Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Black and White View - Abortion

While I was helping an author write in his new book, one chapter of his manuscript brought forth Margaret Sanger and the birth and direction of said movement.  Through the editing of selected chapters of "Eradicate" from David Fiorazo (Fe o ra zo), what I learned from this review of the beginnings of Mrs. Sanger and how it evolved into today's Planned Parenthood is astonishing.

To place this in perspective for me, I had no idea of any of this when I went to public school, and why should it?  Not until 2012 did I begin new revelation in retrospect of one person's vision into a billion dollar industry.  Now that there is a doctor who went to great lengths to murder babies even after birth has not made a ping in most liberal media.  The reason is simple: it goes against their lifestyle and very nature.

Margaret was born in a fairly large family, and later came to realization that her mother's death from tuberculosis was brought on by having too many children.  Eventually, she began believing in eugenics, which in her eyes was ridding those who are unfit to live, unfit to have more children, simply, to control the population. 

Her beginning of these views started with the simple foundation of birth control.  Seeing large families while in poverty only fueled her passion to see more of her belief come true.  She slowly began to change her viewpoint in her public writings to involve those who are physically and mentally challenged.  Soon she began to believe in the racial atmosphere, including blacks and immigrants.  This principle began to take affect in Indiana, where eugenics were being performed on mental institutions.  It soon was going on in seventeen others states during the 1930s.

Please note the Nazi extermination of the Jews did not technically start until 1934, the United States was first in performing eugenics.  If you think there is no connection between Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler, you have either not done your studies and decided ignorance is bliss.  Please note this transcript from the following website (http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.htmlhttp://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html)

Ernst Rudin was director of the foremost German eugenics research institute (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy, in Munich, Germany). "On June 2, 1933, [German] Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick announced the formation of an Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy .... to plan the course of Nazi racial policy. The committee brought together the elite of Nazi racial theory: Alfred Ploetz, ..... Ernst Rudin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Genealogy in Munich;...." (4) On July 14, 1933 this committee's recommendations were made law, the sterilization law ("Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring"); the start date for exercising the law was 1 Jan 1934. What was Ernst Rudin's opinion of Adolf Hitler and eugenics ('racial hygiene')?:
Academic William H. Tucker (The Science and Politics of Racial Research, 1994, University of Illinois Press) tells us about Ernst Rudin (p. 121):

In an address to the German Society for Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] Ernst Rudin, a professor of psychiatry who was one of the organization's original members and now its head, recalled the early, fruitless days when the racial hygienists had labored in vain to alert the public to special value of the Nordic race as "culture creators" and the danger of "unnatural" attempts to preserve the health of heredity defectives. Now Rassenhygiene [Race-hygiene] was finally receiving the attention it deserved, and Rudin virtually slavered over the man whose efforts produced this change: "The significance of Rassenhygiene did not become evident to all aware Germans until the political activity of Adolf Hitler and only through his work has our 30 year long dream of translating Rassen- hygiene into action finally become a reality." Terming it a "duty of honor" (Ehrenpflicht) for the society to aid in implementing Hitler's program, Rudin proclaimed, "We can hardly express our efforts more plainly or appropriately than in the words of the Fuhrer: 'Whoever is not physically or mentally fit must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children. Conversely, it must be regarded as reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the state.' (E. Rudin, "Aufgaben and Ziele der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Rassenhygiene," Archiv Fur Rassen- und Gesellschafts- biologie 28 (1934): 228-29
Mr. Rubin has visited Mrs. Sanger and began to endorse her views.  First, her principle was taken in full destruction with German hospitals and institutions, in lieu of Hitler's progress to the master race and returned dominance of Germany.  In only a few years, Germany easily "outproduced" in the eugenics department, later using this same against those the hatred Hitler and Nazi Party had for the Jews. 
Another person adding to her endorsement of eugenics is Lorthrop Stoddard. He took the simplistic view of eugenics, birth control and the Germanic politics of weeding out the worst and strengthening the strong, and used these bonds between Sanger and Hitler to interact and enhance both views. Indirectly, Margaret Sanger was responsible for the Holocaust and an estimated half million in hospitals and mental wards. 
That is NOTHING compared to what the United States continue to do makes the Nazi propaganda look like peanuts.  Once the connection of the German genocide was made known throughout the United States, Mr. Stoddard, the Board of Directors, and Mrs. Sanger saw the need to change the name to better mask their intention.  Today it is known as Planned Parenthood. 

