Tonight we begin a tour that will hit Northern California in a way that it has not been hit before.

 

norcal email and blog blast copy

Tonight we begin a tour that will hit Northern California in a way that it has not been hit before.   Yes, there have been countless worthy attempts to preach the Gospel to this unique region of the world…but nothing like this.

So what is different about these events compared to the many that have happened before?  The difference is summed up in the title of the event: LIVING PROOF.

For starters, we are thrilled to introduce Jennifer Azzato to lead worship and her gift is something new to this region. The term living proof evokes the right picture, an image of proof that is alive.  In the purest sense of the word that is what you and I are.  Jesus said that we would be a witness, meaning that we are walking, talking breathing evidence of the power and love of God.

Romans 12: 1 beseeches us to “present our bodies a living sacrifice wholly acceptable unto God that we may prove…”

living proof generic

That theme of proof is also affirmed in Acts 17:31 says, “because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Why is this tour different?  It is different because it faces the realities that are the key to this moment in American history.

1. America is no longer a Christian nation.  We have lost an entire generation.  Arguing about why this happened and assigning blame only wastes precious time.  It is what it is, and we cannot stay in denial.    We have to dust ourselves off and get fresh marching orders.  America is a new mission field and it demands a new strategy.

2.  Fresh miracles are the order of the day.   Because America is a pagan nation we must revert to a Book of Acts mind set.  Christ wants to do miracles to lay a fresh foundation of faith in the Bible.   By recognizing that the ills of society are works of Satan, we unleash power to see those works destroyed.

3.  Miracles set the stage for clear preaching.   Everything has been redefined so that our children do not know the God who made our nation great.  It is not enough for preaching to be interesting, it must also set the record straight.  Luke 21:15 says,“For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.”

In each and every night of this tour we will follow these edicts.  These are nights where worship will invoke a change in the atmosphere, miracles will break the chains and preaching will command souls to leave the darkness and follow Christ.

Let all of the family of God in Northern California seize this  great opportunity.  Come and bring those who need living proof.    To all of our partners and friends across America take heart!  We are going to be taking this message all corners of our nation.    Please pray for this historic outreach.

 Living Proof calendar blog

Good Friday April 18 marks the beginning of a remarkable tour.

 

norcal email and blog blast copy

You want to know the truth?  They went after our children with a vengeance unseen in history.  A harem of Hollywood operatives seduced them.  A battery of activist University Professors bullied them.  A malignant media provided a smoke screen and a poisoned well of politicians flat-out lied to them. The younger generation was seduced by promises of a better life.  

But the God haters took it to another level by turning moral teaching into hate speech.  George Orwell said, “In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”  

Isaiah said, “They say that what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right; that black is white and white is black; bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.” -Isaiah 5:18-22

George did not mean revolutionary in the way we have come to use it i.e. “a revolutionary way to wax your car.”  He meant that those who spoke the truth would be deemed enemies of the state.

Listen to Charles Krauthammer, “The left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

“The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian,” he explains. “It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.”

Because of this and many other factors experts say American youth are a lost cause to Christianity.  How can we expect to counter the onslaught of modern evil and win the young?  How can we expect to compete with such monstrous power?

The answer is to take a closer look!  If you do you will see that a door of opportunity has opened.  Youth have seen the beast!  They are feeling the aftermath.  The brave new world of justice and prosperity never dawned.  The equality never transpired, for that matter neither did the medical coverage, the prosperity or the promised of hope and change.  What they do see is an angry self-serving tyranny that has endangered their future.

souls in San Jose

 

The wreckage of his administration and the cruelty of his actions toward political enemies are now painfully clear to youth in America.

In a detailed, national poll released last month by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, nearly half of young voters said they would recall President Obama if they could. Think of that!

There is a great door opening to us and here is what we are going to do about it.

