Friday, August 18, 2017

The New American Nation...Just What Does A Statue Represent?

I almost don't know where to begin on this one. Like some of my articles that deal with what can only be deemed as low-class scum, there is so much scum to go around regarding this, that I could write for a year or two or more. I've debated whether to simply do a youtube or an article. I think I will do both... 

Although I really don't want to spend too much time on this I am compelled to do so because my heart bled this week probably more than any other week in my 54 (or is that 53...I wish 42) years of life on this earth. To see murder and have a President equivocate by claiming that racists and white supremacists were "good people" was nearly too much for me to take...But I'll hold that thought for a minute....

I want to first say that what I am talking about here and other places on this issue is not about politics. The politics of the issue is a secondary consideration IF it is a consideration at all. What I am talking about here is MORALITY. The difference between right and wrong. We all know there was "something" wrong about all of the events that occurred in Charlottesville, VA. on the campus of UVA, which is a fine institution of higher learning, but some don't know what was wrong or why it was wrong. However, that didn't stop the alarm from going off telling us that somethings is and was not quite right.   

First Our Condolences & Thanks

Our hearts go out to the family of Heather Heyer who died fighting for a just cause and protesting against radical racial hate. I have been praying for her Mom and Dad, family members and the community of Charlottesville, but our words cannot express the sorrow enough for their loss, but thank God that the Heyer's had a child that used her life in a extraordinarily worthy manner! Like Momma said, her voice just got bigger! 

The Low-Life Backdrop

I don't have to rehearse the story, but I do want to note that Heather died when a rank idiot of the king of hate groups and community terrorists, the ku klux klan, with members of other versions of White supremacist groups, decided that the cause of being White and in control was greater than life itself and especially the life of anyone else...
Now, I want all the sympathizers and supporters of this "many sides" GARBAGE that "Dumb Donald" floated at the behest of his closest, now fired and Britebart rehired, IDIOT "advisor", Steve Bannon, (which is a name that I won't mention again on this site) to simply SHUT-UP and GET REAL!!!! (I can hear it now, "pastor that's so non-Christian"...to which I ask, is it "Christian" to justify killing for statue nostalgia? Or to say that individuals being victimized by terrorists, who came to protest in full riot gear, with weapons including knives and guns, have no right to stand for themselves? Figure that out, then let's talk about being a "Christian"!)

Please know that I don't believe that anything can be said to justify the murder of this young lady and the injury of the others who stood against a rank and ratchet display of hate...And I will never understand, how some have added insult to injury, including the President himself, by concluding that preservation of a statue(s), erected to remind people of oppression (slavery and white superiority)  and oppressors (slave owners and those who indiscriminately thought of human beings as property and equal to animals) and of "good old times" in the "land of cotton". and a reversion to "Dixie's Land" pride; can include some "good people". (Ooh by the way, did I mention that these 'good people" were raining down fire and hate on Jews and Blacks?) I fail to understand how anything that the klan did that day or any other day, can justify hailing and admiring them or their values. Can neo-nazis be "admired" for their stance and glorification of the atrocities of killing Jews under hellion hitler?

Mission Accomplished 

I will say this however, they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish...They wanted to see if they could still get away with a modern day open murder and that murder be sanctioned by the state. This is at the same time when Black people are getting killed at mere traffic stops. However, these klansmen and people like them who come to rallies with guns and knives, tested the resolve of the system, which only arrested ONE of them as far as we know, and unfortunately their test proved that they can STILL come into neighborhoods and communities, reek havoc on anyone they wish and receive sanction from the state and even from the chief White House idiot himself! 

This is SHAMEFUL and whosoever supports it, should REPENT!!!!  

Immoral Equivalence & The New American Nation

From the murderous rally the Daily Caller reports: 
“We’re here to protect white identity, white culture, white heritage, and we’re here to promote the new American nation that is currently under construction,”...“We’re not just white nationalists, because we believe in more than just a white nation,”...“We want a nation of values, of heritage, of culture. We don’t want just borders with white people inside. We strive for more than that.”...“We’re more than that, we’re fascists,”...“We believe in a strong centralized government. We believe in unity and strength among its people.”
Is The "white culture" somehow separate from American culture? When did that happen? Then, is it so scarce that it needs to be "protected"? If so, from who and by whom? Are the kkk and other White supremacist groups somehow the vanguard of this culture and the deliverer of this "new nation"? Then what of government? Is America full of fascists? Are we now a fascist nation? Let's define what he claimed to be politically:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
That is fascism. Remember, this was the same system that ultra conservatives on the radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck claimed about former President Obama. They said Obama was a fascist and they all wanted to fight directly against him and it. As Hannity said over and over, his job was to make Obama "a one term President" (which didn't exactly work out)...To the point, this, being a fascist, is exactly what Thomas (cited above) claimed to be and what the group(s) that he was representing is. Now, I want to know is that a good thing? Could this be in part what all of this was about? A "new" national identity as fascists?

In other words, the more we hear and the more we see and uncover, the whole unite right rally was never about a statue as D Donald and the rally organizers tried to make us believe that it was.
They tried to seduce us to believe that it was about defacing our parks or removing statues and icons of people who were slavers, from society and changing our history. None of that was true to any degree. It was about history. It was about nostalgia and even honor for a system that was rejected by true and sustainable American values and the veneration of characters and the horrible history that those characters represent.

D Donald inflamed a nation with his absurd view of moral equivalence claiming that there was some "good' in a crowd of people disturbing the community and aggressively placing hatred on Blacks and Jews. He claimed that there was wrong on "many sides" while simultaneously equating a Nazi rally and chants against Blacks and Jews with those who oppose those views and want peace and freedom for all Americans. Don;t get me wrong., I have no affinity for the ultimate goals of the BLM movement and anarchy in general, but there was much more to this than that. Like Pastor James McDonald said...well hear him for yourself:


To that we say AMEN and bring this part of a total American nightmare and fiasco to a close...HOPEFULLY!!!!

Blessed!

Read more!

