Sense Out Of The Senseless...

So I wrote a blog post earlier this year about the shooting in Colorado, The Trayvon Martin Case and The Shooting In Norway but it since then there has been a SWARM of other tragedies ravaging the world that just can't keep my attention before the next set of domino comes crashing down. However my blog on Colorado was set off by the insensitive morons who maligned anyone who saw their sense of humor as inappropriate as "moralfags", in this case, I have yet to see any Trolls attempting to make an anti-hero out of The Newtown Shooter (I will call him The Newtown Shooter and I refuse to use his name) Anyways, as I've done before, I'll attempt to address this situation from a Christian perspective and offer my 2 cents...

Note: I apologize for this article...in advance, I'm having a hard time keeping my thoughts together and not because I'm having a hard time grasping the situation, not at all. I'm having a hard time because there have been SO MANY horrible things since Colorado that it's almost too easy to form an "Oh what now?" attitude about things such as these. I don't watch the news mostly because it depresses me and though I am NOT a depressive, I do tend to dwell on things more than I should. So I've developed a somewhat detached outlook on things that only keeps me dealing with facts and figures and hardly emotions. But at the moment I'm grasping to say something emotionally helpful and failing at it miserably. Personally I'm ashamed of this post and I'm not sure why it's on the blog but nonetheless I felt the need to post this, perhaps I'll post something more coherent later...

Theology By Implication

We live in a day and age where consequences are swept under the rug and implications of certain positions are not scrutinized to the point where we reach a core understanding of a person's beliefs. Many of you know I wrote a blog talking about Nominal Christians (Christians in name only) and how they are disrupting the effectiveness of The Gospel by attempting to maintain 2 or more contradictory beliefs and actions. But I never explained in full how they are doing this, hence why I decided to write this blog post about the implications of certain theological positions and what they mean to a Christian. Let's dive in!

Homosexuality, Slavery & Women's Rights

Ya know lately I've been running into MORE AND MORE shallow, non-thinking pictures made to display apparent contradictions in Christianity and Christian thinking. Anyways, I must AS ALWAYS correct the MANY misconceptions and hopefully correct the thinking of anyone who would endorse this level argumentation as meaningful. So let's dive in.

Jesus Is The Prince Of Peace

So I'm slightly annoyed, just got off work and I'm fighting a headache so already I'm not in the best of moods. When I come home, I find this lovely status posted by someone who I both know and respect:

" I just heard someone dub Jesus the "Prince of Peace." Unless you're homosexual; unless you worship another deity other than his father; oh & don't forget unless you don't accept him as your "lord & savior." Then yeah, I guess he would be the "Prince of Peace."

I'm not posting this here to publically shame him or anything like that, I'm posting this here because:
1) It's a good opportunity to witness to him.
2) It's good opportunity to teach.
3) It's a good opportunity to address some other things as well.
With all that being said, let's get to it.

Mock Christians, Fear Muslims

So I was online yesterday and saw this video and decided to watch it against my better judgment, BUT I'm actually VERY glad I did because it revealed something about our culture. Many, MANY Non-Believers go on and on about The "Christian Majority" and how Christians run EVERYTHING and so on so forth. As if to say we're in complete control of everything and whine to get our way. This couldn't be further from the truth as our beliefs are constantly ridiculed, maligned and referred to something evil that should not exist and even worst yet a mental disorder.  And while some Christians have made it a point to defend the stronger criticism we receive from people in places of authority, it doesn't effect the criticism we receive from the people without authority. We are often told that the only reason we get offended by ridicule of Christianity is because we don't actually believe it. As if that's the only reason we can be offended and it's not because our Lord and savior is being maligned a fashion He does not deserve. As if it's not because we feel that Christ is sacred to us and hold Him in high regards? No, we're offended because we don't actually believe any of it is true...Right.

According to The Bible...

All too often nowadays I'll be on Facebook and all of a sudden one of these images will pop up on my wall. These images are usually very short, simple texts and or pictures that make several statements regarding Christianity in a mocking, snarky fashion as if to say "Checkmate Christians!". After I shake my head and chuckle at the foolishness of such images, the unfortunate and sobering reality dawns on me that there are people who think in such a fashion and THEREFORE I have to write an article dealing with the "arguments" put forth in the image in order to make the person who made the image think 2 twice about it next time. (not that it'd matter.) LET'S DIVE IN!

The Problem With Porn *EXPLICIT* Reader Discretion is Advised*

As I've said before I'm a recovering porn addict, it's a sin I struggle with and I'm currently struggling with it now and hopefully this article will help me deal with the struggle for now. So, I am a recovering porn addict and I say recovering because one doesn't STOP using porn cold turkey but rather one struggles against the urge to use it, as I am doing now. I am blessed that my addiction hasn't gotten me in ANY legal trouble nor was I put in a compromising position because of it. None of my family knows and the severity of my addiction isn't as sever as some of the other cases I've read. Thankfully this is due to my EXTREMELY limited scope of what I deemed acceptable porn. I was strictly into girl/girl porn, NO MEN INVOLVED WHATSOEVER! And because of that I didn't seek out more disturbing things as others have. But nonetheless I am a recovering porn addict.

Fred Phelps...

Seeing as how I'm on a roll, I figured I'd better go ahead and address the MASSIVE bane on Christianity that is FRED PHELPS of The Westboro Baptist Church...the unfortunate thing about this is that it's ALWAYS the lunatics that are the most vocal about everything. This even hurts me MORE because I myself am a Calvinist and unfortunately Mr. Phelps identifies himself as a Calvinist...would I were not in good company with the likes of Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries and Rev. Matthew Slick of Carm.org, I wouldn't be as vocal about my Calvinism. But unfortunately in EVERY ideology there is a nutcase and in this case it's Fred Phelps and I have to say that this is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG over due.
Let's get started...

The Darkest Night...

So I tried to make a video about this and failed mostly because I was trying to hold back every fiber of my being to keep from shouting, and while shouting is understandable in a situation such as this, I'd rather not damage my voice that way.  We all know about The shooting in Colorado, I won't even elaborate on what happen, and we're all familiar with the Trayvon Martin shooting that happened several months back. Well in one article I'm gonna attempt to deal with BOTH of these and offer a Christian perspective on it.

Lately I've been noticing a series of disgusting images posted on my Facebook that made me want to (at first) make a video and then write this article. The images are meme images, which I won't post here for the sole purpose of NOT spotlighting them, but they say such things as: "They wanted to see the full movie, I gave them clips" worst yet, these images feature the mugshot of Mr. Holmes.



Marzgurl, a Channel Awesome review recently posted a blog about this and I wanted to share a portion of that with you just to illuminate a point I'm going to make later.

"He even seemed to want to do all of this looking like, and calling himself, “The Joker”.
It sounds like he likely did exactly what he wanted to accomplish.  He became a super villain.
Perhaps by me labeling him as such, I’ve given him exactly what he was looking for.  He’s gotten his name in history.  I can’t think of any other “logical” reason behind any of it, other than it’s just want he wanted to do for himself.  After all, he didn’t even kill himself or let himself get shot by the police after the event.  How many mass shootings have you heard of where the shooter doesn’t off himself afterwards?  He let himself be taken in peacefully.  He wanted to see it unfold just as much as any of us do."