Good Friday April 18 marks the beginning of a remarkable tour.  Mario Murillo and Jennifer Azzato will team up to bring Living Proof to Northern California.  Living Proof is not just a slogan but the literal goal of this tour.  In each and every city that is included in this tour will come a night where the claim that Christ is the Son of God will be backed up with miracles.

simplicity

As we see it, California leads the nation in this deception and this is where we need the miracle to start.

We need to declare truth!  The problem is not global warming…it is moral cooling.   We need miracles that will verify God’s love.   This tour provides the atmosphere for supernatural evidence to touch all who are willing to receive.  These are not nights to debate the existence of God but to experience the power of God.

The enemy we face is sophisticated, organized and well-funded.  Any endeavor with a human origin is doomed from the start.   Going forward, we must saturate our plans in prayer and only apply solutions from the Holy Spirit.  The ideas must come from Him. We will find the strategies we need, the words that will silence our enemy and the miracles that will confirm and convince a secular generation.

Join us in prayer and if you live within driving distance of one of these Living Proof events bring someone who needs Christ or a healing miracle.   Here is the Calendar of events:

Living Proof calendar blog

 

Part 2: It was never about equality.

removing family

Part 2: It was never about equality

3) LGBT Activists Say So Themselves: The Goal is to Abolish Marriage
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”  [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.
“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
maxresdefault

Ethics and Public Policy Institute scholar Stanley Kurtz wrote extensively about this document in two National Review articles, entitled The Confession and The Confession II. Kurtz noted that the intent of the sponsors of the manifesto – which as of 2006 had hundreds of prominent signatories, including Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martha Fineman, and Gloria Steinem – was “to dissolve marriage by extending the definition to every conceivable family type.”

Sunstein needn’t have “ducked the issue” of more than two parties in a domestic contract because legalizing polygamy is central to the manifesto. And there can be no doubt that the legalization of polygamy would result in the abolition of all state-recognized marriage. Polygamy — repackaged in the now trendy term “polyamory” – comes with an array of configurations too dizzying and with too many moving parts to be sustained as state-recognized marriage.
Despite the existence of the manifesto, the official line of the LGBT community still seems to be that gay marriage is only about equal rights for couples who love one another. Their spokespersons have been disciplined – with a friendly media running cover for them – in maintaining the official line so as not to provoke a debate about the real agenda to abolish marriage.
The-Benghazi-Lie
Supposedly conservative gay activists like Jonathan Rauch have also run cover and protected the timing of the agenda by claiming that the manifesto was merely a “fringe” of the LGBT movement. It’s irrelevant whether or not Rauch really believes his own propaganda that gay marriage will somehow strengthen a marriage culture by bringing loving gay couples into it. The main effect of the Rauch meme is to accelerate the abolition of civil marriage by hastening a legal framework for genderless marriage that will pave the way for total abolition of  civil marriage, and with it private family life.
It’s clear the gloves are coming off and timing has entered a new phase. The push for polyamory has gone mainstream, right on schedule. Supportive puff pieces on it are popping up in places like Atlantic Monthly and the erstwhile women’s magazineRedbook. In the end, polyamory serves only as a transitory way station between the legalization of same sex marriage and the abolition of civil marriage.
4) Growing Dominance of Singles
Recent decades have seen a sharp upsurge of unmarried households. According to theU.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 there were 103 million unmarried people 18 and older. That’s 44 percent of all US residents over 18. And 62 percent of those 103 million had never been married. Unmarried individuals represented 56 million households in 2012. The rise in singles has had an undeniably huge impact on the electorate. In the 2012 election 39 percent of the voters were unmarried, compared to 24 percent of the voters in the 1972 election.
The “Communication League for Unmarried Equality,” is a coalition of singles’ rights organizations which argues that government benefits for marriage – including tax breaks and survivor benefits in social security — amount to marital status discrimination. Its advocates argue that civil marriage unjustly awards financial, social, and cultural benefits to married individuals at the expense of unmarried individuals who end up subsidizing marriage and children, without compensation.  In addition, proponents of “unmarried equality” insist that the existence of these privileges serve to perpetuate prejudices and stereotypes about singles that inflict harm on them. (Sounds like a Supreme Court case brewing.)
Scattered-Rings
Bella DePaulo spearheaded the movement as a blogger and author of Singled Out andSinglism:  What it is, Why it Matters and How to Stop It.” According to DePaulo, the discrimination she calls “singlism” may seem more subtle than racism or sexism, but is just as damaging. She has tip-toed to the edge of advocating for the abolition of marriage, with a professor of feminist philosophy Elizabeth Blake, by saying that marriage should be “minimized” (for now) so that singles have the same benefits as married individuals. Which, naturally, means abolishing marriage.
“Singlism” itself is not yet considered a form of illegal discrimination. But DePaulo believes it should be:

“Because singlism is built right into American laws, it is not possible to be single and not be a target of discrimination. If you have followed the marriage equality debate, then you probably know that there are more than 1,000 federal laws that benefit or protect only those people who are legally married. Even if same-sex marriage becomes legal throughout the land, all those people who are single — whether gay or straight or any other status — will still remain second class citizens.”

 

5) Morphing of the Memes – from Marriage Equality to Marriage Ambivalence to Marriage Hostility
“Why would anyone get married?” That’s a quote from Nancy Pelosi in a Valentine’s Day interview last month, downplaying the importance of marriage. While some might say she’s simply courting the singles demographic, she’s mostly reinforcing and echoing a narrative that marriage is irrelevant or perhaps even harmful. She is contributing to the drumbeat to abolish civil marriage.
Let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves as a Stepford wife to the State.

Major cultural forces – the media, academia, and Hollywood – have already adopted an increasingly hostile view of marriage. We can see it in the use of the term “greedy marrieds” from a recent New York Times feature “The Changing American Family“: “Single people live alone and proudly consider themselves families of one — more generous and civic-minded than ‘greedy marrieds.’”

And look at NBC Sports in its coverage Olympic gold medalist skier David Wise. It described him as living an “alternative lifestyle” because he happened to be young and married with children.  The clear inference was that he was abnormal.
David Wise
The promotion and glorification of single parenting which got its start with the Murphy Brown TV series of the 1990s has gone into hyperdrive now. Check out online services such as Modamily, that matches people with “parenting partners,” with whom they can draw up a contract, arrange for artificial reproductive technologies, and forgo marriage.
And let’s not forget Julia, the mascot of Obama’s reelection campaign who serves, with more than a bit of irony, as a Stepford wife to the State. The narrative was clearly hostile to the idea of marriage and supportive of policies to abolish it.
6) LGBT Push for Same Sex Marriage in Developing Countries
The rush by LGBT activists and the Obama administration to lift bans on gay marriage in all 50 states is peculiarly fast and furious. Oddly so for a movement that seems to be gaining steam and social compliance. A reasonable question would be: What’s the rush if things are going so swimmingly your way? The only answer seems to be one of fragile timing.
The sudden LGBT push globally, especially in Africa, should give us pause as well. Why the abrupt shove into poor countries, threatening to cut off aid unless they comply with such a massive cultural shift and adopt the Western LGBT agenda? Why the laser focus on Uganda and Malawi instead of places like Iran where abuses of homosexuals are likely just as common?
We are witnessing a major strategy to export gay marriage – and all it entails for the abolition of marriage — worldwide. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have made an example of Uganda by threatening to cut off its aid over the existence of its anti-sodomy laws. Other developing nations are expected to take note and fall into line, creating a cascade effect until any other nation who resists will feel the noose tightening.
destruction of family small
We might reasonably ask why this particular agenda is getting so much attention while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. Syria is overrun with vicious terrorist gangs at least as bad as its president. Russia is flexing its muscles, having just invaded the Ukraine and Crimea. Christians are being exterminated in record numbers throughout the Middle East. We’re looking at nuclear weapons in Iran. There’s a nuclear threat from North Korea, which not only starves its own people but is run by a guy who, it was said, feeds his political enemies to starving dogs. And yet President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have been spending special quality time focusing on the LGBT agenda in in the poor countries of Africa?
Clearly the Western LGBT agenda represents a new brand of cultural imperialism that is not content to shape life at home, but intends to propagate itself – and all it entails –worldwide.