Sunday, August 13, 2017

RACISM & The White Church Challenge

From Facebook

I often speak of the church and its engagement within the community. Most times I am interpreted as focusing on the Black church (a church where membership is made up of predominately Black individuals and families) and it's involvement...

However, I want to be clear I will ask, where is the voice of the White minister and the White church on the issues?

From the pulpit, WILL YOU CALL OUT RACISM AS UNGODLY AND RACISTS AS LOST AND IN NEED OF REPENTANCE? Will you let THE ALT-RIGHT AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS RACISTS know they are not saved and in danger of hell's fire?

I challenge the White church, churches whose membership is predominately comprised of White individuals and families, to lead rallies all around the country and in every community to condemn White supremacy, alt-rightism and race based fascism and injustice. 

We know that ALL hatred is sin! However, we are dealing with the sin and evil of White supremacy, which had its stronghold on this nation for generations. That sin has cost the lives of families for all generations. That hatred separated and damaged not only Black families, but White families forever. It is this form of hatred that must be condemned. Noone need be detract from the message of condemning that form of racist hate and un-Americanism. 

Unlike the inadequate response of our President who condemns wrong on "many sides" let us condemn wrong on the side from which it has arisen...wrong on the side of RACIAL HATE, based on White supremacy, White nationalism and White racial intolerance. 

I challenge White churches (churches whose membership is comprised primarily of
White individuals and families) to not only call this sin and evil out but evangelize the lost! Reach and teach the truth of racial equality to them that hold these views, and commit to evangelizing the hearts and souls OF THE LOST with the TRUTH of God's word. 

I would ask that all my Facebook friends share this with their pastors and church leaders everywhere. Encourage every church and church leaders to engage. It is the CHURCH that should be a beacon to the community. Let US take our place and be the salt of the earth and light that Jesus has called us to be in these times and condemn White supremacy and racial injustice clearly, forthrightly, and in a unified manner. 

Pastor Harvey Burnett
New Bethel COGIC 
The Dunamis Word

Read more!

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

James Damore & GOOGLE. But What Of Black Employees?

We all have seen a lot on the internet. Most of you got to this site through and by means of some process of "GOOGLE". it is a regular and ordinary part of our lives. 

Through GOOGLE and other internet social connection services, and shrewd advertising, usually delivered by left leaning liberals both morally, politically and socially, the process of moral and social value re-engineering has long been underway. Moral and social value re-engineering is the attempt to redefine what we should accept as individuals and ultimately as a society. 

Their efforts (those of the engineers) and messages tells us what we should perceive as normal, or what we should embrace as "main stream". It can be something as subtle as the color of a picture, or a work of art, that is used to direct us to this "secular" standard of normal. It could be something as in your face as a flat out message or a direct command to act or a question that attempts to morally shame. 

Social moral values re-engineering can also take place in aligning ideals and grouping values together as being positive or negative values, suggesting that those who are in a certain "class", because of what they believe, are more favored within society and more useful to the community. Example: 

In the "Ad Council's" moral value campaign called "Love has no labels" former wrestler and current movie star John Cena sets forth the notion that accepting homosexuality is tantamount to being "patriotic" and groups the acceptance of homosexual behavior to the acceptance of race, age, ability, religion and the proliferation of real love. 

First of all, both he and The Ad council are full of GARBAGE!!! Rejection of a person's CHOICE of homosexuality, and resultant behavior, has nothing to do with love. It has everything to do with rejection of behavior that millions feel that is immoral both on religious and non-religious basis. However, it is messages like this that are clear examples of social, moral values re-engineering. This is what we are seeing so prevalent within today's society at nearly all levels, and from the liberal leaning left primarily, although the right is certainly not excluded by using the same or opposite types of propaganda.

To The Point Of The Article:   

It seems that a former GOOGLE employee, James Damore, dared to challenge the moral value and social issue grouping, and re-engineering that has taken place within society and specifically within GOOGLE itself over the years. 

From the read, (listed below) and I certainly don't claim that James is a Christian nor to be using biblical values morality as a basis for his beliefs, what he seems to have done is kicked over, or at least kicked at, the golden calf of the liberal social re-engineering message, and called it into question so far as how these values are applied within the GOOGLE workplace and culture (at least at his location)

Kind Of Conflicted

In his memo, Demore addresses sexism, claiming that sexism could be right by pointing to psychological and biological differences between the sexes as justification for his assertions. Demore addresses work culture and racism within it, by claiming that efforts to diversify the workplace are off-track and even damaging to the work-place and society. 

He addresses what he called the traditional "left leaning" approach to business which, in his opinion, may have set a backdrop for the damage done in corporate America towards women and within the work environment for all people in corporate America and GOOGLE in particularly.    

When Freedom Of Speech  & Though Is Not Free
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,” Danielle Brown, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, wrote in a memo responding to Damore’s document, “Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”
Damore's opinion are certainly controversial however they are in line with materialism which has long taught that the differences between men and women are reason that men should "rule" over women. Materialism once taught that because a man's head was larger and his brain bigger, that males had a greater capacity to think, do math and intellectual superiority. Reading from Demore's memo, it seems that acceptance of materialistic thoughts are held over for this new generation of materialists who see a "better way" to do nearly all things. 

The GOOGLE Culture & The Black Employee

Damore lives in a "free country" working for a non-religious corporation built on capitalism. However, that corporate society, when faced with values that under-gird it, seem to reject those values opting to embrace values that  that appear to be and align more closely with traditional social moral values. 

While I know too much to fully agree with his assessment of the problem and how to fix it, it appears that Damore was free to do anything else but speak his mind on what he believes the current condition of his employer, his industry and society in general is and that is a problem. 

Just in case you didn't know, there is a raging war from Simi Valley to Wall Street on how women are valued and treated at the highest levels corporately within the United States and even more so within corporate technology company ranks. read a 2016 article in the New Yorker regarding this HERE

What Of GOOGLE'S Black Employees?

However, with all of that said, GOOGLE appears to have a much greater problem than outlined by Demore, who, at least morally, seems to be endorsing the perpetuation of more problems by his memo, rather than solving or addressing anything.

