment to make sure that will remain the case.

Not only did we not receive a “yes” or “no” answer on Biblical marriage, but also, that is not what the Bible says. How is this ministry supposed to advise voters in this race when even the Republican candidate spits on the Bible? top


October 3, 2008: Sarah Palin (2)

While watching last night’s debate, we were shocked to hear Sarah Palin say that marriage should be one man and one woman. Will no one, even the “conservative” “Republicans,” stand up for the Biblical definition of marriage?

Then again, we will not quarrel with her pronunciation of “nuclear.” Atomic theory is just a theory; otherwise, why would even secular sources call it by that name? top


September 27, 2008: Pulpit Freedom-from-Christ Sunday

We’ve read in the secular MSM that “conservative” churches are going to engage in something called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” tomorrow. The pastors of those churches will endorse a candidate from the pulpit and will thus willingly break a law that prevents them from doing so while retaining their tax-exempt status. They will then challenge the constitutionality of that law in court. Apparently, the only freedom that they want is freedom from their own stated principles.

Through the Bible, God commands us to obey secular law:

Romans 13:1-2: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

As for their precious tax-exempt status, the Bible nowhere promises them any such thing. In fact, it says the opposite:

Luke 20:25: And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.

Romans 13:6-7: For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Finally, do conservatives not constantly tell us that we should trust democracy over unelected liberal activist judges? If they sue to protect their so-called Constitutional rights, what prevents those disgusting sodomites from doing the exact same thing? top


September 7, 2008: Cindy McCain’s pearls

According to this sodomite “news” source, Cindy McCain has been seen wearing a pearl necklace worth approximately $15,000. If you read the comments, you’ll see that one astute reader has cited the Bible verse saying that women shouldn’t wear pearls at all. If she cannot be bothered to give up wearing a pearl necklace costing that much – which does not seem like too onerous a thing to do for Jesus – what else can the McCains not be bothered to do for Our Lord? top


September 1, 2008: Sarah Palin

We’ve read in the secular MSM that the so-called evangelicals are cheering John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Those evangelicals need a reminder that selective Biblical absolutism isn’t Biblical absolutism at all.

If elected, Palin would be a heartbeat (a 72-year-old man’s heartbeat) away from the Presidency. From a Biblical standpoint, that is not such a good thing:

Isaiah 3:12: [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Even more shocking is the news of her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy, which calls into question the quality of the Christian parenting that the daughter received:

Proverbs 22:6: Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Apologists in the liberal church of compromise are saying that the pregnancy is a private matter. That is utter nonsense. Probably the most important teaching of Christian conservatism is that sex is an intensely public matter. If Bristol’s pregnancy is a private matter, what stops homosexuals from saying the same thing about their outrageous lifestyle choices? top


August 24, 2008: The Anglican communion and same-sex “marriage”

According to the British media, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has written that the Bible does not forbid same-sex relationships when there is a commitment similar to traditional marriages. This is just the sort of deviation from Biblically correct truth that any Biblically literate Christian should have seen coming.

As we’ve noted before, the Anglican communion was founded on disobedience to God’s Word on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Anglicanism also regards both of the Genesis creation accounts as mere “holy myths” and ignores Biblical law on everything from slavery to the treatment of rape victims to whether women should wear gold and pearls.

This should be a clear warning to those who want to pick and choose which parts of Scripture they will take literally and which parts they want to “interpret correctly” or treat as “meant for the church back then.” If you disregard as much of the Bible as the Anglicans do, how can you possibly argue that homosexuals are not free to do the same with regard to the verses that condemn them? In other words, if you do not accept the literal truth of every word in the Bible, why believe in any of it? top


August 2, 2008: Court clerks and same-sex “marriage”

Now that various states and foreign countries have granted those disgusting sodomites the special privilege of equality in marriage, court clerks who for some reason consider themselves to be Christians are upset by having to perform same-sex “marriages.” If those so-called Christians ever got further into their Bibles than the “Presented to ...” page, they would know that the problem lies in their attitude.

First, they have made the lifestyle choice to work for Caesar rather than God and should therefore give Caesar what is his:

Mark 12:17: And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

For that matter, as long as secular law allows same-sex “marriage,” they must follow that law:

1 Peter 2:13-14: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Second, God wants them to mind their own business:

1 Peter 4:15: But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or [as] a thief, or [as] an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

That verse makes no moral distinction between busybodies and murderers, thieves, and evildoers. top


June 24, 2008: Dobson’s fruitcake interpretation of the Bible

We’ve read that James Dobson has attacked Barack Obama for “distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible” and for “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.” We will pass on the issue of the secular Constitution, but we will say that it is Dobson who is distorting Scripture.

The article includes the following:

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.” Dobson characterized those passages from the Old Testament as “Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply.”

Where did Dobson get the idea that the Old Testament’s laws on slavery no longer apply? Jesus never said so. The New Testament includes the following passages that plainly approve of slavery:

Ephesians 6:5: Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22: Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10: Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18: Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Then there is the Epistle to Philemon, which would be difficult to explain if the New Testament had done away with the Old Testament’s laws on slavery. If Dobson’s “traditional understanding of the Bible” disagrees, then that “traditional understanding of the Bible” is wrong, and Dobson is “making the word of God of none effect through your tradition,” Mark 7:13. top


June 19, 2008: What’s love got to do with it?

We’ve recently seen a series of catastrophes hit the world: food shortages, cyclones, earthquakes, floods, and, most horrifyingly of all, the recent decision by the Supreme Court of California to legalize same-sex “marriage.” Courts are increasingly legislating from the bench to invent a brand new right called “equal protection” in order to give various people the special privilege of equality.

To defend that brand new right, Christ-hating liberals claim that love makes a family and that people should be free to marry whom they love. We don’t often quote popular songs by Buddhists, but what’s love got to do with it?

Here are some Bible verses on marriage, not that feel-good “Christian” pastors often preach them from the pulpit:

Exodus 21:7-8: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Deut. 22:28-29: If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Does anyone imagine that the woman who is bought as merchandise loves her purchaser or that the rape victim loves her rapist? God doesn’t care. Their marriages are sacred in God’s eyes, and the sacred institution that encompasses those marriages must be protected from sodomite “marriages.” top


April 8, 2008: Polygamists in Texas

We’ve read in the liberal MSM about a raid on a polygamist sect’s ranch in Texas, in which women and girls were removed, after a 16-year old telephoned the authorities and said that her 50-year-old husband had fathered her child. As we’ve already explained – not that the liberal “Christian” fluffy bunnies care what we Bible believers say – there is nothing Biblically wrong with that aspect of it.

Nonetheless, one thing that we saw on the liberal-biased news gave us pause. Namely, members of the sect had to go through garbage bins for food. The Bible clearly says that we must provide for our own families:

1 Tim. 5:8: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Gal. 6:5: For every man shall bear his own burden.

Of course, it is not always possible to do so, in which people should ask their Christian brothers for Christian charity:

Matt. 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Luke 6:30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again.

Gal. 6:2: Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. top


March 15, 2008: Media priorities and the Bible

Christ-denying unsaved trash have asked us why the American media and their viewers and readers seem so fixated on sex scandals but so unconcerned by the federal government’s use of torture. That state of affairs is perfectly Biblically correct. As even the most marginally Biblically literate know, the Bible contains numerous laws regarding sexual sin. Nonetheless, as even many Christmas-and-Easter “Christians” do not know, the Bible nowhere prohibits torture.

In fact, the Bible records that King David treated the Ammonites thus:

II Samuel 12:31: And he brought forth the people that [were] therein, and put [them] under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

God at least implicitly approved:

I Kings 15:5: Because David did [that which was] right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any [thing] that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

Finally, while feel-good liberal “Christians” say that torture should be allowed in order to gain information, what the above-quoted verse from II Samuel describes plainly had nothing to do with gathering information. top


March 12, 2008: Eliot Spitzer and prostitution (2)

Governor Spitzer announced his resignation this morning. The Christ-denying secular MSM are making much of the fact that he was a crusader against immorality, including prostitution, while in office. At least he is finally observing the following Bible teaching, which so many moralizers who are Republican, Christian, or both choose to overlook:

Matt. 7:1-5: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Thus, he is finally a good role model, at least for those politicians who squawk about how their sex lives are none of our business, even as they make our sex lives their business. top


March 11, 2008: Eliot Spitzer and prostitution

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer may resign over his alleged encounters with a high-class prostitution ring. While the world considers prostitution to be especially heinous, the Bible disagrees.

