I also hope their case will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court. This is a fundamental issue of human rights that needs to be settled. Do parents have a right to educate their own children without having to send them to government indoctrination centers, or do they not? This is an issue that needs to be settled once for all, or all future generations of Americans are in danger of losing parental rights regarding the education of their children.
What incredible injustice we are witnessing! Here is a couple that is in the United States legally and that is in danger of losing custody of their children over a matter of conscience that clearly falls within their God-given rights as parents-- the right to educate their children as they choose. Yet no doubt, many of the same voices that are in favor of 'booting' this couple out of our country are in favor of granting a path to citizenship for millions of workers who are here illegally, and who broke our nation's laws to get here! If ever a family was deserving of political asylum in the United States, it is this couple; yet our wicked government has refused to grant them asylum, I suspect, because of the evil designs it has to restrict in the future the right of American citizens to educate their children as they choose!
Now I Understand This message helped me understand that one of the reasons the Lord was quiet during his trial was in order to fulfill scripture. Pastor MacArthur does a very good job explaining the connection between Isaiah 53:7-9 and the Lord's trial in front of Pilate, Herod, and the Pharisees. When I was younger I always wondered why Jesus didn't defend himself when He was such an eloquent speaker. The Lord quietly and humbly followed the will of God.
Great Sermon! John E said: ‚Äú Bow the knee to THIS Nebechanezzar! ‚ÄĚ
...or lose your career, influence, lifestyle, and voice... What will the "celebrity" Christians do?
He could always get a new 'christian' tattoo John, that may get him back in favour with all the celebrity 'christian' idolators out there.
WORHSIP JESUS ONLY.
Very insightful. It is so grievous that so few people seem to see the dire implications of granting legal status to so-called "gay marriage." What an amazingly effective campaign Satan has waged on our allegedly "Christian" nation, to convince so many that our marriage laws are inherently unjust and discriminatory and need to be changed. How can so many people be so blind to the fact that this is a Satanic attack on the gospel itself and on the Judeo-Christian cultural heritage of our nation? How can so many fail to see the implications for free speech and freedom of religion if the legal definition of marriage is changed? Future generations of young people who will be subjected to aggressive homofascist brainwashing in the public schools and be forced to put up with the "crazy" demands of sexually perverted classmates who want to take same-sex dates to the prom and cross-dress for graduation. Countless Christians will be sued, fined, and excluded from many jobs for their refusal to comply with the corrupt values of an increasingly pagan culture. There is NO MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE that our nation faces today than to preserve the family by saying NO to every effort to change the good, just, and wholesome laws which reserve the legal right to marriage to heterosexual couples.
It is so sad to see so many people in our society totally blind to the meaning and purpose of marriage. These liberals think they are being loving to homosexuals, but they are really showing the greatest contempt for them by ‚Äúaffirming‚ÄĚ them in a soul-destroying delusion that will exclude them forever from the kingdom of God. To give the legal status and benefits of marriage to homosexuals is to remove the barrier of societal disapproval from them, and that is an utterly hateful thing to do. If I see a blind person walking toward the edge of a cliff, is it loving to remove a handrail on the edge of the cliff so that he walk over the edge without impediment. That is what these liberals are advocating. Their advocacy of so-called "gay marriage" is not loving in the least; it is simply a way of 'washing their hands' of homosexuals by caving in to their demands. It is an expression of the deepest contempt for the homosexual; and at the same time, it shows a total disregard for the effects that this deliberate 'blurring" of the lines between healthy and perverted living will reap in our society-- the effect it will have on future generations who will be more confused than ever about God‚Äės design for human sexuality. Has the whole world gone nuts? How arrogant, for politician
What this German family doesn't realize is that the basis of their refugee status conflicts with the agenda of the Obama administration. If Obama and Eric Holder were to concede the point that this family's fundamental human rights are being violated by Germany's ban on home schooling, that would make it more difficult for them to clamp down on home schoolers in this country at a later date, if they wish to do so. I find it very disturbing that our government is in essence denying the fact that parents have a "fundamental human right" to raise their children in accordance with their own values through home schooling, instead of placing them in government run schools. What does that portend for the future of parental freedom of school choice in our own country?