Ending Marriage Leads To A Centralized All Powerful State

liberal god delusion copy

The hard push for marriage equality was never about marriage. Neither was it about equality. It’s a convenient vehicle to abolish civil marriage, whether to rid the world of paternalism, evade responsibility for children, “privatize” relationships, or whatever. Abolishing marriage strips the family of its autonomy by placing it much more directly under the regulating control of the state.
Once the state no longer has to recognize the marriage relationship and its presumption of privilege and privacy, we all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state, officially strangers to one another. We lose the space – the buffer zone – that the institution of the natural, organic family previously gave us and that forced the state to keep its distance.
Isn’t it ironic that feminists would replace the “paternalism” of marriage (what happened to strong women?) with the new paternalism of state regulation of personal relationships? Isn’t it ironic that singles in this scheme of things simply end up marrying the state?
At some point, we must conclude that freedom of association has its source in state acceptance of the core family as the primary buffer zone between the individual and the state. There is no escaping this fact, no matter a particular generation’s attitude or public opinion polling, or advances in medical technology, or whatever else comes our way.
Marriage Is The Template For Freedom Of Association
Without state recognition of – and respect for – marriage, can freedom of association survive? How so? On what basis?
Civil marriage provides the entire basis for presuming the rights and responsibilities of biological parents to raise their own children. It also assumes the right of spouses to refuse to testify against one another in court. It presumes survivorship – in guardianship of children as well as inheritance of property. If we abolish civil marriage, these will no longer be rights by default, but rights to be distributed at the pleasure of a bureaucratic state.
When a couple enters into a civil marriage, they are not inviting the government into their relationship, but rather putting the government on notice that they are a family unit. It’s the couple – not the state – that’s in the driver’s seat.Otherwise, they needn’t marry. Otherwise, central planners wouldn’t be so intent on abolishing marriage as a private and autonomous association from which the state must keep its distance, unless one partner wishes to exit by divorce.
civil
Children – i.e., all of us born into a family – inherit that presumption of autonomy and broadcast it into society. We do so whether or not we ever get married ourselves. The presumption of family autonomy and privacy informs our right to freely associate with others – through romances, friendships, business contracts, and so on. It would be catastrophic to freedom if we threw it away.
State recognition of this autonomy cannot exist without state recognition of marriage. In fact, traditional marriage — just like traditional oxygen if you will – helps all of society breathe more freely.
If civil marriage is abolished, you can say hello to the government at your bedroom door because that comfortable little meme about “getting the state out of the marriage business” will have flown out your bedroom window while you were sleeping.
Stella Morabito can be followed on Twitter here.  She blogs at www.stellamorabito.net

Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy

Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy

The goal isn’t equality – it’s abolishing an institution.