The Christian-lite community takes it for granted that the Bible has some sort of blanket prohibition against prostitution that makes it worse than other forms of pre- or extramarital sex. However, that is not so. The most commonly cited Bible verse on the subject actually says something far narrower:

Lev. 21:9: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Going from “the daughter of any priest” to women in general is an inexcusable rewrite of Scripture.

Of course, certain rules apply. For example, a father may not pimp his daughter (as opposed to simply selling his daughter, which Exodus 21:7 permits):

Lev. 19:29: Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

Also, under the Old Testament, only non-Hebrew women were allowed to become prostitutes:

Deut. 23:17: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Some commentators believe that the words in the original Hebrew referred to female and male temple prostitutes, but we do not need to consider that issue, as our overall point is the same regardless. top


February 24, 2008: Polyamory, Mike Huckabee, and the Bible

We’ve read recently in The Washington False-Christian Post about a conference for something called polyamory. Some people may confuse polyamory with Biblically correct marriage, but there are key differences. For one thing, the Bible never gives a woman permission to have more than one husband at once. Instead, the Bible is quite clear that marriage is strictly the union of one man and one or more wives and concubines (II Samuel 5:13, I Kings 11:3) and that polyandry is adultery (Romans 7:1-3). Human tradition agrees; the family unit that has served as the fundamental building block of all civilizations has typically involved polygyny, far more often than polyandry. That distinction may offend trendy modern notions of “fairness,” but such notions find no support in Scripture.

Still, polyamory is in some respects closer to the Biblical ideal than the modern notion of “Christian marriage” derived from the politically correct rewrite of Scripture. For example, Mike Huckabee, that apostle of feel-good churchianity, has stated his opposition to giving sodomites the special privilege of equality (so far, so good), but his stated reasons show that he is yet another liberal “Christian” for whom the Bible says whatever he wants it to say. He argues that same-sex marriage will set us down a slippery slope to marriage as “a man and three women,” among other things. Excuse us, but has this former minister ever read the Bible? He says that he does not want “to change the word of the living God,” but he plainly already has. He supposedly believes in Biblical inerrancy, but Biblical inerrancy when it suits him is not Biblical inerrancy at all. top


January 24, 2008: Is God pro-life or pro-choice?

This country has recently observed the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion to be a fundamental right. We have shown earlier that the Holy King James Bible does not support a pro-life position on abortion. Nonetheless, have-a-nice-day liberal “Christians” who assume that God must therefore support a woman’s right to choose are equally mistaken.

The passage from Exodus that we cited earlier shows that God does not equate abortion with murder or even assault, but it still does not support a pro-choice position. After all, that passage plainly recognizes the husband’s right to choose the amount of remuneration; the wife has no say in the matter.

More significant still is Numbers 5:11-31, a passage too long to quote here. That passage from Scripture describes a ritual, commanded by God, to test a woman accused of adultery and to cause her to abort if she has been unfaithful. There is nothing in that passage that is even the slightest bit pro-life or pro-choice. top


December 7, 2007: How to rebuke the unsaved

We've devoted an entire page to this vitally important subject. We've also updated How to Rebuke Homosexuals. top


August 26, 2007: Sex, lies, and conservatism

Heathenish “conservatives” who are actually either have-a-nice-day liberal “Christians” or outright unbelievers like to tell us that they oppose same-sex “marriage” solely out of a concern for democracy. They argue that issues relating to homosexuality should be decided democratically rather than by going to activist judges. Then, when an elected school board in Maryland or a city government in California does something that is too pro-sodomite for them, they turn right around and go before those same activist judges. It seems that they were lying about their reasons. Scripture tells us that liars are just as bad as sexually immoral people, including homosexuals, and will be just as damned:

I Tim. 1:9-11: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Rev. 21:8: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

If we’re wrong, show us, chapter and verse, where it says in the Bible that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire unless they’re lying in the cause of social conservatism.

Anyway, why do they have to make up reasons? Are they ashamed of the Bible? If so, they are in even worse trouble with the Lord:

Luke 9:26: For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father’s, and of the holy angels. top


August 19, 2007: More liberal bias at “Conserva”pedia

At “Conserva”pedia, the false-conservative encyclopedia you can’t trust, the liberal bias never ends. In the article on divorce, an editor who appears to be a Biblical inerrantist (apparently one of the few!) added Gospel verses on divorce that get in the way of modern liberal lifestyle choices. The relevant verses from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are as follows:

Matt. 5:32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matt. 19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:11-12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

One of the administrators added the following language right after them in regard to the issue of fornication:

Does two beat one or is Matthew, as an eyewitness, inserting information that the others had lost? There is no one answer.

So now “Conserva”pedia publicly takes a stand in favor of Biblical errancy and will not tolerate inerrantist views. Apparently, we aren’t even allowed to say that Scripture interprets Scripture. In other articles, we’ve seen relevant but inconvenient Scripture verses hand-waved away or even censored, just as the politically correct thought liberal police might do. We’ve said it before, and we’ve said it again: With “conservatives” like these, who needs liberals? top


August 15, 2007: Is this just a big computer simulation?

According to that missalette of the Darwinist monkey cult, the Science Times section of yesterday’s New York Times, a philosopher has hypothesized that our universe may be someone else’s computer simulation, and that such a someone else may in turn be a computer simulation. Since it can’t be computer simulations all the way out, as some heathens say it’s turtles all the way down, the article concedes that there must be a Prime Designer. It sounds as though they’ve conceded the need for a Creator, although, of course, such a Creator need not be omnibenevolent or omniscient.

Such a hypothesis supposedly resolves something called the “problem of evil,” which the article states thus: “How could God allow so much evil in the world?” If these people stopped dreaming up science-fiction scenarios long enough to read the Bible, they’d know that God does more than allow evil, and they’d also know why.

In the Bible, God is candid that it is He who creates evil:

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Amos 3:6: Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

He also creates wicked people to glorify Himself and to show mercy to His elect:

Prov. 16:4: The LORD hath made all [things] for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Rom. 9:17-24: For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So the “problem of evil” is not a problem at all, at least from God’s perspective. top


August 13, 2007: Republicans behaving badly

It seems that a week can’t go by without a sex scandal (often homosexual) involving a Republican leader. The latest sex scandal involves the head of the Young Republicans in an allegedly non-consensual homosexual encounter. Out of concern for the very decency that Republicans now seem to have abandoned, we will not describe the allegations further or even link to them. Such events should give pause to those saved Christians who are involved with the Republican Party.

The GOP, which has the nerve to call itself God’s Own Party, holds itself out as the guardian of heterosexual chastity and traditional family values. If so, someone in that party ought to open the ultimate source on family values – the Holy King James Bible – and turn to Matthew 7:1-5:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

So much for Republicans as guardians of morality.

Such behavior among Republicans calls into question not only their ability to safeguard American morals, but even their fitness to associate with Christians. As we read in the same chapter, namely, Matt. 7:15-20:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

A tree that bears such bitter fruit is plainly not one that Christians should be tending. When such a tree is hewn down and cast into the fire, as Jesus assures us it will be, do Christians want to go with it? Such supposed bastions of virtue as the Republican Party and the Catholic Church owe us an explanation as to why they have levels of sex scandals unknown even in organizations that promote the militant homosexual agenda of special privileges. top


August 5, 2007: We've started our own wiki!

In light of the liberal bias of the other wiki encyclopedias, we've started our own, TrueChristianPedia, the online encyclopedia that the saved can edit! Won't you join us in this project in order to share Christ's love over the Internet? top


May 29, 2007: Liberal bias at “Conserva”pedia

We were grateful to learn of the starting of Conservapedia, which was to be a conservative, Christian, pro-American alternative to the infamously liberal Wikipedia. Now, however, we are concerned that the liberalism of the church of compromise has infected even Conservapedia.