We have abortions estimated around one every 95 seconds.  There has been other mass killings that are not made known through public school teachings, and usually can be found in thorough research on the internet and library, but much of this information is being ignored.  The answer is basically to avoid the product of socialism, communism, liberalism and the links they all have.

Liberal viewpoints level Mrs. Sanger as a hero, a patriot that liberated women from just child bearing machines to those who are "pro-choice."  As females she felt the power for population control and rid the world if deformed humans by showing them they had the will, not the men.  She wanted the decision of the men to be a no factor, that all decision of child bearing belong to the women.  Even those with what she deemed problems. 

Few facts about Margaret that only those who have studied deeply into her life now about:

  • Both her marriages were to rich men and her agenda was to spend THEIR money to advance it.  Just before her death, she spent the rest of her second husbands fortune, and made sure the family connection would be with PP.  A grandson is now head of the abortion factory.
  • Because of the Comstock Law that was in effect, Mrs. Sanger fled the country in fear of jail time.  She later returned when the Comstock Law was no longer effective.
  • She believed in segregation, wanting those of other races not Caucasian to be put on separated lands, and monitored all their lives.
  • Sterilization of those with incurable diseases, including epileptics, mental (i.e. Down Syndrome), and those classified as morons.
Much more is on website that I listed about of her points that she presented to President Woodrow Wilson.  Do not take Mr. Wilson lightly, his view of liberalism in the form of Democratic policies were far more left than America has been taught.  The only struggle that was more present was the war in Europe that began World War I and his isolationism that unfortunately failed.  Only through progressive and constant changing stances through cultural times has brought it to where it is today. 

Planned Parenthood and pro-choice are synonymous in liberal politics.  The argument really became legitimate when Roe vs. Wade court decision made abortion a federal position.  Once the federal government showed the stated money, Planned Parenthood took clinics around the nation, mostly around big cities where racial minorities lived in poor neighborhoods. 

I remember hearing of a statement that follows suit with the above paragraph, and it was made by a liberal by the name of Juan Williams.  He did some research and I believe what he saw astonished him, and he felt he needed to share it.  What was said on the radio (I believe I heard this on the Jerry Bader Show on Green Bay radio) was that 72% of all babies born in black neighborhoods are OUT OF WEDLOCK.  The question I am about to ask is unique in the compliance that many blacks DON'T believe in abortion, yet, these clinics are more prominent in their neighborhood.  What would the percentage be if these abortion mills WEREN'T where they are now?

Now for the conservative view, more importantly, from God's eyes.  life begins at conception.  Heartbeat is soon as six to eight weeks upon conception.  Sad that people see a child as an inconvenience, and obstruction to their lives.  Ironically, there are couples who cannot conceive by natural means and would love to have a child they can call their own and raise.  But mankind chooses to feed the god Malech to substantiate pro-choice. 

Now that liberals have moved forward from opposing Christianity and pro-life, its next agenda is to rid any legal and moral view that stands against their view.  It no longer matters of other's choices as they claim it should be, it has become "our highway" is the only highway.  With this power in their eyes, they will usher in the Great Tribulation with greater urgency in each passing day.  No matter how the child was conceived out of wedlock, God sees life as valuable to the point where He gave His Son for it.  These children should not be punished with death, they deserve life as much as the two who entwined in sex. 

The difference is those who are choosing death over an innocent as correction of a mistake, even though these people should have cared of the possibility of conception.  Sex is now used as a right and not a privilege God has given, to be"fruitful and multiply."  Please note the first part FRUITFUL - it means to bear good fruit, in essence, so this fruit can be passed on the children.  With no morals but your own choice, what will be left to the next generation?