And yet, with these James Holmes Memes and things related to it...we've given him EXACTLY what he wanted...FAME. And this is still not the worst part. The next worst part is unfortunately people's reaction. The people who make these memes, the people who post them and the people who laugh at them. We've unfortunately become a society where "If it doesn't effect me, I don't care about it." and we subscribe to that mentally to EVERYTHING, and when something DOES effect us, we IMMEDIATELY want the entire world to pissed off along with us only to receive a simple "Meh." as a reply. Unfortunately this tragedy has gotten the same reaction, and ANYONE who DARES point out that inappropriate nature of making fun of such a horrific situation, you are labled as a "Moralfag".


What has me enraged is the following exchange below, between 3 people on Knowyourmeme.com, a website I frequent due to my enjoyment of "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic", but that's neither here nor there. This exchange was taken from the James Holmes page, and unless Knowyourmeme, deletes that page it will be available for your review. The comments are as followed:
 

"Moralfag". So apparently you're a "moralfag" if you're appalled at the OBVIOUS praise of a mass murderer. Yeah, because you really shouldn't be appalled by mass murder simply because...

Despite the truth of this comment that DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO PRAISE THE PEOPLE WHO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE!! There's a thin line between mockery and praise.

As an example, Hitler is a character of note and is often lampooned and parodied in various ways, most humorously by The 3 Stooges. But understand that Hitler wanted to be taken seriously as a leader and war hero, and by the many parodies Hitler's legacy is one we scoff and laugh at, because of his ridiculous mustache, his constant look of having flop-sweat ect. ect. BUT James Holmes WANTED to become The Joker and these memes and those commentators have given him EXACTLY what he wants, so these ARE NOT parodies, this is PRAISE. I can't get over the fact that these people fail to recognize that this could have happened to them just as easily as ANYONE ELSE.

Personal story, I was recently robbed at gunpoint last month. I'm in a place now where I'm over it and can talk about it, but that's only because I'm alive to do so. I can't imagine the pain and heartache my girlfriend, my mother, my brother, my uncles, my cousins, my friends and so on would go through if I didn't survive that ordeal. Unfortunately for 12 people that night in Colorado their families, friends, husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, and so on have to deal with that pain...and then for someone sick vultures to poke fun at that by praising the murderer of their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunt, girlfriends, boyfriends, friends, cousins, and so on ALL for the sake of some stupid "Internet Rule" that states "Nothing is sacred"...it really reflects where our society has gone.

"Doesn't effect me, so it's not my business." only until it DOES effect you and it becomes your business and the second you wanna look for help you run into someone with the SAME attitude...it makes for a bitter world. I'd just like to say that I am sickened and appalled by the individuals in those comments and if you know them personally I'd suggest you find better friends as they are obviously only friends of themselves. I won't extend to them to credit of "Doing it for the lulz" or the dignity of merely "trolling", their comments are sick, sadistic and reflective of who they are as human beings and it truly makes me sad that such people exist.

Which brings me to The Trayvon Martin Shooting, recently shooter George Zimmerman did an interview with Sean Hannity about the shooting, below is the video:

I'd like to address a few of his comments, specifically his comment about it (the shooting) being "god's plan"...this upsets me for MANY REASONS. The first of which, back when I was 13, I was a Dystheist, which means that I believed God exists, I just believed He was evil and more specifically He hated Black People...and given our history I would have quite a strong case to build. Also adding The Klu Klux Klan's utilization of Christian iconography and their use of The Bible to justify their violence, it's no small mystery why I would have such a horrid image of God. Thankfully, as I grew I studied the Bible more thoroughly and discovered that The KKK were wrong about EVERYTHING, and that in fact God loves us all. So when Zimmerman says that it was God's plan for him to murder a 16 year old boy walking home with ice tea and Skittles...I'm sorry but I fail to see how. I'm not going to deny that God hasn't done strange things in history, but I am VERY against the idea of merely throwing His name behind any horrible action to justify it.

And this is unfortunately what gives Christianity a bad name, people who CLAIM to be Christians and then do horrible things in the name of Christianity...namely Anders Behring Breivik, the shooter in Oslo, Norway last year. Everyone claimed him to be a Christian Terrorist and the face of Christian Terrorism (which is an oxymoron), however one look into Breivik's ideology and you can see that he is NO WHERE NEAR CHRISTIAN. 
And yet people will still go on saying "HE SAID HE WAS A CHRISTIAN AND HE KILLED THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF CHRISTIANITY!" despite that fact that from his OWN WORDS he confessed to NOT being a Christian. So what does all of this have to do with Zimmerman ? Well, he's ONCE AGAIN re-enforcing that ideology that you can do horrible things to people, slap God's name on it and everything's fine. That's a little thing we call BLASPHEMY!!

Unfortunately people don't care, they hear the name "God" and immediately assume that the person saying it is representing their faith. The WORST thing about Christianity are Christians themselves, we are fallen, sinful creatures and because of that we will constantly fall short in the eyes of our fellow man. I, myself am a recovering porn addict and I make no qualms about my past, I swear like it's going out of style, and I have a temper, but EACH AND EVERYDAY I am trying to stay away from porn, not to swear so much and keep my temper in check to glorify my God. Because that's the object of Christianity, not to smile and clap your hands in church, but to be CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF CHRIST!

Each and everyday a Christian should be striving to be more and more like Jesus. So once again, how does ALL of this tie in with Zimmerman? Because he used God as an excuse to murder someone...but what does Jesus have to say about that ? John 16:1-4

“ These things I have spoken to you so that you may be kept from stumbling. ² They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. ³ These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. ⁴ But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you."

RIGHT THERE Jesus is talking about HYPOCRITES! People who will use God to commit acts of violence, slavery, and over horrible things and what does Jesus say about that ? "THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN THE FATHER OR ME!". Basically He's saying THEY ARE NOT BELIEVERS!  What else does Jesus say on the matter ? Matthew 5:44

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

There's more, Romans 12:16-21 YES! VERY CLEARLY we see that ANYONE who is a Christian is going to grab an AK-47 and start shooting people because God told them to...sadly, I know all of this will fall on deaf ears. George Zimmerman is WRONG, murder is NOT apart of God's plan. God allows sin to occur and murder IS a sin, but simply because God allows it does NOT make it apart of His plan and to say so is hubris, blasphemous and horrible.

The worst part of this is his unrepentant spirit. ASK ANY police officer and they will tell you that drawing their gun in the line of duty is a difficult thing to do. They may not regret shooting a murderer, but they most certainly regret it coming to a point where they have to kill someone. Any SANE people would want to go through life without the knowledge that they killed another person, BUT for Zimmerman to say that he does NOT regret shooting Trayvon and FOLLOWING Trayvon and CAUSING the incident that resulted in his death, for him to NOT regret it PROVES my previous point of him USING God.

A REAL Christian would regret killing ANYONE, even IF they deserved it, WHY?! Because it's truly an upsetting reality when the ONLY way to achieve peace is to take a life or lives (in terms of war). We Christians are called to MAKE PEACE and LIVE PEACEFULLY! Understand that I am NOT saying soldiers should return home from war and lament their actions and ask for God's forgiveness. Not at all! I am saying that soldiers DO however regret it having to come to war, having to leave their families, and face the unfortunate reality of having to kill people. Zimmerman however DOES NOT regret ANYTHING! He didn't return from fighting for our country, he did NOT return from shooting an armed criminal in the line of duty...he shot and killed a 17 year old boy who was unarmed...how could he have NO regrets? How could he even fix his lips to say that?

