WARNING!!!

Attending Christian school for your entire childhood, going to church every Sunday with your parents, being baptized, reading the Bible, praying, speaking Christian-ese, spending four years in a Bible College or Seminary . . . none of these things makes you a Christian! Experiencing all of this and turning your back on it merely exposes you as an apostate; a false convert. You were never saved to begin with! You neglected to actually receive salvation. Faith cannot be borrowed; it is not a hand-me-down. If you never appropriate it and make it your own, it does not matter how Christian your parents might be, you can speak all the Christian-ese you want and undergo all the behavioural modification you want, merely imitating genuine Christians, but you yourself will never be a Christian because of it. Real salvation consists of a permanent change that cannot be reversed or undone.

"As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore." John 6:66

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." 1 John 2:19

There are many pastors standing in the pulpit, many ministers serving in the church, many people sitting in the pews who think they are Christian but have neglected to actually receive salvation. Scripture repeatedly talks about those who think they are saved but whom Christ says, "I never knew you!" At least three times Scripture warns us to examine ourselves to see if we are truly in the faith or merely self-deceived (2 Cor. 13:5; Phil. 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:10). There are many ways in which you can miss the Kingdom, and miss it you will if you try to enter by any other way except through Jesus and according to His mandates. The way into the Kingdom is narrow. You do not get to negotiate the terms of your entrance. If you do not enter by the means with which Christ has set in place, then you will never enter the Kingdom! The only person you are fooling is yourself.

"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9

"Unless one is born again from above he cannot see the kingdom of God... he cannot enter the kingdom of God" John 3:3, 5

Using God's Name In Vain

Christians seem to think that the only way in which a person can use God's name in vain is to say things like "Oh my God!" or "God damn it!" Far from it. God's name is used in vain more times in a day by Christians, professing Christians, and Christian-posers. When you call God as a witness to something that is clearly a lie, you use God's name in vain. When you attribute things to God that He never said or did, you use God's name in vain. When you invoke God in any way, shape, or form that is not honest, trustworthy, true, and with integrity, you use God's name in vain.

You might never utter those words that employ God's name as a four-letter expletive curse word, but if you say God said something to you that He clearly did not say, or if you say God did something in your life that He clearly did not do, or if you attribute something to Him that had nothing to do with Him whatsoever, then you are just as guilty of using God's name in vain as the person who does employ it as a curse word. God is not fooled, and He will not be mocked.

When you claim that God taught you something that you choose to interpret from the Bible that simply does not stand up to scrutiny and biblical exegesis, you are guilty of using God's name in vain. When you claim that God told you to do something or led you to do something or that you prayed about something and God gave His blessing, despite it being in direct opposition to what is contained in His Word, you are guilty of using God's name in vain. The voice in your head is not the voice of God. It is the voice of your own wicked, depraved heart. It is the voice of your fleshly desires.

So, you who call yourself a Christian, how often do you actually use God's name in vain? Since it is one of the Ten Commandments, I suggest you start taking it more seriously, especially if you claim to love God. Because attributing things to God that He in no way is responsible for is you being guilty of using God's name in vain, which means you might as well be using it as a four-letter expletive curse word. You will not be held guiltless.

Stop using God's name in vain!



P.S.— Some of the worst people to use God's name in vain are the Catholics and the Charismatics. Catholics, through the abuse of their "indulgences," claim that by paying the church money, the sins you commit under that payment is forgiven by God. Sorry, but, no, it is not. You were merely suckered into giving the church money, while still being dead in your trespasses and sins because you have never repented and forsaken your sins. Charismatics falsely attribute a great many acts to the Holy Spirit, acts in which He has nothing to do with. The people who fall for all of this will be twice the sons of Hell than those who are lying to them and teaching these false doctrines of demons. But do not deceive yourself; other denominations are also guilty of using God's name in vain. Mostly, its the people in the denominations. When everyone claims to be lead by God and taught something by God, there is quite obviously a problem. Every verse of Scripture only has one interpretation, and if your interpretation does not square with the plain reading of Scripture, then God did not lead you and you were not taught by God. You are guilty of using God's name in vain.

Paul Classes Himself As Unmarried?