Billy Graham said it best:
If God does not judge America (for her abortion, among others), then He would have to apologize for Sodom and Gomorrah. 
America makes those two cities look like choir boys, and we ask God to bless us.  Just in this week alone, President Obama made a grave error where he asked God (if he is speaking of the God if Israel) to bless Planned Parenthood.  Considering we have a President who views abortion as a right, even after a birth, and then tries to promote gun control for the "safety of the children."  I guess that only applies that don't get aborted.

Last question to ponder for all who read this:  How long before God makes a judgment upon this country, and why is only a few standing against this murder?  Worse, some endorse this while calling Jesus Lord.  Is the one of the reasons why Jesus said unless the days be shortened...

Jeremiah 9:24


Wednesday, April 24, 2013

The Church and the Last 60 Years Part 1

Most of what I am about to rely questions that have run through my mind quite a few times.  Much have I pondered on the changes that have occurred in the church, mainly in the last several years.  In between researching witnesses' testimonies from the Hebrides Revival in 1947 and comparing them with the self-proclaimed revivals in the last twenty years has provided stark differences in its "ingredients."  Even the transformations taken place in many American churches should leave many wondering...what happened?

For thousands of years, the church taught the message with passion and conviction.  Yes, there are still pulpits with that love and zeal.  Now we have tons of Western churches seeking entertainment to keep the coffers filled.  As far as the 1950s, many women wore dresses all the time, and many serve in capacity of the church but never in spiritual authority of a pastor.  The churches had some associate pastors but there was no need of ordainment of youth, children, even worship pastors of today.  Though I have yet to research this thought, so I am not sure, but was there really mega churches in the early 20th century like we claim today?

There are teachers who believe that there were no apostles or prophets (those in the office category) until recently in the last fifty years, now that God has been releasing them, since it is closing in on the last days.  Up until now, I was buying it but now I don't accept it.  The methods that I see being used and how those who have "this word" are the ones who are claiming the titles.  C. Peter Wagner has endorsed himself the can "chief apostle" of the Coalition, and to be part of it is to strict guidelines they promote, and only so many belong to such a group.  Interesting, many have left in the last few years.

His "study" has led to many classifications of "apostles," some being horizontal, some being vertical (ironic that Mr. Wagner has ALL these apostolic gifts).  Bottom line is there is nothing in Scripture that disperses such "anointings."  The only difference is between the office of a apostle ordained by Jesus in Ephesians 4:11 and the works within the church in 1 Corinthians 12:28.  No more, no less.

I have already discussed in a previous blog about what Scripture says of women in spiritual authority, namely pastors.  In the revivals of old, I have no doubt God touched women, and spiritually ordained them for their calling and worked through their faithfulness many times over.  But not until the last few years did some women demand "equality" in the spirit and claim their spot in pastoral positions.  Why now?  How is it that the church and those generations have it all wrong but not allowing women in authority?  How have we determined that Paul had it wrong...it must have been a cultural thing.  Same reason why churches are embracing God's love in homosexuality, which goes AGAINST the nature He created for humans. 

Matthew Vine is making a living mocking the very Book that he claims to preach.  His proclamation is since he was "born" homosexual, this is his natural life, and this view no longer applies to Romans 1:18-32.  Simple ploy, God created him homosexual, so this lifestyle is natural, hence, homosexuals and the like have no need to change. Another doctrine that has infiltrated churches beginning another process of disintegrating the foundation of Christianity.

The Church has also seen the manifestation doctrine.  This is where conferences and churches are more into spiritual manifestations into the physical.  Falling manna, gold dust, angelic orbs, even glory clouds are making the rounds.  One has claimed to bleed healing blood from her hands, another preaches while "drunk in the spirit," another says he can turn water into wine on command.  Raising hundreds from the dead, while the Bible only mentions three from Jesus alone is another ministry boast.  Some ministries teach on special portals for spiritual anointings, others boast on their special angels like "international banker anointing" for monetary blessings. 

Why go on?