I remembered I was talking to a co-worker of mine and I felt like I was being a douche to her (she didn't think so) but I felt I was wrong and I IMMEDIATELY apologized to her. I DEEPLY regretted how I acted towards her, I didn't hurt her and she didn't even notice but I apologized NONETHELESS because I regretted how I treated her. But this man...who MURDERED a 17 year old boy doesn't regret it...not very Christian...so his conclusion where he "apologizes" to The Martin Family, how can you TRULY have an apology WITHOUT REGRET?! A soldier SHOULD NOT apologize for going to war but SHOULD regret that it had to come to war. But George Zimmerman REGRETS NOTHING and apologized...how is that possible?

I apologize for the length of this article but I'm going to bring this whole thing full circle, and thank you so sticking with me for as long as you have.

So what does George Zimmerman and this whole James Holmes thing have in common ? The shamefully blatant "I DON'T CARE!" attitude! In Zimmerman's case, he committed murder, killed a 17 year old boy WHEN HE DIDN'T HAVE TO, ON CAMERA said he DID NOT regret doing so, but then apologized, and in the commentors case, they PRAISED a man who MURDERED numerous people and DEFENDED their praise by using such clever words as "moralfag" to shout down anyone who would DARE accuse them of being inappropriate. Both Zimmerman and those individuals LACK human decency. 

In Zimmerman's case he USED GOD to justify his murder and as a Christian I am offended and I rebuke Zimmerman and pray for his repentance that God convicts him and shows him how sinful he truly is. In the case of The Commentors (who are clearly Atheists), ANY ATHEIST will tell you that the BEST rule to live by is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (which is ironically Luke 6:31, but we're not getting into that) UNFORTUNATELY these individuals FAIL to put themselves in such a situation where their loved ones are suddenly slaughtered in droves while innocently trying to watch a movie. Instead they'd rather PRAISE the man who killed those people and shun anyone who tells them they should not. Should those commentors find themselves in such a situation I DARE them to ask for sympathy. I DARE them to ask for respect. I DARE THEM!

Atheist or Christian, you can't deny that we have a LOT of work to do and it's NOT going to get done if we are constantly looking to ourselves for a solution. We as Christians have chosen to look outside ourselves and live by the rules laid out for us by the one we believe is our creator, and we believe that others should do the same, but if you disagree that is NOT a cause for violence or anger. Unfortunately we live in a world where disagreement is synonymous with hatred and violence solves everything. Maybe it's time we should learn to RESPECT each other without resorting to name calling. Maybe we SHOULD consider somethings sacred, if not for our sake but for the sake of OTHERS! Maybe we SHOULD think about respecting and helping other people before we so easily say "Doesn't effect me, not my problem.".

...but then again what do I know ? I'm just another "moralfag"....

Equality vs. Exclusivity

Discrimination is a dirty word, and why shouldn't it be considering it's long standing history during The Civil Rights Movement. BUT nowadays Discrimination has been applied to situations that don't match the definition. Let's take a step back and examine what Discrimination is before we get into this article.

For the purpose of this article we're sticking to the 2nd definition because this is the realm where we find discrimination being used. Not too long ago there was a young boy who wanted to join the Girl Scouts, however the twist was this young boy identified himself as a girl. While some on the left might see this as Discrimination, those of us who are on the RIGHT side of the issues see this for what it is...EXCLUSIVITY! The title CLEARLY says GIRL scouts. The Girl Scouts is a privately funded organization and therefore are allowed to specify membership eligibility for specific genders, races, religious affiliation, ect. ect. Before we go on, let's look at Exclusive.

For the purpose of this article we'll have to focus on the 1st definition, specifically, incompatible. The boy is CLEARLY a boy but he desires to join The GIRL Scouts despite the fact that he is NOT a girl. Therefore by definition of the TITLE of Girl Scouts, he has NO grounds to request membership. And yet the parents of this BOY raise a stink when the Troop Leader doesn't allow HIM to join the Girl Scouts BASED on the fact that HE IS A BOY! In order to elaborate on the foolishness of this situation, this would be like a Black Person trying to join an Asian exclusive organization solely based on the fact that he has a deep seeded admiration of Asian culture so much so that he identifies himself as an Asian. That's fine, cool, and dandy BUT YOU'RE NOT ASIAN! We would clearly see the foolishness there, BUT because this is a child, our heartstrings get tugged at and Woe be tied to he who makes a child FEEL BAD. Give me a break...

Understand that I am NOT belittling the issue of this little boy, obviously he has a very deep seeded psychological disorder that causes him to think he is a girl and that issues needs to be treated NOT encouraged. But getting back to my point, Discrimination is being misused to be applied to ANY rejection of individuals REGARDLESS if it's a legitimate rejection or not.

Which brings me to the myth that is "Marriage Equality". If Homosexual Activists REALLY believed in "Marriage Equality" they'd affirm Polygamy, Pederasty, Incest, after all, why is it wrong for them to get married but okay for you ? We Christians don't have that problem, we believe in Marriage exclusivity, between an unrelated, of age Man & Woman (Race and Religious affiliation are not specified), although ideally one should marry someone who shares their religious affiliation, simply because a union of opposing world views can not survive a marriage. Based on OUR beliefs we have a reason to reject ANY idea of marriage outside of what God specified...however Homosexual Activists do not have such a standard to reject polygamy, pederasty and incest, and any attempt at doing so would be seen a bigotry and ignorance on their part...however they're unable to make that connection. So Homosexuals DON'T believe in "Marriage Equality", they believe in "Marriage Equality FOR THEM ONLY" which is really Marriage Exclusivity.

The Double Standard

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/01/another_outrage_in_california

That's the unfortunate reality we exist in nowadays when it's possible for it to be made ILLEGAL for people to seek therapy...However if this Bill passes, I wonder if it'll be made ILLEGAL for a Psychiatrist to help a Straight Man who wants to become Gay. Hrm... 

Fathers Are Nonsense, But Male Role Models are Good ?

Discipline is Good

I'm ALWAYS amused by people who recognize parental duties but fail to equate them with God's duties. When parents physically engage their children for misbehavior we see that as good and correct, after all if a parent doesn't reprimand their child in some way for misbehavior then it's explained that that parent doesn't truly love their child because they're refusing to teach them morals and ethics. BUT if GOD reprimands someone in some way for misbehavior He's seen as a cruel, unloving, tyrant...(inconsistent much?) And yet people make this out to mean that we should just be AFRAID of God and God wants your fear instead of your love and respect. After all isn't that THE EXACT nature of undisciplined children, a lack of respect for laws, rules and boundaries ? I compel you to explain to me how what God does is ANY different. Furthermore God is on a grander scale considering He's responsible for existence it's self, so if ANYONE is gonna give you laws, rules and boundaries, let it be the person who made existence in the first place.

But the unfortunate thing is there are some of you who won't make the logical connection between parental discipline and God's discipline and continue with the idea of a tyrannical God and yet will discipline your own children and have the same reaction that God does when your children disobey you. Funny how inconsistency works isn't it ?

So You CAN Marry Yourself ?

Here's the thing, I'm very proud of her that she stopped drinking, that's no longer smoking (I'm assuming by implication of the statement she makes later) and that she's no longer out of shape, kudos to her and I hope she stays the course...but to marry herself is ABSOLUTE FOOLISHNESS!! Marriage is the union of an UNRELATED, OF AGE, Man and Woman. It is NOT the union of yourself, it is NOT the union of a man and a man, a woman and a woman, it is NOT the union of a boy/girl and Man/Woman. And once again marriage just becomes this "All about me!" mentality. Foolishness.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Banned...Yeah Sure...