"But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I." 1 Corinthians 7:8

Why is it that many Christians ass-u-me that "Paul puts himself in the category of the unmarried"? They think that Paul was never married. In this verse, he lists two groups of people: the unmarried, and the widows. The Greek word translated as "unmarried" is agamos* (a = not, gamos = married), which apparently refers to both bachelors and widowers. This is just a thought, but could a possible rendering for this verse be, "But I say to the widowers and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I"? After all, we know that there had to be widowers as well as widows, so would Paul not say something to them, too? I suggest this not only because of the scriptural and extra-biblical evidence, but especially when the next verse is considered: "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Apparently, and I do not know how true this may or may not be, once you have been married, when you lose someone that close to you, it is difficult to return to the single state again and you yearn for companionship. I think this depends on the person, and I think verse 9 makes that clear. Some are able to remain single while others yearn for that companionship, and both are good and acceptable, as verse 28 makes clear.

Do people ass-u-me that Paul put himself in the category of the unmarried and not in the category of the widows due to the fact that the Greek word for widow is feminine, and thus he obviously could not put himself in that category? But the question remains, were there not widowers? Would Paul not address them somehow, too? Why do people ass-u-me that Paul put himself in the category of the unmarried and not in the category of the widowers, especially when agamos apparently refers to both? Also, if agamos really and truly means "unmarried," why do people ass-u-me that Paul was not simply stating that these people (the unmarried and the widows) remain single as he is—rather than eisegetically implying that he had never married. Being single does not mean that you were never married; it simply means that your current status is single. Singlehood does not include divorced people because according to John the Baptizer and Jesus, as well as Romans 7:3, while these people might be living in singlehood, they are considered married.

From all the evidence that we have, both scriptural and extra-biblical, the three options (from the most likely to the least likely) pertaining to Paul's marital status are:

1. Paul was a widower. (Most likely. Strong evidence.)
2. Paul was divorced.
3. Paul was never married. (Least likely. No evidence.)

All the evidence from Scripture and Jewish customs points to the fact that Paul was most likely married. Jewish males were typically married by the time they were in their mid-twenties. Paul's family were strict Hebrew Jews (Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5). Paul says that he followed the traditions of his ancestors with zeal, exceeding those of his own age (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-6). In order to be part of the Sanhedrin, one had to be married. There appears to be strong evidence that Paul was part of the Sanhedrin (especially when you consider how he describes himself as "a Hebrew of Hebrews"). Paul was a chosen and prepared vessel for the ministry he was given, and to write things like 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and Ephesians 5:22-33, while God could use an unmarried man to do so, the typical method that God employs is to use a person that is prepared for that role. In other words, in order for him to write about marriage God wanted him to experience marriage firsthand. Paul never refers to himself as a virgin, or classes himself with such, nor does he ever imply or state that he had never been married. Those who argue that Paul had never been married have zero support for the position.

It is possible that upon his conversion to Christianity Paul's wife left him and returned to her family, which would give support to Paul's words in verses 12-16. In these verses, Paul nowhere says that a Christian is free to remarry. He says that if the unbelieving partner wants to leave, let them. If you try to force them to stay, you will have the kind of marriage that Proverbs frequently talks about concerning the contentious woman. This in no way hints at or alludes to the freedom to remarry. This would be a direct contradiction to God's words recorded in verses 10-11, as well as to Jesus' words where He states that re-marriage is adultery, and to 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3. So, perverse Christian, stop trying to pit Paul against God and have him contradict God's clear teachings on the issue. While it is possible that Paul's wife may have left him, the evidence is more strongly in favour of the fact that he was more than likely a widower.

Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians is where the perverse Christian attributes all sorts of contradictions to the Apostle Paul. Here are just a couple of them:

1. God says (vv.10-11) but I say (vv.12-16). God has said this, but I know better than God and so I am telling you the exact opposite. God has said not to divorce, but I am telling you that it is okay to do.
2. Verse 27. "Are you bound [deo] to a wife?" The Greek word here is the exact same word found in verse 39: "A wife is bound [deo] as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." The same truth is found in Romans 7:2-3: "For the married woman is bound [deo] by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man." Verse 27 makes the best sense in light of widowers/widows, because the very next verse states, "But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned." Only widowers/widows are legitimately loosed/released from a spouse. If this referred to divorced people, then we have a number of contradictions because according to verse 39 and Romans 7:2-3, as well as Jesus' words on the issue (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18), a divorced person has sinned if they have re-married; they are guilty of committing adultery, and adultery is a sin.

