Community Impact – CINews
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Special Session … or not
Aliens and Demons … synonymous?
“Truth” to the new-age liberal is irrelevant. To the atheist, the physical world holds all “truth.” To the pantheist, everything is god, so everything is a piece of “truth,” while none have all “truth.” The idea of God, speaking through His Word, the Bible, is offensive to these worldviews, so it is suppressed and marginalized. Though a work of fiction, Apocalypse 2012 (2009), Gary Jennings, depicts an ancient Aztec prophesy for the year 2012. The recent two-hour network TV documentary Earth 2100 depicted a “worst case” scenario for the planet earth. Enter the “aliens.” If we cannot save the earth, perhaps something else can. Front page endorsement of Jennings’ Apocalypse 2012 is Whitley Strieber, author of 2012: The War for Souls (2008). War for Souls was a sequel to his 2006 book, The Grays. The Grays draws heavily from Communion (1987), the author's “factual” controversial account of his personal contact with aliens.
Is there a Biblical answer to all this? YES!
From Australia, Gary Bates is much in demand for his lectures on the creation vs evolution issue. But he is also a leading Christian authority on the UFO/aliens phenomenon due to his best-selling book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. This summer he will also be a featured speaker at the Ancient of Days 2009 Christian Symposium on Aliens; part of the annual Roswell UFO festival. For more information click here.
· Monday June 29, 6:30pm, public meeting, Foot of the Cross Ministry, First Baptist Church of Ruidoso 2816 Sudderth Dr, Ruidoso 88345.
· Tuesday June 30, 6:30pm, public meeting, Faith Bible Church, 9600 Central SE, Albuquerque 87123.
· Wednesday July 1, 7:00pm, Sandia Baptist Church, 9429 Constitution NE, Albuquerque 87112.
· Saturday July 4–Sunday July 5, conference, Ancient of Days/2009 Roswell UFO Conference, 2000 N Main St, Roswell 88201.
· Sunday July 5, 8:30am & 10:30am, Calvary Chapel of Roswell, 2901 West 4th Street, Roswell 88201.
Was the War for Independence Biblical?
How to reconcile “defense” with Rom 13, Heb 13:17, and 1 Pet 2:13?
The American War for Independence was neither a rebellion, nor an insurrection as was the French Revolution. It was a biblical act of self-defense against a foreign invader. That foreign invader, the nation of Great Britain, acted without legal basis for its attempted conquest of the people of America. For this reason, I have long thought that a more appropriate title for the struggle would be "The War of British Aggression." Read the rest at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/712583/posts.
Albuquerque Seminar on Cyber Stalking – Part II of III
Dialog with an Atheist – Part III of V
Magnificent! I love your questions. Deep thought. We're starting to converge on a conclusion. Though beginning the dialog with a challenge to Scripture, now you broaden to all religions.
America was founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs so naturally American law (city, state, and federal) also reflects
those principles. Now that other religions have grown in proportion to our Judeo-Christian Heritage, we see other
We already know that Muslim, Jewish, and Christian religions support traditional marriage, so that leaves
Kabalic, Scientology, and Atheist on your list.
I had never heard of Kabbalah, so I looked it up. http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm
As other religions grow in number, we can expect to see different influences on civil law. Each argues from a religious perspective. Yes, atheism is a religion. It takes great faith to believe there is no god. One must be omniscient to know there is no god. One is god if one is omniscient, therefore there is a god. One could claim the probability is very low that god exists, but that would be agnostic. Intelligent design indicates the probability is quite low that god does not exist.
"Equal" rights can only exist if everyone is exactly the same. Everyone discriminates on some grounds. For example, the military excludes handicaps and obesity. Commercial airlines exclude pilots medically unfit. Therefore, our executive, judicial, and legislative systems control the type and extent of discrimination. We all have a voice and it comes down to power and principles.
So as Kabalic, Scientology, and atheism gain more power (regardless of proportion), we see the kind of debate we are faced with regarding homo marriage. Yet some representatives still wrestle with centuries of Judeo-Christian heritage in trying to appease
1) Those who believe that homosexual behavior is moral have the right to voice their opinion.
2) Those who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral have the right to voice their opinion.
With a lack of a common moral standard, that struggle will continue indefinitely - stronger or weaker depending on consequences. For example, an AIDS epidemic would normally warrant quarantine. Abstinence education is much more popular in Africa where AIDS is much more prevalent.
1) Based on social science - society cannot survive without a common standard of traditional marriage.
2) Based on medical science, homosexual behavior is destructive - AIDS, STDs, relationships.
3) Those who approve of homosexual behavior advocate the allocation of great sums of money to avoid the consequences (supported by all taxpayers).
Now, the questions of incest and divorce.