So I decided to have a little fun today. I saw the image below and decided that's I'd respond to each point with a little thing called logical and well thought-out arguments since there are an unfortunate number of people who think the points made in this image are solid:

Regarding "Pastor" Haynes...

So as I stated earlier in regards to the topic of Nominal Christianity, here is "Pastor" Fredrick D. Haynes III discussing President Obama's statement on Gay Marriage... I apologize for the length of this video but I had a lot to say and there was a lot of correcting to be done. Furthermore I will indeed be sending this link to "Pastor" Haynes and hopefully open a dialogue with him about his views. Below here is the original video and below that is my response. Enjoy and Peace in Christ.

The original Video


My Response

Nominal Christianity...

So once again it's one of those nights where I can't exactly sleep. I slept earlier but now I'm having a hard time getting back to the land of nod *wink-wink* because there's something on my mind that I don't think will let me rest again until I get it out.  Earlier this week I found a video of a pastor voicing his support of gay marriage (which you will see my uploaded response VERY soon) and I've discovered that not one but 2 of my co-workers are gay and 2 others are "Christians" and support the homosexual movement. Which brings me to this blog.

Fathers ? Nonsense.

Interracial Marriage, Homosexuality and Pedophilia...

"One obvious contradiction in the assimilationist position is that if homosexual identity is inborn, as they say, then why do they oppose freedom of sexual expression for minors? Assimilationists argue that sexual identity is fixed by age six, but they deny young people the right to enjoy sexual pleasure with the person of their own choice. For them, "protection" is the key word, not "liberation"; they call on the state to "protect" young people from expressing and exploring their own sexual behavior. They want to "protect" young people from "dirty old men" (I, incidentally, am speaking as a "dirty [gay] old man" - something I take as a positive goal), but in reality are protecting them from themselves. They support criminalization of young people's sexuality, especially if it involves sex with an adult man. They condemn any adult who helps a young person to explore his or her sexuality. They are like parents - only worse, because they pretend to offer a guide to the gay future." - David Thornstad 

This was taken from the NAMBLA website. For those of you who don't know what NAMBLA is, they are The North American Man/Boy Love Association...essentially they're an organization of Pedophiles who seek to make pedophilia legal. The quote above is a VERY interesting part of an article I read that Christians have been saying for AGES however, Homosexuals and Gay Supporters alike have all but ignored the obvious implications of their position and leave it to a Pedophile to address them. So I figured seeing it directly from the horse's mouth would persuade them into realizing just how badly they screwed up.

The Poor Reality Of America Today...

”While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage, Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview. In this situation, it was the other way around. I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox, sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking. In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.” - Bristol Palin

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, BUT it's a shame when an UNMARRIED Bristol Palin makes MORE sense than The President of the United States. Now I am NO Sarah Palin supporter, nor am I a supporter of The Tea Party or anything of that nature, BUT I can't deny that she's 100% correct (the little jab about "Dora The Explorer" aside) President Obama did indeed put the blame squarely on his children stating that it wouldn't occur to them that something was wrong with the relationships of their friends parents. Here in lies Bristol's point...it wouldn't occur to them BECAUSE YOU NEVER TAUGHT THEM!! President Obama has claimed Christianity time and time again and time and time again he's proven that he does NOT understand what it is he's claiming. To make matters worse MANY who call themselves Christians are going to look to President Obama as an example of a "Christian" who supports Gay Marriage, leading many to believe that you can be a Christian and support Gay Marriage...and YOU CANNOT because the 2 are UNARGUABLY INCOMPATIBLE!  

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” - President Barack Obama, Sept. 25, 2004 

I suppose we know what he means when he said he tries not to have his religious beliefs dominate or determine his political view. As Christianity is compatible with ANY political system that'll allow religious ideologies. You can be a Christian and a Democrat, you can be a Christian and a Republican, you can be a Christian and a Monarch, you can be a Christian with any sort of political affiliation but the one thing you CAN'T be is a Christian who is actively going against the Word of God. There's a word for people like that, it's called Hypocrite. I maybe selfish in saying what I'm about to say next but being African American myself I can't help but think what this is going to do for the African American community at large. Of course many of us are proud to have an African American in the White House however, when Racial Identity trumps God's Word, we have a problem. NOT THAT I AM ENDORSING MIT ROMNEY! Let's face it Romney's religious teaching profane marriage JUST AS BADLY AS HOMOSEXUALITY. But I see an even LARGER divide being driven between African Americans because of this...and that makes me very sad. This is just not a good week at all for the people of God. Peace in Christ, we can still pray for Obama's repentance and acceptance of what God has taught and affirmed SINCE THE BEGINNING. Pray for him and pray for Romney. Peace in Christ all!

Homosexuality ?

So it's time we talked about Homosexuality. Despite how I begin this article I'll still be called a Homophobe, people will still say I'm promoting Hate Speech, and at this time it doesn't really matter. I'm going to address this topic as best as I can and as logically as I can. Before I begin I'd like to say that I do NOT hate gay people, I know gay people and they're cool people. They are sinners in the same way that I am a sinner, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Homosexuality is the WORST THING TO EVER HAPPEN! The only reason Christians are so concerned with Homosexuality is because;
1) It is against what we believe.
2) It is against what we believe and we are being told we are not allowed to say it's against what we believe and act accordingly to that belief.

When someone like Kirk Cameron says;

“I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

and someone who isn't gay (Roseanne Barr) responds with;

“Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”

I doubt this article is going to be received with much critical thought, and will only suffer emotional responses from Gay sympathizers rather than homosexuals themselves, and they will disregard the content and only reply with calling me a homophobe and ect. ect. So with that out of the way let's begin.

First I'd like to address the MYTH that Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It most certainly is a choice and it is VERY easy to prove. I'm a guy and like most guys I have some knowledge on Porn. In the Porn Industry there is such a thing called "Gay For Pay". This is when Straight Male Pornstars do sex scenes with other male pornstars. Hence the term "Gay For Pay", they are Straight but for the right price they'll be Gay. This is interesting because this proves that Homosexuality is NOT something innate and immutable. How does it do that? Simple. This proves that people have the CHOICE to be Gay. If one can CHOOSE to be Gay, then Homosexuality is NOT innate or immutable. Ugo, that doesn't prove anything, those pornstars aren't Gay, you just said they were Straight. They're just doing that for money. That's true, but there is no such thing as "Black/White for Pay". If people can change their orientation for money, the case that homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't look very good. So how do you judge who is Gay? You can't see Gay people based on their clothes, voice, skin color, manner of dress, you can only judge a Gay person on their actions. I know this because I've accused of being Gay SOLELY based on my voice.

If you see a guy sitting by himself you wouldn't be able to say "They're gay.". You'd only be able to figure them out based on what they do. If this guy gets up and makes out with another guy, you'd immediately know he was Gay. After all, what is Gay ? Homosexuality is simply defined (via Wikipedia as)  

Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

Sexual attraction or behavior...hrm..how does one judge this? BY ACTIONS! Actions are NOT innate or immutable. I can have sex with men, I don't what to, but I possess the ability to do so. If Homosexuality was truly innate and immutable, I would not have the ability to do so. As an example, I am African American, this is innate and immutable, I did not choose to be African American and I am unable to NOT be African American. I cannot wake up one morning and decide to be Japanese or Native American. Despite everything I will always be African American NOTHING can change this. Race is innate and immutable, Homosexuality is NOT.