Verse 9 and verse 28 cannot logically be referring to divorced people as "unmarried" because Scripture repeatedly refers to them as being legitimately married, even when in adulterous relationships (Matt. 14:3-4; Luke 3:19; Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). The only legitimately "unmarried" person groups that exist are the virgins and the widowers/widows. Verses 8-9 and verses 27-28 make the most sense when widowers are understood. Paul simply, and logically, cannot be referring to divorced people in verse 9 and verse 28 because in verse 39 and Romans 7:2-3 he makes it clear that by re-marrying they are sinning. Not to mention the words from God in verses 10-11. Jesus made this clear as well, stating that the re-married person is committing adultery (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).

How about we, as professing "Christians," start believing what the Bible actually has to say instead of trying to force it to say what we want it to say based upon our sick, wicked, perverse hearts? God wrote the Bible; He said want He meant and means what He says, so let us start taking it seriously and acting accordingly.

ADDENDUM #1:

Those who believe that Paul was divorced like to attempt to use Philippians 3:8 as part of their proof texts, where Paul says, "I have suffered the loss of all things." Implying that this verse means or includes a divorced wife is the practice of eisegesis, reading into the Scriptures what one wants to find there and forcing them to say something they do not say.

ADDENDUM #2:
It truly amazes me the number of Bible teachers, preachers, and scholars who talk about interpreting the Bible historically, grammatically, and contextually, yet in practice fail to do precisely this. You cannot take our day and age with its societal practices and acceptances and try to impose them upon the biblical world. As Christians, we are supposed to conform to the Bible; not to try and force it to conform to our feelings and opinions. Just because you do not like what it has to say does not mean you get to ignore it or try to alter it in some way. To not accept what the Bible says and conform yourself to it is to be disobedient and rebellious.

---

^* Agamos is used three other times in this chapter (and only in this chapter and in this book [11, 32, 34]), and "unmarried" seems to be the best rendering for them based on context. Verse 34 is a little confusing, however, especially when read from post-KJV Bibles, because an unmarried woman ought, technically, to be a virgin. (Remember, we are talking about their times, not about our perverse times.) In verse 34, if the widows were in view, Paul would have used the same word from verse 8. In pre-KJV Bibles, the passage makes more sense because two people are introduced (the wife and the virgin) and then dealt with individually. Paul says there is a difference between them as there is between the husband and the bachelor.

All the elements between these two Greek texts are exact the same, with the exception of a period being moved, four words being added (in the green), and two terms being swapped (in the blue).

Textus Receptus Greek: μεμέρισται ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος. ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ σώματι καὶ πνεύματι· ἡ δὲ γαμήσασα μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσει τῷ ἀνδρί.

Nestle-Aland Greek: καὶ μεμέρισται. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ παρθένος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ πνεύματι· ἡ δὲ γαμήσασα μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ τῷ ἀνδρί.

ἡ γυνὴ = the woman/the wife
ἡ παρθένος = the virgin/the maiden
ἡ ἄγαμος = the unmarried

Since γυνὴ is frequently employed when speaking of a wife, as can be seen from the preceding verse (33), the rendering of pre-KJV Bibles makes more sense than the nonsensical rendering of post-KJV Bibles, seeing as how an "unmarried woman" and a "virgin" are exactly the same thing (Again, we are talking about their times, not about our perverse times.), unless talking about widows, in which case Paul would have used χήρα. Does it make sense that verse 34 would begin by saying "his interests are divided" when the end of verse 34 does not say the same thing about the woman, that her interests are divided? Or does it make more sense that Paul is saying there is likewise a difference between a married and unmarried woman just as there is between a married and unmarried man?

Interestingly enough, the Newberry Bible, or The Englishman's Bible, contains footnotes where it addresses variants within the Greek manuscripts, and then identifies which manuscripts contain which variant. Not a single variant is mentioned or listed for verse 34. So why does the Nestle-Aland text have an alteration that no other manuscripts appear to have? I would trust the Greek text of the Textus Receptus in this case, seeing as how it makes the most sense of the information within and around it, as discussed above.