Consider the Conservapedia entry on slavery. The article itself gives the appropriate Scripture passages, without “interpretation” to make them sound more politically correct to modern liberals. So far, so good.

Now, let us look at that article’s talk page. Supposed Christian conservatives argue vehemently against including the relevant Bible passages, saying that they don’t need the Bible to make their case, that unnamed “Biblical scholars” say that those passages mean something totally different from what the words on paper say, and that God wants just about the exact opposite of what His Word says He wants. In other words, they say exactly the same things that liberals say about the Bible passages on homosexuality.

One person even calls those passages an “embarrassment” to Christianity. That person must also have ignored what Jesus said about those who are ashamed of His Word:

Luke 9:26: For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels. top


May 1, 2007: Charlene Cothran

By now, you’ve presumably heard of Charlene Cothran, publisher of Venus, and her renunciation of homosexuality. While she may have made a few baby steps toward a Biblically correct lifestyle, we think that she still has a way to go.  In particular, if she wants to be a true Christian woman and follow what the Bible teaches for women, she should do the following:

1. Get more gender-appropriate clothing:

Deuteronomy 22:5: The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

2. Grow her hair long:

I Corinthians 11:15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

3. Find a Godly Christian man and submit to him as though he were God:

Ephesians 5:22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

4. Have his babies:

I Timothy 2:15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

5. And then shut up:

I Corinthians 14:34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

I Timothy 2:12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

What's stopping her? top


April 30, 2007: Bible study in schools

We’ve read in the secular news about proposals to teach the Bible in public schools. We believe that this is a good thing, but only if done the right way.

The wrong way to do it – and sadly, the way that play-acting “Christians” seem to favor – is to cherry-pick those passages from Scripture that have-a-nice-day “Christians” like, such as the Sermon on the Mount. The Bible gives us no permission to do such a thing. Instead, all Scripture is Divinely inspired and suitable to be taught; certainly, none of it is too “grown up” for our precious children:

II Tim. 3:16: All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

In fact, both the Old and New Testaments warn against adding to, or subtracting from, Scripture:

Deut. 4:2: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Rev. 22:18-19: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

Moreover, it is wrong to decide what to believe and then cite proof texts, as so many touchy-feely liberal “Christians” do. Instead, one must start with Scripture and search the whole thing to see what is true:

Acts 17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Therefore, we recommend the following Bible curriculum for schools. Instead of simply reading the feel-good verses, students should read every word of the King James Bible, beginning with “In the beginning…” in Genesis 1:1 and not skipping a word until they have reached “Amen” in Rev. 22:21. The teacher should not interrupt the reading to give commentary, as God’s Word can and should be allowed to speak for itself (Eph. 3:3-4). Instead, students should develop their own timelines for such things as the order of events in Creation, as described in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and the order of events concerning the death and resurrection of Our Lord, as described in the four Holy Gospels. They should also be able to explain what Holy Scripture has to teach on subjects such as slavery, polygamy, and genocide and to explain and apply the moral lessons taught in such books of the Bible as the Song of Solomon. If an apostate “pastor” proposes anything different, demand to know why. top


April 2, 2007: In whom do we trust?

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation

We’ve read the controversy about the new dollar coins on which some people haven’t been able to find the motto “In God We Trust.” Perhaps those people should find their Bible and read it.

Where in the King James Bible does it say that we should have “In God We Trust” on our currency? Nowhere, that’s where! In fact, Our Lord said the following about coins:

Mark 12:13-17: And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in [his] words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see [it]. And they brought [it]. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

In other words, the coinage is Caesar’s, and we should give Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s. People who think otherwise are Pharisees and hypocrites. People who want “In God We Trust” on their currency must not trust God to know His own will on the matter.

Besides, Congress did not even make “In God We Trust” our national motto until 1956. The very next year, teen childbirth rates peaked in the United States, so that shows you whether it’s such a good idea. top


March 27, 2007: African-American churches and homosexuality

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation

We’ve read in today’s New York Liberal Atheist Times about the difficulties that African-American churches have in accepting homosexuals. We need to hear more about those churches’ own apostasy from important Biblical truths.

This may be the most difficult blog entry that we ever have to write, since it deals with what is probably the area in which political correctness differs the most strongly from Biblical correctness. Nonetheless, our faithfulness to what God actually says in the Bible, rather than to what hippy-dippy liberal “Christians” think He should have said, compels us to say the following.

The Bible is strongly and consistently pro-slavery. Even hellbound trash acknowledge as such; if they can perceive clear Biblical truth, why can people who claim to be Christians not do so? If God wanted to abolish slavery, He had the perfect opportunity to do so in the Book of Exodus; instead, that same book gives the following detailed instructions:

Exodus 21:2-11: If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Lest any cherry-picking “Christian” answer that the above instructions were from the old covenant and were “nailed to the Cross,” Our Lord never said any such thing, nor were these among the Old Testament laws with which the New Testament dispenses. In fact, the New Testament tells slaves to obey their masters, even the difficult ones, as they would obey Our Lord Himself:

Eph. 6:5: Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

I Peter 2:18: Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Indeed, if the Bible were at all anti-slavery, the Epistle to Philemon would be rather hard to explain. top


March 25, 2007: Republicans who live in glass houses

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation

We’ve read in the unsaved secular news that Newt Gingrich was committing adultery when he accused Bill Clinton of the same. Now, people are asking, “So what?” If they knew more of Scripture than what they half-remember from Sunday school, they’d know so what.

The Holy King James Bible uses the words “hypocrite” and “hypocrisy,” including their grammatical forms, 40 times, and never in a flattering way. The Bible says that a hypocrite shall not come before the Lord (Job 13:16), that his joy is but for a moment (Job 20:5), that when they put their piety on display to impress other people, that is their only reward (Matt. 6:2), that they worship God in vain (Matt. 15:9), and that their proselytes are twice as damned as they are (Matt. 23:15).

Our Lord spelled out clearly what sort of judgment such people can expect:

Matt. 7:1-2: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Then again, can’t a hypocrite be right? In other words, if a hypocrite committing a sin accuses another person of the same sin, is the moral judgment against that other person not still sound? Actually, no:

Matt. 7:3-5: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

In short, a hypocrite cannot even see clearly enough to do anything about other people’s sins. top


March 20, 2007: The Episcopal Church (2)

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation

Regarding the Anglican Communion, the plot thickens. According to this morning’s New York Unsaved Homosexual Times, while Anglicans in other countries consider severing ties with the Episcopal Church, it turns out that the Episcopal Church finances at least a third of the Anglican Communion’s operations.

Those Anglicans who have no use for the Episcopal Church except to siphon money out of it must wish that they had paid closer attention to Our Lord’s words:

Matt. 6:24: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 12:34: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

For that matter, they must not have much faith in God to honor His promises:

Luke 12:27-28: Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more [will he clothe] you, O ye of little faith? top


February 20, 2007: The Episcopal Church

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation

The Anglican Communion has rebuked its American branch, the Episcopal Church, for blessing same-sex unions and thus acting contrary to Scripture. While we applaud the Anglican Communion for denying sodomites the special privilege of equality, we have to wonder whether we are the only ones who see the irony here. The Anglican Communion was founded in the first place so that King Henry VIII could thumb his nose at Our Lord’s clearly expressed views on divorce:

Matt. 19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:11-12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

It appears that the Anglicans need a reminder that selective Biblical absolutism isn’t Biblical absolutism at all. top


November 5, 2006: The real threat to religious freedom

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation

We’ve heard arguments that gay marriage will violate religious freedom because the state will force churches to accept relationships that violate those churches’ teachings. In that case, the real threat to religious freedom comes not from state recognition of gay marriage, but from state recognition of marriage at all.

Where do you find any suggestion in the Holy King James Bible that we need secular marriage licenses? Nowhere, that’s where! Scripture quite clearly states that marriage is decreed by God:

Genesis 2:18: And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

The concept of state marriage licenses says something quite different. A state license is a permission slip from secular government to do something. Thus, by licensing marriage, the state says that it, not God, institutes marriage. That is blasphemy.