What has caused the church to change from the past, where God blessed it in many ways?    Why has many churches and denominations become so ignorant to believe their views is much better than the scholars of yore?  Why is there so many "pastors" today?  Why does it seem that many are now seeking forbidden fruit or callings that God did not give?  What happened to lifting Jesus up and letting HIM draw those to the churches?  Why are so entertainment minded to keep those who are more interested in keeping them in the church physically and not spiritually? 

Maybe there are answers that haven't been released but the Church is losing its power and its holiness for grace that has no use in God's kingdom.  Pastors are so afraid to lose them they will do anything to keep them.  Magachurches, are they really helping?  Does Joel Osteen really teach holiness, or a false wall prosperity message that will never convict its members?  Does those living a lavish life while in ministry, do they boast a prosperity message because of gifts from those who are looking for themselves?  With all the Apostle Paul went through how would see the message being preached today?  Finally, how does the Body survive when those that come to church equal the amount that leave out the back door? 

Ponder for awhile...

Jeremiah 6:16

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Condemnation vs. Conviction

2 Tim. 3:16
    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Romans 8:1
    There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

There is a BIG difference between condemnation and conviction, but in many churches there isn't any difference at all.  Because of some that teach grace and using it in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1), when it comes with one of the works of the Holy Spirit is misconstrued as legalistic instead of freedom.  Let's look at the definition of conviction and condemnation so we can have a good foundation to build on before we continue.

First, convict:   find or declare guilty (Word Web def.), thus conviction is a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed.  Now, in the Bible we would only be declared guilty if:
1.  We need to do something wrong.
2.  Then we are proven by association we are wrong.

In the Word, it is proclaimed that two or three witnesses are needed in the physical.  If this holds in the spiritual, we have God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as witnesses, along with our conscience, that can be used against us.  Understand that when we do wrong against others, their witness also comes into play.  Before I continue on, I want to go off on a tangent for one moment.  This we all have done.

In the movie "White Men Can't Jump," the character played by Wesley Snipes eventually cons his partner and brags about it.  Later in the film, he screams at everyone around in the apartment complex when someone steals his stuff.  As Christians, we have no problem screaming for justice to God when someone does wrong to us, but we will demand mercy from God when we do wrong to others.  (NOTE:  I have a reason for bringing this up, which I will show you toward the end of this blog.)

No one likes to be convicted of doing something wrong, especially something we KNOW is wrong but do not want to be rid of it, including me.  Some pulpits refuse to preach on conviction do to they fear losing their paycheck, er, congregation.  A few may also fear those listening would feel they are being condemn BECAUSE of what they are doing , KNOWING it is wrong. 

Now condemn: pronounce a sentence on (somebody) in a court of law.  (There are some different definitions, but this is the one we need in the sake of this discussion.)  In many instances, especially when it involves another person, we confuse condemnation with being convicted.  In the Bible, being condemned is announcing eternal judgment, which only God can do.  

Conviction is what the Holy Spirit can do.  Conviction is when we have proven what an action we performed was wrong.  Condemnation is a FINAL punishment in the Word of God.  This is why there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, because we have the Holy Spirit to convict us on things we do, to prevent us through repentance from repeating what we were guilty of.  

We fear the this part of the Holy Spirit's ministry.  It is an integral part of our lives that allow our faith and trust to grow in Him.  Without this, we could not see the grieving we cause the Spirit.  We would eventually began to notice this and mistaken it for condemnation, preventing us from truly seeking His presence.  We only go so far, then we can go no further, because our sin and eventual guilt keeps us from going deeper.

I brought up earlier how we want justice done against us but mercy when we are the initiators.  The Bible does say we are to confess our sins and He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1 John 1:9) but we fail to utilize James 5:16:

    Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

How come we never are willing to confess our faults to one another?  Are we afraid we will be convicted in front of our peers?  Sometimes these confessions are needed to bring forgiveness and healing to others, but we need to address our own issues first (2 Con. 13:5).  If the Word says it, it has a reason and it must be good, and it gives good reason - healing.  Maybe this in one healing God is wanting to do and is waiting on us with this Scripture...
Maybe one day it will happen in a service...one day.

Jeremiah 6:16