3 Ways In Which To Miss the Kingdom

"Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.' Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.' In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God. And behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last." Luke 13:24-30

The question was asked, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" (13:23). Jesus begins His answer with, "Strive to enter through the narrow door" (v.24)—the door that leads to life (Matt. 7:14). The Greek word translated as "strive" here is agonizesthe, from where we derive our word "agonize," and it implies "intense exertion," like an athlete in training. In other words, you need to be intentional about eternal life. Until you have received the assurance of eternal life, you need to keep striving to understand the Gospel. Many people will miss the kingdom simply because they have never given any serious attention to the destiny of their souls.

You will miss the kingdom if you try to enter at the wrong door!

Jesus is very intentional about this truth: "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved" (John 10:9); "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Even the book of Acts makes it plainly clear: "There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). All roads do not lead to salvation, Heaven, or Jesus. If Jesus is the Way, then all other ways are wrong. If Jesus is the Truth, then anything and everything else is a lie. If Jesus is the Life, then anything and everything else leads to death. You cannot negotiate your entrance. You either enter by Jesus, according to the conditions He set in place, or you do not enter at all.

You will miss the kingdom if you arrive too late!

"For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.'" (vv.24-25). When God shuts the door, the time for salvation will be over and it will be too late. The door will not be opened again. The question was asked, "How many," but Jesus wanted them to consider, "How soon." From this passage, these people clearly want access to the kingdom, yet they are denied access. We see the same truth concerning the wise and foolish virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). Notice here, also, that "the door was shut" (v.10). Scripture says "Behold, today is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2) for a reason. Because you may not have tomorrow.

You will miss the kingdom if you do not really know Jesus!

It is not so much about whether you know Jesus (with more than mere mental-assent head knowledge—i.e., knowing of Jesus), but whether He knows you. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matt. 7:12-23). Your profession of faith amounts to very little. These people clearly thought they knew Jesus, that they were in tight with Him. Yet, like in our passage, He tells them He never knew them. It is about having an actual relationship with Jesus—not merely about being religious. With these two passages, the people experienced Jesus firsthand, they knew Him socially, they listened to Him preach, they saw Him perform miracles (and even did some themselves), but they failed to enter into a relationship of loving trust with Him. They never asked Him to forgive their sins, to be their Saviour, or worshipped Him as their God. You have to be committed to Jesus from the first to the last. Hence why Jesus says that if you do not count the cost of what it means to follow Him, you can never be one of His own. Following Jesus could cost you everything! And for many people that is simply unacceptable.

No one gets saved merely by their proximity to Christianity! In other words, just because your parents are or may be Christians, does not make you a Christian; just because you go to church every Sunday, read your Bible and pray every day, does not make you a Christian; just because you spent four years in a Bible college or seminary, does not make you a Christian. Faith cannot be borrowed, and it is not a hand-me-down. Salvation comes through personal faith in Christ Jesus. You may "identify" in some way with Christianity without ever truly entering the kingdom of God. Hence why the Bible commands us to, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" (2 Cor. 13:5), and to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12), and to "be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you" (2 Pet. 1:10).

You Can't Prove A Negative?

Repeat a lie loud enough, long enough, and often enough, and eventually people will believe it. This is a favourite argument of Atheists these days. They attempt to argue that God does not exist, and when challenged to prove it, they respond fallaciously with, "You can't prove a negative."

But is this true?

No, it is not. We prove negatives all day, every day in our every day life. People who think this is impossible quite obviously do not have degrees in logic. No professor of logic would ever make such a ridiculous claim. Atheists have an aversion to the burden of proof. Because they cannot provide such proof, they attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Negative: I can prove that I don't have 25 eyes.

All I have to do is look in a mirror and count my eyes and I can easily prove that I do not have 25 eyes. I just proved a negative.

Negative: I can prove that my wife is not Kate Beckinsale.

 Very easy to prove this negative.

Negative: I can prove that people who think you can't prove negatives don't have degrees in logic.

Can you prove to me right now that you do not have a Bengal Tiger sitting in your lap? Can you prove to me that you have not lost all your teeth? Can you prove to me that your under garments do not have pictures of Sponge Bob Square Pants on them? Of course you can! If you cannot, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

People who think you cannot prove negatives obviously have no clue what a negative is. They heard one idiot say it, and it sounded like a good argument to them, and so like spoon-fed nonsense-regurgitating parrots, they swallowed this crap hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because they are not "free thinkers" and do not and cannot think for themselves. They have no ability in logic, rationale, or, apparently, common sense.

