Details

Hits: 2913

May 11, 2022·2 min read

To the editor: Reading the letters from readers about their abortions and how they affected their lives was heart-wrenching.

Banning abortion is based on a religious belief that human life begins at conception. However, there is not yet a medical or moral consensus about when human life really begins.

For example, many in the Jewish community do not believe that human life begins until birth. So banning abortion on the basis of a Christian belief would be a violation of their religious freedom, which is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Members of the conservative Christian religious community have been trying for years to force their beliefs on the American public, and now it looks as if they will succeed. I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the principle of separation of church and state is being violated here.

Could this ever become the legal basis on which this battle is fought?

John Beckman, Chino Hills

To the editor: I was very moved to read the letters from people sharing their experiences with abortion. But there is another aspect to the horrors of a world in which abortion is illegal: the experiences of women who have miscarriages.

In 1987 I was experiencing a normal pregnancy. I went on a camping holiday, and in a remote camping site I had a miscarriage.

In a world in which abortion was illegal, how would that have looked? I shudder to think of the interrogation I would have had to endure, and wonder how on earth I would have proved my "innocence."

Up to a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Claire Chik, Torrance

To the editor: Considering the outcry nationwide regarding the demise of Roe vs. Wade, your coverage and the testimonials in letters to the editor, it's pretty obvious most protesters believe is that abortions will be illegal nationwide. No, their legality will go back to the states.

For Californians, so apoplectic over this potential ruling, nothing will change. If you live among pro-lifers in an antiabortion state, just go to another state. This is easier than going to Tijuana, as one of your letter writers said she did.

Put away your placards and pack your bags if you are in a red state that objects to the estimated 60 million children whose lives were ended by abortion since 1973. Statistics indicate the majority of aborted babies were people of color — does this make the protesters racist?

Obviously, these technically living children, facing the knife, have no rights at all.

Mark Collins, Altadena

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/letters-editor-human-life-begins-100027116.html

Details

Hits: 3299

CP VOICES | MONDAY, MAY 09, 2022
By George Barna

Do you ever wonder why Little Johnny or Little Suzie does not obey their parents or consider them their primary role models?

New research from the American Worldview Inventory conducted by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University reveals that children’s disregard for their parents often has to do with the worldview confusion caused by the parents.

More than nine out of 10 parents of preteens (94%) have a syncretistic worldview — a grab bag of beliefs and behaviors taken from a variety of philosophies of life. Most parents mix some biblical ideals with elements drawn from comprehensive philosophies ranging from Marxism to Eastern Mysticism and everything in between. The result is a hot mess of guidelines that parents use when trying to make sense of their own lives and craft decisions that seem right and feel good.

One of the inevitable consequences of living by syncretism is contradictions. Most people who embrace syncretistic thinking not only hold conflicting beliefs but also say one thing while doing another. The research confirms that such conflicts among an adult’s thoughts, words, and deeds generate little concern — as long as they feel they are doing what is right in that context, at that moment.

Those choices are perceived and interpreted quite differently by their children. Because a worldview is fully developed before the age of 13, young children listen to and watch their parents for clues on how to live an appropriate and successful life. The problem they often encounter is the inconsistency between what their parents say and do. The cute expression “do s I say, not as I do” is inadequate to alleviate the cognitive dissonance and confusion such inconsistencies cause within children.

How do youngsters reconcile the parental inconsistencies? Many of them conclude that their parents are just as confused about life as they are, and that sends the child deeper into the surrounding culture to search for sources of clarity and wisdom. In fact, the research suggests that millions of children go so far as to conclude that because their parents claim to be Christian (as 67% of the parents of preteens do), the Christian faith must not have the answers to life that they so desperately need to make sense of the world and their place within it. Usually, their limited experience with the Christian faith and the Bible provides nothing to override that skepticism, and they decide they must look elsewhere for wisdom and guidance.

Enter the arts and entertainment media.

Past studies have shown that of the many entities that affect children’s worldview, arts and entertainment media have the greatest influence. Why? One reason is because entertainment media — television shows, current music, movies, social media videos, video games, etc. — typically provide a unified worldview message. When children watch a television program that provides a postmodern perspective that is carried throughout the entire performance, children will consider that point of view because it is coherent and consistent. When children listen to a pop song that makes a simple set of assertions about life, they absorb the message if it provides a unified point of view.
They are attracted to social media personalities who have a consistent message that underlies their presentations. Some media are rejected by children not because of issues of taste or sophistication level but because the messages provided are confusing or inconsistent. So, even media producers have to be careful about the substance they are developing for their young audience if they want to do more than simply entertain the audience.