‚ÄúThe politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage,‚ÄĚ one official says. That is exactly what is happening, and the best commentary on this type of 'madness' is Daniel 4. When people in their arrogance do not want to bow to the true and living God in humility, confessing His sovereignty, righteousness, and truth, God can hand them over to lunacy as a judgment on their sin, as he did with Nebuchadnezzar. There is truly something 'insane' and 'diseased' about a mind that cannot perceive the unnatural character of same-sex acts as violating the order of creation and God's obvious design for human sexuality. Another official says, ‚ÄúUnder these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.‚ÄĚ That is also correct. It is the aim of gay activists not to 'add' a secondary definition of marriage to the traditional definition, still regarded as the 'primary' definition. It is their aim to REPLACE entirely the traditional, biblical definition of marriage with a man-made, gender-neutral definition that is touted as an 'evolutionary advancement' over the old, bigoted, oppressive, discriminatory definition. The whole aim is to attack the Bible as an outdated book filled with bigotry.
There is a lot of emotion, but no logic, in Mr. Steadman's words; for if he were logically consistent, he would have to advocate as broad a definition of marriage as there are sexual "preferences" in the world. Consistency would require him to say that the statutory definition of marriage should abolish ALL eligibility requirements for marriage based on sex, number, age, and consanguinity. Thus, if four people wish to become a married 'quad,' if a mother wants to marry her son, or a middle-aged man wants to marry a small girl he 'purchased' from her parents in Thailand, then the law must allow for these marriages as well as the so-called 'gay marriages' between two consenting adult partners of the same sex. Mr. Steadman is being inconsistent in wanting to 'broaden' the definition of marriage just so far but not far enough to accommodate EVERY citizen's sexual preference. Hence, there is no logic in his words. On the other hand, it is perfectly logical for society to give legal sanction and benefits to an institution that has proven over millenia to provide the ideal context for the propagation and upbringing of children-- heterosexual marriage-- and to deny those benefits to other forms of sexual union that undermine the future welfare of society.
Every American should read that article to be fully informed of what our government is really advocating when it promotes homosexuality as a lifestyle to be celebrated as 'normal.' That article exposes just how contrary to nature and dangerously unhealthy that lifestyle is for the body as well as for the soul. How sick, twisted, and wicked it is for our governmen to be promoting such things-- it is all for the love of money, for the 'big bucks' that politicians receive from the LGBT lobby to get them re-elected and to go on living their cushy lifestyles.
I don't think it is fair for Driscoll to say that "Reformed brothers like to treat pastor Joel like a pinata." That is to impute shallow, bullying motives to people who have expressed serious concerns about Osteen's theology and his refusal to preach the biblical gospel. And yes, there is no question about it, if any preacher studiously avoids mentioning sin on a REGULAR basis, if he avoids identifying the particular sins of his hearers, and avoids calling sinners to repentance explicitly in those terms, then he is NOT preaching the gospel. He can speak about Jesus all he wants as someone who lifts him up or encourages him, but that in itself is not the gospel. Our calling is never to be popular or to draw crowds or to make everyone feel "included" in Christian fellowship; neither do we have any right to avoid controversy by avoiding unpopular subjects; our calling is to be faithful in proclaiming the whole counsel of God. We really should be more concerned about honoring God in declaring his truth than in persuading men. If men are offended by the cross or by what God says about particular sins or sinful lifestyles, that is their problem; we had better not make it OUR problem by omitting truth that God calls us to proclaim.
You're exactly right. They want to control Christians by getting them to use terms like "marriage" and "wedding" with reference to their anti-Christian pagan rituals. Why? Because if they can get us to use terms invested with the meanings THEY supply, then we become useful "pawns" in furthering their goal of cultural domination. They know that "whoever owns the language owns the culture," so they believe that if they can get everybody, including Christians, to engage in "homo-speak" by referring, for example, to a cake that has the names of two men on it as a "wedding cake," then they have won the culture war. That's why we Christians need to refuse to be caught up in this lunacy even in the terminology we use. John Piper discourages Christians from using terms like "gay marriage" and urges them to refer instead to "so-called gay marriage" and "so-called gay weddings" to reinforce the idea that men have no power to create something which God says has no existence. I agree with him, and so I am making a conscious effort to use words always according to their Judeo-Christian meaning and cleanse my mouth of "homo-speak" terminology. In this war for civilization that we are fighting, we must not allow ourselves to be used as pawns even in the way we speak.