Furthermore, there are EX-GAYS, people who used to be Homosexuals and are not anymore. What about them? Are they somehow not counted in this discussion of Homosexuality? They could argue that they weren't really Gay in the first place but how would they know? And I am NOT talking about the poor kids in those "conversion" camps who suffer at the hands of people who think they're doing God's work and claim that they're no longer Gay when deep down the truly are. I'm talking about actual Gay people who made a CHOICE and CHOOSE to be Gay no longer. Such people exist, do a Google search. What happens to that argument when these people are added to the equation?

I'll tell you what there aren't any of, Ex-Black people. You can make ALL the Michael Jackson jokes you want, Michael Jackson is Black. Furthermore there is NO such thing as a Closeted Black Person. You can spot a Black person IMMEDIATELY, but you can't spot a Gay Person at all UNLESS they did something to call attention to that fact. For proof,  look below and tell me which one is Black.

That was easy, now scroll back up and tell me which one of them is Gay. The best you can do is guess, but you WON'T know for sure (unless you've seen these men before). But for the sake of proving my point I'll tell you which one is Gay, it's the Gay one. Which one is that? Ah ha! This little exercise was also made to prove that Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issue. There is a BIG difference between being treated like a Human Being and being given privileges for a certain kind of behavior (Wikipedia's word, not mine, take it up with them). I don't recall there being any Straight Only Water Fountains, I don't recall Homosexuals having to sit in the back of the bus because Straight people didn't want them sitting in the front of it. I know Homosexuals suffer murders for their homosexuality, but those murders are only committed when one of the homosexuals are caught engaging in homosexual activity or suspected of doing so (not an excuse, just a fact), for African American, we can be killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Being Gay is something that CAN and HAS been hidden, being Black is something I cannot, nor can any other Black person hide (unless they're passing). Furthermore Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issues because Homosexuality is a condition that CAN change (once again, there are Ex-Gay) so why are we re-defining marriage based on something that is changeable? And as far as Interracial Marriage is concerned, comparing Homosexuality to that is an even bigger issue, because there is NO way prove that Interracial Marriage is a bad thing. Sure there were people who spoke out against it, but their arguments are senseless and foolish.

Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. I don't recall ANYONE with authority putting any stipulation on that.  Furthermore where did the concept of marriage come from in the first place? I believe it came from God, BUT if you're not a believer in God then isn't marriage just some old out-dated custom? Furthermore if there is no final authority on marriage then Interracial marriage CAN be made illegal. But I doubt you want that, and neither do I considering my girlfriend (future wife) is not Black.

Sex is the action that proliferates the species. In order to do that you need a man and a woman. You cannot continue the species with a man and a man and you cannot proliferate the species with a woman and a woman. You can proliferate the species with an Asian Woman & White Man, or with a Black Woman & Mexican Man, and whatever combination you can think of as long as it's a man and a woman. This is Science, notice I am NOT appealing to The Bible to support my view on Homosexuality. Homosexuality is counter evolutionary and if anything Atheists and Agnostics and anyone who claims Empirical evidence to be their final authority should be more against Homosexuality than we are. This is because no one can make a solid case for Homosexuality WITHOUT appealing to emotions. Take Emotions out of the equation and Homosexuality is nothing. Take emotions out of Heterosexuality and you still have species. This is Science.

Furthermore, are we really going to say that Mom and Dad are NOT different? I grew up without a father so I have no frame of reference. But for my readers of do have both parents, do you really NOT see a difference between your Mother and your Father? Because homosexuals will tell you that you don't need a mother/father. There is a reason WHY sex between a man and a woman produces a child, because that child was meant to learn something from both genders. I've said this before:

A Father for a boy teaches him how to be a man and how to treat a woman. A Boy learns this through watching how the father interacts with the mother. A Father for a girl teaches her how a man is supposed to treat a woman. A Girl learns this by watching her mother interact with the father.

A Mother for a boy teaches him what a good woman is. A boy learns this by watching how his mother interacts with his father. A Mother for a girl teachers her how a woman is supposed to treat a man. A girl learns this by watching her mother interacts with the father.

If the parents do their jobs, the boy will have a solid idea on what interactions between a man and woman are supposed to be, same for the girl. But what can a man and another man teach a girl? What can a woman and woman teach a boy? This is NOT some Biblical argument being made, this is factual established psychology. Some of the most functional children in society have 2 parents at home, a mother and a father. Unfortunately LESS and LESS children have this and deviate more and more.

At the moment I'm done writing, but I have a feeling I'll be writing more on this. One last point, if Homosexuals can't get visitation rights, I suggest they lobby to change that (if they haven't already). That'll do it for me, for now...

PLEASE CHECK OUT:
 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black

No Moral Reason To Be Chaste ? Wrong.

This article hurts me, it hurts me because I'm writing this in response to a friend who made a claim that I could NOT ignore. He stated that there was "NO moral reason to be chaste." Needless to say I found this statement to be entirely false since my reasons for remaining chaste are completely moral, therefore my own virginity refutes his statement. But let's not take my word for it, let's examine the argument. Now, considering this is a Christian blog you're probably guessing that I'm gonna whip out my Bible and appeal to my Christianity to support my reasons for remaining chaste...well in 99.99% of the cases you'd be right, but in this case you're 100% wrong.  I am simply going to appeal to facts. Before I go any further I'd just like to say that me and the person I'm writing this article in response to are on speaking terms and I will send this to him once I am finished. Without further adieu, let's begin.

Can you imagine a world without STDs? Can you imagine a world where EVERYONE knew EXACTLY who their parents were? Can you imagine a world where babies weren't being killed before they even get to see the light of day? Such a world is 100% possible and the ONLY thing keeping that world from existing is our inability to keep it in our pants (and in ladies cases, keep your legs closed). This is NOT to call women whores and men lechers, rather this is to explain a very server problem with a very SIMPLE solution. I have never suffered from an STD, I have never faced the daunting reality of being ill prepared for an unexpected pregnancy, I have never felt the emotional weight of knowing my offspring was aborted. In a like manner I will never spread an STD, I will never cause a woman to become a mother without preparation and I will never cause a woman to get an abortion...Why? Because I haven't had sex.

I'm going to get a little personal here. Myself and my girlfriend are both virgins, neither of us have ever had sex. Considering we plan to get married, the only people we WILL be having sex with is with each other. In that realm the potential of catching an STD and spreading it is ZERO. People will often chime in and say things like "Married couples catch STDs too!" TRUE! But that's only if one of them were getting action outside the marriage. I know someone who recently caught herpes (very unfortunate) now the sad thing is the person he caught them from was completely unaware that she had them and she passed them along to that someone. You're telling me it's not moral to willingly limit the potential spread of a disease? How am I limiting it? By not having sex. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I don't have herpes, because I've never engaged in any activity to potentially get them.

The unfortunate thing about STDs is that some of them show NO symptoms therefore making some men/women carriers. The proper thing to do is to get tested, but how many people get tested after EVERY sexual encounter...I imagine not many...including porn stars. So these carriers are unsuspectingly infecting people, and some of those infected people become carriers themselves and they infect more people...and so on. So one moral reason to remain chaste is to limit the spread of STDs. I made a moral decision in my mind that I was not going to have sex because:

A) I didn't want to get infected.