Can parents recover from their own inconsistencies to more effectively shape the worldview of their young children? Of course. To do so, however, requires a series of integrated commitments.

For starters, parents have to possess a biblical worldview in order to impart one to their children. Currently, just 2% of parents of preteens have a biblical worldview as their dominant philosophy of life. Before parents can be instrumental in developing a biblical worldview in the mind and heart of their child, they must wholeheartedly embody that same way of life. That’s a big task, but one that every human being can accomplish. God wants each of us to thrive. Because one’s worldview determines every decision one makes,
pursuing His principles and commands will bear incredible benefits to those who make the investment.

Second, to shape their child’s worldview, parents have to embrace it as a high-priority life goal. It will demand constant time and energy, and the results will not be immediate; just ask Jesus, based on His investment in His disciples.

Third, parents will need a viable and measurable plan for accomplishing the long-term task. One of the reasons why churches can be ineffective at this process is because they plan to simply provide loads of information to people and hope they figure out how to use it. Parents will require a more thoughtful and strategic plan in order to foster a biblical worldview in their children.

Next, parents will need a process and tools to evaluate how well they are doing and what tactics in worldview development seem to work best for their child. Keep in mind, “you get what you measure.” Figure out what outcomes matter and how to assess whether or not you are making progress toward those desired outcomes. If not, re-strategize and keep moving forward.

Finally, making a long-term commitment to this process is imperative because shaping a worldview takes years. There are starts and stops along the way. Prepare to be frustrated — and to nevertheless stick with the task. The life of your child is at stake. Should they develop a biblical worldview, they will experience what God has for them in this life: the ability to thrive. We thrive when we work within God’s plan. Possessing a biblical worldview facilitates that capacity.

For a parent who loves God and loves their child, that is worth committing to.

Originally published at the Family Research Council.

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/most-parents-have-worldview-confusion-no-wonder-kids-do-too.html

Details

Hits: 3232

Sheila Briggs
May 11, 2022·

The imminent overturning of Roe vs. Wade is a disaster for women. It is also a disaster for the Catholic Church, whose hierarchy in America has made opposition to abortion central to its mission.

The American Catholic Church is deeply divided, and the bishops’ obsession with matters of gender and sexuality is driving these rifts. Most American Catholics oppose the overturning of Roe vs. Wade (68%, according to a 2019 poll by the Pew Research Center). The bishops pay no heed to their voice but instead seek to silence Catholics in public office who defend women’s reproductive rights.

Ordinary Catholics feel condemned for their views and for the decisions that they and their families make around abortion, same-sex marriage and even contraception, coverage for which the U.S. Catholic bishops sought to exclude from the Affordable Care Act. Time and time again, the bishops have fought against women having control over their own bodies.

It is therefore not surprising that the pews at Sunday Mass are emptying. Today, most young Catholics, who are confirmed in the church in their teen years, have ceased attending Mass by their mid-20s. But it is not just the young and women who feel alienated from the church. There is a disturbing awareness, crossing the lines of gender and age, that the church is not doing the right thing.

The exodus from the church, fueled by moral doubts about the bishops’ actions and teachings, will swell if the Supreme Court proceeds to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Although the American religious group most opposed to abortion rights is white evangelical Protestants, not Catholics, four of the five justices who are poised to strip away abortion rights are Catholic. As the devastating effects on women’s lives become visible after the Supreme Court’s judgment, Catholics are going to feel increasing shame over what their church has done.

As members of a longtime minority, American Catholics instinctively understand from their own history what their bishops ignore: At stake here is religious liberty.

The American theologian John Courtney Murray was instrumental in the drafting of the Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom,” promulgated in 1965. This was a momentous reversal of church teaching that had previously resisted religious liberty as it became enshrined in the constitutions of democratic societies, because, the church argued, religious toleration (of non-Catholics) would spread indifference to religion. In contrast, American Catholics had embraced a legal foundation for religious liberty because they realized that it protected them in a then-predominantly-Protestant society.