Even worse, when the state licenses marriage, it, not God Almighty, has the final say in ending marriage. The danger in legalized divorce is not in our liberal divorce laws, but in the fact that the state has divorce laws at all:

Mark 10:9: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Those fake Christians who think that they can divorce and remarry because the state says so had better think again, because God doesn’t say so:

Mark 10:11-12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Thus, when churches and other Christian organizations have to acknowledge state-licensed “marriage” of any sort, they are forced to permit what God forbids, such as divorce, and to forbid what God permits. top


October 20, 2006: We’ve been had!

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation.

According to a recent book by David Kuo, Tempting Faith, faith organizations are essentially the victims of a con job by the Republican Party. If more self-proclaimed “Christians” read the Bible rather than campaign literature, they might not have fallen for it.

The Republican Party and the conservative movement love to portray themselves as Christian, but let’s take a peek behind the mask. When we do so, we see a party and a movement dominated by members of false “Christian” cults, Jews, atheists, Jewish atheists, and devotees of that Jewish atheist adulteress, Ayn Rand. True Christians, far from allying ourselves with such a nefarious group of people, should not even give them the time of day:

II Cor. 6:14-18: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

What political party, then, should Christians support? Who says that we should do so at all? Until the Lord sees fit to restore us to power, this is our political philosophy:

John 18:36: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Romans 13:1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Like it or not, “the powers that be” include Hillary Clinton just as much as they include Rick Santorum.

Yet surely, you may say, true Christians are called to do what we can to make the world a better place. Yes, we are, and Jesus told us how:

Matt. 25:34-36: Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Note that Our Lord said, “…ye gave me meat, drink, etc….,” not “ye lobbied the government to do so.” Thus, He tells us what we personally should do, without polluting ourselves with secular politicking. top


October 4, 2006: Mark Foley

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation.

Mark Foley, who as a Republican Congressman made his reputation passing tough new laws against sexual predators, has now been revealed to be a homosexual pedophile himself. (If you wonder why Mark Foley must always be identified as a homosexual, whereas no one ever identifies people like John Mark Karr and Charles C. Roberts IV as heterosexuals, then you obviously lack spiritual discernment.) It now appears as though Foley may be prosecuted under his own laws.

Biblically literate people should have seen that one coming. Let us quote one of the pretend Christians’ least favorite Bible passages:

Matt. 7:1-2: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

We see this happening now, which proves the Bible right yet again. Praise Jesus!

But what of Republican leaders who allegedly shielded Foley for so long? If the allegations are true, then those Republican leaders are in as much trouble with the Lord as Foley himself is:

Romans 1:32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. top


September 26, 2006: Don’t think for yourself; just believe.

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation.

We have previously shown from Scripture that God hates evidence and loves blind faith and that we should simply read Scripture, not interpret it. This, of course, leads to an often asked question, “Should Christians think for themselves?” The Biblically correct answer is that we should not.

The Old and New Testaments both say that we should trust in the Lord with all our hearts rather than trying to figure things out for ourselves. In the second Genesis creation story (and as we have previously said, both Genesis creation stories are literally true), God’s first commandment to man was the following:

Gen. 2:16-17: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

We all remember what happened when he violated that commandment.

That commandment was reinforced in a different form later in the Old Testament:

Proverbs 3:5-7: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Lest any phony-baloney liberal “Christian” should tell you that that commandment was “nailed to the Cross,” it was repeated in the New Testament:

Colossians 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

By the way, this is the only time the word “philosophy” occurs in the entire King James Bible. Also, philosophy is the invention of the ancient Greeks, who also gave the world the cult of homosexuality, so that tells us how much we can trust it.

Moreover, we have already noted the teaching of Jesus that we will know them by their fruits. If the fruits of too much thinking include atheism, the tree itself must not be one intended for Christians.

Finally, as saved Christians, we have no need to think for ourselves, since we have Christ to do our thinking for us:

I Corinthians 2:16: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Praise His holy name! top


September 12, 2006: Don’t interpret the Bible; just read it.

Biblically Correct Audio version under preparation.

This blog entry does not concern any specific recent event, but instead concerns a more general issue. Milk Christians (I Cor. 3:2, Heb. 5:12) have asked us how to interpret specific teachings of Scripture. Also, “Christians” who are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15) have tried to rebuke us for preaching what the King James Bible actually says instead of whatever “correct interpretation” fits their politically correct agenda. Such people must not have enough faith in Almighty God to say what He means and mean what He says. The Bible says that we are to read God’s Word, not interpret it.

Deuteronomy 4:2 says,

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Note that it says “word,” not “interpreted meaning.” Interpreting God’s Word to make it fit our preconceived notions means adding to, or diminishing from, the word that God has commanded us.

Ephesians 3:3-4 makes it even clearer that God expects you to read the words of Scripture and follow their plain meaning:

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Finally, II Peter 1:20 says,

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Which part of “no” do the Bible interpreters not understand? Then again, perhaps those Bible verses need to be “interpreted correctly,” too.

In summary, the Bible was given to us to be read, not interpreted. Therefore, when Holy Scripture teaches us that insects have four feet (Lev. 11:22-23), that God stores snow and hail in heavenly “treasures” for later use (Job 38:22-23), or that the world is established that it cannot be moved (Ps. 93:1), then God expects you to believe His word, not interpret it to suit yourself. After all, if you do not believe every word of the Bible, why believe any of it? Also, if you get to ignore rewrite interpret any part of Scripture that gets in the way of what you want to believe, what stops homosexuals from doing the same thing? top


September 6, 2006: Does it get any more Biblically incorrect?

Listen in Biblically Correct Audio!

We’ve recently read in The Washington Post about a fruit fly whose evolution has been affected by global warming in a way that affects its chromosomes. This is total nonsense, of course, since it involves three things that the Holy Bible clearly states are impossible – evolution, genetics, and global warming.

The notion of evolution through natural selection contradicts both of the Genesis creation stories (Gen. 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25), both of which are Divinely inspired and literally true. Whether God created animals before mankind (Gen. 1:21-26) or after (Gen. 2:18-20), the point remains that God created them and called them good. That is not compatible with the trial and error, or the massive deaths, taught by the Darwinist monkey-worshipers.

As for genetics, the Holy Bible quite clearly explains how traits are inherited in Gen. 30:37-39:

And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

If chromosomes had anything to do with it, God would have said so.

Finally, if global warming were real, it would result in the drowning of the entire world, something that cannot happen according to God’s promise in Gen. 9:11.

As you can see, secular “science” is just not credible, since few things contradict the Holy Bible more consistently. The only reason why so many people would believe such a crude swindle is explained in II Thess. 2:11-12:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. top


August 27, 2006: “Angelz” or devils?

Listen in Biblically Correct Audio!

Our administration is promoting stricter public morality at home. Why, then, is it spending our tax dollars to promote lewdness in Iraq?

According to this news report, American and Iraqi troops in Iraq are being “entertained” by mini-skirted dancers called “Purrfect Angelz,” paid for by the military, i.e., by the taxpayers. Would anyone try to entertain Jesus in this way? We hope not, since He said in Matt. 5:28:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

He would presumably also not approve of the Angelz’ dress code, since it does not conform to the way in which women are told to dress in I Timothy 2:9:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.

If this is the best way that our administration can find to promote decency, no wonder people are increasingly tolerant of indecent lifestyle choices:

Galatians 6:7: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. top


August 23, 2006: Leading people away from homosexuality or from the Bible?

According to this news report, American ex-gay ministries are looking to spread to Australia. While saving Australians from the sin of sodomy looks good on paper, the ex-gay ministries are doomed to failure because their leaders only think that they have a Scriptural foundation.

Those ministries allege that a boy can become a homosexual “if the father is distant and the mother over-protective.” We wonder how they think girls become lesbians. More to the point, the Holy King James Bible says no such thing. We have already explained the Scriptural reason for homosexuality. Besides, fluffy-bunny “Christians” look pretty silly when they try to argue that whereas a prophylactic with a 98% success rate is a dismal failure, an ex-gay ministry with no discernible success rate at all is a glorious success.