B) I didn't want to infect anyone else.

Now you may consider this paranoid but I ask you to consider the statistics on STDs and weigh your chances. I know 2 people who had their FIRST sexual experience only to contract chlamydia and herpes. Call me a puritan, call me paranoid, call me negative BUT I know for a fact that when I have sex I won't have to worry about infecting my girlfriend with an STD because I was a carrier and vice-versa. Is that not a moral action to seek the protection of the one you love?

To move on to my next point, let's talk about Progeny. Unfortunately in the African American community there is a HUGE problem with progeny. Too many children are walking this Earth COMPLETELY unaware of who their father is, who their brothers and sisters are ect. ect. This is all because of Progeny. I hate to use this as an example BUT we've ALL seen The Maury Povich Show. This show is an unfortunate carnival of (more often than not) minority women who are DETERMINED to ascertain the progeny of their child...and they do this by parading several men on stage claiming them to be the father...why...because they had sex with every last one of those men. Each of those men have the potential to be that baby's father...and unfortunately the most celebrated moments on The Maury Povich Show are when the words "YOU ARE NOT FATHER!" are spoken, which causes the men to often leap out of their seats in an exclamation of GREAT joy.

I only post this to provide an example...

As darkly humorous as these moments are, we're ignoring a MAJOR problem here...a child is missing out on a father because of the mother's inability to remain chaste. Considering how many African American children DON'T know who their fathers are, each time this happens we should be crying our eyes out. Because children without fathers are more likely to engage in criminal activity (and considering I fall into this category, I have NOT engaged in any criminal activity, but I can't deny that according to statistics I am an anomaly). Not to mention a father's involvement in a child's life is CRITICAL to their development. My Friend (the person I am writing this article to) mentioned that his father died when he was 3, and even he expressed that he'd like to know his father. So even he understands the critical role Fatherhood plays in childhood development. To purposefully rob a child of that is one of the most cruel actions another human can commit without the shedding of blood.

So how can this problem be fixed? Once again, limiting your sexual encounters to ONE PERSON. When I have children I'll know EXACTLY who their mother is and they will know EXACTLY who their father is. If people followed such practices we would not have the abundance of undisciplined children roaming the streets as we do, and we wouldn't have phrases like "Mother's baby, Father's maybe." floating around. All of this can be accomplished by remaining chaste. And is not providing a children with a sense of familial identity a moral action?

But I skipped a step, how do we end up on The Maury Povich Show in the FIRST place? Lots of sex with multiple people and suddenly...maybe the tip of a condom wasn't pinched, maybe it split in some places, maybe he wanted to go raw dog that one time, regardless of how...all of a sudden you've got a baby on your hands. A baby that you're NOT prepared for AT ALL. A baby's that's gonna need your love and attention  and you've got college, or your job, or your English homework to worry about. This is an scenario that once again is prevalent in the African American community. Too many Too-Soon Mother end up raising children while they're children themselves and those children grow to lack discipline and other qualities that will aide them in being productive member of society. Why does this happen? Because somewhere down the line he/she got it in their heads that they were some how invincible from facing any consequences of having sex.

Sure condoms work, sure the pill works BUT the catch is you have to remember to put one on and you have to remember to take it. Let's be honest here, only the MOST responsible guys are going to stop when they discover they have no condoms. But in most cases, just one innocent "just this one time." ends up become Child support payments for the next 18 years of your life. I'm not currently facing that problem, not because I've always wore a condom or because my girlfriend always takes the pill after, but because we haven't had sex. So when we do get married and have sex we can have a discussion about potentially bringing children in this world (we both want to) instead of constantly having to worry about not having condoms and pills ect. ect. Unfortunately people don't think like this and we end up conceiving children before we're prepared to take care of them. Isn't preparing an environment where both parents are ready and willing to be parents for your child a moral action?

Same scenario as above, lots of sex, multiple people, something happens that shouldn't have happened and all of a sudden you've got a baby on your hands. Except this time things are different, you already have children, you can't afford another, or maybe your job is far too important for you to have to slow down for a child, your Ph.D is near complete, whatever the case maybe, having this baby will irrecoverably set you back a great deal. So you turn to abortion. Then comes the moral question on whether or not abortion is murder (no small clue to figure out where I stand on that issue). I can tell you with 100% certainty that my girlfriend won't have to deal with this issue, mostly because we want children (so the concept of an unwanted pregnancy won't be an issue) and we consider abortion murder. BUT I don't want a baby right now, neither does she and the BEST way to keep that from happening to remain chaste. If people were to do that we wouldn't have a need for abortion clinics.

All of these things I listed to you are NOT fantastically or unrealistic, BECAUSE I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT'S POSSIBLE. This is NOT difficult (speaking from experience), this is from making intelligent decisions based on things I've learned in Sex education in High School. My mother didn't brow beat me into being Chaste, nor did my Church ostracize promiscuity beyond what any normal church would do. I was not taught that if I have sex I'm going to Hell, nor would I endorse that mode of thinking. I was not taught that sex was dirty. I was taught that Sex is the means of reproduction for (just about) all living species and that in most cases it feels VERY good (that part I'm looking forward to very much). One thing I was taught about sex is that if done wrong, HORRIBLE things can happen and considering the state of our world as it is today, they already have. 

STDs are in abundance, children without fathers, abortions, all of these problem can be solved by the SINGLE action of remaining chaste. Now, as I have said earlier in this article that DO plan of having sex, so I am not actually chaste, I am abstinent. But considering I haven't had sex AT ALL I am chaste de facto (hehe). I am NOT ordering people to NEVER have sex EVER...of course not, not even I would endorse such a suicidal plan. I am however instructing people to limit their sexual encounters to one person. Oh but Ugo, that's unrealistic! Is it? People have done it before...people ARE doing it now...you mean to tell me that having sex with just one person is an unrealistic goal...that's rather sad. Oh but Ugo how are you ever gonna get good at sex if you only have sex with one person? (I've been asked this question before and it makes me roll my eyes.)

To answer that question I'm going to use a video game reference and use some "wisdom" other people have told me about sex. I was told that "Not every woman is the same.", with that in mind let me move on to my video game analogy: If I wanted to get good at playing "Halo", I am NOT going to play "Final Fantasy"! Same system (female), different controls (likes and dislikes), and an over all different tactic to play (positions).  Meaning if I'm gonna get good at playing "Halo" I'm gonna play "Halo" until I learn everything there is to know about "Halo". In a like manner I plan on learning my wife and her learning me and us learning each other when we do have sex. Those who've had sex can't deny that it's a learning experience that only get better with practice, however for me I'll be able to apply what I've learned...the rest of you will have to learn a new woman all over again (that's only if you subscribe to that ideology). This was off topic...just felt like throwing that in there.

Anyway, I hope I've made a clear and logical choice on the morality of remaining chaste...at least I hope I did considering that these are the reasons I am not having sex yet. Now I will admit that if I was in a better financial situation I would be more open to the idea of premarital sex, but even then I'd have other things to consider that money couldn't solve. How's about that, an entire article on a Christian blog that DOESN'T make a SINGLE religious argument for chastity...hrm...almost makes me feel guilty, lol Heb 13:4. Thank you and God Bless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001620/#adam_000594.disease.causes

Conversions are NOT our business !!

