Daily Archives: September 5, 2015

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast

Possessing the Treasure

by Mike Ratliff

5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He wondered at their unbelief.
And He was going around the villages teaching. (Mark 6:5-6 NASB)

Some say that the number of true Christians is determined by how many are members of a certain religious group. Others say that this number is determined by how many have met a certain checklist of religious requirements. These and many other Christian apologists come up with their own requirements. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to go by what our Lord taught instead? The issue with all of these determining lists of requirements is that they are based on human merit in one way or another. However the Word of God tells us clearly that NO ONE is saved according to this. 

View original post 1,352 more words

CultureWatch: The Sexterminators

Anyone who knows anything about the revolutionaries bent on destroying the West will know that attacking marriage, family, morality, and especially sexual morality, is a key means of doing so. If family can be decimated and sexuality smashed, the radicals know they can easily take a nation.

They attempted this externally of course, as in the Bolshevik Revolution. One of the first things to be done after they took power in 1917 was to move against the family – a symbol of decadent bourgeois morality. Historian Pavel A. Parfentiev gives us the gory details of this war on morality and family:

Laying what later became the ideological groundwork for the post-1917 Communist authorities in Russia, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are widely known to have entertained largely negative views of the traditional family. According to Marx and Engels, under Communism the “bourgeois” family would have to “disappear,” just as “the capital” would. The practice of parents “exploiting” their children would be abolished, and family education would be replaced by public education.
These ideas were taken up and further radically developed into early post-revolutionary Russian ideology. The new authorities’ first steps were to “liberalize” family relationships—and thus simultaneously to undermine the influence of religious institutions such as the Russian Orthodox Church.
The year 1917 saw the Soviet government passing decrees “On Civil Marriage, Children, and Registries” and “On Dissolution of Marriages.” The decree “On Dissolution of Marriages” granted spouses unconditional freedom to a divorce, performed by a local court, at the desire of either one or both parties. “On Civil Marriage” decreed that all except civil marriage (including religious marriage) would cease to be recognized by the state, while at the same time abolishing all distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. (It should be noted that the sole aim of introducing civil marriages was to undermine religion. Writing in 1922, one Soviet lawyer stressed that “[t]he institution of Registrars was necessitated by the fight against the Church.”
Affirming such moves, the 1918 Family Code introduced a whole new morality, contravening the existing practices of marital and family law. In its provisions for divorce, the new legislation granted spouses rights to separate property and thereby abolished shared, family property. The Code also included vague criteria for deprivation of parental rights. Article 153 stated that “[p]arental rights are exercised exclusively in the interests of the child, with courts invested with the right to deprive the parents thereof in case said rights are exercised improperly.” Article 183 prohibited adoption, replacing it with a system of state-appointed foster caretakers. The Soviets were also the first government to proclaim complete freedom of abortion.
All of these steps were in line with the new authorities’ ideology of considering the family the backbone of the oppression of women. Russian Communists thought the liberation of women required destroying family households and family education for public versions of both, while drawing women en masse into public production. Writing in 1919, Lenin argued that “true liberation of women, true Communism comes about only when and where the masses rise up . . . against . . . small-scale households.”
In his 1920 work The ABC of Communism, Nikolay Bukharin and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky, ideologues of the new order, wrote: “In a bourgeois society, a child is viewed as being exclusively, or at the very least, largely a property of his parents. When parents speak of a child as ‘their daughter, their son,’ it implies not only their parenthood, but also the right to educate their own children. From a Socialist point of view, this right is entirely and completely unfounded. An individual does not belong to itself, but to society – humankind.”
This view is seconded by Lenin, writing in 1920: “We are serious in delivering on our manifesto commitment to transfer the economic and educational functions of the individual household to the society.”
The new ideologues explicitly stated the need to destroy the family. A. M. Kollontay, one of the Communist party’s most active family policy makers, formulated this need in no uncertain terms as far back as 1918: “The family is doomed. It will be destroyed.” N. Bukharin also wrote that “in a Communist society, when private property and oppression of women finally come to an end, so, too, will prostitution and marriage.”
As a natural consequence of the new authorities’ antifamily policy, a rapid disintegration of the family followed. Freedom of divorce led to serial polygamy and prostitution masquerading as marriage. In 1920 Petrograd (now St Petersburg), 41% of marriages lasted only three to six months, 22% less than two months, and 11% less than one month. Open prostitution was rampant.
The number of divorces skyrocketed. While in 1913 there were 0.15 divorces to 1,000 marriages for Russian couples, 1926-1927 saw 11 (almost 100 times more). In 1920 Petrograd 92 marriages out of 1,000 ended in divorce, and in 1926 Moscow it was 477 per 1000. The state widely advocated freedom of sexual relations. One can say with certainty that the period dealt the natural family a devastating blow, one from which Russian family policy is still recovering.

And the cultural Marxists, seeking to overthrow the West from within, adopted the same principles. Consider some of the stated goals of the communists in their attempt to take over America, as enumerated in ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen’s 1958 book The Naked Communist:

-Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
-Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
-Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.
-Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
-Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
-Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
-Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
-Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

genderHmm, no wonder the gender bender revolution of the past few decades sounds so familiar. Destroy the family, undermine parental authority, let human sexuality run amok, and declare war on gender and biology. We see this happening all the time. By now you would have heard of the insanity being pushed at one US university:

Last week, UT’s Office for Diversity and Inclusion released a letter to students reminding them to make the campus as welcoming and inclusive for everyone. This included encouraging them to use a student’s name and the correct pronouns.
“We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems,” wrote Donna Braquet, Director of the Pride Center.
Braquet asked that in the first weeks of classes, instead of calling roll, professors ask everyone to provide their name and pronouns.
“We are familiar with the singular pronouns she, her, hers and he, him, his, but those are not the only singular pronouns. In fact, there are dozens of gender-neutral pronouns,” Braquet wrote.
A few of the most common singular gender-neutral pronouns are they, them, their (used as singular), ze, hir, hirs, and xe, xem, xyr.

