Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Last night, I attended our church’s annual special Christmas Eve worship service. As is always the case when Barry & Sue put this service together, it was memorable X 100. Instead of a traditional post celebrating Jesus’ birth, I’m inspired by the Holy Spirit to celebrate His birth through the inspirational hymns celebrating Jesus’ birth. Let’s start with this hymn:

Next, let’s celebrate with this hymn:

Christmas isn’t complete without O Come All Ye Faithful:

The birth of Christ was a majestic night. The King of kings and the Lord of Lords left eternity and stepped into time and space. Surely, such an event was worthy of the greatest light show God has ever put together. He didn’t disappoint. Here’s how the Gospel of Luke described that night:

Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them and they were sore afraid. Then the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the King. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

These weren’t the Pharisees or the Sanhedrin, the supposed religious leaders. On such a regal night, God chose to bless the shepherds, men of humility and modest means, rather than the religious leaders of the time. Hint: There’s a Bible study in there somewhere.

Finally, no Christmas is complete without this hymn:

Pete Buttigieg said something that’s beyond contemptible when he said “there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently.”

What a pile of BS. If Buttigieg is going to make that statement, I want him to cite which book, which chapter and which verse these verses are found in. Otherwise, I’m not buying it. Frankly, I’m highly skeptical at this point.

I’ve read through the Bible cover-to-cover multiple times. There’s no way I’ll accept that as an honest statement. However, I’ll accept it as a partisan statement that’s meant to attract attention to himself and to attempt to appeal to religious voters. That’s been Mayor Pete’s schtick throughout this campaign.

Based on his statements in this article, I think it isn’t a stretch to think that he’s fine with infanticide. For instance, he’s quoted as saying “I think, no matter what you think about the kind of cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, alright, I might draw the line here, you might draw the line there, but the most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.”

It’s apparent that ‘Mayor Pete’ isn’t a trained theologian. In fact, to a real Christian, it’s apparent that he’s a crackpot attempting to use religion to gain a partisan advantage. What a sick human being.

For the record, I disagree with people who call themselves pro-choice. I think they’re wrong. That being said, I don’t get upset about pro-choice people. I simple try to change their thinking.

Pete Buttigieg doesn’t fit into that category. Buttigieg is the worst type of charlatan. Not only is he a fraud but he’s a fraud for the worst possible motive.

Icicles must be forming in hell because Ted Cruz will meet with Alyssa Milano in Sen. Cruz’s Senate office to discuss gun control and the Bible in the spirit of I Peter 4:8. For those not familiar with that verse (I wasn’t), it says “And above all things have fervent love for one another, for ‘love will cover a multitude of sins.'” Here’s my sincere prayer that that’s the spirit that this political odd couple will meet.

This all started when Miss Milano initially tweeted “I’d love to come in and meet with you on the gun issue and many other issues that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, @tedcruz and also, 1 Peter 4:8. I’ll be in DC next week. We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullshit 1st hand.” Cruz then replied, saying “I’d be happy to sit down & visit next week about uniting to stop gun violence & about the Constitution. If we can have a civil & positive conversation—in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 as you suggest—despite our political differences, that might help resolve the discord in our Nation.”

I don’t doubt Sen. Cruz’s sincerity. He’s a solid Christian man who isn’t afraid of a debate. Since he’s said that he wants to have a conversation “in the spirit of I Peter 4:8,” then I’ll accept that as Sen. Cruz’s intent. What’s interesting is Miss Milano’s reply:

Sen. Cruz’s reply might’ve surprised Miss Milano:

There’s more to Sen. Cruz’s reply, which I’d recommend everyone read, but you get the picture. Nonetheless, Miss Milano replied thusly:

This should be interesting. I’d love it if all of the cable networks covered it live. If they did, I’m betting that they’d get monstrous ratings. I’d be surprised if each network couldn’t find a major sponsor to allow them to cover the discussion/debate without interruption.

Perhaps, this odd couple might even do something positive that would help break the partisan logjam on this and other issues.

After reading this article, there’s no doubt that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford had a sinister motive in stepping forward and making her wild accusations. At the time, I thought that it was highly possible Dr. Blasey-Ford wasn’t telling the truth. When Dr. Ford’s best friend said that she’d never met Brett Kavanaugh, I thought it was almost certain that Dr. Blasey-Ford hadn’t told the truth.

It’s worth noting that Debra Katz, a “high-powered progressive lawyer” who represented Dr. Blasey-Ford, said “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important.”