Religious liberty is the historical foundation of all civil liberties because it allows for a political community in which those who participate may profoundly disagree with and dislike one another but still cooperate rather than seek to destroy one another.

Religious liberty did not originate in a period of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue but in an early modern world of bitter religious strife and deadly conflict. For those who were opposed to religious liberty, far more was at risk in their own eyes than the life of an unborn child. They were protecting people’s souls from eternal damnation caused by holding and spreading wrong religious belief. This is why in the early Commonwealth of Massachusetts Catholics were hanged; they were endangering not only their souls but also the souls of others.

Religious freedom carved out a private sphere in which individuals were free to hold any or no religious beliefs and to act on their conscience. In return, they were required not to impose their religious beliefs and the conduct that derived from their conscience on others. In contrast, the public sphere was to operate on empirically observable and rational norms, which would be self-evident to any reasonable person.

Certainly, our understanding of the boundary between private and public spheres has historically evolved and been contested, but the distinction remains important. Many of these boundary shifts have come about through recognition of the rights of women. For example, domestic violence cannot be excused because it occurs in a “private sphere.” The overturning of Roe vs. Wade reverses that trend: It no longer protects women’s bodies from private abuse but subjects them to public control.

Is it legitimate to shift decisions about abortion from the private to the public realm? No. Banning abortion does not rest on established medical and scientific fact and therefore cannot lay the claim on any reasonable person that it become part of public law.

Precisely because the U.S. protects religious liberty, Catholics who oppose abortion rights do not have to justify their religious beliefs and their religiously motivated conduct to me or, more importantly, to a court of law. By the same token, a religiously motivated decision to not have an abortion should not be imposed on those of us who do not share the religious beliefs.

The overturning of Roe vs. Wade would threaten religious liberty. If such a ruling remains in effect for any length of time, it will prevent hundreds of thousands, eventually millions, of women from acting upon their conscience. This will result in serious harm for women and their families — and one of the bulwarks of democratic society will be weakened.

The greatest benefit of religious liberty has been that we have learned to live with people we really don’t like whose views we do not share. This has provided the bedrock for other civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association. If religious liberty is diminished, then we face a world in which competing private spheres compete for dominance over the public realm.

Conservative Christians may feel confident that they can win culture wars against all who do not share their vision of society, but no group stays on top forever. Eventually they will lose sway, and they would then miss the protections for religious liberty once enshrined in American culture and law.

Roe vs. Wade is part of a patchwork of laws that have protected the privacy of individuals against the religiously motivated incursions of others. Ultimately, there cannot be religious liberty for some but not for others. Either all of us enjoy it, or none of us will.

Sheila Briggs is an associate professor of religion and gender and sexuality studies at USC.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-conservative-christians-regret-100044953.html

Details

Hits: 3001

Carlsbad Current-Argus
Rev. David Wilson Rogers
May 8, 2022·3 min read

Christians who pray can be some of the most powerful forces in creation. Yet, like many powerful forces, the act of praying is one that can also be very dangerous and destructive if it is not used properly. Unfortunately, much of what passes for prayer within Christianity is not a faithful use of the amazing tool God has bestowed upon humanity.

Perhaps one of the most dangerous expressions of prayer is the public prayer. Fundamentally, there is little necessarily wrong with praying in public—but the heart and purpose must be in tune with Scripture and God’s will. In the modern public arena, frequently such prayers fall short. Rather than being priestly communications with God on behalf of others, public prayers often become showcase spectacles. The message is not one of heartfelt communication with God, but a performance intended to captivate an audience. In much of modern American Christianity, the genuine freedoms we enjoy as citizens of a nation that allows for the free expression of religion, become opportunities to exercise the hypocrisy of public prayer.

Prayers that take on the scandal of public performance violate the very principle laid out by Jesus in Matthew 6:5-15. When pontificating preachers and people praying stand in highly visible places—from busy street corners to football fields—and heap on heavy phrases of seemingly godly intent, it taints the power of prayer. This is why authentic prayer needs to be done in secret.

The language of prayer is also very odd. It is our most intimate and meaningful means of intimate communication with God. The Divine’s love for humanity is so great that prayer is a generous gift for us to be able to simply be in prayerful communion with one another. The most powerful prayers are those that resonate as a conversation with someone we know and love intimately. Yet, for many, prayers become this formulary chant of repetitive phrases, constant echoes of “Father God,” affirmations of doctrinal beliefs, and a litany of telling God what to do. One may ask, is that how one would talk to their human parent?