This school, and others, are rightly “At War with Reality” as Fay Voshell notes. She writes:

The office’s Donna Braquet declares: “We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems. Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”
Braquet adds, “…if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask.”
Of course, it would be impolite to ask Braquet if ze is out of hir mind.
But hir latest declamations might give parents who are thinking of sending their children to the University of Tennessee a bit of a pause? Are they prepared for their kids to come home and announce that the terms “mother” and “father” are inherently offensive and that henceforth parents are “Ne” and “Ve?”
It is tempting to laugh at the crazies.
However, the thought pattern behind this newest assault on the English language is distinctly unfunny.
The truth is that the drive to eliminate the distinction between male and female has finally reached the stage at which even language itself is to become anarchical — destroyed in the name of absolute “equality.” For the crazies, ensuring incomprehensibility ensures confusion. Confusion then ensures the masses are stupefied. Stupefied masses then become completely malleable and subject to whatever definition the powers that be, usually the almighty State, grant them. Apparently, by “de-sexing” language a mere unit, not a human being who is either male or female, is “born.” The complete smashing of individuation of any sort is the result.
We have seen the Left’s attempt to shift the definition of what it means to be human time and again. The twentieth and now the twenty-first centuries have been rife with imitations and variants of the attempts of the French Revolution to redefine the human being according to the whims of the State, which was to ensure absolute equality. As Robespierre put it, to be a citizen meant that “all privileges, all distinctions, all exceptions must disappear.”
Under communism, equality meant that, so as to create the perfect communist drone, all classes must disappear, all differences among classes must be eradicated. Everyone, without distinction, was to be a “comrade,” equal in all respects. Mao Tse Tung was to imitate the Leninist and Stalinist view of the classless society, enforcing uniformity and regimentation to the point of extinguishing individuality altogether.
But nothing equals the insane attempt by the leftist crazies to completely eliminate the distinction between men and woman. Absolutely nothing.
If they succeed in their attempt to eradicate the concept of male and female by radicalizing language, the result will be not just a loss of communication. It will be the collapse of society as we know it.
In the long run, perhaps that is what the crazies want. The reality of the world as it really is, divided equally between those who are uniquely men and uniquely women, seems to be too much for them. The existing pattern of society as it has been from time immemorial is not one they wish to adjust to. They cannot live in a world defined by the reality of the distinction between the sexes, so they make the insane attempt to destroy reality.
Disastrously, the attempt to re-create reality invites coercion of the masses who live in and with reality and who know the created order of the universe, including the society in which they live, will not really change according to the wishes of crazies, be they Robespierre, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or Braquet. Men will remain men; and women will remain women despite attempts to use linguistics as both a tool of denial and a useful weapon for enforcing conformity.
If the insanity continues unchecked and unabated, coercion by the crazies is next. And isn’t coercion always the end game of rabid ideologues? Huge chunks of reality are ignored, and when there are questions about the mental stability of the ideologues, the questions are not only unanswered, but they are not even permitted. Not only is there no permission to protest or question — it follows that force must be applied in order the unreality of the ideologues be maintained.
Alarming? It should be.

It certainly is alarming. But the revolutionaries have been doing this for a century now. When we will we wake up and realise an entire group of radical madmen have declared war on everything we value and care about? The moonbattery taking place all around us is not happening by accident.

It is all part of the revolution – the sexterminators are hard at work. We better understand this fast, and respond accordingly.


Albert Mohler Blog: “‘In this World You Will Have Trouble’ — Welcome to Rowan County”

In this blog essay, “’In this World You Will Have Trouble’” — Welcome to Rowan County,” Dr. R. Albert Mohler reflects on the controversy surrounding County Clerk Kim Davis. Mohler writes:
“This story, now far larger than would have been imagined just a few weeks ago, points to some of the hardest questions faced by Christians who are determined to be faithful to Christ and to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens. Many of these questions defy a simplistic answer. How are Christians who hold elective office to fulfill that office when the nation’s highest court or those holding higher office rule and legislate contrary to Christian conviction? The same question is quickly extended to those serving in the military, holding appointive office, or even merely working for the government.”

Click here to read more

Characteristics of a People-Pleaser

The Reformed Reader

Pleasing People: How Not to Be an Approval Junkie Here’s a good resource for Christians who struggle with fearing man above God: Pleasing People by Lou Priolo.  It is true that sometimes we want people’s approval so much that we forget about pleasing God; we begin to fear man rather than God.  In the first chapter of this book, Priolo gives some characteristics of a people-pleaser.  I thought it was a helpful list, so I’ll share it here (in edited form):

1) He fears the displeasure of man more than the displeasure of God (Prov. 29:25, John 12;42-43).

2) He desires the praise of men above the praise of God (Mt. 6:1-5, 23:5-7, John 12:43).

3) He studies what it takes to please man as much (if not more than) what it takes to please God (Prov. 23:6-8).

4) His speech is designed to flatter others into thinking well of him (1 Thes. 2:4-5).

5) He is a…

View original post 190 more words