Some Atheists even attempt to claim that you cannot prove universal negatives. Water is universally known to be made of H₂O. Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. I can universally prove that there exists no water that is not made out of H₂O. If something looked like water, moved like water, but was made out of carbon, then by definition it cannot be water. It is easy to prove universal negatives. How about a square circle? If it is square, it is not a circle. If it is a circle, it is not a square.

Proving negatives is simple and easy. Those who think and believe that you cannot do such have no grasp on logic, let alone possess a degree in logic. Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist because there is far too much evidence to the contrary.

Inconsistent Atheist

Why do Atheists care what others believe or do not believe? How does it affect them in the least? The main reason is because they are attempting to try and convince themselves of the nonsense they spew yet intrinsically know to be false due to their own conscience. Nevertheless, according to Atheism, Atheists are their own law givers. Therefore, they cannot impose their "moral standards" on others, since they have none. If God does not exist, then everything is fair game and nothing is wrong or immoral. Atheists who attempt to impose certain moral standards are being inconsistent with what they claim to believe (or not believe) and hypocritical because they are borrowing heavily from Christianity.

Morality is not determined by society. If moral standards were left to men to decide, everyone would do what was right in his/her own eyes. Nobody would agree. Look at modern society where many of its people are complete idiots who think all opinions are equally valid and all "truth claims" are equally valid. What if two opinions are diametrically opposed? Are they still equally valid? What if two "truth claims" are diametrically opposed? Are they still equally valid? Even these ludicrously asinine arguments are inconsistent and hypocritical. So their argument results in, "all opinions are equally valid until they are not" and "all 'truth claims' are equally valid until they are not." Sheer idiocy! But then I would expect nothing less from Atheism.

Morality and moral absolutes come from God. We know these things to be wrong because God has said they are wrong and He has written this fact down in our hearts and on our consciences. How many people have tried to argue for the legitimacy of their murdering people? eating people? molesting children? stealing? lying? committing adultery? It does not matter the sin (or crime), there are people who have tried to argue that there was nothing wrong with it. People today are doing it with homosexuality, transgenderism, Islam, etc.

If Atheists were consistent with their beliefs (or lack of), then no morals would be imposed upon them and they would act accordingly. If we are nothing more than protoplasm and animals, then what does it matter what we do to each other. Especially since when we die we become dust and no longer exist. Why be nice to other people and try to help them if we are nothing, our life means nothing, and we turn into nothing? Why try to better humanity or progress anything (technology, science, health, etc.) since our existence is meaningless and will not amount to anything. Why leave things to future generations when their existence is as meaningless as our own? All you do is create false hope where there is none. You are born, you live, you die. So be consistent Atheists and stop stealing from Christianity and trying to impose Christian morals at will whenever it pleases you and you agree with them. Stop being a Jellyfish Atheists and develop a spine and live your life consistent with Atheism.

Atheists are not trying to convince others that God does not exist; they are attempting to convince themselves. Yet their conscience informs them that He clearly does and that everything they do holds them accountable to Him and that they will answer for everything they have done. People choose Atheism because they do not like to think and having to weigh the evidence and discern what is and is not true is hard work. Why put in the effort to determine who is and is not telling the truth about life and history when it is much easier (and spineless) to dismiss it all and pretend it does not exist despite all the evidence screaming at them?

Ten Technological Traps

by Joshua Engelsma

We live in a time of great technological advancement. Companies are constantly churning out new products that are hailed as smarter, more advanced, and more innovative. And in many ways we have made ourselves dependent on technology with our smartphones, tablets, and computers, too name just a few.

There is nothing inherently sinful in these things. In fact, they can be powerful tools for good in the service of God and his church, and therefore we can use them with a good conscience before God. "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:4-5).

That being said, we ought to recognize that there are many dangers that these wonders of the technological age present. These dangers ought to make us careful in our use of these good gifts.

What follows are a list of ten such dangers, "traps" of technology:

1. We can waste an unbelievable amount of time using technology. How many hours are wasted staring at the TV, pursuing pointless information on the internet, looking at pictures on Instagram, and posting on Facebook? Too many, making this one of the top traps of technology.

Continue reading...

The Golden Idol of Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Islam

Back in 2013, I wrote an article titled Bow Down and Worship. It recalled how during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar, he had erected a golden statue and demanded that everyone bow down and worship it. This was an edict, a law. Anyone who refused to bow down and worship the golden idol was threatened with being cast into a fiery furnace.