According to a CNBC report on the issue, GOOGLE'S workforce consists of 53% White employees with 80% of them being men. Although women, both Black and White only make up 20% of all GOOGLE employees, only 1% of all employees, men and women, are Black. This is the problem that I have. It seems that Demore's memo claimed that GOOGLE's efforts to embrace racial minorities, and make provisions for them would only lead to greater problems and a worse workplace, while embracing new policies to embrace "female employees" would be worth changing the culture.  

In the "old days", numbers such as this would immediately invoke NAACP marches and in many cases sit-ins, until the corporation addressed the issues. However, what this memo incited was a new round of talks about the disparity of women in the workplace to the exclusion of Blacks in technology all together. 

It seems that Demore has invoked the ire of conservatism, from the mainstream conservative to the alt-right, neo-nazi conservative because some of the more extremists elements within conservatism agree with his assessments and his right to say what he wishes to say. While I agree with the latter sentiment, to a degree, I have a problem with his methods and solutions as he outlines them. 

Read the memo for yourself and draw your own conclusions, but I don't believe that you'll find me hailing this guy as some sort of champion for free speech and moral uprightness anytime soon...

Blessed!

James Demore memo:

Read more!

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Transgender? Here Is A Word For You...

I recently had a dialogue with a transgender man who has decided to live his life as a woman. After some conversation about his past he revealed that he had a desire early in life to cross-dress as a woman, but without anyone telling him, he "knew" that desire was wrong. He felt that the beauty of a woman was overwhelming so much until he desired to look like one. until his sister caught him trying on her clothes, no one knew his desires. It was  a secret kept until he moved out of his home at age 18 and began to date men and dress regularly like a woman.

He was raised in a Christian home and one in which church was a regular and normal part of life and existence was not abused in any way that he could remember and has shared his lifestyle over the years with his parents who guardedly accept his choice, but do so with full love for him as a person.


Read more!

Monday, July 31, 2017

Protesting TRUTH & A Frazier Knock-Out

It seems that the confusion over sex and sexuality continues at the intersection of sin and ungodliness.

It seems that gay advocacy is alive and well within the city of Chicago. Apparently, there was a rally against the Apostolic Church Of God over the weekend due to the church's faithfulness to scripture and traditional marriage.

It seems that a former member of the church, who evidently recently entered into a lesbian marriage, was dis-fellowshipped because of her marriage. While intricate details here are unknown, what is known is that the gay community, with the biblically illiterate in tow, is attempting to paint the picture that the bible somehow endorses the SIN of homosexuality and vicariously homosexual marriage.

Of certainty, we can say that they are wrong, have been wrong, and will not be right until such time as they repent of their sins and stop bullying the church by falsely accusing it of discrimination. Here's the video: 

The "pastor" of Lighthouse Church, Jamie Frazier,appears to be one of the apostate conduits for this argument against the church and traditional biblical truth. He raises some questions in effort to capture the attention of the community. Therefore, briefly, let's answer and address some of "pastor" Jamie Frazier's rambling and biblically confused assertions:

First, Frazier asserts: "The pulpit is not a weapon with which to silence, but rather it is a beacon from which to shine light," 

To that we all agree. The LIGHT is the light of Christ to the world. That light says that there is a difference between what is clean and what us unclean, and a difference between what is holy and unholy. That light says that we (the church and individual believers) are the "salt of the earth" and if we loose our savor, all we are good for is to be trodden under the foot of men. The LIGHT points men and women in the right direction and shows the world our "good works" so that God may be glorified. (read Mt. 5) The problem is, living in and endorsing sin is NOT a light, but is DARKNESS!

You see Mr. Frazier, the pulpit is not to be used to endorse, glorify or encourage SIN. The pulpit is not yours. It is not mine. It belongs to God and those of us who approach it are to do so faithfully as it pertains to HIS word, and HIS truth, not ours!

Frazier asks: "How could we say two men or two women in a committed god honoring relationship are sinning?"

First, "pastor", two men and or two women cannot be "married" to one another and that be considered "god honoring" relationship from a biblical perspective. We are not talking about secularism. You did not protest City Hall or the Statehouse. You protested a church. The church's first mission is faithfulness to the WORD of God, not adherence to political correctness or to moral relativism. 

The bible teaches that homosexuality is a dishonorable act. Rom. 1:24 ~ "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"

The very act of homosexuality (otherwise referred to as uncleanliness within the text) and consequently, within our society, homosexual marriage, is not anything that God "honors". Why would God honor something that dishonors men and mankind? It (homosexuality) is a behavioral sin like others and yet more. It is an encapsulated lifestyle contrary to biblical and scriptural truth, and is aggressive in nature. For example, one cannot find an adulterer or hardly a pedophile, (both behavioral sins) that believe that their sin should be embraced and accepted prima-facia by others. Many of them do not wish to be seen, yet alone known for their sin. However, the homosexual advocate seeks to gain acceptance of their homosexuality from everyone in their community, subjugating every institutional moral value to its acceptance. This is why they are saying (you are saying) that the church is "discriminating". This is name calling, shaming and out right bullying. Bullying in effort to "make" people accept your behavioral issue as an acceptable moral value.  

The sin of homosexuality, having gained acceptance within liberal facets of society due to political means, processes, bullying and other reasons is something that many of those who advocate for it attempt to present as an argument simply about "diversity" and equal rights, as opposed to moral truth. However, homosexuality is a behavior, and a product of existential thinking where man creates his own purpose as opposed to seeking the purpose of God for his existence. (Read HERE for more information on existentialism and what you are actually endorsing by endorsing this sin) 

Therefore your question is logically incoherent. Men cannot honor God in homosexual relationships because God views that relationships of the sort, are dishonoring to themselves and to humanity. So try that one again "pastor" and give us a question that makes sense so that we can address it!

Finally, Frazier says: "Show me how two men or two women loving one another diminishes their capacity to love god, to love themselves and to love other people,"

Let's start with the latter red-herring arguments...1- no one claims that homosexuals do not "love themselves" and cannot "love other people" neither of those are the arguments...2- the bible commands us to 'love one another" so that is not in question. 

