The Law of Redemption - Chuck Missler

In this segment Chuck Missler discusses the law of redemption. This segment comes from the "Ruth and Esther" commentary published by Koinonia House.

- To purchase this briefing pack in its entirety, go to our online store at: http://resources.khouse.org

- To subscribe to The Personal Update News Journal, go to: http://www.khouse.org/subscribe

- To learn more about the Koinonia Institute, go to: http://www.studycenter.com

Revelation: The Fuel Project Guide (Part 39 - The Return of the King)

Jesus returns and the battle of Armageddon takes place. The Antichrist and false prophet are defeated, Satan is thrown into prison, and Jesus and his bride rule over the earth for a thousand year period...

The entire 3-disc, 44-part series is available here: http://bit.ly/S41KrS

The Legion That will rule the world

 A portion of an interview with Russ Dizdar, but very enlightening nonetheless.

Shatter the Darkness Russ Dizdar and Chris White

North Pole moving towards Russia -- ESA SWARM measurements

Remember, the real concern of a pole flip is the overall weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, allowing various dangerous cosmic rays in that don't normally reach us.  In the event of a complete collapse, it is possible we might see the "sky rolled away".

The European Space Agency SWARM satellites have returned the first sets of data, allowing animations to be made. Just released on June 20, 2014. They have now projected a track for the North Pole to take by 2019. Moving into Russian waters across the North Pole (out of Canada into the Arctic North).

Full website post here, with links to the ESA SWARM page:
http://dutchsinse.tatoott1009.com/624...

Magickal Kingdom Ultra: Escape From Tomorrow and Sinister Disney

Please check out the second video, the "Truth About Maleficent". Very funny and spot on. If you are interested in more Disney strangeness just check out Freeman's Youtube Channel, as he's done quite a bit of dissecting the strange and darkly magical world of Disney.

Escape From Tomorrow film poster with panopticon all-seeing eye.

By: Jay

What is Disneyland?  Is it a classic incarnation of Amerikana, or is it, nowadays at least, something more?  Is it harmless, family friendly entertainment where the imagination is able to run free, or is there more at work inside the nation’s largest theme park/entertainment complex?  Rumors and speculation have abounded for years of  bizarre, inexplicable events associated with the parks as well as on the cruise ship lines, odd images embedded in the films, even to the Disney family being involved in “brainwashing” and “incest,” according to news reports.  While most of these topics are supposedly laid to waste through snopes.com and other debunkers, I propose there is more than meets the All-Seeing Eye at work.

A recent independent film has been released called Escape From Tommorow, in which the theme park is presented as a descent into madness, where an average family embarks on something akin to a bad acid trip, experiencing strange encounters, demonic forces, sexual enticement and self-destruction.  The film utilizes classic mythological and fairy tale motifs, concomitant with classic Disney, as well as blending all of that with Freudianism, conspiracy memes and technocracy.  Having received mixed reviews, I find it particularly relevant to the question of Disney itself, as the film is both a satire of what has become of Amerikana, as well as connecting with other recently released Disney films, such as Maleficent, another telling of the Sleeping Beauty like Escape From Tomorrow.  While it may seem strange to say, it is not outside the realm of possibility from the occult perspective that multiple films are released around the same time, utilizing similar stories and themes with the intention of having a ritual effect.  While this could be mere coincidence, there could also be more at work.

Escape begins with an average American dad, Jim, who learns he has lost his job the first night of their Disney vacation.  His son, Elliot, has a clear preference for his mother over his father, as he shows signs of rebellion by locking him out of the hotel room.  As the family embarks on the speed rail, they discover everyone at the park is beginning to come down with a sickness called “Cat Flu,” as it is mentioned that people can be carriers without actually being sick.  On the rail, Jim sees two young French girls and begins to fall under their sexual lure, acting as nymphs out of classic mythology.  After arriving at the park, the family divides over which rides they prefer, and we get the distinct impression they represent the typical dysfunctional American family.  Jim begins to experience hallucinations, seeing demons, but brushes it off as being sick.  After waiting two hours, Elliot and his dad discover the Buzz Lightyear ride has been closed, and they are forced to other rides.  It appears these events are all planned, causing Jim to experience more paranoia.

Mind Control through butts. Image: youtube.