In Canada, today is no different.

Today, Christians are being forced to bow down before, accept, and approve of homosexuality, transgenderism, and Islam. If they speak out against any of these, they are threatened with being cast into prison due to imagined "hate speech" and imaginary "hate crimes." Christians and conservative Canadians no longer have free speech. They are no longer allowed to have their own opinion or to disagree with these three "idols."

It is rather ironic how if you voice your disagreement concerning homosexuality, it is the LGBT community who gets angry and starts shouting things like, "You should go and hang yourself" or "You should go and shoot yourself." It is also rather ironic how if you voice your disagreement concerning homosexuality, it is the LGBT community who initiates and instigates violence by attacking you physically. Anyone with even half a brain and an ounce of intelligence can see that it is not the Christians who are guilty of "hate speech" and "hate crimes," merely for disagreeing with it. It is the LGBT community who are the true culprits and perpetrators of hate speech and hate crimes. But because Canada has made them a special class of citizen, they can quite literally get away with murder and have it blamed on their "victimhood" status and their being a minority. 

Homosexuality is associated with sexually transmitted diseases, including HPV of the rectum. This fact is evidenced by statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Homosexuality is a perversion, and it is a choice. Homosexuals like to try and argue that they were born that way. If that were the case, then prove that a pedophile was not born that way. Homosexuals like to say that pedophiles are sick. And homosexuals are better how...?

All men and women struggle with different desires. It does not mean we give in to them. When a straight married man struggles with his desires, if he gives in to them it is called adultery. If a homosexual gives in to their desires, they just fight to make them legal. Homosexuals force their opinions and beliefs upon those who disagree with their perverse behaviour.

As I wrote then:

Those who profess to be homosexuals are less than 3% of the population and yet they are squeezing the majority, forcing them to do their bidding.

Despite getting the law on their side through manipulation and idle threats, the homosexual's conscience still screams at them that what they are doing is wrong. They can try to silence all the opposition, and they can get all the laws on their side they want, but they will never be able to silence their conscience. Homosexuals know that what they are doing is wrong, yet they seek to make it legal. Could you imagine if murderers and rapists and zoophiliacs and pedophiles and all manner of wicked that men do was sought to be made legal? Homosexuals know they could never convince any intelligent person with an ounce of common sense to support their behaviour, and so like cowardiced bullies they have to try and force everyone to accept their behaviour whether they agree with it or not.

Homosexuals have never been "oppressed." The only thing oppressed was their sexual desire, which should be oppressed. Do you want the zoophiliac acting on his/her desire? Do you want the child molester acting on his/her desire? Just because we have certain desires does not mean that we should give in to them. If the church did her job, this would not be an issue. However, persecution of Christians at the hands of homosexuals, transgenders, and Muslims is merely God's judgment upon Canada for having walked away from His precepts and turning their back on God while giving Him nothing more than lip service. It is time to wake up, church, you slumbering giant, and start doing what you were called to do.

Here is what Canada has come to:

A criminal arrest warrant was put out last week for a Canadian bus driver, a Christian man named Bill Whatcott, for distributing "safe sex" pamphlets which condemned homosexuality — at a gay pride rally. This was apparently a "hate crime."

The 51-year-old has been charged with the "Wilful Promotion of Hatred against an identifiable group, namely the gay community" and faces up to two years behind bars. According to a news release from the Toronto Police Service, Whatcott was arrested in Calgary on June 22 in connection to the "Hate Crime investigation." Whatcott says he drove to the station and turned himself in.

Some 3,000 fliers were distributed during the 2016 Toronto Pride rally. The Toronto Police Service apparently received complaints regarding the "anti-gay material" and an investigation was launched, oddly, some two years later.

According to The Federalist, the "safe sex" pamphlets "stated homosexuality is associated with sexually transmitted diseases, including HPV of the rectum." This, of course, is true, as evidenced by statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The pamphlets also included criticism of Liberal party politicians, decried "Ontario’s 'perverted sex education curriculum,'" and categorized homosexual activity as sinful, while simultaneously offering salvation for such acts through Christ.

The literature "did not call on anyone to hate homosexuals, or advocate violence, or claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles," notes The Federalist.