Prayer is not simply a time to talk to God. Far more relevant is a prayer time that chooses to intentionally listen to God. Quiet meditation, faithful contemplation and study of scripture, and meaningful service in God’s name are powerful forms of prayer that are often overlooked. Since they do not necessarily match the public model of prayer so overused in American churches, it becomes discounted in the hearts and lives of many faithful.

Another aspect of prayer that is often overlooked is the powerful model of prayer exemplified in the Bible itself through the book of Psalms. In the Psalms, the people praying are not afraid to say how they feel and even shake an angry fist at God in outrage because God is not responding in the way they feel things should go. In the Psalms, the one praying may God for horrible things and may ask God for wonderful things. In all the Psalms, there is no formulary standard by which the faithful speak with God, but there is a common foundation—authenticity. The Psalm Prayers are heart-felt, authentic explorations of the human condition with the One who created humanity in the Divine image.

Prayer is powerful. Public prayer has relevant meaning an purpose, but it must be done with faithful authenticity, spiritual integrity, and genuine intimacy with the God who loves us enough to make one-on-one communication possible.

This article originally appeared on Carlsbad Current-Argus:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/public-prayer-still-prayer-done-112907411.html

Details

Hits: 3025

Christian Post
8:00AM EDT 5/6/2022 JOSEPH MATTERA

In the past few days, thousands of pro-choice people are marching in favor of the so-called "right to choose" because of the leak of a looming Supreme Court decision regarding abortion. Many believe this leak was perpetrated by a Supreme Court clerk or insider who wanted to garner widespread backlash with the hope of influencing the court's decision before the final vote.

Many on the Left are also trying to incite a frenzy of fear by saying that some of the justices on the court will soon attempt to overturn interracial and same-sex marriage. These two far-fetched scenarios are attempting to connect Supreme Court conservative judges to racism and bigotry (fomenting even more popular protests). The Supreme Court is now under tremendous pressure and likely more divided than ever between those who hold more of a progressive view and those with a conservative ideology.

As a contrast to Judge Alito's leaked opinion, last year his colleague Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared an unborn child to a brain-dead adult who merely responds to stimuli. This devaluation of human life is horrific, especially coming from somebody who sits on the highest court in the United States!

In my opinion, most reasonable citizens on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum agree that racism is abhorrent; however, anti-racists who are pro-choice compromise when it comes to human life. Furthermore, in the past, I found it interesting that a pro-choice person like former governor of Virginia Ralph Northam said that he approved of abortion up until the time of birth. This same governor had pictures of himself in his college yearbook depicted in blackface and another picture of him wearing a KKK hood.

Not coincidentally, Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was an avowed White eugenicist. She started abortion clinics in Black communities and openly said she wanted to exterminate the Jewish and Black races. Sanger said, "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Through the years, Planned Parenthood was also caught in recorded telephone conversations admitting their racist tendencies against minorities. (To learn more about the racist history of Planned Parenthood, read this article in the Washington Times.) The anti-racism and pro-life causes go hand in hand. An accurate and consistent sanctity of life position has to include both the values of pre-birth and post-birth (respect, dignity and protection for all people) in order to be legitimate.

Historically, the church has always been pro-life. This is proved by some of the earliest extra-biblical documents such as Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the writings of some great church fathers like Tertullian, Cyprian, Athenagoras the Athenian and more.

Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that as believers, there is no such thing as class or gender discrimination since we are all one in Christ. Additionally, since humankind is made in the image of God as His crown jewel of creation, God forbids the murder of another human being (Gen. 1:27; Ps. 8; Gen. 9:5-6). Scripture says God hates the shedding of innocent blood. What can be more innocent than a preborn human? He even forbids the murder of a human being in His top ten list of commandments (Prov. 6:17; Exod. 20:13). Hence, to devalue human life with ideologies and activities that promulgate racism, sex trafficking, slavery, abuse or abortion is contrary to the gospel since Jesus took upon Himself human flesh (not the flesh of an animal or nature of an angel) to save us (John 1:14; Heb. 2:14). Consequently, it is impossible to have a true gospel without Jesus adorning a flesh-and-blood human body.