 

Jim takes Elliot on a day of chasing after the young French girls, who lure him deeper and deeper into a fantasy land of lust and mental frenzy.  He continues to see phalluses and sexual imagery, and ultimately ends up in a fight with his wife who refuses his advances.  Repressed and sexually starved, Jim plunges deeper and deeper into a mania, which seems to put him in a trance at the pool.  The French girls are there, as well, and Jim ends up crying like a child as if reverting to a primitive state. Still attempting to put this all aside, Elliot and Jim explore more of the park, where the Jim encounters the witch.  The witch tells the dad his daughter is a princess, and puts him in a trance.  Jim awakes from his trance in the midst of having sex with the witch, and throws her off in a daze.  The witch reveals the Disney princesses are all whores that will sleep with rich Asian businessmen for thousands of dollars, as Jim flees the suite with his son.

 

After this, Jim takes Elliot back to meet with his wife and see Epcot Center.  Constant sex references are made, referring to Epcot as a “giant testicle,” as things get even weirder: After losing his daughter at the park, Jim ends up imprisoned underneath Epcot and Space Mountain in an underground base, where an android scientist tells him he has been the subject of a mind control experiment since he was first brought to the park as a child.  The images in the mind control chamber, such as the model’s butt, give the impression Him has been under this mind control through sex.  At this point, reality and fantasy can no longer be distinguished for Jim, and the audience is told Siemens Corporation has been running the Epcot experimentation.  Jim escapes and tracks down his daughter to the witch’s suite, where he finds her drugged and asleep like Aurora in Sleeping Beauty.  The witch has another child there in drag [!], giving the impression she has been using children for sexual mind control conditioning, echoing the reported MKULTRA programs relating to sex operatives and conditioning. “Sleeping beauty” thus refers to the mind-controlled alters and dissociation sex kitten “princesses” experience.  Was Jim also a mind controlled sex kitten?

The witch tells Jim she was once a Disney princess who killed a child, which made her evil, seeking to lure and sacrifice innocent princesses. The witch is thus like Maleficent, and she gives the impression as well that she was put under mind control as a princess that made her into a killer.  As Jim returns to his hotel room with his family, he begins to show signs of advanced Cat Flu, which he contracted from one of the French nymphs who spit on him.  Jim ends up dying with a demonic grin on his face, and an inverted pentagram is visible in the bathroom.  The Disney security forces arrive to clean up the scene, and Elliot is given a pin and a hat in a kind of sacred anointing, and we hear a bell rung three times signifying a religious ceremony.  As Jim’s body is taken away, another Jim returns (presumably an android copy?) as a totally different “cool” guy with a hot girlfriend.  Themes of tanshumanism and technocracy are therefore evident, as the patriarchal “tyranny” feminists rave so much about is symbolically sacrificed to prepare the way for Buzz Lightyear, the robo man Elliot was fascinated with, emerges.

In my assessment, the film is a dark satire of Amerika itself, portrayed as a Disney theme park which is itself the allegory.  The wonderland is anything but a paradise resort, but instead an occult-themed mind control operation targeted at the nuclear family.  The masters of illusion have duped the public through this entity, with the intent of achieving what Crowley termed the destruction of innocence.  The themes of Wicca/witchcraft, mind control, drugging, mass surveillance and panopticism, weaponized sex culture, and dissolution of the family unit are too obvious to miss. In the end, as a kind of ritual sacrifice, the male figure is killed, and the underground android becomes his replacement.  The film is therefore a good analogy for Disney itself, which has invested billions into biometric tracking and total surveillance.  Research indicates this is also linked to the Pentagon for other shady purposes.  It is worth noting that Siemens Corporation really does run the Epcot technical “magic,” too, and that Siemens is a massive international entity with curious historical connections.  This suggests to me a larger mass mind control operation at work, and Escape From Tomorrow appears to deliver this symbolic message.

 

I won’t tire the reader with a lengthy review and analysis of Maleficent, but suffice to say that it emerged recently as well, with a similar theme of the child abduction of Aurora by Maleficent, and in this version of the tale, all the males characters are also weak and evil.  In a glorious feminist twist, Maleficent saves Aurora and destroys the weak human king.  In other words girls, men are useless, and only goddess worship and witchcraft-based feminism hold the keys of your liberation.  Purveyors of the ridiculous feminist Wiccan religion are often oblivious to the fact that modern Wicca was created by a man, Gerald Gardner, who liked spanking naked lady butts.  Facts and reasoning are always oblivious to modern feminists, however.  Wicca is thus a total fraud, and its use is the breakdown of gender relations and the female psyche.  Is there more than appears on the surface in regard to Disney?  Examine this picture below and tell me what you think.