What the homosexual does is lust with and or have sex with one another. In modern times this leads to what has been deemed "homosexual marriage". It is homosexual marriage and the normalization of the practice of homosexuality that the church correctly and properly stands against. Not the ability or inability of the homosexual to function, display love, care and concern for any and all individuals in life. 

To what I believe the "point" of your challenge is: 
Jesus, speaking in the context of money, reveals that no man can serve 2 masters. They will either hate one and love the other. (Mt. 6:24) Our love leads to our service, allegiance, self-sacrifice and faithful adherence to HIS word.

If it can be demonstrated that our "love" or how we carry out our love, is either honoring or dishonoring to God, as I believe that it can, then we can firmly make the statement and set forth the truth that if our love is dishonoring to HIM by virtue of our actions, we cannot say that we love HIM, if the meaning of that is to live in a state and condition of submission to HIS truth and word. under those conditions, we can certainly say that we love ourselves, and possibly considerations for God, but we cannot truly say that we love HIM if we do not intend to forsake that which is dishonoring to HIM and that which HE does not honor. 

Therefore, by demonstration of what a man does by his actions, a revelation of the capacity of the individual to "love God" can be determined. When a person embraces homosexual activity, their capacity to "love God" is diminished, hindered and severely limited or restricted. In this ethos, self becomes greater than God and personal fulfillment of desire is central to the person and that person lives in union with self, rather than in union with God. 

Anything greater than God, HIS truth and HIS word in our life is an idol and is therefore "another" god, not the God of the bible!

Final Thought:

This attack has nothing to do with the "denomination" of the church. All churches faithful to traditional biblical values are targets. 

The church in general does not and cannot not prohibit anyone from simply attending. After all the church should be a place of healing to them who are spiritually sick and ailing. However the church has an obligation to restrict the ungodly from leadership. Without compromise, the church should not look like and act like the world...though it does...it (the church in general) and those who lead people astray such as Mr. Frazier, will pay the price!

Blessed!         

Read more!

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Does Existence Precede Essence?

French atheist, humanist philosopher and Marxist, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) asserted within his writings that a proof of God's nonexistence is wrapped up in the existential theory that human beings do not have essence (aka: core property or ultimate purpose) prior to their existence. Due to this "blank slate" of being at existence, we are therefore "condemned to be free" acting separately or independently from the past with the ability to make ourselves or our lives whatever we wish it to be, to espouse whatever moral values we individually choose, and to suffer the consequences and full weight of such decisions. eg: Each individual can self direct their own purpose as there is no purposeful intent of our existence except that which we assign to it.

Now, think of this for a minute. If there is no creator, and we have not been given any purpose other than a self-assigned temporary purpose which we have chosen for ourselves, which is only as relevant as as a speck of dust in the wind, then the universe itself, ultimately has no essence (purpose) and the existence of all things, no matter how wonderful or majestic they may be only lead to a cold uncelebrated death and meaninglessness. This is the world of existence preceding essence and the logical conclusion to the theory itself. In its end, it will lead to nihilism or the meaninglessness of life.

The Fight For Essence (Purpose): Thank God for TRUTH!

I suppose that we could give what Sartre had to say some real credence and credibility "if" it were true and "if" God had not already addressed this same issue through his word thousands of years prior to Sartre's existence and the existence of others who think like him. Although Sartre has claimed that all men are prophets, incidentally enough it was the calling of a prophet that settled the issue a long time ago:

Jer. 1:5 ~ “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

As God spoke to Jeremiah calling him to be a prophet to the nation of Israel, HE reveals that God's purpose for Jeremiah extended to a time BEFORE Jeremiah's existence. God, not being a respector of "any man's person" reveals to us, by that statement and calling alone, that each person that he has allowed to enter this realm has an "essence" or purpose, prior to their existence. There is no such thing as a purposeless existence.

According to the truth of the word of God, our essence or purpose clearly precedes our existence. God has a purpose and he further has a plan for every human being and for every individual and that plan doesn't just prop up when we show up in the womb. God therefore moves and directs HIS actions with intention and by virtue of that, has created and filled a universe with intention or purpose as well. 

To drive the point home, let's look further:

Ps. 139: 16 ~Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

The Psalmist also reveals that prior to our formation as individuals, God has already number the days appointed for us here on earth. Before any days or times existed, eg: before existence as a person, God saw and created essence (purpose) by giving each individual a place and space within this time continuum called life. That is purpose.

Is There A "Blank Slate" Of Humanity:

Crossexamined.org recently produced at article entitled "What The Fighting Over Gender Issues Is Really About", pointing out the flawed Sartreian philosophy as mentioned above that further suggests that because existence precedes essence that we have a moral "blank slate" which will allow everyone to create his or her own purpose in life to the fullest degree.


Read more!

Monday, May 15, 2017

Who Is Speaking To American Morals & Values?

Mt. 5:14-16 ~ 14- Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15-Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16-Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

According to a recent Gallup Survey on American views of moral acceptability, it seems that the only issues most Americans are morally incensed about centers around the death penalty and medical testing on animals. Otherwise Americans are more accepting than ever of certain social values than ever before. 
It seems that Americans are not only more accepting of constructs such as homosexual marriage, divorce, and even adultery, but Americans are also more favorable of Dr. assisted suicide, human cloning, gambling and even embryonic research. 

With that said and seeing that the trend towards liberalism is at an all time high, the question is who is informing the values of America?   

Is the church informing social values? If so, then why is America seemingly more liberal in its values construct than ever? 

Is the church a light of the community and world any longer? Or is this simply an inevitable trend in morality that cannot be avoided? 


Read more!

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Darrell Scott AKA: "Pimpoliscious" Strikes Again

I want to begin this by saying that anyone falling on hard times is NOT an issue or amusement. That is NOT the focus of this blog entry. I pray for other individuals who may be suffering from similar or like kind financial struggles and circumstances. We believe God WITH you that HE will deliver and be present to comfort you to your next blessing because we KNOW that God will bless HIS people. Yes, we may suffer, but we have not been left alone or left to die. Our God WILL deliver!