This means that if there were no incarnation (Jesus becoming human), there could be no cross. Without the cross, we have no gospel! It is also not a coincidence that the first act of worship concerning Jesus' Advent came from a babe in the womb (Luke 1:41-44). It is also interesting that Elizabeth blessed the fruit in Mary's womb. She referred to Mary as "the mother of my Lord" while Jesus was still in the pre-birth stage (v. 43, NIV). She viewed a pre-birth baby, Jesus, as her Lord.

Summarily, I contend that we cannot separate abortion and the pro-life position from the gospel. God made humans in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-28), and Jesus' innocent blood was shed to redeem believers.

This is why the shedding of innocent human blood is an affront to God, because His Son's precious blood was spilled to save the life of fallen humanity.

In light of the above, it is a gross misapprehension of the nature of the gospel when someone considers abortion a very political issue and not a gospel issue. Those with this view fail to understand that when we objectify a post-birth human with sex trafficking, slavery, abuse or racism, or treat an unborn human baby as a mere blob of flesh or a fetus, we devalue Jesus' humanity. We treat the blood of the Covenant as a common thing, as well as undervalue the price He paid to save us.

Truly, both abortion and racism are gospel issues that should obligate all believers to stand up for the sacredness of human life and blood.

In conclusion, the implications of this "pro-life" gospel should profoundly affect both our internal convictions and our public positions, or else the gospel has no practical application and the church cannot function as the salt and light of the world. Indeed, abortion is both a gospel issue and a policy issue, which then incontrovertibly connects faith and politics.

Dr. Joseph Mattera is an internationally known author, consultant and theologian

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-abortion-is-a-gospel-issue.html

Details

Hits: 3072

William Falk, Editor-in-chief, The Week Magazine Sun, July 3, 2022 at 5:52 AM·2 min read

Every four years, pundits proclaim that "this is the most important election of our lifetimes." In 2016, we now know, it was actually true. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency was an asteroid strike that profoundly altered America's political and cultural landscape. Six years ago, Trump offered a devil's bargain to evangelical Christians: If they gave a thrice-married, biblically illiterate New York City libertine their vote, he'd deliver Supreme Court justices who'd overturn Roe and promote a conservative Christian agenda. Trump delivered, with help from Mitch McConnell and Democrats who stayed home in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein because of their distaste for Hillary Clinton. Trump appointed three Federalist Society-minted justices who, last week, gleefully erased Roe — triggering a war between the states over abortion whose consequences we can only dimly glimpse.

But Trump's legacy goes far beyond the 6-3 court now detonating decades of precedents. The Jan. 6 committee hearings have further revealed the 45th president in all his plate-flinging, foaming-at-the-mouth, narcissistic glory — his contempt for democracy, institutions, and traditions; his use of lies, intimidation, and violence to achieve his ends; his animating belief that winning is all that matters. Over four exhausting years, our titular national leader's madness infected the country like a virus. Threats and acts of violence against political enemies have become routine. Hatred, bullying, and "alternative facts" have been validated; meanness is in the air. The red/blue divide Trump deliberately deepened feels increasingly irreparable. In the immediate future, there will be prosecutions of Trump allies and perhaps Trump himself, and then payback investigations by Republicans — and if they control the House, the impeachment of Joe Biden. Beyond that, we can count on nothing, except that Trump's poisonous impact on this nation will linger long after he's dead.

https://news.yahoo.com/turning-point-095210374.html

Details

Hits: 3414

Grayson Jang on June 15, 2022

As United Methodism divides, an Arizona United Methodist confirmed some of the traditionalists’ worst fears about disregarding biblical authority in their denomination.

In his recent sermons Defusing Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas Series 1,2: Original Sin and Hell, Rev. David M. Felten declared: “The notions of biblical inerrancy and the need to be born again create all kinds of discord and conflict in society…[and] keeps the whole church trapped in a quagmire of outdated fantasies.” He surmised: “Not to put too fine a point on it, but original sin has got to go.”

Felten argued that the notion of original sin is not from the Bible, “Unfortunately, though original sin is nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the whole of Hebrew Scripture or the New Testament,” but from Saint Augustine. “Augustine was a promiscuous guy after all…so he decided to pass the buck and say: hey, my behavior is not my fault. It’s…Adam’s fault.”