Abolishing all civil marriage is the primary goal of the elites who have been pushing same sex marriage. The scheme called “marriage equality” is not an end in itself, and never really has been. The LGBT agenda has spawned too many other disparate agendas hostile to the existence of marriage, making marriage “unsustainable,” if you will. By now we should be able to hear the growing drumbeat to abolish civil marriage, as well as to legalize polygamy and all manner of reproductive technologies.
Consider also the breakneck speed at which the push for same sex marriage has been happening recently. The agenda’s advocates have been very methodical in their organization, disciplined in their timing, flush with money, in control of all information outlets, including media, Hollywood, and academia. And perhaps most telling is the smearing of any dissenter in the public square, a stigma made de rigueur by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in his animus-soaked opinion that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act.
We’ve seen also how the Obama Administration’s push for same sex marriage has occurred in lockstep with policies that are hostile to marriage, such as the severe marriage penalty written into Obamacare.
Holder
Activist judges have taken their cues from Attorney General Eric Holder who used the DOMA repeal to proclaim open season on any state that recognizes marriage as an organic (i.e., heterosexual) union of one man and one woman. In their crosshairs are state constitutions, businesses, students, communities, churches, and all of those bogus “conscience clauses” that were written into same sex marriage legislation in order to sway wavering state legislators to vote “aye.”
The tipping point came soon after certain big name conservatives and pundits swallowed the bait on same sex marriage. Folks like Michael Barone, John Bolton, George Will, S. E. Cupp, and David Blankenhorn have played a huge role in building momentum for this movement, which, as we will see, is blazing a trail to the abolition of state recognized marriage. And whether they know it or not, advocacy for same sex marriage is putting a lot of statist machinery into motion. Because once the state no longer has to recognize your marriage and family, the state no longer has to respect the existence of your marriage and family.
Without civil marriage, the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. This has huge implications for the survival of freedom of association.
obama_hillary_cash-thumb
The notion of marriage equality was never about marriage or about equality. It’s all about the wrapping paper. It’s been packaged as an end in itself, but it is principally just a means to a deeper end. It is the means by which marriage extinction – the true target — can be achieved. If marriage and family are permitted to exist autonomously, power can be de-centralized in society.  So the family has always been a thorn in the side of central planners and totalitarians. The connection between its abolition and the limitless growth of the state should be crystal clear. So anyone who has bought into this movement, or is tempted to do so, would want to step back and take a harder look.

Six Indicators We’re Headed Directly for Abolishing Civil Marriage

 

We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of  Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa.

removing family

1) The Gender Theorist Model: Replace civil marriage with government-regulated contractual relationships
Collectivist style parenting may still seem like the stuff of science fiction to a lot of folks, but the ground for it has softened a lot since Hillary Clinton’s 1996 treatise It Takes a Village and American Federation of Teachers president Sandra Feldman’s 1998 op-ed “The Childswap Society.” We now have MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perrydeclaring open war on traditional families by announcing “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
She envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family

The abolition of marriage and family has been a longtime project of gender theorists. Among them is internationally renown feminist law theorist Martha Albertson Fineman whose 2004 book The Autonomy Myth argues strenuously for “the abolition of marriage as a legal category.” Her treatise is breathtaking in its brazen approach to ending family autonomy and privacy.

Fineman advocates for a system that would unavoidably result in the regulation of personal relationships through legal contracts. “Contract,” she writes “is an appealing metaphor with which to consider social and political arrangements. It imagines autonomous adults” hashing out the terms, etc. Yet she envisages that the State will fill the vacuum left by the abolition of family [emphasis added]:

“. . . in addition to contract rules, I anticipate that ameliorating doctrines would fill the void left by the abolition of this aspect of family law. In fact, it seems apparent to me that a lot more regulation (protection) would occur once interactions between individuals within families were removed from behind the veil of privacy that now shields them.”

Fineman operates on the apparent assumption that family privacy serves no purpose other than to afford institutional protection for men behaving badly. Her prescription is sweeping: “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society.” [emphasis added]
maxresdefault
There you have it. All of your social interactions judged by certain standards. Standards established by whom? The state. And lest our eyes glaze over at mention of it, we ought to think of the State for what it really is: a hierarchy of cliques, with one dominant clique at the top. (Think mean girls in charge of everything and everyone.)
Fineman replaces the word “spouse” with the term “sexual affiliate,” because, she professes, what we think of as “family” should be defined by its function, not its form. In other words, only “caretaker-dependent relationships” would be recognized in the sense that “family” is recognized today.
So the abolition of marriage, according to Fineman:

“would mean that sexual affiliates (formerly labeled husband and wife) would be regulated by the terms of their individualized agreements, with no special rules governing fairness and no unique review or monitoring of the negotiation process.”

Feel better?  Fineman also states approvingly that:

“if the family is defined functionally, focused on the caretaker-dependent relationship, the traditionally problematic interactions of sexual affiliates (formerly designated “spouses”) are not protected by notions of family privacy.”