To The Point Of This Article

Quite some time ago, I met and along with many others, had a very negative experience online with a preacher, so called Bishop, who was just about as immature as they come. I have documented that incident and the results both HERE and HERE After a rather brief interaction with him, and seeing that he was only going to worsen the already horrible impressions of himself not only to me, but to others, I simply asked that he correct some issues and we would both move on. Of course his pride and arrogance stopped that and any positive that could come from that in its tracks. I wrote 2 articles generally addressing some of his online behavior.

Although some believe that they can act and cut a complete fool online, behind the guise of a computer screen, those of us who value our salvation and how we are perceived are mindful that our words on the internet are just as important as words and actions in person.

Darrell Scott didn't care about any of that then, and he doesn't care about any of that now, and he has simply continued to make an even larger fool of himself as a result. This is why I continue to name him "Pimpoliscious" as he has displayed that he continues to feel that the church, church people, the Black community and anyone whom he doesn't approve of is beneath him.

The Excess & Opulence of Pimpoliscious Has Been Proven

Somehow, and I have no idea o how, Pimpoliscious seduced his church, New Spirit Revival Center, into paying for a $10,000 per month lease for his family payable in weekly installments.It seems that Scott, along with his wife Belinda, entered into an agreement with one Munna Argarwal, on a property said to be valued at over $2 Million, and lived in the palatial residence for over 6 years.

Well, it seems that church giving slowed down and Scott could not afford to continue the rental agreement and this has led to a legal action of over $500,000 in which Argarwal alleges that he has been defrauded by Scott. As I said, the financial issues are not at issue here for me, the opulent lifestyle is.

Maybe that is the way its done today, but I could not find precedence to ask the church to pay a note over $10,000 per month of someone's rent or mortgage. Especially, for this clear charlatan.

Here is Cleveland News 5 Report:


Read more!

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Joel Osteen, Jude 3, & The Acceptance Of False Doctrine

"I'm not one to judge the little details of it (Mormonism)"

In another interview, referenced in my FIRST ARTICLE on the subject, Pastor Osteen states that "Mormonism is a little bit different, but I still see them as brothers in Christ" ~ Pastor Joel Osteen CNN Situation Room w/ Wolf Blitzer

A Brigham Young University Professor says this:
“Cherry-picking similarities while failing to mention major differences is a powerful way to misrepresent and mislead.” ~ Peterson, Daniel (Professor at Brigham Young University) "Focus on Similarities Can Prove Misleading,” Mormon Times, November 6, 2011, 8.
Pastor Osteen says that he sees practicing Mormons as "Brothers In Christ" This means that he believes that one can believe in and practice Mormonism and yet be saved. However, individuals commissioned to teach Mormonism contend that it is misleading to speak of similarities between Mormonism and Christianity while looking over the differences as noted above.

So let us examine what the leader of the largest Christian church in America simply doesn't have enough time to distinguish. Let us look at what the pastor calls the "little differences" between Mormonism and Christianity and see if these issues are important enough to distinguish the difference between Mormonism and what we know as Christianity.

The Examination: What Do Mormons Believe?

The Mormon Church:

Officially founded April 6th, 1830, the Mormon Church in belief and practice actually began 10 years earlier in 1820 when two angelic beings, claimed to be God the Father and God the Son (Jesus) appeared to one Joseph Smith, claiming that the beliefs and practices of all churches in existence at that time were corrupt and that it would be Smith's job to restore the church back to God.


Read more!

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

110th COGIC Holy Convocation or Apostasy? You Decide...


Go HERE for an indepth look at what Pastor Osteen calls the "little differences" between Mormonism and Christianity and decide if there are really "little differences" and whether Mormonism is of the Christian faith. 

The lineup of speakers for the 2017 Holy Convocation of the Church Of God In Christ has been announced. Of course, the announcement has not only left many with questions, but has also stirred emotions especially with the Wed. evening choice of speakers.

The controversy seems to center around the selection of the pastor of the largest Christian church in the United States, Pastor Joel Osteen of the Lakewood Church in Houston, TX.

To be fair, COGIC has embraced speakers that are not a part of the organization for many years. So the fact that Pastor Osteen is controversial because he is not a part of COGIC can hardly be supported by any evidence. 

For example, Bishop TD Jakes, Bishop Noel Jones, & Pastor Dewey E Smith to name a few, have all spoken at recent Holy Convocations to greater or lesser approval or disdain of rank and file COGIC members. 

Every year there is an "ecumenical" night in which a speaker that is not COGIC is asked to speak. This appears to be in line with a standing tradition of the church to be hospitable and inviting to those who are not of the organization in effort to extend the "right hand of fellowship" which countervienes what happened to our founding Bishop, Bishop CH Mason, when he was dis-fellowshiped from the Baptist church for preaching and teaching the message of holiness and eventually pentecostalism.

While the effort of inclusion is commendable, it seems that the mission of presenting a sound and uncompromising message of Holiness is getting lost in the shuffle and is the source of any controversy or dissension on the issue. 

What Do I Mean?


Read more!

Friday, April 21, 2017

Regarding The Legalization Of The Casual Use Of Marijuana

Our local news recently ran quite a few articles regarding the administration of Illinois' legalization of casual marijuana in light of "420 Day". One one side the science says that marijuana is totally good for the individual with very little downside. On the other side the science and experience says that nothing good can come from the casual, non-medical, use of marijuana or any other drug. This is what I recently said regarding the legalization of the casual use of marijuana:
"My WORD for 420 Day:
Look, I am against the proliferation of illegal substances and even some that are deemed legal...BUT...if these people want to now make (the casual use of) Marijuana legal then I believe that the new industry should be made to pay reparations out of a significant portion of their profits based on what criminalization of the drug has done to the Black community historically. 
Secondly, there should be a REQUIREMENT to cultivate owners and growers from minority communities. Not just women, but racial minorities and Black persons more specifically. 
This whole industry stands in large part due to organized, but unsanctioned efforts of inner city peddlers and even suburban distributors and peddlers. I believe that the law should include provisions that make it a requirement to include economic opportunities for some of those individuals going forward... 
Why does a preacher say these things? Far too long the establishment controlled by the wealthy, White elite, has gotten wealthy off the efforts and backs of Blacks and minorities with no sharing of profits or consideration of why and how they have become so profitable. The cotton industry is a prime example! It was Black folk that by and large cultivated the fields with blood sweat and tears, while the White elite made the money. 
Here we have the State now considering implementing a new business and is automatically locking out minorities with high and excessive fiduciary standards and no consideration for those who have been effected generationally by the historic treatment or outcome of those who both sell and use this drug. 