The following rules also gave us pause. Men must remove all facial hair seven days a week, and sideburns must not fall below the top of the ear (what, no prohibition on chest shaving?). Women must shave legs and underarms at least twice weekly. The ex-gay ministries that impose those rules do not even pretend that those rules have a Biblical basis. Regarding men’s facial hair, the Book of Leviticus – the same one that phony-baloney “Christians” love to cite on the topic of homosexuality – has this to say:

Lev. 19:27: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Then again, perhaps any Old Testament law that gets in the way of their agenda was “nailed to the Cross” or “meant for people back then.”

If these play-acting “Christians” were serious about finding a Biblically correct way to protect people from sin, they’d remember the following Biblical fashion tip that was given for exactly that purpose:

Numbers 15:38-40: Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

That sounds to us to be much more useful than simply forbidding people to wear Abercrombie & Fitch. top


August 17, 2006: Is Pluto a planet? Who cares?

The secular “news” media are reporting a proposed change in the definition of “planet.” The whole question just shows an ignorance of Biblically correct astronomy.

Genesis describes the construction of space, namely, as a firmament separating water below it from water above it:

Gen. 1:6-7: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

The stars are set in the firmament (Gen. 1:16-17) and are small enough and close enough that they can be knocked to earth:

Rev. 12:4: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Also, the planets as such are mentioned only once in the entire King James Bible:

II Kings 23:5: And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

Think about that the next time you’re about to call a planet by its conventional name, which was taken from the name of a pagan deity. top


August 15, 2006: Preventing airborne terrorism

We’ve read a lot in the unsaved MSM about a thwarted terrorist plot to blow up planes en route from London to various U.S. cities. We should consider a Biblically correct way to prevent such things from ever being plotted in the first place.

Prayers for travel mercies won’t cut it, since airplanes are a modern version of iron chariots:

Judges 1:19: And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Nor will appeasing terrorists work. Instead, the Bible commands us to do the following:

I Sam. 15:2-3: Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

In other words, we should blow up their whole countries, including their children and their livestock, without any of this “bringing democracy to the Middle East” and “converting them to Christianity” stuff that’s so trendy and P.C. right now. top


August 11, 2006: Israel and “proportionality”

People are complaining that Israel’s self-defense against Hezbollah doesn’t follow something called “proportionality.” According to such complaints, Israel should take more care not to kill civilians. We don’t know where people got that idea, since the Bible plainly approves of the killing of innocent civilians.

In Numbers ch. 31, God commanded Israel to avenge itself on the Midianites. Here was the “proportionality” that Israel was to follow in that war:

Numbers 31:12-18: And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which [are] by Jordan [near] Jericho. And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As you see, not only were the Israelites commanded to kill innocent civilians, but they also got a nifty fringe benefit for doing so. God is good, all the time! top


July 25, 2006: Recent events in Washington

As you presumably know, Congress defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment.  We have mixed feelings about that.  We are all for preventing those disgusting sodomites from achieving the special privilege of equality.  On the other hand, the Federal Marriage Amendment would have locked this country into a form of “marriage” that has been drastically redefined until it is dramatically different from Biblically correct marriage.

Also, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have increased federal funding for stem-cell research.  We have mixed feelings about that as well.  As we have shown, equating the use of embryonic stem cells with murder is Biblically incorrect.  Then again, we do not need to research new ways of curing diseases when the Bible tells us all we need to know. top


July 24, 2006: Violence in the Near East

We’ve heard a lot about violence in Iraq and also between Israel and the Syrian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. Some people say that the violence is caused by Israel’s tolerance of homosexuals. That may be, but we see another explanation, namely, that Israel has not been allowed to expand to its Biblically correct borders.

The borders of the present-day State of Israel find no basis in the Bible, but are instead an artifact of colonialism after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The original boundaries, as decreed by God, are set forth in Genesis 15:18:

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.

A quick glance at a map will confirm that the land given by the Lord includes Lebanon, most of Syria, and a large chunk of Iraq. Problem solved. top


July 4, 2006: Happy Independence Day. Now repent!

Today we celebrated “Independence Day,” the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed. But from a Biblically correct standpoint, is this day really worth celebrating?

According to the Declaration of Independence, God gave us “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That statement, of course, presupposes the god of 18th-century Deism, not the God of the Bible. The Biblically correct view is that God gives us no unalienable rights:

Job 9:12: “Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?”

Even if we did have unalienable rights, any Biblically literate person could tell you that they don’t include life (James 4:14), liberty (I Peter 2:18), or the pursuit of happiness (Eccl. 4:1-2).

The Declaration goes on to say that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….” Not according to the Bible, they’re not. Since the powers that be are ordained of God (Rom. 13:1), we must obey secular government (Rom. 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Hebrews 13:17). Even tax protests, such as the Boston Tea Party, are Biblically incorrect (Rom. 13:6-7; see also Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25). top


June 29, 2006: Teaching evolution in Georgia

An article in yesterday’s edition of The New York Liberal Sodomite Times sang the praises of a teacher in rural Georgia who “bravely” taught the atheistic lie of evolution in a public school. Thank the Lord that Christian parents and administrators did not always agree with such nonsense.

One parent complained, “As budget cuts continuously chip away at our children's future of a good, quality college-ready education, I would think there would be more educational, more worthwhile and certainly more factual learning that could be taught.” Amen to that! More to the point, even if teaching evolution were a good preparation for college, would it be worth it? As Our Lord put it,

Mark 8:36: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

You could say the same thing about a place at a fancy-pants liberal university.

At least the principal says that he believes everything in the Bible. So at least there is some chance that the precious children will learn the Bible’s truths about science, as opposed to atheistic lies. top


June 27, 2006: Et tu, Jack Chick!

We’re used to being able to rely on Brother-in-Christ Jack Chick to provide a Biblically correct view of the issues facing modern life. Imagine our surprise, then, when he came out with this column attacking another Christian, Mark Henkel of TruthBearer.org, for the sin of wanting to follow what the Bible actually teaches about marriage, rather than what politically correct liberals think that the Bible ought to have said. Chick has the nerve to identify as “perversion” what the Old Testament clearly and repeatedly said about proper family arrangements, but never quite gets around to citing any Scripture to back up his position. Could it be that … oh, we don’t know … there is none?

Chick does say, however, that 92% of Americans oppose polygamy. So what? Our Lord told us that Christian morality would not be determined by a popularity contest:

Matt. 7:13-14: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

In other words, Biblically incorrect nonsense doesn’t become any less nonsensical just because lots of Scripturally illiterate people choose to believe it. top


June 1, 2006: How to rebuke homosexuals

We’ve devoted an entire page to this vitally important subject. top


May 23, 2006: You can help keep marriage Biblically correct.

We’ve started an online petition to keep marriage Biblically correct. Please take a moment to sign. top


May 16, 2006: Social conservatives and Bush

According to the May 15 edition of that missalette of blue-state liberalism, The New York Times, “Christian” social conservatives are increasingly dissatisfied with the Bush administration. While their hearts may be in the right place, we believe that they are more interested in being politically correct than in being Biblically correct.

“Christian” social conservatives have pretty much abandoned whatever they used to believe of economic conservatism, and that’s a good thing as far as it goes. The Holy Scripture tells us to give to anyone who asks (Matt. 5:42, Luke 6:30), to bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), and to hold all things in common (Acts 2:44, 4:32). It also tells us that we should take no thought for providing for ourselves for tomorrow (Matt. 6:25-34), since God will supply all our needs according to His riches in glory (Phil. 4:19). Economic conservatives who think otherwise must not have much faith in Almighty God to honor His promises.

But then, when “Christians” accuse our President of not doing enough about gay marriage or abortion, they tip their decidedly non-Christian hand. The King James Bible says repeatedly that we are to obey and honor earthly rulers:

I Peter 2:13-17: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using [your] liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

See also Rom. 13:1-5 and Heb. 13:17. Thus, President Bush may not be doing things fast enough to please the social conservatives, but he is moving in God’s time. “Christian” social conservatives who challenge the Bush administration are actually challenging God. top


May 9, 2006: Warren Jeffs

The FBI has named Warren Jeffs, “prophet” of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as one of its ten most wanted fugitives. As we understand it, he has been charged with sexual assault on a minor and conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor for arranging the marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a 28-year-old man who was already married. While we don’t normally have too many good things to say about splinter groups from Mormonism, we will say this much for him: His views on marriage are not politically correct, but they are Biblically correct.