Indeed, no interaction could be protected by “notions of family privacy” in Fineman’s model. She elaborated further and more recently on all of this in an October 2013 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.
2) Friends in High Places promote Fineman’s Model of State-Regulated Contracts
Cass Sunstein, who served as President Obama’s regulatory czar from 2009 to 2012, has advocated strongly for the abolition of civil marriage and its replacement with contracts that would negotiate the terms of personal relationships.
In 2008 Sunstein published an article in the Cardozo Law Review arguing that there is no constitutional right to marry and suggesting that “states may abolish marriage without offending the Constitution.” And an entire chapter of a popular book Sunstein co-authored with Richard Thaler in 2008 is devoted to arguing for the abolition of civil marriage. This is from Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

“Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government.  . . . Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.*(*Footnote:  We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people.)”

Scattered-Rings

Sunstein and Thaler dub their approach “libertarian paternalism,” an odd jargon which seems contrived to win over readers by evoking a strange juxtaposition of moderation and a heavy touch of the archaic.
Clearly, Sunstein has been laying the groundwork for the abolition of civil marriage. He purports that this would get the government out of a “licensing scheme,” but his specious phrasing is a fig leaf covering up the predictable effects of his approach: greater government regulation of personal relationships. His popular writing on the subject comes in the guise of “privatization” of relationships – even as gender theorists like Fineman argue against America’s “obsession” with privacy and individualism. But this is not a difficult circle to square. Thaler and Sunstein argue, pretty much in line with Fineman, that people ought to make use of contracts to define the terms of their relationships. And contracts invite – indeed, for Fineman, they demand – that the government function as an intimate partner in this legal ménage a trois.
3) LGBT Activists Say So Themselves: The Goal is to Abolish Marriage
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”  [Applause.] “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
Gessen was merely echoing a message from an LGBT manifesto of 2006 called Beyond Same Sex Marriage. The manifesto is a blatant rallying cry to bring about a post-marriage society, one in which there is no room for state-recognized marriage.
“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Ethics and Public Policy Institute scholar Stanley Kurtz wrote extensively about this document in two National Review articles, entitled The Confession and The Confession II. Kurtz noted that the intent of the sponsors of the manifesto – which as of 2006 had hundreds of prominent signatories, including Cornel West, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martha Fineman, and Gloria Steinem – was “to dissolve marriage by extending the definition to every conceivable family type.”

 

Sunstein needn’t have “ducked the issue” of more than two parties in a domestic contract because legalizing polygamy is central to the manifesto. And there can be no doubt that the legalization of polygamy would result in the abolition of all state-recognized marriage. Polygamy — repackaged in the now trendy term “polyamory” – comes with an array of configurations too dizzying and with too many moving parts to be sustained as state-recognized marriage.
831d97c45bf56feed20f1992ae031070d0cd6bc98830f3b635ffe95a8afda632
Despite the existence of the manifesto, the official line of the LGBT community still seems to be that gay marriage is only about equal rights for couples who love one another. Their spokespersons have been disciplined – with a friendly media running cover for them – in maintaining the official line so as not to provoke a debate about the real agenda to abolish marriage.
Supposedly conservative gay activists like Jonathan Rauch have also run cover and protected the timing of the agenda by claiming that the manifesto was merely a “fringe” of the LGBT movement. It’s irrelevant whether or not Rauch really believes his own propaganda that gay marriage will somehow strengthen a marriage culture by bringing loving gay couples into it. The main effect of the Rauch meme is to accelerate the abolition of civil marriage by hastening a legal framework for genderless marriage that will pave the way for total abolition of  civil marriage, and with it private family life.
It’s clear the gloves are coming off and timing has entered a new phase. The push for polyamory has gone mainstream, right on schedule. Supportive puff pieces on it are popping up in places like Atlantic Monthly and the erstwhile women’s magazine Redbook. In the end, polyamory serves only as a transitory way station between the legalization of same sex marriage and the abolition of civil marriage.
Tomorrow we will present part two of this urgent article.