What I don't understand is why this baker does not put in his brochure, "We bake traditional wedding cakes," and then put an asterisk to a footnote explaining that the term "traditional wedding cakes" refers to cakes that bear the name of the bride and the groom. Then the issue is not about WHOM he is willing to serve, but rather, WHAT SERVICES he is willing to provide. If he offers to sell "traditional wedding cakes" as defined above to anyone who comes into his shop, then how is that discrimination? He is willing to do business with anyone who comes into his store-- but he is only willing to provide them with the specific products advertised in his brochure. Do bakers have no say at all over which products they are compelled to produce? As long as they maintain the same policy 'across the board' for all their customers, then how can that be construed as discrimination?
Wrong Planet, It is terribly grievous, but not at all surprising, to see the utter lunacy produced when God and His revealed truth are rejected by individuals and societies as the foundation of life. God's judgment on Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is designed to us show us how human pride reduces people to the level of fruit cakes and brute beasts. So, yes, to answer your question, the world has gone nuts, just as German society went nuts in the 1930's when it embraced as its 'savior' a nut case called Adolph Hitler and received with cheers of wild enthusiasm all the garbage spewing from his mouth-- the "big lies" crafted by his propaganda man, Goebbels, who said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth." That's exactly what we are seeing in Western nations at the present time, which have blinded themselves to truth by rejecting God and His Word-- and nowhere is the lunacy in more obvious display in our secular universities, which have become bastions of fanatical anti-Christian propaganda.
It seems to me that the real issue here is not the question "WHO is the baker obliged to serve?" but rather "WHAT SERVICES is the baker required to provide?" His defense should be that he is being asked to provide a service that he has never offered to anyone, which is to provide a cake for a 'mock' wedding ceremony, that in his view as a Christian is not a wedding at all, but a pagan religious ceremony that is directly hostile to his values as a christian. What these two women are wanting him to bake, therefore, is something that he has never offered to bake for anyone-- therefore, he is not discriminating against them, for he would not bake a 'mock' wedding cake for anybody for any reason. The only service he offers is to bake wedding cakes for real weddings. The government is trying to get him to recognize something as a wedding that his religious beliefs do not allow him to recognize as a wedding, so that is a violation of the first amendment, which allows freedom of religion. It is like 'bloody Mary' trying to impose her belief on all the subjects of her realm that the object in a priest's hands is Christ's body and blood. But it is NOT Christ's body and blood, but bread and wine. This is a clearly a case of the state imposing religious belief.
Lex, In the American system, the law can only be changed in an orderly manner. The Congress cannot lawfully pass a ban on private gun ownership, for example, while the second amendment to the Constitution remains in force. To do that would be to violate the rule of law in this country. To lawfully pass a law banning private gun ownership, our legislators would first have to annul the second amendment to the Constitution. That is not going to happen, however, because Americans would strongly oppose annulling any of the first ten amendments to our Constitution, which secure certain rights to the people-- among them the right to keep and bear arms. So what Seidman is advocating is really outright lawlessness, in terms of our American legal system. By urging legislators simply to ignore the Constitution, so that they can pass any law they feel is expedient in the modern world-- no matter what the Constitution says-- he is really urging the abolition of the rule of law in this country. His position is definitely an attack on the idea that the law is king; for in this country, elected officials have no legal authority whatsoever to pass any law that violates the Constitution.
Nevertheless, Locke took many ideas from Rutherford in developing his 'social contract' theory. Both believed that in a society founded on principles of justice and freedom, the law is king, not the reverse.
I won't argue with you over terminology. John Locke assimilated the concept of Lex Rex from Rutherford, but he modified it-- so it is not a concept 'set in stone.' It can be and has been modified by different thinkers. The basic meaning of the term "lex rex" is "the law is king;" it points to the idea that a free people are ruled by established laws to which rulers themselves are subject, as opposed to being governed by the arbitrary will of men who are not subject to the law. If Seidman held to the rule of law, as understood by our nation's founders, he would be advocating amending our Constitution by an orderly process, not "giving up" on it. What he is touting is political heresy, from the standpoint of American ideals about what the "rule of law" means.