Fluffy-bunny liberal “Christians” will be aghast at the very thought of polygamy, since their “Biblical,” “traditional” morality finds no basis in either the Bible or human tradition. As we’ve already explained — not that trendy, modernist “Christians” are paying any attention to what we Bible believers say — what the Bible teaches about polygamy and what the Church of Compromise teaches about polygamy are 180 degrees apart.

As for the fact that the girl was 16, where in the King James Bible will you find an age of consent higher than that, or for that matter an age of consent at all? Nowhere, that’s where! The Holy Scripture contains long lists of prohibitions, but that isn’t one of them. Then again, those “Christians” whose knowledge of the Bible begins and ends with John 3:16 couldn’t have read Numbers 31:15-18:

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

So, actually, what “Prophet” Jeffs is alleged to have done is pretty mild by the Biblical standards that people nowadays pretend to hold dear. top


April 29, 2006: The Bible and gentrification

You’ve probably heard by now about a proposal to open a bar catering to homosexuals across from a church in the gentrifying Shaw neighborhood of Washington, D.C. It appears that the members of the church aren’t too happy about it. In fact, the bishop of the church declined to be interviewed by The Washington Post unless that newspaper quoted the verses about homosexuality from Romans ch. 1. That bishop needs a reminder that selective Biblical absolutism isn’t Biblical absolutism at all.

It’s ironic that so many African-American congregations demand that the rest of us follow a literal, legalistic reading of the Bible on homosexuality. Throughout this country’s history, they have wanted us not to follow a literal, legalistic reading of the Bible on slavery. Shockingly enough, even women pastors have joined in the condemnation; if they cared what such a reading of the Bible has to say about women as pastors (I Tim. 2:11-12, I Cor. 14:34-35), they would find a different role in their churches.

It is also ironic that anyone will worry that such a bar will “undermine the moral character” of Shaw. As longtime residents of our nation’s capital know, the most salient feature of that “moral character” has been a shockingly high crime rate. Our Lord told us in Matt. 7:15-20 that we will know religions by their fruits:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Evil fruit does not grow on a good tree, in Shaw or anywhere else. Instead, a good tree grows the fruits listed in Gal. 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Churches in Shaw, and everywhere else, will owe an account to the Lord of the fruit that they have grown in their own back yards. top


April 16, 2006: Happy Resurrection Sunday. Now put down the Easter eggs.

As Resurrection Sunday approaches, we’re hearing a lot about the Easter bunny and Easter eggs. The “Christians” who went to church today for the first time since Christmas take it for granted that those things have something to do with the Passion of Our Lord. We think that they should spend less time at candy stores and more time in Bible study.

You are not saved through rabbits and eggs. The Old Testament dietary laws say that rabbits are unclean animals (Lev. 11:5, Deut. 14:7) because they chew their cud but do not divide their hooves. (If you find yourself wondering whether rabbits indeed chew their cud or whether they have hooves at all, then you need a little more spiritual discernment.) Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:29), not an unclean animal. As for eggs, Jesus did once mention eggs, but in a completely different context (Luke 11:12).

Thus, rabbits and eggs have nothing to do with the Resurrection of Our Lord. Instead, the Church of Compromise adapted them from pagan spring festivals. Unsaved liberals love to point this fact out to us; while they are on the No. 666 express bus to Hell, they are right on this matter.

Besides, we are not even using the right dates. Our Lord said that He would “be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). There are not three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning. top


April 10, 2006: The power of prayer

Unsaved liberals have recently been crowing over a study that purported to show that prayer has no healing power. That people would look to a secular study, rather than the Holy Bible, to determine such a thing just shows how deep in apostasy our “Christian” nation is.

We don’t need secular “science” to determine whether prayer heals, when the Bible clearly tells us that it does in James 5:14-15:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Also, testing the power of prayer is putting the Lord to the test, which Jesus forbids in Matt. 4:7:

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Besides, God could alter the results just to test our faith in Him, similarly to what we read in Deut. 13:1-3:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

In short, we should not try to gather evidence that the Bible is true because God loves blind faith and hates evidence. Our Lord Jesus Christ put it best in John 20:29:

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. top


April 5, 2006: Abdul Rahman and apostasy

We’ve been hearing a lot recently about Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity. People like to say that Christian society is more “enlightened” and “tolerant” (i.e., liberal and politically correct) and that if the situation were reversed, we would not seek the death penalty. That view just shows that contemporary “Christian” society already is in apostasy from Biblically correct Christianity.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 commands us:

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Again, in II Chronicles 15:12-13, we read:

And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

So you see? Except for the fact that we have the right religion and they don’t, we and Muslims actually see eye to eye on this issue. top


March 30, 2006: The War on Christians

We’ve heard a lot recently about the War on Christians. Unfortunately, most of what we’ve heard is from the “Christians” who think that they know more about Christianity than Christ does and who rewrite the Bible weekly to suit secular political fads. What they say doesn’t always square with what the Holy Bible has to say.

The reactions of such “Christians” to anti-Christian persecution can easily lead the unsaved to believe that Christians are just another bunch of whiners demanding special rights. Our Lord Jesus Christ told us in Matt. 5:10-12:

Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Now, do you see the whiny “Christians” organizing big conferences in which they rejoice and are exceeding glad, as Jesus commanded? Neither do we.

The whiners’ favorite whine is that they aren’t allowed to practice Christianity on government property and on government time. They must not have much faith in Almighty God if they don’t have faith in Him to hear their prayers on private property or on their own time. We wonder what they think Jesus meant when He told us the following in Matt. 6:5-6:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

We also wonder how they think Jesus feels when they give to Caesar what is God’s and give to God what is Caesar’s (Matt. 22:21). Then again, perhaps those Scripture teachings aren’t P.C. enough for them.

They also love to whine when their monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouse lobbies get removed. They don’t even see the irony in kneeling and praying before their big hunks of stone. In the Ten Commandments, as given in both Exodus ch. 20 and Deuteronomy ch. 5 (we’ll set aside for the moment the version in Exodus ch. 34), the second of those commandments forbids us to make a graven image, bow down to it, or serve it. Can’t they think of a way of honoring the Ten Commandments that doesn’t involve violating the second of those commandments? top


March 26, 2006: Immigration reform, the Bible way

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the immigration reform, guest workers, the Minutemen, and even the possibility of keeping the children of illegal immigrants out of state universities. Some people say that we need to do so to preserve the “Christian” nature of our country.

But what is the Bible’s plan for immigration reform? Here it is in Leviticus 19:33-34:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.

There you have it. God wants us to treat immigrants just as we would treat native-born Americans. In other words, once they come over, they automatically receive the rights of citizens. Anything else would be Biblically incorrect. But you are still allowed to buy their children as slaves (Lev. 25:45). top


March 14, 2006: Men are leaving churches in record numbers.

Focus on the Family tells us that men are leaving the church in record numbers. Men might not be in such a hurry to leave the church if the “church” hadn’t been in such a hurry to leave the Bible.

Churches seem to be willing to do anything to attract men, as long as it doesn’t involve Biblically correct teaching. In the article linked above, we read the following about one church’s quest to attract men:

When people walk into our services we have very masculine elements that are immediately presented to them. Oh, and what would those be – vestments by Tom of Finland, perhaps?

Instead of using the traditional “pastor” title, The Grove uses Head Coach because men relate to that title. And now, will you please join us in our closing hymn, “Drop-Kick Me, Jesus, Through the Goal Posts of Life.”

The sad irony is that pastors – oops, we mean head coaches – wouldn’t be so desperate to keep men if modern liberal “churches” hadn’t feminized the Holy Bible to make it more politically correct. The real Bible has plenty in it to hold men’s attention. The very first book, Genesis, tells us that God made the man first (Gen. 2:7) and the woman as a helper for him because the animals couldn’t do the job (Gen. 2:20-24). As for the action that men crave, the Old Testament is chock full of the sort of gory battle scenes that would make Hollywood liberals blush. Here’s just one example from II Sam. 12:29-31:

And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. And he took their king's crown from off his head, the weight whereof [was] a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was [set] on David's head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. And he brought forth the people that [were] therein, and put [them] under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.