WHY THIS MIGHT BE ‘ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN DOCUMENTS EVER DISCOVERED’

WHY THIS MIGHT BE ‘ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN DOCUMENTS EVER DISCOVERED’

Jan. 25, 2014 10:42am 

  • A recently deciphered 4,000-year-old tablet from ancient Mesopotamia purportedly contains the specifications for an ark to endure a great flood — and it predates the Biblical story of Noah.

It describes a huge vessel, two-thirds the size of a soccer field, with high walls and made with so much rope that “stretched out in a line would reach from London to Edinburgh.”

“…one of the most important human documents ever discovered.”

Share:

The tablet — subject of a new book titled, “The Ark Before Noah” — was put on display Friday at the British Museum and is claimed by the museum’s assistant keeper of the Middle East, Irving Finkel, to be “one of the most important human documents ever discovered.”

A 4,000 Year Old Tablet Contains Specifications for a Giant Ark Pre Dating the Biblical Story of Noah

Finkel said he received the tablet several years ago from a man who said his father had acquired it in the Middle East.

“This tablet, however, turned out to be one in a million,” he said in a blog post.

“This tablet, however, turned out to be one in a million.”

Share:

Other historians agree.

David Owen, professor of ancient Near Eastern studies at Cornell University, told Fox News it was an “extraordinary discovery.”

A 4,000 Year Old Tablet Contains Specifications for a Giant Ark Pre Dating the Biblical Story of Noah

But, while the tablet describes an ark strikingly similar to Noah’s and would be designed to save two of each animal, the tablet specifies a circular vessel, not a rectangular ark.

“It was really a heart-stopping moment — the discovery that the boat was to be a round boat,” said Finkel, according to Fox News. “That was a real surprise.”

Finkel added that a circular vessel would be a “perfect thing,” because it “never sinks, it’s light to carry.”

He also contends that his discovery does not provide evidence supporting the Biblical story of Noah’s ark, instead saying the tale was likely passed down from Babylon.

“I’m sure the story of the flood and a boat to rescue life is a Babylonian invention,” he reportedly said.

“I don’t think the ark existed — but a lot of people do,” Finkel added. “It doesn’t really matter. The Biblical version is a thing of itself and it has a vitality forever.”

Will speaking out against the Obama administration close the door to soul winning with youth?

blog on youth copy

Will speaking out against the Obama administration close the door to soul winning with youth?

By Mario Murillo

Exhibit one: Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure from the nonprofit organization that makes the popular Firefox web browser because he does supports traditional marriage.

Ironically Mozilla’s creed says “Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” the statement goes on. “We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.” But the company is plainly taking the position that it won’t employ, in leadership positions, anyone who publicly holds orthodox Christian or Muslim views on gay marriage.

449w

Here is a chilling moment: Mr. Eich was recently given the chance to repudiate his belief in traditional marriage in a setting reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition and refused to do so.

Andrew Sullivan’s the noted gay blogger said about Mozilla firing Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich  “Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out.”

This intolerant behavior by Mozilla is straight out of the Obama playbook and that fact is not lost on our young.

 

 

Exhibit two: Rand Paul gets standing ovation in Berkeley.

BERKELEY, Calif. — delivering a rare speech for a Republican at this bastion of liberalism, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday was given multiple standing ovations by the left-wing audience after railing against government surveillance and warning the students: “Your right to privacy is under assault.”

“I am here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you’re under surveillance,” he told the crowd.- Politico.

rand-paul

Exhibit three: Youth turn on Obama.

The Boston Globe said, “Domestic spying by the government, the technological incompetence demonstrated in the launch of the Obama health care marketplace, the continued weakness in the economy — all have conspired to undermine Democrats’ big advantage among young voters, ages 18 to 29, according to specialists.

In a detailed, national poll released last month by Harvard’s Institute of Politics, nearly half of young voters said they would recall President Obama if they could. Only 41 percent approved of the job Obama was doing, an 11-point drop from six months earlier.”