Duck Tales from the Crypt. Image: Youtube.

 

Read this article at - http://jaysanalysis.com/2014/06/27/magickal-kingdom-ultra-escape-from-tomorrow-and-sinister-disney/#more-5188

Julian the Apostate Couldn't Defeat Christ

One of the most interesting stories from the early church period.  It also highlights how extreme the division had become between Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah and the Church.  Further study of his desire to re-build the temple in Jerusalem tell us that he attempted this to disprove prophetic Christian scripture and therein disprove the divinity of Jesus Christ. 


Emperor Julian of the Roman Empire grunted in agony. You would, too, if a spear had just been shoved into your guts. It was on this day, June 27, 363.* Julian was at war with the Persians. But after just two years of rule he was finished. He was only 32 years old.

As he bled, the dying emperor groaned, "You have conquered, O Galilean"--referring to Jesus Christ. At least that is what later reports said. Early rumors suggested that a Christian had assassinated the emperor. The Christians probably didn't, but they had reason to. Julian had struggled to end the power of Christians in the Roman Empire. Since the day fifty years earlier when Constantine won a key victory in the sign of the chi-rho, Christian influence had steadily grown.

Julian's zeal against the Christians surprised some because he had been brought up as a Christian, baptized, and even ordained a reader (lector) in the church. This rejection of his upbringing led Christians to call him "Julian the Apostate." (An apostate is one who falls away from faith.) What caused Julian to change sides?

A gifted writer himself, Julian fell in love with Hellenic civilization. He also fell under the spell of Maximus of Ephesus who used magic tricks to get a hold on the young man's mind.

Another reason that may have influenced Julian was that a "Christian" emperor killed off all of his family for political reasons. Although Julian owed his life to another Christian, he seems to have blamed all Christians for the massacre.

At any rate, with strong support from the more educated classes, Julian determined to restore the traditional pagan religions to supremacy. He ordered old temples rebuilt and new ones started. He developed a pagan priesthood.

Because Christians were loud in their disapproval of Julian's actions (some even resorted to violence), he went even further in his rejection of Christianity, removing Christian teachers who did not accept the legends taught in the pages of pagan authors. In another move apparently meant to harm the Christians, he sided with their Jewish antagonists, ordering the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The project was defeated by an earthquake.

Julian studied several pagan religions and considered them the true heritage of the empire. But, taking a page from Christians, he urged the pagans to show more care and compassion for the poor and needy, noting that the Christians cared not only for their own poor but for the pagans as well. This had given the Christians a strong moral advantage among their pagan neighbors.

At reports of Julian's miserable end, Christians claimed that God had judged him. But pagans must have regretted the loss which meant the abrupt end of their perks and plans.

*Historians disagree on this date. Will Durant, Christian History, and other sources give the 27th, but Encyclopedia Britannica and the Catholic Encyclopedia give the 26th.

Bibliography:

1. Aland, Kurt. Saints and Sinners; men and ideas in the early church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.
2. Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Penguin Books, 1967.
3. Durant, Will. The Age of Faith. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950.
4. Hoeber, Karl. "Julian the Apostate." The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton, 1914.
5. "Julian the Apostate." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.
6. Various internet and encyclopedia articles and Histories of Christianity.

NASA & Professional Science will announce the discovery of Alien life before 2016

For those who aren't accustomed to Thornews, don't watch if you are offended by slightly salty language and pics of scantily clad women.  I play his videos because he scours astronomy news and follows the NASA feeds, then puts the info into very funny, seriously goofy videos.  In other words, he's doing lots of legs work so we don't have to.  And his observations are usually right on target.
 

https://www.youtube.com/THORnews Book it. We're going to find Alien life very soon*. Inner Solar System dwarf planet Ceres is my best guess. Jupiter & Saturn, their Moons. Mars. Or somewhere within less than 5 light years. That's my prediction. My educated guess after reading all the news on Methane, The Kepler Hubble Chandra WISE West wFirst et all news on exoplanets, red dwarfs, light spectrums, water, etc. The initial announcement will probably be single cell fossils or microbial dark matter.
lol j/k
God Bless Everyone,

Be Cool,
Stay Cool.
Astonishers Unite,
one moment at a time.