The "hate speech" offender says he was "shocked" by the charge. "When they’re looking for you in three provinces, you’re pretty much, you know, bank robbery or murder. ... So I knew it was serious," he said, adding that he told a friend, "This is insane," after learning that the charge had to do with a parade that took place nearly two years ago.

After Whatcott turned himself in at the Calgary station, he says he was deprived of food for 24 hours. "It might have been on purpose, because it didn’t happen, like — some inmates did go half a day without food — but they actually made me go a full 24 hours."

Additionally, Whatcott says he was denied medical attention and medication for a leg injury. "I had a leg infection, and it was bad enough that I was brought to the hospital, but they simply refused to fill the prescriptions. So for four days I had no medications," he explained. "The infection was actually going up my leg. I was a little concerned it was gonna go systemic."

Whatcott has since been fired from his job, apparently without any explanation, and his wife's GoFundMe page has been booted from the site. A new funding page for the family can be accessed here, on GoGetFunding.com.

On Monday, Whatcott was released on bail after agreeing to remove the the fliers from his website. He now faces up to two years behind bars for the "indictable" offense and is expected back in Toronto court on July 23 for a forthcoming trial date, reports The Federalist.

George Mueller's Faith

"The children are dressed and ready for school. But there is no food for them to eat," the housemother of the orphanage informed George Mueller. George asked her to take the 300 children into the dining room and have them sit at the tables. He thanked God for the food and waited. George knew God would provide food for the children as he always did. Within minutes, a baker knocked on the door. "Mr. Mueller," he said, "last night I could not sleep. Somehow I knew that you would need bread this morning. I got up and baked three batches for you. I will bring it in."

Soon, there was another knock at the door. It was the milkman. His cart had broken down in front of the orphanage. The milk would spoil by the time the wheel was fixed. He asked George if he could use some free milk. George smiled as the milkman brought in ten large cans of milk. It was just enough for the 300 thirsty children.

WHO WAS GEORGE MUELLER?

George Mueller was not always a person of such great faith and good character. As a young boy growing up in Germany in the early 1800s, he often stole money from his dad. As a teenager, he sneaked out of a hotel twice without paying for the room. One time he was caught by police and put in jail. As a Bible college student, George loved going to bars, drinking, gambling, and being the life of the party. He also loved making fun of people, especially Christians.

Surprised by a Bible Study

One day, a friend invited George to go to an off-campus Bible study. He went only because he wanted to make fun of the Christians later. But to his surprise, he liked the Bible study. For the first time, he saw people who really knew and loved God. He attended each evening. Before the end of the week, he knelt at his bed and asked God to forgive his sins.

George's friends saw a change in him immediately. He no longer went to bars or made fun of people. He spent more time reading his Bible, talking about God, and going to church. Soon he found that his friends did not want to be around him anymore.

When George told his father that he had decided to become a missionary, his father became very upset. He wanted George to have a high-paying job and not be a poor missionary. He told George that he would not give him any more money for school. George knew he had to do what God was calling him to do, even if his dad didn't support him.

An Hour after Mueller Prayed, the Answer Came

George went back to college without knowing how he was going to pay his tuition. He did something he thought was a bit silly for a grown man to do. He got on his knees and asked God to provide. To his surprise, an hour later a professor knocked on his door. He offered George a paid tutoring job! George was amazed! This was the beginning of George Mueller's dependence on God.

Almost Dying Turned out for the Best

After finishing college, George was ready to begin his missionary work in London, England. But there was one problem: Germany required all healthy men to serve at least a year in the army. George wanted to get to his mission as quickly as possible; however, he became very sick. His illness was so serious that he almost died. It also made him unable to serve in the army. He was now free to go to England as a missionary.

No More Rich Seat/Poor Seat

George became the pastor of a small church in England. The church wanted to pay him a good salary from the money it received renting pews to rich church members who sat at the front of the church. (Poor members had to sit in the "cheap" seats in the back.) George told them that this had to stop if they wanted him to be their pastor. Even so, he did not allow the church to pay him a salary. He trusted God to meet his needs, and God did. George and his family never missed a meal and were always able to pay their rent. George began to sense, however, that God had something else for him to do.

Praying Food into the Home

Each day as George walked the streets, he saw children everywhere who had no mom or dad. They lived on the streets or in state-run poorhouses, where they were treated badly. George felt God calling him to open an orphanage to take care of the children.