I CANNOT stand this kind of garbage! Somewhere down the line "Christians" decide to take spiritual matters into their own hands and they end up committing horrible acts and THIS is one of those cases. Now, I think I've made it clear here that I am 100% opposed to Homosexuality. Do I think it's wrong and NEEDS to be cured, of course I do, but DON'T think it's our job to cure it. FORCING someone to convert to ANYTHING is NOT an honest conversion. I'd rather have someone be an Atheist of their own freewill than a Christian at the barrel of a gun. Jesus did NOT order us to convert by Any Means Necessary; Jesus taught us to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matt 28:19), Jesus did NOT tell us to FORCE conversions (if I remember correctly, that was Muhamad, Sahih Muslim 1:33).

In this case we have Christians attempting to TORTURE the gay out of gay people. IMPOSSIBLE! The thing about torture is once it begins, the victim will do whatever necessary for it to stop! So a Gay persons can undergo these so-called "conversions" and say they're no longer gay BUT they'll always be gay at heart. Notice what I said there, GAY AT HEART! AND THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE! These "conversions" do NOTHING but torment and make attempts to control physical acts, and while that maybe effective in the short term in the long term it's ineffectual. We as Christians need to be concerned with the HEART. For our homosexual friends and family we need to be in constant prayer that GOD converts them and changes their heart.

And furthermore I'd just like to say that I am APPALLED that this kinda crap is going on in God's name. Atrocities committed in God's name WILL be met with it's just punishment and anyone who supports "conversion" camps are un-biblical and un-Christian. Thank you and God bless.

Jesus, Republicans & The Bible...seriously ?

I really have to do this again don't I ? Okay, let's get started point by point.

"Peaceful, Non-Violent, Radical, Revolutionary."

Yes, Jesus was peaceful BUT, Jesus was not 100% anti-violent. This is NOT to say that Jesus went around preaching violence, HOWEVER John 2:14-25, Jesus drove heathens out of the Temple. Now, how exactly did Jesus do this? He used a WHIP! It's right there in The Bible, check it out. Jesus attacked them with a Whip. Now you might be asking yourself, Why did Jesus do this? Well, because the heathens were defacing his Father's house. The Jews even noticed this and asked Him what authority did he do this under. This doesn't mean go out and attack people with a whip BUT this does mean that Jesus did react physically against morally corrupt practices going on in His father's house. So much for your non-violent angle. Oh and insult to injury here, Jesus in Luke 22:36 tells His followers to "sell your cloak and buy a SWORD". Which means that Jesus was NOT against self-defense, and understood the need for such things. To support the non-violent aspect though, Jesus did react negatively when Peter cut the ear off of The Roman soldier who arrested Jesus, Luke 22:49-51. However Jesus wasn't having it and healed the soldier's ear. Why ? Because Jesus understood what needed to be done and was willing to go peacefully. So yeah wrong there Mr. Fugelsang. Also, you'll notice I'm using citations to validate point.

 "Hung around with lepers, hookers and criminals"

Yep. Jesus did all those things. Note, He did NOT advocate their activity though.

"Never spoke English and not an American citizen."

Also correct.

"Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Wealth"

WRONG! Jesus never taught any exact political system (mostly because Christianity can work in any political system that will allow it to work). Jesus may have not taught capitalism BUT Mr. Fugelsang's words were "ANTI-CAPITALISM" which means He was AGAINST Capitalism. Now where would we find Jesus teaching against Capitalism? Nowhere. Jesus and The Bible do speak a lot about sharing though, Romans 12:10-13, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Tim 6:17-18, Hebrews 13:15-16. So The Bible teaches sharing...but ANTI-CAPITALISM?! Not at all. First of all in order to SHARE something you'd have to OWN something to begin with. Furthermore let's take a look at Acts 5:1-11, specifically verse 4 where Peter reveals Ananias OWNED the land. Therefore Peter was attempting to BUY some land, Buying implies that someone OWNED the land in order to sell it. Now, IF Peter was a follower of Jesus (and if Jesus was ANTI-CAPITALISM as Mr. Fugelsang said) then Peter would have had to rebuke the man and shun him for being selfish with the land that was rightfully everyone's. But no, Peter even told Ananias that if he didn't want to sell the land, he didn't have to! So obviously Jesus was HEAVY on sharing but was NOT anti-capitalism by ANY stretch of the imagination. 

This anti-rich part makes me laugh A LOT. For someone who claimed to have a pretty exclusive Christian background (Catholic...not the same thing) he really doesn't know much about the teachings of Jesus. Let's start at the beginning shall we? Jesus is God in the flesh (this is what Christians believe John 8:48...I could go on). So Jesus is God in The Flesh. In The Old Testament there was a man who was called a man after God's own heart, this man later became King. I'm talking about David. David was King...King equals rich. David was very rich and VERY blessed by God (keep in mind Jesus came from David's lineage)., So what does this tell you about rich people and their relationship to God? God is NOT ANTI-RICH, THEREFORE JESUS ISN'T EITHER! Jesus is against THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Why can't anyone understand this? Just to be redundant let's review the little scene in Luke 18:18-25 (crack open your Bibles, NOW!).

The Rich Ruler calls Jesus "Good.". Jesus answers this with a VERY important question that The Rich Ruler does NOT catch, nor respond to BUT this is a VERY critical part of understanding this text. Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God.". If The Rich Ruler were paying attention he would have heard the subtext of the question, just in case you missed it, allow me to clean it up for you. Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler if he was calling him God (once again Jesus is God in the Flesh). Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler this question because He wanted to make this guy knew who he was talking to (and apparently he didn't). So Jesus lists the bottom 5 commandants and ignores the top 5 (I'll explain why in a bit). The Rich Ruler confirms that he has kept those commandants and then Jesus tells him to SELL EVERYTHING he owns and join Him. The Rich Ruler is OBVIOUSLY disheartened by this answer and leaves. 

The COMMON misconception here is that Jesus literally wanted this man to sell everything and join Him, and why wouldn't that be a misconception, that's EXACTLY what Jesus said is it not? Yes, but here's where the topic of those missing 5 commandants come into play. The 10 Commandants are divided into 2 sets. The first 5 are man's responsibility before God, the second 5 are man's responsibility to each other. The Rich Ruler was doing great on his responsibilities to his fellow man but his responsibilities before God were LACKING VERY MUCH SO. How do I know this? Because Jesus was able to see into the man's heart (once again Jesus is God) and Jesus saw that The Rich Ruler loved his money more so than God. If The Rich Ruler DID love God, he would have been more than willing to sell his possessions. Jesus wasn't condemning the man for being rich, he was condemning the man for his unwillingness to part with his riches for eternal life (which to be fair it was The Ruler who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life). Basically if The Rich Ruler REALLY wanted eternal life, he would have agreed. I doubt Jesus would have made him sell everything BUT the willingness of The Ruler would have shown Jesus that The Rich Ruler was down for the cause all the way, instead The Rich Ruler exposed his true nature. JESUS IS NOT AGAINST PEOPLE BEING RICH! DAVID WAS RICH! SOLOMON WAS RICH! ESTHER WAS RICH! JESUS IS AGAINST THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Matt 6:24,Luke 16:13,1 Tim 6:10, Hebrews 13:5! Once again, citations.