William Lane Craig on Heaven is for Real

In the book Heaven is for Real, a young boy claims to have died in surgery and gone to heaven. William Lane Craig evaluates the popular story biblically and offers some fascinating theories on what may be taking place during Near Death Experiences

Disney's Dark Secrets - Atlantis Sorcerers - FreemanTV

Disney has so many dark secrets, one video won't really begin to cover them all...

http://freemantv.com/

They Sold Their Souls: Elvis Presley

 

A video excerpt from Good Fight Ministries' popular documentary "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll."

Elvis Presley
Music Career: 1953 - 1977

To learn more about our ministry, please visit:
http://www.goodfight.org

They Sold Their Souls: Robert Johnson

 Robert Johnson became the "Father" of rock n' roll thanks to his powerful blues style, which he apparently acquired by meeting the devil at midnight at a the crossroads or 49 and 61 in Mississippi.  Some Amazing testimony here from those who knew him best.  Needless to say, avoid crossroads at midnight.

A video excerpt from Good Fight Ministries' popular documentary "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll."

Robert Johnson
Music Career: 1929 -1938

To learn more about our ministry, please visit:
http://www.goodfight.org

The Secret Satanic Law of Attraction EXPOSED Illuminati Spirituality

Do not believe every spirit but rather test every spirit !!!

Creation Metaphysics and “A Single Unified Science”

Creation Icon.

By: Jay

I have written on scientism lately, and in the archives several more critiques of scientism and naïve empiricism (its presupposition) are available.  The question then arises as to how are we to replace this bad, contradictory narrative of man’s “progress” with something better.  Is there an answer elsewhere?  Can claims of religious belief and theology be rational?  Are they not merely leaps of faith, with no reason behind them?  In short, there are answers and religious claims are just as warranted as a “scientific” claim, and sometimes more so.  When we consider “warranted” beliefs, as they are often termed in philosophy, we can see alternate explanations that are far superior to the reductionist materialism of our day.

 

It is my thesis that there is an alternate metaphysics that is suppressed by the centralized western establishment that has allowed a covert advancement in highly complex technologies, while the ignorant public have been given a mass consumption physics and worldview that is ultimately a dead-end (materialism).  One of the chief arguments I fall back on is the fact that highly advanced technologies are based on a rigorous, formal logic that is ordered and perfectly systematic.  Since logic itself, which forms the basis and presupposition of those systems, is not, and cannot be “matter,” the central narrative explanation of reality given by modern academia for man’s origins, “Enlightenment,” and so-called scientific advance is completely wrong.

 

This alternate metaphysics is closer to what is found in aspects of Platonism and Eastern Orthodox theology, and this is likely what informed Tesla to be so successful with his inventions, despite his latter days of theosophy.  I do not intend to advocate all of Platonism or Pythagoreanism or later developments in Plato’s students, but rather when considering foundational

philosophical presuppositional commitments and assumptions, the ideas of thinkers closer to this tradition are more correct than those of an atomistic, materialist bent.  Modern quantum thinkers generally tend to be open about “Platonic” theories of metaphysics matching up to their discoveries, while materialistic science is utterly bankrupt at providing any coherent account of reality.

One of the founding fathers of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, stated:

 

“In the philosophy of Democritus the atoms are eternal and indestructible units of matter, they can never be transformed into each other. With regard to this question modern physics takes a definite stand against the materialism of Democritus and for Plato and the Pythagoreans. The elementary particles are certainly not eternal and indestructible units of matter, they can actually be transformed into each other. As a matter of fact, if two such particles, moving through space with a very high kinetic energy, collide, then many new elementary particles may be created from the available energy and the old particles may have disappeared in the collision. Such events have been frequently observed and offer the best proof that all particles are made of the same substance: energy. But the resemblance of the modern views to those of Plato and the Pythagoreans can be carried somewhat further. The elementary particles in Plato’s Timaeus are finally not substance but mathematical forms.