The Methodist minister claimed that the concept that sin was passed from Adam’s generation to the next generation is invalid by accepting Darwin’s evolution theory. “The creation stories in the Bible are metaphors, not history…instead of the magical idea that human beings were once perfect and now because someone ate
an apple, are damaged goods. How about simply acknowledging that Darwin was right? We were never perfect. We are evolving, emerging as a species and as individuals.”

“Is original sin in the Bible?” Felten asked rhetorically. “No…Is it totally made up? Yes. Has it, and does it continue to do social, psychological, and spiritual harm to people? Yes.” He explained that because Paul and Augustine were unaware of evolution, they tried hard to account for the primal urges and tendencies we inherited with the information they had.

According to Felten, Paul and Augustine “made up a fanciful story about sin and the power of Jesus to redeem us…But science has given us a story that makes more sense for the 21st century.” Felten insisted: “We are evolving creatures striving to emerge from the primal ooze of our past to achieve a more advanced form of life.”

Felten concluded that human tendencies to sin are not because of original sin but because we are all evolving: “We need to leave behind our magical thinking…I hope you’ve outgrown the image of a childish, petulant tyrant, punishing generations of subjects because some ancestors screwed up long ago…We are an evolving species, emerging over countless millennia into something more sophisticated than our reptilian ancestors.”

In his sermon on hell, Felten argued that hell is totally made-up and contradicts the nature of God, causing many believers to leave the church these days. People are agonizing between two choices: “One, [becoming] people who threaten eternal torture from a sadomasochistic God, or Two, [becoming] people who are too afraid to stand up and say no.” Felten believes that this fabricated notion of hell distorts “the very core of what following Jesus is about.”

“Hell is like the crystal meth of theological drugs,” Felten preached. “Once you’re addicted, it’s almost impossible to break away without some very serious intervention.” He said the word “hell” in the Old Testament is mistranslated. The word ‘Sheol( שְׁאוֹל )’ in Hebrew does not mean hell. “This (Sheol) wasn’t a place of punishment–just simply not living, kind of a precursor to limbo, [and] a much better translation of Sheol would simply be the grave,” he insisted.

Then where does the notion of Hell come from? Felten finds the answer in paganism. In the New Testament, Jews called the Hell of fire Gehenna or the Valley of Hinnom. He said, “It (Gehenna) was the stinking city dump where garbage was burned in a continuous smoldering fire before the Jews arrived.” In the same manner as Gehenna, images of lakes of fire from 2 Peter are also affected by paganism.

Felten said: “But these are from Egyptian and other pagan sources…the notion of hell as some sort of underground cavern of torture comes not from the Bible, but from Greek mythology and the idea of the realm of Hades.”

“Too many preachers are guilty of allowing the idea of hell to fester in the minds,” Felten complained. “So, let’s begin by confessing that when it comes to our concepts of hell, for the most part, were misinformed…So let me say it clearly…It’s all made up. The popular notions of hell are total fiction. Not to mention so contradictory to the gospel as to be laughable.”

Felten asked: “Is God really one who with one ear enjoys the music of the angels in heaven and with the other ear enjoys the screams of sinners tormented in hell?” He explained that “to plan for something in the afterlife, either for our own sense of self-aggrandizement or a sense of revenge…[is] not what Jesus had in mind.” Felten concluded: “If God is the manifestation of all things loving, merciful, and forgiving, hell cannot exist…Hell loses, and love wins.”

https://juicyecumenism.com/2022/06/15/methodist-david-felten/

Details

Hits: 3109

CP POLITICS | THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2022
By Leonardo Blair, Senior Features Reporter

Christian Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois accused his colleague and sister in the faith Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., of advocating for "the Christian Taliban" after she suggested to members of a Colorado church Sunday that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is "junk" and the Church should be directing the government.

During her speech at Cornerstone Christian Center in Basalt on Sunday, Boebert declared that she is "tired of this separation of Church and state junk."

"The Church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the Church. That is not how our Founding

Fathers intended it," the born-again, first-term congresswoman said.

Boebert argued that the principle of separation of Church and state is not in the Constitution and was only in a letter that "means nothing like they say it does." Boebert was likely referencing an 1802 letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church Association in Connecticut stating that the First Amendment has "a wall of separation between Church and State."