The assault against Kavanaugh has been exposed, especially in the fantastic new book Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court, written by Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. There will be an asterisk associated with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings but it will be attached to the far-left activists who tried derailing Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Here’s the video proof of Katz’s statements:

What’s now known is that Dr. Ford came forward for partisan political reasons, not because she had proof that Brett Kavanaugh had done the things she’d accused him of doing. Lots of accusations were thrown at Justice Kavanaugh. The most discredited accusations were made by Julie Swetnick, then represented by Michael Avenatti, aka CPL, aka Creepy Porn Lawyer. In September, 2018, Swetnick swore out a statement under penalty of perjury, stating “I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s.”

In October, 2018, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred both Avenatti and Swetnick for criminal prosecution to the DOJ. The Democrats’ attempt to derail the confirmation of a judge who happened to be Catholic should frighten people who think that we shouldn’t hold a person’s religious beliefs against them if they’re applying for a position within the federal government. The Constitution forbids religious tests:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That text is found in Article VI, Clause 3. This is just the start. If/when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires and President Trump still occupies the Oval Office and Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, all hell will break loose. It doesn’t take Nostradamus to figure that out. Joe Biden could even figure that out.

Democrats have insisted that Nancy Pelosi is a great politician, something that I’ve often disagreed with. Now that her congressional career is winding to a halt, Speaker Pelosi appears to want to become a biblical theologian. In reality, she’s just another Democrat politician that won’t hesitate to use the Bible for political gain. Frankly, that practice is disgusting to real Christians.

According to the article, Pelosi tweeted “It should be a sign to us that today’s Catholic Gospel reading is the Good Samaritan, where Jesus teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves and treat them with mercy. Trump’s ICE raids today tear families apart -the opposite of mercy.” While there’s no doubt that Jesus is a loving God, it’s apparent that holiness is important to the Lord, too. According to the search I did through, the word holy is used almost 600 times (576 times, to be precise) in the Bible.

I’d love hearing Pelosi explain how protecting criminal aliens is an act of holiness. Ms. Pelosi, do you really think that it’s holy to protect violent criminals from law enforcement? I’m betting that God doesn’t think that’s an act of holiness. I also searched the word justice. According to the same search engine, justice is used almost 200 times. One of those times, the word justice is used in the ‘Hebrew Hymnal’, aka the Book of Psalms, where it says “For the Lord loves justice, And does not forsake His saints; They are preserved forever, But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.”

I’d prefer that Ms. Pelosi stick to being a politician rather than thinking of herself as a qualified theologian. It’s more than a little galling to hear Ms. Pelosi talking about morality when she’s the one who hasn’t lifted a finger legislatively to stop sex trafficking and the meth and opioid epidemics. I’m tired of Democrats like Pelosi cherry-pick their way through God’s Word, emphasizing God’s love but utterly ignoring other Godly traits like justice and loving order over chaos. The Democrats’ selective theology is a bit frustrating.

This LTE sounds authoritative without being authoritative. It focuses on the subject of xenophobia as it relates to my friend Dr. John Palmer.

The LTE opens by saying “Xenophobia is the fear of anything this is “alien” to, or different from what’s ‘normal’ for a person. What’s normal for a white German Catholic from Stearns County is likely not normal for a Muslim from Somalia. That doesn’t make one person’s ‘normal’ better or worse, just different. In the case of John Palmer and his group, what they fear isn’t brown Somali immigrants, as much as it is people who are DIFFERENT from white German Catholics.”

It’s worth noting that the man who wrote the LTE has never met Dr. Palmer, which renders the entire LTE worthless. It’s worthless because it’s based on suppositions rather than anything verifiable. The ‘foundation’ for the premise is that xenophobia is a real word that’s been around centuries. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, that isn’t true:

Xenophobia—”fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners”—has the look and feel of a word that has been in the English language for hundreds of years, borne of the tumultuous political climates of the Renaissance and the penchant that many writers back then had for fashioning fancy new words from Latin and Greek. It is not that old.

Let’s entertain another possibility. Let’s entertain the possibility that the people getting called xenophobic are simply people who disagree with a philosophy or religion. For instance, isn’t it possible that Roman Catholics (or Baptists or evangelical Christians) aren’t afraid of people who are different but rather, are highly principled people who simply disagree with people of other religious or governing beliefs?