“All things are numbers” is a sentence attributed to Pythagoras. The only mathematical forms available at that time were such geometric forms as the regular solids or the triangles which form their surface. In modern quantum theory there can be no doubt that the elementary particles will finally also be mathematical forms but of a much more complicated nature. The Greek philosophers thought of static forms and found them in the regular solids. Modern science, however, has from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries started from the dynamic problem. The constant element in physics since Newton is not a configuration or a geometrical form, but a dynamic law. The equation of motion holds at all times, it is in this sense eternal, whereas the geometrical forms, like the orbits, are changing. Therefore, the mathematical forms that represent the elementary particles will be solutions of some eternal law of motion for matter. This is a problem which has not yet been solved.” (Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (1958) Lectures delivered at University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Winter 1955-56)

 

The principle at work here is explained in notable philosophy of science writer, Michael Polanyi, who wrote:

 

“To say that the discovery of objective truth in science consists in the apprehension of a rationality which commands our respect and arouses our contemplative admiration, that such discovery, while using the experience of our senses as clues, transcends this experience by embracing the vision of a reality beyond the impression of our senses, a vision which speaks for itself in guiding us to an even deeper understanding of reality-such an account of scientific procedure would be generally shrugged aside as out-dated Platonism: a piece of mystery-mongering unworthy of an enlightened age. Yet it is precisely on this conception of objectivity that I wish to insist in.” (Personal Knowledge, p. 5-6)

Ours is a day of cowardice, ignorance and lack of real knowledge and wisdom, despite the avalanche of information available at everyone’s fingertips.  Without a framework to place information, the never-ending data stream is useless and destructive.  If anyone has the desire to find truth, he must not be afraid to go against the grain and consider options outside the so-called mainstream, not because going against the grain is somehow inherently laudatory, but because it is a time of tremendous deception.  In a land of supposed free inquiry and free thought, the only thing considered untenable and anathema is creation by a single Personal God.  In fact, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins even say we can posit alien origins, yet belief in God is somehow irrational.  On the contrary – those on our side have a far superior explanation of reality that is actually coherent.  A biblical worldview may not answer every single question posed, but no worldview can provide that, much less one that is fundamentally contradictory like materialism or unobserved aeonian Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Atomic orbit. “The smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” -Werner Heisenberg

 

In response, I would like to suggest the metaphysics and philosophy of science posited by one of my favorite thinkers, the Orthodox theologian and traditionalist, Dr. Philip Sherrard.  Dr. Sherrard is not well-known to Western academics.  His concise, yet brilliant approach to this question solidifies a new way to look at science based on the Eastern and biblical tradition, which provides a unique metaphysic, and particularly the metaphysic found in thinkers like St. Maximos Confessor. I believe these ideas form a part of the hidden metaphysics mentioned earlier.  Sherrard’s brief, but brilliant article “A Single Unified Science” is below and includes my comments and analysis.

 

Read the rest of this article at - http://jaysanalysis.com/2014/06/23/creation-metaphysics-and-a-single-unified-science/#more-5365

Blood on the Altar - The Coming War Between Christian vs. Christian - Part 12

by Cris Putnam

---

PART 12 - WHY ANTICHRIST WILL HAVE NO DESIRE FOR WOMEN?

s

Of all the social issues today, homosexuality seems to be the main firebrand leveled against conservative evangelicals. The mainline churches are largely given over to it. Episcopal,^[i] ELCA,^[ii] and PCUSA^[iii] not only accept homosexual unions, but put homosexual clergy in charge of their churches. 

        At President Barack Obama’s inauguration, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson, expressed his horror at how specifically Christian past inaugural prayers had been, and instead prayed to the “God of our many understandings.”^[iv] 

 

          Baptist fundamentalist John MacArthur has argued this represents God’s judgment on America in line with:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did exchange 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 fitting. (Rom. 1:26–27)^[v] 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Of course, liberals try to explain this away as first-century exploitation. New Testament scholar Peter Jones addressed the mainline interpretation, arguing, “Some critics say that Paul was speaking of exploitative relationships of domination and that he didn’t understand homosexuality as we know it today—a loving, mature, stable commitment. But Paul argues (v. 27) that men burned with desire for each other, not that one exploited the other.”^[vi] Another conservative evangelical pastor, John Piper, points out that these denominations are knowingly leading people to hell by approving of and modeling this behavior (1 Cor. 6:9–11).^[vii] It is also important to note that the 1 Corinthians passage reads “And such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:11a, emphasis added), forever dispelling the notion that one cannot become a former homosexual. Because it is representative of the divide, this entry will provide arguments against same-sex marriage based on a moral category distinction. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