George prayed, asking God to provide a building, people to oversee it, furniture, and money for food and clothing. God answered his prayers. The needs of the orphanage were met each day. Sometimes a wealthy person would send a large amount of money, or a child would give a small amount received as a gift or for doing chores. Many times food, supplies or money came at the last minute, but God always provided without George telling anyone about his needs. He just prayed and waited on God.

More than 10,000 children lived in the orphanage over the years. When each child became old enough to live on his own, George would pray with him and put a Bible in his right hand and a coin in his left. He explained to the young person that if he held onto what was in his right hand, God would always make sure there was something in his left hand as well.

The Stupidity of Dispensationalism

Immutability is ascribed to Christ, and we remark that he was for evermore to his people what he now is, for he was the same yesterday. Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord does not have some children best beloved, some second rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. Those who saw Christ’s day before it came, had a great difference concerning what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference concerning what they enjoyed while on earth in meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way—they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation than what shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall. Just as the reflection of man’s face to what he sees in a mirror so is the spiritual life of David to the spiritual life of the believer now. Take the book of Psalms in your hand, and forgetting for an instant that you have the representation of the life of one of the olden time, you might suppose—that David wrote only yesterday. Even in what he writes about Christ, he seems as though he lived after Christ instead of before, and both in what he sees of himself and in what he sees of his Saviour, he appears to be rather a Christian writer than a Jew; I mean that living before Christ he has the same hopes and the same fears, the same joys and the same sorrows, there is the same estimate of his blessed Redeemer which you and I have in these times. Jesus was the same yesterday as an anointed Saviour to his people as he is today, and under him they received the same precious gifts. If the goodly fellowship of the prophets could be here today, they would all testify to you that he was the same in every office in their times as he is in our days.

—Jesus Christ Immutable, A Sermon Delivered On Sunday Morning, January 3, 1869,
By C. H. Spurgeon, At The Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington.

Charles Spurgeon clearly had an introduction to the tenets of Dispensationalism, and he addressed their teachings, their doctrines, as "absurdities" and "stupidity." Rightly so. The two underlined paragraphs above clearly destroy the beliefs of Dispensationalism where they see two distinct peoples of God, two different plans of salvation. The Bible teaches no such thing. Every page of Scripture contradicts and condemns such a false belief. Old Testament saints and New Testament saints belong to one and the same body—the church. Israel in the wilderness is even referred to as "the church in the wilderness," using the Greek word, ekklesia. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts, uses the word ekklesia to refer to the congregation of Israel. They looked forward to Jesus, whereas we look backward to Jesus. They were Christians every bit as much as we are today. And according to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, we are every bit as much Jews as they were then (see Rom. 2:14-16, 25-29).

Dispensationalists make the claim of reading and interpreting the Bible "literally," but this claim is false and does not stand under scrutiny. I could provide hundreds, if not thousands, of examples from Scripture that demonstrate and prove irrefutably that Dispensationalists do not read or interpret the Bible "literally." When Jesus emphatically says, "this generation," Dispensationalists interpret it to mean "a generation in the future." When Scripture says sacrifices "to make atonement," Dispensationalists interpret it to mean "sacrifices in memorial or remembrance."

Dispensationalists teach a returning to the old system. They teach a returning to the Old Covenant. Not even God Himself can return to what once was. The New Covenant has been established. You cannot go back! Read the book of Hebrews and see how Jesus was better than everything before. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything before. Israel is and was nothing. Israel was meant to be the salt and light before other nations. But "if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?" (Luke 14:34). Salt that has lost its saltiness cannot be salted again.

The Old Testament prophesied of the Gentile inclusion. In John 10, Jesus says, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shephard" (v. 16). In Romans 11, Paul reveals the Gentile inclusion. He separates national Israel into two groups: believing and unbelieving. He then says that believing Gentiles are grafted into and in with believing Jews. What does that make them? True Israel. Spiritual Israel. Even Ephesians 2:11-22 destroys the Dispensationalist's absurd stupidity of two peoples of God. Dispensationalists do not read their Bible, let alone reading or interpreting it "literally." Dispensationalists look at the Bible in the exact same manner that the Jehovah's Witnesses do—randomly isolated, selectively cited passages attempted to be united through collapsing context.