Let’s also dig into the word phobia a little.’s definition of phobia is:

a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

What proof does the person who wrote this LTE have that Dr. Palmer or others in C-Cubed have an irrational fear of anything? Just from a technical standpoint, how would this person determine what Dr. Palmer or others in his group think of anyone? Frankly, from a technical standpoint, this LTE sounds like a big pile of opinionizing.

That’s fine but it shouldn’t be treated like an authoritative writing. Rather, it should be seen, I’d argue, as the opinions of a mediocre (at best) researcher.

Finally, let’s ponder the possibility that Dr. Palmer’s religious beliefs are right. The presumption of the LTE appears to be that Dr. Palmer’s religious beliefs aren’t legitimate or, at minimum, the product of an irrational way of thinking. Again, where’s the proof that Dr. Palmer’s thinking is irrational or illegitimate?

Written by Rambling Rose

Do people in the USA really know what they want? What they believe? “Save the children!” Really?

Media sources applaud states, politicians, celebrities, left-wing feminists that have moved from the 1973 Roe v. Wade legalized abortion decision to legalized (or just practiced by some healthcare workers who turn their backs on a child born from a botched abortion) infanticide. I don’t need to provide the list here—you all have read the news releases and heard the cheers from the streets about women’s rights (the blob in the womb is not a person so it has no rights) to decide what happens in their body.

Incessantly, there are protests about the alleged mistreatment by the Trump administration of the children entering this country illegally; multiple times as they are “rented” to form families, then returned to Mexico to be “rented” again in a different family, not biological families, only families to break even more of the immigration laws of this land. Where is the outcry about the financial, physical, mental and psychological abuse to those children? Or, is the need greater to grow the number of illegal persons to depend upon the government and vote for those who promise much just to buy their votes of the poor to continue to live in DC, breed corruption and promote their hatred of the USA?

Yet several times a night on over-the-air TV broadcasting (I can’t write about cable broadcasts; I don’t have or want cable/direct TV/dish), the ads abound to “save the children.” The ads are for the malnourished, sick, disabled and dying, primarily in Africa. Naturally, my heart breaks as I view these young children who are only about half the size of a healthy child of the same age. Naturally, I hope that all the organizations requesting donations are honorable and in fact, making the donations of food and medical care available to those in need. I pray that ethical charities are “saving the children.”

Similarly, there are nightly pleas for donations to numerous organizations in this country to provide for the children afflicted by various cancers and the resultant agony of their families. Again, the skeptic hopes that the donations actually provide for the children and their families in the various challenges that face them. Young children should not have to fight just to live. Their families gave them life; they did not abort them and toss them into the trash. Why are not the ‘compassionate’ progressives marching for them? Organizing fundraisers to pay for their care?

Even more numerous, laughable and disgusting are the ads for financial gifts for the “humane” treatment of animals. Wait a minute. Humane implies that the four-legged creature is a human. I do not oppose pets; neither do I object if owners (not parents) choose to pamper their pets (that are not their biological offspring) as long as they also meet the needs of their children.

Why are the unborn babies killed if children in other countries are to be saved? Why are animals held in higher esteem than children who are conceived and then called “inconvenient”?

Fortunately, the children do have a Savior.

“But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)

Weakened Foundation
by Ramblin’ Rose

Are we still “One nation, under God?” Could we become one again?

Abraham Lincoln showed great foresight when he stated “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will because we destroyed ourselves.”

I fear that many people stop at the end of the first sentence and breathe a sigh of relief and ignore his dire warning.

God will not be mocked…regardless of what the secularists decree and the leftists scream.

Ten years before the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court established an official government-run religion in this country by a vote of 8-1. Justice Potter Stewart was the lone dissenter. The Supreme Court took the Bible out of the public schools and out of the hands of our children. So began the State-run religion of secularism…and the fall of this great nation.

Yet, even today, the cry is to keep Church and State at their proper distance. However, it is only moral-based faith that is forbidden. By removing God from the classroom, our society effectively rewrote our USA history. In 1620, the first settlers called upon God multiple times in the Mayflower Compact before settling in Plymouth. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 referred to the Creator who bestowed “unalienable rights.” Our currency declares that “In God We Trust.” There are numerous and frequent attempts to remove that “offensive” line from our money. Others strive to remove “…one nation, under God…” from our Pledge of Allegiance while millions of others have just removed it from our children’s classrooms while instituting Muslim prayers in the name of “diversity.”