A Category Distinction

 

The first task is to distinguish the moral category of marriage from the moral category of same-sex relationships. This presentation will first give an overview of the biblical-theological distinctions, then it will examine the social-secular differences. Same-sex relationships are ontologically different from marriage between a husband and wife. The difference in moral category will be explored in a face-value manner. According to a standard reference, “Category differences are articulated as a way of diagnosing and avoiding various philosophical problems and confusions.”^[viii] Western culture is deeply confused concerning the attributes of a same-sex relationship as compared to attributes of a marriage. If same-sex relationships and marriage are in different moral categories, then there can be no such thing as “same-sex marriage.” It will be shown that they are not in the same moral category. For example, a same-sex relationship requires both individuals to be of the same sex, while a marriage requires gender complementarity. That alone should settle the matter, but further reasons are given. Marriage, grounded in a natural teleology and beneficial to society, is in an entirely different moral category than homosexual relationships that are inherently immoral and, from a secular perspective, pathological. Because marriage is a covenant, let’s begin there. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

A covenant is an oath-bound promise within which one party swears to bless or serve another party in a specified way. In the Bible, a covenant was associated with ritual sacrifice and involved splitting an animal in half and walking between the two halves, i.e., “cutting a covenant.” The implication was that if one violated the covenant, the fate of the animal would be visited on the violator. Covenants are made between God and man (Gen. 9:12–15) and between humans with God as their witness (Gen. 21:22–34; 31:44–54). Marriage was established at Creation as a covenant bond between a husband, a wife, and God. David Naugle explains: “It was to be a total life union between man and woman in an exclusive and permanent covenantal relationship of faithfulness and love (Gen. 2:23–24).”^[ix] In modern ceremonies, the division of the groom’s party on one side of the church with the bride’s on the other is symbolic of the ancient practice of splitting an animal. Malachi 2:14 indicates that marriage was understood as a covenant. In marriage, one man and one woman vow to live together in a lifetime relationship (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6) involving sacrificial love, sexual relations, and joint provision. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Therefore, marriage is a sacred institution defined by a spiritual and moral pledge rather than merely a legal contract, as held by secular society. The seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14) serves to protect this sacred institution rather than mere sexual fidelity. This is illustrated by the fact that the punishment for adultery was death (Deut. 22:22), but the punishment for fornication was compulsory marriage and a fine (Deut. 22:28–29). The distinction is that the former violates a sacred covenant while the latter does not. Children are also at stake, because the bond is essential to healthy child rearing.

In the social-secular realm, the marriage relationship has a natural teleology toward procreation and child rearing. It is an uncontroversial fact of biology that only male and female couples can procreate. Data from the social sciences strongly suggests that intact marriages produce the healthiest children. Children raised in intact, married families are physically and emotionally healthier, less likely to be abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit crimes, have a decreased risk of divorce, and are more likely to attend college.^[x] In contrast, data on children reared by same-sex couples suggests they are more likely to have social and emotional problems.^[xi] Because married couples produce the next generation of citizens for a nation, the state has an interest in preserving and encouraging traditional marriage. This reasoning does not and cannot apply to same-sex relationships, because they do not produce children. There is no legitimate interest for the state. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