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion" and "government actions that unduly favor one religion over another." It also prohibits the government from "unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

Boebert's comments have since triggered multiple news headlines. Kinzinger, a staunch critic of former President Donald Trump who is also a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard, criticized Boebert's comments.

"There is no difference between this and the Taliban," he tweeted, referring to the Islamic terrorist organization that has taken control of Afghanistan.

"We must opposed the Christian Taliban. I say this as a Christian."

Kinzinger suggested in subsequent tweets that since extremism in other religions like Islam is discouraged in America, the same standards should apply to Christianity.

"It's interesting. When the Taliban rose, we kept saying the 'moderate Muslims' need to speak out (I'm sure you did too) I believe normal Christians need to call out Christian nationalism and the Christian Taliban," he said. "I can't find anywhere Jesus said that the Govt matters to him."

As opponents often use the term "Christian Taliban" to demean conservative Christian policy stances, conservative radio host Larry O'Connor reminded Kinzinger that he, too, was once branded as "Christian Taliban" before he was elected to Congress in 2010.

"All of us at Breitbart helped you win in 2010 when the protesters in the streets were calling YOU Christian Taliban and Nazi. Remember all the posters of you and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin with swastikas?" O'Connor noted. "You've become the very people we fought against to help you get elected."

Kinzinger insisted that times have changed.

"You are incorrect Larry. Yes I was called a Nazi, and thank you for confirming that I wasn't. But in 2010 nobody could imagine the church would be abused to promote a man with traits we should abhor," he tweeted. "So it's VERY different now."

Kinzinger, who serves on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, announced last year that he will not seek reelection. He was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

https://www.christianpost.com/politics/adam-kinzinger-slams-boeberts-call-for-church-to-direct-govt.html

Details

Hits: 2919

CP WORLD | MONDAY, MAY 09, 2022
By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor

The Revolutionary Court of Tehran has sentenced an Iranian-Armenian Christian man to 10 years in prison for establishing a house church, which the judge called “propaganda contrary to and disturbing to the holy religion of Islam,” according to reports.

Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran, headed by Judge Afshari, sentenced Anooshavan Avedian, 60, to 10 years of imprisonment, alongside two others who are members of his house church — Abbas Soori, 45, and Maryam Mohammadi, 46 — both of whom are converts to Christianity, Human Rights Activists News Agency reported.

Article 18, a U.K.-based organization that promotes religious freedom in Iran, reported that Soori and Mohammadi received a range of non-custodial punishments, including a fine of about $2,000 (500 million rials) and a 10-year ban from membership in social and political groups as well as a two-year exile outside Tehran. In addition, they must regularly report to the offices of the Ministry of Intelligence.

Avedian was also given 10 years of “deprivation of social rights.”

The three were convicted on the charge of “organizing and running an Evangelical ‘Zionist’ home church with the intention to act against national security” and “maintaining satellite dish and receivers.”

They were first arrested in August 2020 when about 30 intelligence agents raided a private gathering at Avedian’s home in Narmak are in northeastern Tehran, but their case came to light only recently.

The agents confiscated all the Bibles and communication devices with passwords.

In Tehran’s Evin Prison, the three were subjected to psychological torture during several intense interrogation sessions.

Judge Afshari pronounced Avedian guilty of “establishing and leading an illegal group with the aim of disrupting the security of the country through educational and propaganda activities contrary to and disturbing to the holy religion of Islam, through the dissemination of false claims … as well as contact with foreign countries, or organisational guidance from abroad.”

The Christians’ defense was met with “disrespectful remarks toward their character, and insults to their faith,” according to Article 18, which also said that over the past decade, authorities in Iran have closed down nearly all churches that offered services in Persian, the national language, or insisted they teach only in the ethnic minority languages.

The Islamic Republic is ranked as the ninth-worst country in the world when it comes to Christian persecution, according to Open Doors USA’s World Watch List.

“Converts from Islam to Christianity are most at risk of persecution, especially by the government and to a lesser extent by society and their own families,” it says.

“The government sees the growth of the church in Iran as an attempt by Western countries to undermine Islam and the Islamic regime of Iran. House groups made up of converts from Muslim backgrounds are often raided, and both their leaders and members have been arrested, prosecuted and given long prison sentences for “crimes against national security.”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/iran-christian-sentenced-to-10-years-for-hosting-house-church.html