Read more!

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Pastor Burnett On Twitter

Please join me on Twitter. Of course, the message I deliver is not popular with the social elite of the day, nor is it complimentary of the moral relativism that many of our communities have been enamored with, but SO WHAT???  We have a voice, and know what is right, and must say so. 

Here is one of my most recent tweets:


"Sorry, it's the biggest hypocrisy of all to berate Rachel Dolezal for her claim to Blackness while endorsing a man's claim to be a woman!"

Blessed!

Read more!

Black Conservative Leadership Summit June 15-17, 2017


As I have stated before, the term "Black Conservative" is nearly an anomaly. Especially in light of the leadership of one of the most liberal Black leaders that history has ever seen in the person of former President Barack Obama. It was the nonobjective and unhampered lean to the liberal left that lost the bid for Democratic reelection and that continues to stun TV liberal talk shows such as "The View" and others. It seems no matter how they try to inundate the airwaves with inconsistent moral value statements and most times incoherent philosophical ramblings, that they still come up short, and conclude by telling people to "wake up" or calling them, I mean US, "deplorables". 

Well, ultra liberals such as Whoopie and Joy, and all these other late night pundits, have you ever considered that WE ARE AWAKE? We are awake to moral relativism, the destruction of the family, the disintegration and redefinition of marriage, the inconsistent ramblings that babies, in the womb, don;t have rights, the rise in opiod use among suburban families and individuals, the confusion over what constitutes gender, and the strong desire to make being a woman, along with woman's rights, a myth, while at the same time saying that you are fighting for a woman's rights????

We are awake to the fact that we need a CURE and that CURE should begin within every family and every home and each individual should be educated on where our values comes from and why they exist, and what it means if we allow them to slip. We need help from the ground up and I am committed to doing my part, whether in the church or community to make it a reality. And we have some good friends that are doing their part too. 



May I present, once again, my friend Star Parker and some very serious associates

From The Urban Cure Network



Star Parker, Walter Hoye, Dr. Alveda King, Dr. Eric Wallace, Bishop Harry Jackson and others will meet June 15-17 in Washington D.C., to discuss the Moynihan Report’s predictions about the black family, current research on black families, and why black families matter. 

Fifty-two years ago, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued a warning to America in the The Negro Family: The Case For National Action about how the rising rate of illegitimacy in the black community would have devastating social consequences. 

His predictions have come to pass. Black conservatives will gather in the nation’s capital as part of the Black Conservative Summit Leadership Initiative to discuss the consequences of fatherless households and offer solutions.

Read more!

Monday, April 10, 2017

A NEW Supreme Court Justice


Read more!

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Omarosa Bakes Behar & Her Supporters Pointing The View In The Right Direction

Loved this and loved Omarosa's responses and no fear to go into the cauldron of what I consider to be the most intolerant and least insightful critic in the world at times.

The praise for the Women's March, which is a topic that I will undertake shortly, was overwhelming here. The problem is that neither Behar or the liberal left critics see a problem with excluding women who disagree with their liberalism. See, conservative values were not praised. Pro-life women were restricted from the march. But in The View's world, that is normal...

Part 2 Blessed!

Read more!

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Education. Will Choice Be A Better Choice For All?

How will our children be educated in America? Will tax dollars continue to go to union members? Or will tax dollars actually be used to support the in class education of our children? I draw this out because in one Midwestern school district (Peoria District 150, Peoria, IL) 80% of the education budget funding is used to pay teacher's salaries and benefits. Although the total budget is only $179 Million and deposits in the education fund are unknown at the time of this writing, it was interesting to note in that district, that although every area of education was cut, including busing expenditures the teachers recently were able to negotiate a 3% pay raise and were still not satisfied saying that the increase was not enough. 

This is how the modern union works. It is no longer about fairness and holding administration accountable and protecting the small guy, they are about lush, benefits, expenditures, position and opportunities at all costs, even against public dissent.


School Choice


What may be the answer to this is school choice. Criticized by teacher's unions, and those who support unions, school choice has become the primary conversation around the nation in light of President Trump's recommended Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who is a staunch school choice advocate.  The critic are already at it pointing to "little" improvement in test scores in Detroit schools under Devos's ideas. However, the same critics don't see a problem with schools basically falling down around the students both physically and educationally. It is usually the unions and their constituents that inadvertently claim that even failing schools are somehow good for the community and students. 

The URBAN CURE

Star Parker and the leadership of The Urban CURE have taken on this issue for a long time and thank God have very much to say on the subject.

Blessed!   

Read more!

Friday, January 13, 2017

Islam, Submission With No Peace Pt. 16: CAIR Calls Franklin Graham "Un-American"


It HAS to be Friday the 13th to read and hear about this story. It all begins with participants selected to serve at the Presidential Inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump. 

It seems that Franklin Graham, the son of renown Evangelist Billy Graham was selected by Team Trump to pray at the inauguration.  Not so fast says the nations leading Muslim Advocacy group:


"If President-elect Trump truly seeks to unite our nation as he promised in his acceptance speech, he will limit the list of those offering prayers at the inauguration to religious leaders who work to bring us together, not to create divisions between faiths,"..."Rev. Graham's ill-informed and extremist views are incompatible with the Constitution and with American values of religious liberty and inclusion." ~ Nihad Awad CAIR National Executive Director
CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) urged President Elect Trump to can Graham from ceremonies if the aim is to unite the country because of past statements of Graham. Pointing to statements such as "Islam is not compatible with American values" and "Every Muslim that comes into this country has the potential to be radicalized--and they do their killing to honor their religion and Muhammad." CAIR claims that statements such as these show that Graham is intolerant and therefore unworthy to pray at an American function designed to support the highest office in the land. 