In the biblical theological sphere, homosexual relationships are inherently sinful and offensive to God. The overarching category is sin or immorality, but same-sex relationships of this type are in their own specific moral category. God affirms healthy, platonic, same-sex relationships. For example, Jonathan and David cut a covenant in which Jonathan acknowledged David’s right to the throne of Israel (1 Sam. 18:3; 23:18). However, contrary to liberal revisionism, this has absolutely nothing to do with the modern debate concerning homosexual couples. Same-sex relationships can be covenantal, but are not necessarily so; marriage is by definition a covenant. God’s moral character does not change, and in the Torah He clearly defines homosexual acts as an abomination (Lev. 20:13). The New Testament affirms this in many passages (Rom. 1: 26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). This scriptural categorization is clearly not arbitrary or historic-culturally bound. Even more, an argument from teleology supports the divine rationale. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Homosexuality defies God’s created order. Arthur Holmes asserts, “Paul in Romans 1 speaks of some human actions as contrary to nature: he echoes the Genesis record about man and woman created in God’s image, their lives and their heterosexuality protected therefore by the law of creation (Genesis 1:26–31; 2:18–25; 4:8–16; 9:1–6).”^[xii] It is indisputable that there is a definite biological order, indeed a necessity, when it comes to sexuality. Same-sex attraction is obviously a violation of this order and purpose. A same-sex relationship is not designed to be sexual, while a marriage relationship is designed to be sexual. A same-sex relationship cannot result in procreation, but marriage has the potential for procreation. If this is a healthy behavior as its advocates argue, then it follows that everyone should adopt healthy behaviors. The reductio ad absurdum is that, if universally adopted, homosexuality leads to the extinction of the human species. This strongly suggests homosexuality is a sexual attraction disorder. Jones wrote, “Homosexuality is a creational dysfunction and homosexual marriage an oxymoron.”^[xiii] In contrast, normal marriage generally benefits the survival of the human species. Accordingly, it follows in the social-secular sphere that same-sex relationships are in a different moral category than marriage. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Marriage can be generally classified in secular terms as a procreative contract. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment, “until death do us part.” Some same-sex relationships are dissoluble, whereas marriage is defined to be indissoluble. It seems that marriage is something described rather than defined. One observes the natural procreative order and describes the coupling commitment for child rearing in terms of marriage. It is not something defined to suit popular affinities, but rather a description of natural teleology. Those who wish to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships are engaging in a futile exercise. Philosopher Frank Beckwith has quipped, “You can eat an ashtray but that doesn’t make it food.”^[xiv] Semantics aside, same-sex relationships can never really be “marriage.” 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Marriage is within a different moral category than same-sex relationships. Marriage is in the category of a covenant bond between God, a husband, and a wife for the purpose of raising children and caring for one another. Only a male can be a husband and only a female can be a wife; this rules out “same-sex marriage” by definition. Homosexual relationships fall in the category of sin and pathology, as they violate God’s law, His biological design, and they do not contribute to repopulation. These ideas are supported by biblical theology demonstrating the establishment of the marriage covenant by God and His prohibitions against homosexuality. In the secular sphere, traditional marriage is good for society, because it produces the next generation, and children are better off with heterosexual parents. Same-sex relationships do not produce new citizens, and even same-sex adoptions are less than ideal. Hence, there is no good reason for the state to endorse or promote them. These facts lead to the conclusion that the idea of “same-sex marriage” is an immoral absurdity that has been deceptively hoisted on a naively liberal culture. Mainline churches that perform these ceremonies are willfully opposing the God they claim to worship.

The Divided "Church" As Prophesied

It is extremely unfortunate that what is called the Christian church is so divided. Even so, this series has shown that not all that is labeled “Christian” actually is consistent with classical Christianity. Liberals suffer from unbelief. The only solution is the gospel. That’s right, I said it: They need the gospel. How can I say that? The gospel entails sincerely believing that Christ died for my sins (1 Cor. 15:3) and that Christ resurrected from the dead on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4). We have seen many examples of emergent (McLaren) and mainline (Spong) pastors and leaders who explicitly deny those very truths. Some do so by folly and ignorance and others by malintent: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:14–15). Thus, we should approach liberal Christians as nonbelievers, keeping in mind that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Unfortunately, they have chosen the wide gate Jesus warned of (Matt. 7:13). 

                                                                                          

I am not saying there are no saved people in liberal, mainline, or emergent churches, but that the theology expressed by their leaders does not lead to it. This should not be terribly surprising, as Jesus’ brother Jude warned back in the first century: 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

            For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 3–4) 

                                                                                                                                                                                    

Although it is more blatant, there is nothing new here. It seems the subsection's title above was somewhat misleading; the church is not a “divided house,” but rather, many who claim to be under its roof, in truth, are married to the world (Rev. 3:17). These “in name only” Christians will most likely lead the persecution of the believing church, already labeled as bigoted and homophobic. 

 

Read the rest of this article at - http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/ChristianWar12.htm