It certainly appears that since 1963, we have moved much closer to becoming a pagan nation. Progressives prefer to use “equality” to label what God labeled “abominations” (same-sex marriage). Since 1973, they call murder “reproductive choice” (abortion). Leftists call theft from the working members of society “fairness” to the underprivileged as they redistribute economic resources (socialism). They call “ evil good and good evil,” as warned by God. [Editor’s note: Pelosi once said that unemployment checks “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”]

Sadly, yes, ours is a divided nation. Millions have embraced the rebellious principles of Roman 1. Hopefully, millions more are ready to fight for Right and remain faithful to the message of Romans 8. While we cannot predict the future of our country, it behooves us to continue in fervent prayer for it and all its citizens. We must fall to our knees in fear (respect and honor) of God. For at the end, each will be held to an accounting and face eternal judgment.

In the meantime, we must cling to God’s promise: “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked way, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their lang.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)

God bless America, I pray.

Nothing crystallizes a Christian’s mind like Easter. Easter morning is the day when Christ’s victory over the grave ends. As glorious as that day was for Christ’s closest followers, the days leading up to it were far from glorious. On Good Friday, the day Christ was crucified, Christ was separated from His Heavenly Father:

Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

To most people, the thought of Christ being separated from His Father is difficult to imagine. Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth provides the explanation:

21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Right before He died, Christ, the Man who never sinned, had all of humankind’s sins placed on His shoulders. At that moment, theologians think that God the Father couldn’t look at His Son because of our sins.

God didn’t owe us a pathway to eternal life, far from it. In his letter to the church in Rome, the apostle Paul wrote “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Later in that same letter, Paul wrote “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life.”

We deserved eternal separation from Christ’s love. God chose to not give us what we deserve. That’s called mercy. Instead, thanks to Christ’s death on that cruel Cross at Calvary, Christ gave us a pathway to eternal life in God’s presence. Christ gives us the opportunity that we don’t deserve. That’s called grace and it’s a magnificent thing.

For me, the most emotional part of the salvation story is the story of 2 thieves who were crucified with Christ. Here’s that story:

39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” 40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” 43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Let this picture remind you that you, like the second criminal, can be with Christ in Paradise if you trust in Christ as your Savior:

Happy Easter, everyone. If you haven’t invited Christ to be your Savior, I pray that you’ll invite Jesus into your heart to be your Savior. There’s no time like the present.

If you’ve already accepted Christ as your Savior, Halleluiah. Today is the best day for celebrating.

Kirsten Powers was once a level-headed journalist/pundit. Then she went over to CNN. The rest is history. She’s now just another wild voice of the left. This article is mostly about Gillette’s ad on toxic masculinity:

Powers’ article starts by saying “The razor maker Gillette is taking on toxic masculinity. Based on the furious reaction to this effort in some quarters, the message is more needed than perhaps we even realized.” At the risk of getting criticized, that’s a pile of BS. The Urban Dictionary defines toxic masculinity this way:

Any male action that doesn’t conform to liberal ideals of what a man SHOULD be in today’s society. If he isn’t sensitive, emotional and docile, he is accused of toxic masculinity.

That sounds like the definition of a sissy to me but that’s another matter. Here’s the heart of Powers’ argument:

Gutfeld asserted that Gillette failed to recognize that “most men” condemn bad behavior “whenever they see it.” How anyone can even utter a thought like this in light of the Catholic Church’s ongoing sex abuse crisis is a mystery. In society at large, we have story after story, case after case, of women who were sexually harassed and even assaulted and who were completely ignored and often demonized when they complained. The legal system turned a deaf ear to them or re-traumatized them when they filed complaints.

That’s a wimpy argument, mathematically speaking. According to Wikipedia, the number of Catholic priests has remained the same:

Worldwide, the number of priests in 1970 was 419,728.[2] In 2012, there were a total of 414,313 priests.[2] While the total number of priests worldwide has therefore remained about the same since 1970, the Catholic population has nearly doubled, growing from 653.6 million in 1970 to 1.229 billion in 2012.[2] In 2012 the global number of candidates for the priesthood also showed its first decline in recent years.[3] The number of parishes with no resident priest pastor has grown from 39,431 in 1970 to 49,153 in 2012.[2] The number of parishes without a priest does not include the thousands of parishes that have closed or merged for lack of priests.

In other words, the number of priests per parishioner has decreased dramatically. How can a person insist that Gutfeld’s argument lacks merit? The numbers state the opposite.

The ad is mostly about virtue-signaling. It’s also giving Gillette’s rivals the upper hand in the marketplace. Once men leave Gillette, they won’t return.