Does CAIR Have A Valid Point?

In my opinion DEFINITELY NOT!!!!

First, every Muslim would agree that, according to their scriptures, the practice of Islam is not just something that can be shrugged off as a fancy way to pass time. Islam is an all life encompassing faith. A way to live and view the world. 

As we have noted on this BLOG, America is a place that traditional Muslims believe is a mission field, to be "settled". In addition, the ultimate aim of Islam and the highest goal in any society is Sharia. Sharia, also known as "Sharia Law", is the all encompassing guide to life as interpreted by Muslim Clerics imploring the Quran and the Hadith. Sharia also includes elements of concensus by Clerics on issues and analogy. From this combination of what are considered holy and inspired scriptures, and additional holy sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, and other aspects, Sharia Law takes shape and is established. 

The website of the Interfaith Alliance, largely driven by liberal and inclusionist religious philosophies and interpretations of scripture, faith and law, states the following regarding Sharia law:
19. What is Sharia?
Sharia stands for Islamic or sacred law. It is an Arabic word meaning “the way” or “the path to water.” For centuries, Muslim scholars have given a broad definition of Sharia reflecting the diversity of interpretations on how Muslims have attempted to best understand and practice their faith.
The general definition of Sharia as understood by most American Muslims is as follows:
Sharia represents how practicing Muslims can best lead their daily lives in accordance with God’s divine guidance. It may be generally defined as the Islamic law revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad. That divine law was then interpreted by Muslim scholars over the centuries. Among the primary aims of the Sharia are the achievement of justice, fairness and mercy.
The five major goals of the Sharia are the protection of sound religious practice, life, sanity, the family, and personal and communal wealth. The acknowledgement of sound local customs throughout the world is one of the five basic maxims of the Sharia according to all Islamic schools of law.
They go on to say:
"Currently, 35 countries incorporate Sharia into their civil, common or customary law. The diverse manner in which these countries apply Sharia to daily life highlights how Sharia is neither static nor rigid but instead a reflection on how different communities interpret it."

Thus, by admission, Sharia not only judges conflicts based on religion or moral meta-ethics. It is Sharia that decides matters of family and life in civil and even secular society. It is Sharia that is the ultimate authority and way to live. All other governmental systems are secondary to Sharia and at the very least should incorporate some aspects of Sharia. So the aim is to slowly make each state or situation, one that can be ultimately governed by Sharia itself.

I know, my Muslim readers take aim at my statements here and will jump up and down to say that I am intolerant also. But unlike them in their dissent, I think there is ample proof that what Graham says and what I am contending here is totally true if getting to the truth is the aim. 

On the Interfaith Alliance website, the question regarding the compatibility of American Civil law and Sharia is ashed:
22. Is Sharia compatible with American law and values?
Many aspects of Sharia or Islamic law are consistent with modern legal rules found in American law. For example, both legal systems allow rights to personal property, mutual consent to contracts, the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, and the right of women to initiate divorce proceedings.

If and when religious laws conflict with American law, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit American government, including the courts, from substituting religious laws for civil law or following religious laws that violate civil law. This prohibition applies to all religions equally.
Now, this is very smart. By using analogy (a tenet of Sharia) the question is kind of turned on its head. It is certainly true. The government cannot simply upend religious freedoms and laws, however, 
according to what has already been said, Sharia is "sacred law". Now if religion means anything at all, what is "sacred" is at the highest point of the practice of religion and religious values. 

Such conflicts do not exist within Christianity to the degree that they exist in Islam. The bible condones and encourages "good citizenship" even in the face of what is ugly and uncomfortable. It does not teach to "uproot" as teaching exist in Islam to do the same.
We can speak much more on this in the comments, but to examine Franklin Graham's statements and to declare those statements as Un-American demand that the issue of what is American be examined as a whole. 

Since the State cannot establish religion, then how is it that it is American for any religion to have their law code, as interpreted or otherwise, in their legal system based on itself? 

I understand that American society, at least most would like to think, is based on Judeo-Christian values emanating from the bible and what we view as "sacred scriptures" as well. However, the difference here is that the concepts from the scriptures are the guide as opposed to the chapter and verses themselves. 

Conclusion
I certainly have oversimplified the argument, and will be more detailed in the comments if necessary, but I hope that this provides good food for thought. Franklin Graham is certainly American and what he believes about those who are dedicated to and bound to the practice of what is becoming a very diverse religion of Islam (as the difference between fundamental and liberal Islam is really beginning to display itself) must also know that Islam, as practiced and encouraged by the majority of Muslims who read and interpret the same book as American liberal Muslims do, have very different ideas about the methods that should be used to bring about Sharia, but share equally in embracing the goal of Islam and that goal is to bring about Sharia, or a state that is subject to and under the rule of Allah. 

I don;t think that there is a question about that to any Muslim faithful to their faith. Whereas, the Christian already knows that there is NO KINGDOM on Earth that is the final place of God's rule. Jesus said that HIS Kingdom was not of this world and one day there will be a new kingdom where there will be rest. Though every Christian strives every day to make this world better and to do as much good in this world as possible, we do not demand by any means necessary that all men are subject to us or what we believe. We see evidence of that in education, social life and all, YET we know that Christ reigns anyway, in spite of what men do or think. 

Blessed! 
   

Read more!

Friday, January 6, 2017

Happy New Year...Kim Burrell & Ye Shall KNOW The Truth!!!

Well, Happy New Year readers of The Dunamis Word. I trust that God blessed and is blessing  each of you with comfort and joy in this New Year.

Evidently, the devil is stirred up once again to attack and take to task anyone who dare say that homosexuality is a SIN.

Pastor Kim Burrell in her New Year's Eve service preached that homosexuality is a perversion and that it is a sin..Now the liberal elite and others are jumping out of the woodwork to claim that Kim and what she teaches is wrong...

Now, I will say for sure, Kim is problematic. I have documented her love for the late "Prince", even having called him "anointed" and her lingerie posing on the video of her song "Sweeter" on THIS BLOG. I don't have too much confidence in Kim, but not too much more of a complaint either. She is somewhat like a broken clock, but with that said... even a broken clock is RIGHT twice a day!