"Anti-public prayer"

Seriously? Wow...this is a MAJOR swing and miss Mr. Fugelsang...so far you just got a few right. But this is just sad. Okay, let's look at Matthew 6:5 because that's the ONLY one He gives a citation for...and didn't research it completely, so leave it to me to come in and clean things up. Let's get started. Jesus was instructing His disciples to not be like hypocrites who pray for show. Jesus was NOT ANTI-PUBLIC prayer. Now Jesus DID preach to pray in private, Matthew 6:6-14. But Jesus is mostly discouraging making a spectacle of prayer. If a massive gathering of people decide to pray on the beach or at a camp site or event at school, Jesus isn't going to shake a finger at them. Jesus makes that clear when He says "so that they may be seen by men". Once again Jesus is God and He's talking about the intent of their actions, (ie, hoping people see how "holy" they are by praying in public). Jesus discourages this because their intention is NOT to seek an audience with God but rather to make a spectacle of themselves.

"Anti-Death Penalty"

Not true in a broader sense of the term, because Jesus is pretty much the invocation of The ULTIMATE DEATH penalty, (John 8:24). So was Jesus for the electric chair, lethal injection, ect. ect.? No, BUT He will bring judgment and a LOT of people are going to die, not only physically but eternally in Hellfire. But this is a broader sense of the term. However in The Old Testament who do find a Death penalty in effect. Death penalty is a societal issue and each society will judge if they choose to have one. Jesus made no pro or con about a death penalty for murders ect. ect. Death penalties are NOT about punishment, rather they're about justice. They are not meant to be cruel, they are meant to serve justice to those who have taken a life. For those who are anti-death penalty, you might as well be anti-war and anti-police as well because both of these jobs require you to kill when necessary (NOT out of punishment, out of justice and/or defense). God did not condemn David for killing Goliath, which shows that God understands the meaning of war and all that entails. So is Jesus anti-death penalty? No, but He wasn't exclusively pro-death penalty either...not making a very strong case here Mr. Fugelsang.

"Not anti-gay"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Okay, let's go to The Bible to Matthew 19:4-6. Here we see Jesus outlining what a marriage is. Notice, He says MALE AND FEMALE! And how wonderful is it that the text put those in all caps so I didn't have to. Don't give me that face as if homosexuals weren't as popular in that day as they are now (The Romans pretty much perfected homosexuality). Jesus makes it very clear, MALE AND FEMALE. Still not convinced? Okay, let's go to Leviticus 18. Specifically Lev 18:22. Once again, Jesus is God in the flesh (so if God says it Jesus agrees with it). Oh Ugo, that's the OLD testament! Okay, let's look at the new, specifically Romans 1:18-32. Very clearly there's a major anti-homosexual message here. Now Mr. Fugelsang, I have to GREATLY question your admiration of Jesus at this point. You claim to admire Him and Jesus affirms The Bible as His inspired word...so when Jesus' inspired word preaches a message that is clearly anti-homosexual, you claim that Jesus was never against it. So obviously you're picking and choosing what you want to believe about Jesus instead of who Jesus actually IS. This is NOT admiration. Furthermore 1 Cor 6:9.

"Didn't mention abortion."

If you mean Jesus used the word "abortion" no, He did not. BUT Jesus does state that "Thou shall not commit murder!" Matthew 19:18. I am 100% we can all agree on what murder is, right? Murder is the unlawful taking of someone's life. Prime example:

If a police officer is chasing a criminal and the criminal prepares to shoot a civilian in order to escape and the police officer shoots the criminal and kills him, we do not call that a murder. The Police officer was acting in the defense of a civilian. This is echoed in several other instances. As I've stated before David killed Goliath in the setting of war. In these cases not even God calls that murder. These are simply killings. Murder would be the aforementioned criminal shooting a civilian. There was no law or infraction made upon the criminal to shoot the civilian. Can we all agree on that? Good. So if Jesus commands us not to commit murder, and very clearly God makes a distinction between murder and killing, I ask you a very important question: What law did an embryo break in order to be killed? 

But you're already saying that abortion is NOT murder, okay so in order for it NOT to be a murder there MUST be a lawful reason WHY you're killing someone...otherwise it's murder. And I have done my research, embryos develop heartbeats as soon as 6 weeks! And as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and you actively seek to STOP that heartbeat, that in my mind is murder. And consider this Ex 21:22-23. Please note that this does NOT specify AT WHAT TERM this is acceptable. Now there are people who will argue the following:

This was a comment in response to "180 The Movie" found on Youtube. The username has been blurred out to protect the innocent and the section I am arguing has been highlighted.

A fetus will GROW into a person, so it may not be a person YET but it will grow to be one. In a similar fashion a seed is NOT an apple tree YET, but it will GROW to be one (this is not a disputable fact). So saying that a fetus is not a person is to deny the fact that it will be a person. As far as not having thoughts, feeling, self-awareness or complex interpersonal relationships...first of all, coma patients don't have feelings (how can they? They're in comas). Self-awareness, most mentally retarded children aren't self-aware and once again, neither are people in comas. And interpersonal relationships, the fetus's FIRST interpersonal relationship is with THE MOTHER, so that's a foolish argument to make on all accounts. And considering the logical conclusion I've drawn here, Jesus is against abortion, He just never used the word "abortion". 

"Didn't mention premarital sex"

So that whole thing about looking at a woman lustfully in Matthew 5:27-28 had NOTHING to do with premarital sex. Considering that Jesus emphasized marriage Matthew 19, and condemned fornicators in Matthew 15:19-20. Furthermore, Jesus' points are echoed in Acts 15:29, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and in Hebrews 13:4. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Jesus taught against premarital sex. Once again, I've got citations, all you've got is well..pretty much your word and so far it's not looking very reliable.

"Never justified torture."

You're 100% right. Jesus was not pro-torture.

"Never called the poor lazy."

Right.

"Never asked a leper for a co-pay."

Right.

"Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthy Nazereans."

Right.

"Long haired, brown skinned, homeless Middle Eastern Jew."

 Okay, quick issue. Although I won't deny that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, going to Revelation to support this is NOT the best way to go and here's why. Revelation is an EXTREMELY coded book FILLED with Jewish iconography and symbology of the day that only The Jews of that time would understand. The verse Mr. Fugelsang is referring to is Rev 1:12-14. HOWEVER, you have to understand that "Wool" and "Bronze" were not straight forward terms like they are today, whether they meant something different in that time. Consider the visions in Daniel 2. Each material and animal was reflective of 4 rising empires. It's all very hard to explain so I suggest pulling out a Bible a research it for yourselves. Long story short, a LOT of Revelation is symbolic language. ONCE again, I am NOT denying that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, I'm just saying Revelation ain't to place to go proving that. Gun to my head, if I HAD to guess what Jesus MAY have looked like, I'd immediately pick:

I'd go so far as to Jesus was probably just as built as Naveen Andrews to, considering Jesus was a carpenter and all.

"Of course that's only if you actually believe what's in The Bible."

Well Mr. Fugelsang, I suggest you stick to comedy as your knowledge of The Bible and Jesus is pretty flawed, which amazes me because you said you admire Him. I think you just admire the image you made up of Him in your mind, because the TRUE Jesus would rebuke you for distorting His word to suit your own political alignment. Now, I'll leave the case to you, the reader, which one of us made a more clear case for our position? The person offering citations, references and logic to support their position or the person who was merely making statement after statement without context? The choice is obvious. I suggest YOU read your Bible Mr. Fugelsang and believe what's in there. Thank you all and God bless.