Bravo Miss USA Runner Up…Rasberries to what’s his name…

Bravo to Miss USA runner up Carrie Prejean. She stood up for her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman…and she paid the price. Not only that, the questioner evidently went on a rampage and is disparaging her character for having 10 times more character than he ever will…

Now WHERE is all that tolerance I keep hearing about?

More On the Death of Free Speech (From Alpha and Omega Ministries)

Once again….More On the Death of Free Speech (from Alpha and Omega Ministries)

04/22/2009 – James White

Last year I posted a blog article on the faux-marriage of Jennifer Kozumpli and Nicole Webber. These lesbians were pictured (one dressed as a man) holding an 18-month old girl, Sophie, which the caption identified as “their…daughter.” I commented on how abusive it is to subject a child to such conditions, and how this again shows us how far our culture has descended into utter reprobation in its views.

 

You may recall that a while later I received a note demanding we take down the picture. I blogged the following at that time, and I note that the links are still active and accurate:

 

Back on June 30th I posted a short note regarding the abuse inherent in depriving a little child of a father and a mother that comes from “same sex unions.” I made reference to a picture, posted on the Internet, in a major news source (MSNBC) as a glowing example of just how self-centered “same sex unions” have to be by nature. Here is the article I posted.

 

I was contacted by “jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber” (name provided on the contact page) and told to remove the image, found in the above linked article. I have done so pending my getting legal advice on the matter. You will find the image on the following websites, and something tells me “jennifer kozumplik/nicole webber” haven’t contacted USA Today, MSNBC, etc., demanding that the picture be removed. As I have said many times, and as more and more people are discovering, homosexuals do not ask for equal rights: they want super-rights, including the ability to shut down all expression of belief that reminds them of the moral evil by which they have chosen to identify themselves. This is a glaring example. Note the use of this picture by such national online sources as MSNBC and USA Today. Google will provide you with lots of examples, such as this one.

 

The two individuals have likewise posted similar pictures on Facebook; even those without a Facebook account (such as yours truly) can see them.

 

Even Flickr has them as well.

 

I wonder if they wrote to The Ledger as well? That one even provides the very same image they have demanded I remove in a zoomable form.

 

Clearly, these two individuals are not camera shy, and they surely did not grant “rights” to all of these sources to post their pictures. No, the reason for this is clear: homosexuals use the cover of “tolerance” as a demand for “silence” on the part of those of us who still identify moral evil as moral evil. These individuals are glorying in their rebellion against God’s moral law, and they are damaging not only themselves in their rebellion, but others too young to even understand what is being done to them. But they are intent upon making sure that no one reminds them of these facts that they know all too well.

 

I have been asking those “in the know,” and since the picture is an AP picture, all one needs is an account with AP to post it. These individuals do not have the right to selectively determine which sites post the pictures and which do not—they lost that right when they allowed the pictures to be taken in the first place. But their demands cannot change the reality of their actions, and the actions of all of those rushing off to California so that they can pretend that marriage is a term humans get to define (instead of an institution God Himself ordained) before common sense returns to that state (Lord willing) in November. My original post only used their picture as an illustration of a general moral evil that is being promoted in our day. They are not alone in putting their own sexual desires before the good even of themselves, let alone of a little child. It is the very essence of homosexuality, and the very essence of man-centered Western culture.

 

So today I was informed that a laywer from AP had sent us a cease and desist order. So I’ve once again removed the picture, though, you can see it, repeatedly, if you so desire, even with zoom capabilities, at all the links posted above. For, as we all know, the only reason the AP came after us is that a complaint was filed with them.

 

Compare this zealous activity with that of YouTube/Google. I noted last week that someone had posted a disgusting, vile, clearly illegal and slanderous video in which they used my own video, but cobbled together words and phrases from other videos, so as to accuse me of gross immorality. I informed YouTube/Google of the video. Last I checked, it is still posted. When I complained, I was told it wasn’t a copyright issue! So I asked to be directed toward the forms I needed to fill out on other grounds, and I did not even get a reply to the request.

 

Once again we see the elevation of a sexually-defined minority to the position of a protected group of elites based upon the society’s fear of “offense” of these elites, while, concurrently, there is an ever lessening concern for a much larger minority group’s rights, all due to the “political correctness” of the day. Somehow, long, long ago, these words were written:

 

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you…” (John 15:18)

For those who are thinking of leaving your church…

This was too funny not to post!

I found this over at Pulpit-Pimps and had to share it with you.

Considering that I’m currently “church shopping” this rang true somewhat. The funniest part is the pastor, he’s waaaay to realistic!

For whom did Christ die? (John Owen)

There has been some discussion on my blog lately about the extent of the atonement. There have been some who don’t understand why anyone would differentiate who Christ died for…or even try to understand more fully for whom, or why He died.

The issue is this: Christ’s death was effectual. It actually ACCOMPLISHED something. It appeased God’s wrath and it is specific to individuals.

 

Knowing that, then the question becomes the following: (From John Owen)

 

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

 
In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.”

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”

So I’d like you to think about that and try and understand why this particular question has yet to be answered from those who believe Christ died for everyone who ever lived.

From Alpha and Omega: On Really Believing the Gospel

I found this over at James White’s blog and I thought that it was so well put that it deserved a mention.

On Really Believing the Gospel

04/12/2009 – James White

Why aren’t you a Roman Catholic? That probably seems like an odd question to many of you. Yet, have you ever considered it? If you are a former Roman Catholic, you might have an answer to that question. But is it a valid answer? A solid answer? If it is an answer that involves “Father Mike was mean to me” or “I really don’t like votive candles,” then your reasons for leaving are probably less than sufficient.

I am not a Roman Catholic because Roman Catholicism is a false religion. It is headed by an imposter, a man who claims to be something he is not. The Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, he is not the head of the Christian Church, he is not a “Holy Father,” and I owe him no fealty, honor, nor respect in the religious sense. Roman Catholicism is a man-made perversion of the truth. While it retains elements of the truth (having moved away from the faith slowly and over a great deal of time), it falls under the condemnation of the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1. If the Judaizers were properly anathematized for their additions to the gospel, it is very clear to me that they never came close to dreaming up half the stuff Rome has added to the gospel over the centuries. Nor do we have any evidence that they attacked the sufficiency of Scripture, included grossly unbiblical offices (priests, Cardinals, Popes), or elevated anyone like Mary to the lofty heights of nigh unto divinity that Rome has over the past few centuries. The Papacy has embarrassed the Judaizers in the realm of innovation and gospel-corruption, to be sure.