Now, why don’t pastors ever read action-packed Bible passages like that from the pulpit? If they did, men would certainly not skip church to watch the game.

The Old Testament even puts dollar values on men and women, and a woman is worth 50-67% of a man (Lev. 27:3-7). Finally, and best of all, the Bible lets men blame everything on women (I Tim. 2:13-14):

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

So you see? If churches preached the authentic truths of the Bible, they wouldn’t have enough room for all of the men. top


March 11, 2006: Travis Frey and the Contract of Wifely Expectations

Parental advisory: This blog entry contains sensitive and adult subject matter, but nothing more sensitive and adult than you will find in the Holy Bible itself.

You’ve presumably heard by now about Travis Frey, the man who is charged with kidnapping his wife and who tried to get her to sign a four-page “Contract of Wifely Expectations” that would have required her to submit to various sadomasochistic sex acts. The secular, liberal media are up in arms, calling him a “perv” and a “sicko.” One thing that they are not calling him is Biblically incorrect, since he isn’t.

People like to say that since Adam and Eve were the first married couple ever, they set the standard for the “traditional” marriage that we have today. The people who say that must not have read very far into Genesis, or they would have come to Gen. 3:16:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Hippy-dippy liberal “Christians” will probably respond that this part of Scripture was “nailed to the Cross” and no longer applies. That’s not what we read in Ephesians 5:22-24:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

Note that it says “every thing,” not “only certain things.” If there were an exception for what modern P.C. liberal “Christians” consider to be “perv” or “sicko,” the Holy Bible would not have used the blanket language “in every thing.” As it is, they are just putting their fallible human feelings above God’s crystal clear commandment. top


March 9, 2006: “Global warming,” or warming the globe to God’s Word?

The latest nonsense from the liberal media is that something called “global warming” is causing the Antarctic ice sheet to melt and that even the disappearance of the smaller West Antarctic could raise worldwide sea levels by an estimated twenty feet. We know that this is a lie from the pit of hell for the following reason. If such a thing were to happen, it would cause widespread flooding, something that according to the Holy Bible cannot happen.

The reason is found in the story of Noah’s Ark in Genesis. God, who does not repent (Numbers 23:19), repented of having created mankind (Gen. 6:6). God instructed Noah to bring two of every kind of animal (Gen. 6:19-20), or maybe it was seven of the clean beasts and the birds (Gen. 7:2-3). It must have been a special blessing that Noah would know which beasts were clean, since the dietary laws wouldn’t be revealed for another eight hundred years – but we digress. God killed all living things with a flood except for Noah and his family and the creatures on the Ark (Gen. 7:21-22) and then promised Noah that no such thing would ever happen again (Gen. 9:11).

As you can see, the Bible is crystal clear on this point, as it is on everything. Are you going to trust a bunch of scientists who think that they know more about the earth than its Creator, or are you going to trust the Creator?

So don’t worry about global warming, since the Bible proves that no such thing is happening. Instead, you should worry about something that will actually affect your life, like gay marriage. top


March 6, 2006: Abortion: A Biblically correct response

Just as South Dakota has bravely passed an anti-abortion law, politically correct feminazis have broadcast their propaganda that parental-notification laws don’t work. Anti-life liberals think they’re so clever when they ask, “What punishment would you impose for abortion?” If today’s Christmas-and-Easter “Christians” ever read the Bible, they would know what punishment God specifies.

The Holy Bible gives the proper punishment for abortion in Exodus 21:22-25:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]. And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So you see? According to God’s law, causing a woman’s fruit to depart from her is not the same thing as the sort of mischief for which one must give life for life or the like. Instead, the judges simply assess a fine. Of course, if the woman’s husband wanted the abortion, he would not “lay upon” the abortionist, so there would presumably be no fine at all. top


February 25, 2006: Rev. Lonnie Latham

Politically correct liberals have spent a lot of time tut-tutting over the arrest of Rev. Lonnie Latham for soliciting a male police officer for an activity that true Christians will refuse even to name. In fact, the disgusting sodomites have made him the latest poster child in their militant agenda to achieve the special privilege of equality. When Rev. Latham was “ministering” to the police, he probably should have invited them to Bible study and read them Matt. 7:1-5:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

People have asked us why Rev. Latham, a man of God so heavily involved in the Southern Baptist church, would choose to chuck his family and church in order to become a sodomite. We often hear that people just choose the sodomite lifestyle; the problem is that the Bible never says so. In other words, that view is politically correct, but not Biblically correct.

The only portion of the Bible that explains where homosexuals come from is Romans 1:18-27. This is going to be a long read – certainly more than most “Christians” seem to have read of the Bible – so bear with us.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

In other words, it’s God that makes people into disgusting sodomites or feminazi rug-munchers. He does it because everything you need to know about God is plainly visible in His creation, but some people refuse to see it (failing to notice isn’t an option), and instead, they worship idols. So instead of asking why a conservative Christian family man would choose the homosexual lifestyle, ask what idols he worshiped that provoked the Lord to turn him into a queer. top


February 20, 2006: Good news from Broadcast Row, for a change

We’re used to thinking of the entertainment industry and The New York Times as two wholly owned subsidiaries of the militant homosexual recruitment squadron. Imagine our pleasant surprise, then, when we read in The Times about an upcoming show on HBO, to be called Big Love, that shows the sort of family values so often preached in the Old Testament. Naturally, those “Christians” who only think that they are Biblically correct are howling in outrage. Our only suggestion to them is that they pull the shrink wrap off of their Bibles.

Of course, the article engages in the obligatory tut-tutting about the dark side of marital arrangement to be shown. But could it be that this Biblically correct lifestyle is underground precisely because the Christ-hating liberals in our secular government have driven it underground? No, that couldn’t be it at all. top


February 9, 2006: George Deutsch

Satanist feminazis are having great fun at the expense of normal Americans over the recent revelations about George C. Deutsch. A Bush political appointee to NASA, Deutsch made the NASA webmaster refer to the Big Bang as a theory out of “fairness” to people who believe in intelligent design (a topic that we discussed earlier; see below). Now, it turns out, he never completed the journalism degree that he claimed to have.

This isn’t just some little oops, unless you are one of those “Christians” who believe that the Bible was revealed for other people. God’s Word tells us that liars are in the same “ungodly” and “unholy” moral category as homosexuals (I Timothy 1:9-10) and that all liars (not just some, but all) will be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8).

But then, it’s easy to become morally corrupted in NASA, since the whole idea of NASA is Biblically incorrect. The Holy Scripture already tells us what we need to know about the workings of the heavens: that the world is on pillars (I Samuel 2:8) and has been established that it shall not be moved (I Chron. 16:30, Ps. 93:1, Ps. 96:10), that the sun orbits the earth and can move backward at a prophet’s command (Isaiah 38:8), and that the stars are small enough that they can fall to earth (Rev. 6:13). top


February 2, 2006: The Bible and democracy

In light of recent court decisions on medical marijuana, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide, people have had a great deal to say about protecting the democratic will of the people from unelected liberal activist judges. Christ-hating liberals (who are in the HOV lane to hell, but even they can be right on occasion) have pointed out the inconsistency of those conservatives who favor majority rule, but only when the majority can be counted on to vote their way. To us, the real cause for the confusion is that no one has thought to consult the Holy Scripture on the subject of democracy.

In the Old Testament, Korah son of Izhar thought that democracy was a good idea. As we read in Numbers 16:3:

And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, [Ye take] too much upon you, seeing all the congregation [are] holy, every one of them, and the LORD [is] among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

God had different ideas, as shown in Numbers 16:31-32:

And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that [appertained] unto Korah, and all [their] goods.

Since then, throughout the Old Testament, God’s chosen people were ruled by prophets, kings, and even judges (which adds new meaning to the term “judicial tyranny”), but not by a democratically elected government.