Obama and his cronies have overplayed their hand with youth.  The wreckage of his administration, the cruelty of his actions toward his political enemies and his arrogant spending are now painfully clear to youth in America.

souls in San Jose

I am convinced that Ministers who soft peddle the Gospel and appear to be compliant with the government will lose credibility with American youth.

It sounds hip and cool to stay out of the fray but the thing that youth are going to remember about those preachers is that they sat silently as Obama washed their future down the drain.

The key is to preach against the administration in the context of a larger vision for America and the promise of a future in Christ. We are not to preach a right wing message but we can condemn the violation of the American constitution and the oppression of individual rights.  Calling Obama into account will not close the door to youth; in this case, I believe it will open it.

Is it politics or is it fear?

politics or fear

Is it politics or is it fear?

By Mario Murillo

 

What would you do if they expelled your young daughter from school for being a Christian?  What if it had nothing to do with bad behavior?  She was expelled for her beliefs…pure and simple.  What would you do?  You would storm down to the principal’s office and demand your rights.

You could also understand your neighbor doing the same thing if this happened to one of their children.  One thing you would not do is accuse your neighbor of being judgmental, political or “not walking in love.”

Many Christians think that speaking out against Obama, Eric Holder, the IRS, and the NSA is “different” than parents protecting their children against coercive schools.  Oh really?  How is it different?  The only thing I can see that is different is that it hasn’t hit home yet.  So far we have seen executives fired for defending traditional marriage; the IRS attacking Billy Graham; healthcare hijacked and all of our phone calls monitored.  If they do all of this today what will they do tomorrow?

You say, “If my child is banished for being Christian I would act!”  The problem is that by that time it is too late.  The local school is usually the final stop for tranny.  Before there can be a blatant attempt to ban Christianity at school a lot of other bad things must first take place, and they are.   

The public must be reprogrammed to accept the loss of freedom. Tranny trickles down through several layers like acid eating its way down to the hull of a ship.

But Romans 13 tells Christians not to speak out against rulers right?   Verse 2 says,  “Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”

The ruling authority of the United States is the Constitution, something the White House swore to uphold and protect. Instead, it has been this administration’s unswerving passion to undermine the first 4 amendments to the Constitution; setting aside everything from freedom of speech to the right to privacy.

In my opinion, they are the ones that Romans 13 says is resisting authority.  This administration has crossed a dangerous threshold!

firsrt amendment copy

There are tens of millions of Americans who would take it one step further and say that they even question the validity of the last election.

This is not the first time that Christian leaders have had to reach a painful point of opposition that was not popular.  In the 20th century Christian heroes opposed tyranny:

silence blog

Pastor Richard Wurmbrand stood alone among more than 1,000 leaders to denounce the control of Romanian communism.

Dietrich Bonheoffer was a German theologian famous for his stand against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. His beliefs and convictions ultimately cost him his life in a Nazi concentration camp.

Corrie Ten Boom violated German law by hiding Jews in her home.

Watchman Nee was persecuted and imprisoned for his faith by Chairman Mao and spent the last twenty years of his life in prison.

Billy Graham Ad

Each one of these heroes had that moment of denial that said, “This can’t be happening!” Each one came to that point of clarity in their conscience.  Each one said, “This is the right thing to do.”  Each one faced rejection for trying to convince others of impending coming tyranny.

It is ironic that each is honored as a hero but if they were alive today most Christians would reject open opposition to political leadership. 

Today there is a greater danger because when Hitler, Mao and Stalin raised their evil empires there was a free America that could intervene.  Where will you or anyone else go for freedom if America itself is overtaken by tyranny?

For a growing number of Christian leaders and me it is time to speak out.  The silence we see today is not because of politics but because of fear.  It is time to quit hiding behind that excuse.

It is not my place to order any leader to speak out.   I can only tell you what I believe passionately; I believe that the leadership of the American Church should unite to stop this administration and hold them legally accountable for the damage they have done to our freedoms.

Tomorrow I want to talk to you why my stance is not going to hinder my ability to win youth to Christ and why it is not too late for effective action.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 384 other followers