Well, she is RIGHT about this one, and I certainly stand by her. Here is her video and the part that sent some up in arms and her recent public address regarding the issue:


Although I was busy doing many other things, I happened to read the commentary of a blogger on the Huffington Post (the most liberal news possible). He was stating and explaining away the biblical thought and teaching that homosexuality is a sin and wrong. He, like most, attempt to draw a sharp contrast between Old Testament and New Testament command and morality, assuming that New Testament morality somehow overlooks that homosexuality is wrong and or a sin and that all things, including the sin of homosexuality, can be chalked up to the "grace of God". 

Like most that hold his position, he has no clue as to what God was saying either in Corinthians or Romans and ultimately, if left to him and others with his views, homosexuality would be some sort of unregulated activity among men, that "God just doesn't care about one way or another"

In my opinion, sentiments such as the one's espoused display that there is simply no or very little understanding or truth or how we come to understand and define truth. If something can be wrong, as the critic readily points out to every one that speaks and preaches against homosexuality, then something can be right as well. The question is, how does the critic know that what they believe is right? In fact, how does the critic know that what Burrell, I and others like us, believe is wrong? What is the basis for their understanding of truth, right and wrong? 

Here is my response to the Article:
To the writer of the article: No, you can't get an amen from me because you are espousing GARBAGE!!!

The problem is that you don't believe that homosexuality is SIN. Well, IT IS!!! It is sin because as the pastor said, it is a perversion of truth.

The issue of truth, right and wrong are at issue here.

Now, I suspect that your idea of truth and what is true is flexible to the degree of what you "agree" to be truth or what makes sense in your mind. That is called subjectivism. Under subjectivism, or relativism, truth, right and wrong, is only stacked up to your opinion or the opinion of a group. Close examination of this paradigm reveals that relativism is the most confused way to understand the world. Why? Because noone creates their own world of truth. Truth exists whether outside or inside of your world. For example, gravity works in your house just like mine. With the exception of building an anti-gravity chamber, gravity exists everyplace and in every time frame here on earth. No matter how you attempt to avoid it, it simply is. So there are some overarching truth's that just are. Truth, whether your opinion of it is true or not, is called objective truth.

How one comes to know truth, right or wrong is called epistemology. Christians believe that the only way we can know truth is through God. We believe that God has imparted the ability to know and discern truth, right and wrong into man, as a part of his design. Truth can be "known" and or perceived. With that said, peole can be oblivious to that truth for an number of reasons including 1- self deception and 2- actual deception. Either way, this is what it means to be "blind" or blind to sin.

In your article, you take time to say that Kim Burrell's statements and worldview are wrong, because you interpret truth to mean something different than what she is saying. Only where is YOUR basis for what you believe to be true? Is that a product of your mind, or a declaration of God or something outside of yourself? If you are right, what is the basis for your view? The Christian has ours, but where is yours? Is it a convention of your mind or the mind of others? Then by what means and what is the determining factor if you or any who agree with you is right?

Now, this does not mean that you and others with your opinion cannot perceive truth as it pertains to sex. Both you and I would agree that any so called "love" that a pedophile has for a child is wrong and that acting out upon their inclinations, whether seemingly invited to do so or not, is vile and sick. There is nearly total agreement upon that. However, you are "blind" to the application of the same standard towards homosexuality because you are "blind" to that sin. In fact, from reading the article you would have to believe that homosexuality is simply a "diversity" or even an innate part of the being of them that are homosexuals. Again, where is the basis for any of that, IF that is what you would hold as true.

To the point: Your acceptance of homosexuality as right and or acceptable with God is not rooted in God's word, nor is it consistent with HIS grace as you contend. If we examine your premise, we find that your basis appears to come from your own mind. There is no more than what you feel and what others around you who accept what you feel and believe and aspire to. There are many people, who we perceive as "good" that are blind to sin to one degree or another and that is usually because they are either "deceived" into their actions or that they "love" their sin. A heterosexual adulterer or fornicator is in no better position. Most in this sin do it because they "love" the sin of adultery to some degree to continue to do it. No matter how many adulterers around them agree to say that it is OK, the adultery is still wrong, and it is still sin. Believe me, the adulterer feels "good" about his adultery while he is in it, considering it, and acting out upon it, but none of that makes his acts and or actions right.

The fact is that in the Christian worldview, GOD is the ultimate authority and truth giver. HE has delivered instructions regarding sex and sexuality establishing clear boundaries both according to his word and nature. He has also set up a standard whereby the world and humanity exists. This is called natural law. The world (that is biological life) could not exist with same-sexism.

In addition, we can study the correlation between health and sexuality to find that homosexuality has a physiological and psychological consequence that are undesirable to varying degrees.

God has defined sex, love and sexual activity as acceptable between men and women not to kill our joy, but to enhance and increase it.

Because what she and others faithful to truth teach, is contrary to homosexual desire does not make her wrong. Her preaching and the preaching of others is the greater display of LOVE because LOVE intervenes and does not allow wrong to continue to harm and defile.
Obviously, because the homosexual rite expanded so vastly under the last 4 years of the Obama administration, the assumption has been that anyone who defies this sin and those who promote this sort o sin is out of touch with reality. I beg to differ vastly.

While every homosexual has the right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness, every Christian and those who don;t agree with the homosexual lifestyle has that right as well. I will fight for the rights o all, including the homosexual, but I will not be subject to honor and or even endorse any lifestyle that is sinful and contrary to the Word of God. One does not have to be a homosexual to have an undesirable lifestyle. There are plenty of heterosexuals that live undesirably and in sin...but be clear, all sin and all sinner, those who practice sin, will NOT enter the Kingdom of God.

Don't hate the message or the messenger. Hate the sin. For every homosexual there is help and hope and it begins first with denying self and building a relationship with Christ. HE can set you or any sinner free from their sin. Jesus has come that we might LIVE, and he has no pleasure in our death and unhappiness.

Don't be deceived. God says LIVE and live according to HIS word!

Blessed!

Read more!