The New Testament did not change that. Our Lord told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25); He never said anything about voting Caesar out of office. In Acts 1:24-26, a new apostle was chosen, not by vote, but by lot:

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Romans 13:1 says that the powers that be are ordained of God, not of the electorate. In fact, the only election that takes place in the Holy Bible is God’s election of His favorite people (Is. 45:4, Matt. 24:24). top


January 31, 2006: We’re #1! Praise!

Fellow prayer warriors, we have the most heartening news for you. We know that God has promised to preserve His words (Ps. 12:6-7). Now He has kept his promise to this ministry. We recently did a Web search on Dogpile.com (trademarks are the property of their respective owners and do not imply an endorsement of our ministry by any unsaved blue-state liberals) to find similar ministries, and when we tried either the search term biblically correct marriage or the search term biblically correct blog, we were the first search result on the list. We were also on the first page of results for biblically correct america and biblically correct. That means that when the Lord puts it on people’s hearts to search the Internet for the Bible’s truths on these matters, they will be led to our ministry. Shout glory! top


January 6, 2006: With conservatives like these, who needs liberals?

We’re used to having to endure a constant stream of Christ-hating liberal filth from newspapers like The Washington Post, but imagine our surprise when we read the same sort of thing in a supposedly safe news source, The Weekly Standard. That publication has opposed gay marriage (okay, so far, so good) by warning that it will lead us down the slippery slope to polygamy.

Excuse us, but so what? We don’t know where these people are getting their “Old Testament” morality these days, but it certainly isn’t the Old Testament. Read and learn, people.

In addition, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue fame has been quoted as justifying leaving his wife for a trophy wife by saying, “The Bible doesn’t condemn divorce, but it does condemn homosexuality.” Oh, really? Then someone forgot to tell the Son of God that He doesn’t condemn that sort of thing (Mark 10:11-12; see also Prov. 5:18-19). top


December 4, 2005: It’s beginning to look a lot like Satanmas

We’ve just observed Black Friday, one of the holiest feast days of the church of Mammon (Matt. 6:24). Now, as we approach Christmas, people whose understanding of the Nativity of Our Lord comes from mall displays think that they are honoring His birth. They would do well to honor Him by reading their Bibles.

If they did, they would see that nowhere in the King James Bible does it say to celebrate the birth of Christ with “Christmas” trees. In fact, it says the exact opposite in Jeremiah 10:2-4:

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one] cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

As you can see, “Christmas” trees are a heathen custom that God tells us not to follow. In fact, atheists love to point out the pagan origins of our “Christmas” trees; even though atheists are in the express lane to Hell, they are correct on this point. top


November 1, 2005: “Jesus” in the tree bark

Just in case the “apparitions” of Mary in a grilled-cheese sandwich and a highway underpass aren’t enough, people are now reporting seeing the face of Jesus in tree bark. We wish that those “Christians” were half as interested in looking for Jesus in the Bible.

Where in the King James Bible does it say that Jesus is supposed to appear in tree bark, or Mary on a grilled-cheese sandwich? Nowhere, that’s where! Matthew 24:23-27 describes how Jesus will appear:

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Even worse, someone said that the tree-bark Jesus was a sign calling for “peace” in a high-crime neighborhood. If Jesus wants peace – which is pretty debatable (Ex. 15:3, Matt. 10:34) – what stops Him from just snapping His fingers and making it happen? top


October 25, 2005: “Christian health plans” are for pagans.

We’re used to the idea that reading the liberal Washington Post is like having a sewage pipeline diverted into one’s living room, but we still weren’t quite prepared for what we read in today’s health section. It appears that “Christians” are drinking deeply from the sewage – at least, those “Christians” whose idea of Bible study is reading a Testamints wrapper are doing so.

It appears that some so-called “Christians” are joining church health plans to help them pay the bills sent by the secular medical establishment, in imitation of godless HMO’s. Where is that in the King James Bible? When Jesus cured people, He didn’t tell them to join some sort of church health plan; He cast out demons (Mark 9:25). The Holy Bible describes genuine Christian health care in James 5:14-15:

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

Does that sound like some sort of Christian bill-paying plan to you? It doesn’t to us either. Genuine Christian health care isn’t about paying bills to unsaved doctors; it’s about faith. As Matthew 9:22 tells us:

“But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.”

Finally, if the “Christians” paying into those plans were truly righteous, they wouldn’t get sick anyway. As God told us in Ex. 23:25:

“And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.”

In case anyone missed the point, He repeated it in Deut. 7:15:

“And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.”

Those people who play-act at being Christian, but who get sick anyway, should be less concerned with paying into their church health plans and more concerned with repenting. top


October 15, 2005: Harriet Miers

Some phony-baloney “Christians” (more like wolves in sheep’s clothing, Matt. 7:15) have argued against the nomination of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court justice because she supposedly isn’t qualified. Well, boo hoo already! Where does it say in the King James Bible that the President is supposed to appoint the most competent person? God chose Moses, even though both of them knew that Moses wasn’t qualified (Ex. 4:10). In Judges ch. 7, we read that God picked the biggest losers for battle, so that the people would glorify Him rather than their own might. Even in the New Testament, the early church chose its leaders by lot (Acts 1:26). Where was the meritocracy then?

Besides, it’s not their place to criticize anyway. As Romans 13:1-2 says:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

So those self-proclaimed “conservatives” should just shut their pie-holes and let the President do his Divinely ordained job, even if his pick for Supreme Court justice is childless and therefore hellbound (I Tim. 2:15). top


October 2, 2005: "Intelligent design" is Biblically pretty stupid.

You might think that this ministry would approve of the current attempts to teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in public schools. That is, you might think that if you were the sort of "Christian" whose knowledge of the Bible came entirely from Peanuts specials. "Intelligent design" is a blatant attempt to water down the Bible's holy truth of creation to sneak it past the liberal thought police. Jesus told us what He thinks of watering down His doctrines to make them more politically correct in Rev. 3:15-16:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Now, do you really want to end up in some celestial barf bag on the Day of Judgment? We sure don't.

Advocates of "intelligent design" are so deep in apostasy that they even allow that the "intelligent designer" could have been aliens rather than God Almighty. Then who intelligently designed the aliens? Is it aliens all the way back, just as some hellbound heathens say it's turtles all the way down?

Besides, "intelligent design" doesn't deal with a central problem of Darwinian evolution — namely, that it's a package deal with Mendelian inheritance, which is another lie from the pit of Hell. The Bible explains to us how inheritance works in Gen. 30:37-39:

And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

We don't need some monk who was a little too obsessed with peas to tell us a bunch of fairy tales that contradict the Bible. Instead, we need to teach our precious children science exactly as the Bible teaches it, including the passage on inheritance set forth above, with no alterations to make it more palatable to Christ-hating liberal "science" teachers. top


September 24, 2005: Hurricane Rita

With Hurricane Rita touching down on Texas, some people have actually dared to ask why God is repeatedly smiting the Bible Belt, while sparing such homo hellholes as the Netherlands. That's just the sort of question that we've come to expect from "Christians" whose only exposure to the Holy Bible consists of seeing those "John 3:16" signs at football games. We know from Scripture that God has His own special way of ducking inconvenient questions (Numbers, chapters 12 and 16).

More fundamentally, anyone with enough Bible knowledge can easily turn that question back on people who ask it. When our understanding of justice coincides with God's, that just shows that God writes His law on people's hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). On the other hand, when our understanding of justice doesn't coincide with God's, that just shows that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways God's ways (Isaiah 55:8). See how you can answer absolutely anything just by going to God's Word? God is good, all the time!

That leads us to another point. Recently, in one of those disgusting sodomite publications that we read so you don't have to, a well-meaning but Scripturally illiterate person said anonymously that New Orleans was being punished for tolerating homosexuals (okay, so far, so good), and that San Francisco, New York, and D.C. would be next. It turned out that Galveston and Houston would be next. This isn't just some little oops, at least not according to God's Word in Deuteronomy 18:20-22:

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I hope that the person who made that false prophecy will have enough faith in the timeless truths of the Bible to step forward, identify her/himself, and accept the penance ordained in Scripture. top


Share your thoughts with us.

Check out our Technorati Profile.

This site © 2005-09 by the Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality. You may not, without our prior written permission, republish it in altered form, with a different attribution of ownership or authorship, or for any profit-making purpose.