1) Incest was prohibited after the gene pool became so depleted as to cause birth defects when conceiving children between close relatives. The first children were so close to the perfect gene pool of Adam and Eve that the effects were minimal. You may believe in evolution rather than creation but should also recognize the evidence of birth defects. But should birth defects be a cause for a civil prohibition against lovers? Surely not with abortion and birth control! (Notice the means to control the consequences.) God did however, establish the perfect marriage relationship - one man and one woman - before the fall. It wasn't a free-for-all orgy. If you believe in an evolutionary model of human development, there would be some point in "human" history where marriage between one man and one woman was deemed beneficial. Now we are deciding if it's still beneficial without being able to test the consequences for several generations, other than what history can teach us.
2) Jesus said divorce was for the hardness of hearts, but from the BEGINNING it was NOT so (Matt 19:8). You may not believe in Jesus but should recognize the devastation of divorce, especially on children. Adultery, like sodomy used to be illegal. Divorce (prior to no-fault) used to be much more difficult. There was societal pressure to stay married. So I agree with you, divorce is a national travesty. Now we see the government attempting to control the consequences of divorce with child care and welfare. Taxpayers again. We pay for immorality (sexual "freedom" si vous plait).
This is just one step on a long continuum. We shall likely see attempts to legalize prostitution, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, bestiality, etc. There is already an organization NAMBLA that promotes the legalization of man-boy sexual relationships.
You have the freedom to put whatever, wherever, but not on my nickel or at the risk of destroying the society we all live in - however temporary.
Jesus is coming back to judge the nations. Repent, the time is near!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 7:04 PM
Subject: RE: Marriage, Part II
The issue is granting every human being in this country EQUAL rights under the law regardless of religion. It shouldn't matter if one is Muslim, Kabalic, Jewish, Scientology, Christian, Atheist, etc. Homosexuals deserve the same rights under the law.
You mentioned incest............according to your beliefs who did the Children of Adam and Eve have sex with? Yeah........right............when it's convenient for your belief pattern you can twist everything to fit your model of belief.
Religion has always been about power and control. Have you ever considered that some people DO NOT BELIEVE in the bible? WHY should they be subject to its laws if this country was formed to protect ALL regardless of religion.
Why isn't divorce illegal? It's OK to stand up in front of God and vow to stay together forever and then get a divorce. It shouldn't matter where a man puts his xxxxx or where a woman puts her xxxxx. We all deserve equal rights. Some people think bible thumpers should not hold public office, would that be fair?
Bible Alive Theater – 2009 Schedule
The Albuquerque Journal printed an editorial by Phil Sevilla as a guest columnist piece. The title was not his. Expect a blowback piece from liberal politicians and/or a homosexual activist organizations like Equality New Mexico. Please keep alert and watch out for a response and seriously consider replying with a letter to the editor or comments. You can send a letter to editor of the Albuquerque Journal online by going to: http://www.abqjournal.com/letters/new.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Traditional Marriage Deserves Reward by Phil Sevilla, Rio Rancho Resident
A recent article in the Journal reported that the state Democratic Party is endorsing same-sex marriage in its state platform. Considering there are only four states in the Union and seven countries that have legally recognized same-sex couples, this is the single hot potato issue which could turn large numbers of New Mexican voters against the Democratic Party.
I would like to offer a traditional view on marriage based on the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. There are approximately 500,000 Catholics in the state representing the largest religious group, so the moral values of Catholics are an important consideration despite the fact that there are some members who dissent from the long-standing teachings of their church. This is similarly the case experienced by all other church-affiliated groups.
The Catholic Church teaches that the traditional marriage covenant is between one man and one woman, a sacred sacrament handed down over thousands of years. She (the Church) is right in objecting to any direct assault on the sanctity of marriage, an institution that is as old as human existence. This institution is respected in societies that pre-date Christianity. Common sense and reason compel it.
Our marriage laws are not only rooted in divine but also the natural law. Children are best raised in families with married parents, with one father and one mother. Same-sex relationships are not complementary and natural and should not be protected as an institution that fosters the common good.
Government has no business violating and undoing the natural law and affording artificial rights that are not ordered to the good of society. A wise man once said, "God forgives all the time; men sometimes, nature never!"
The principal goal of any society is to promote the health and welfare of its citizens and to reproduce itself. Contrary to what the population controllers preach, the Western countries are imploding, relying on immigration to prop up their decreasing native-born ethnic populations.
Sociological studies show that there are major differences between traditional marriages and same-sex relationships in terms of relationship duration, promiscuity, commitment, health risks and rates of partner violence. Traditional marriages fare much better than non-traditional relationships. A well-documented resource to review these differences is available by going to www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02. The monograph offers valuable data from government reports and studies conducted in a number of European societies.
To directly respond to elected public officials' claims about discrimination and civil rights and to those who advocate same-sex marriage, let us be clear that most organized religions and national governments do not recognize homosexuality as a civil rights or equality issue and it is not the business of government to change the moral norms accepted by society or violate the natural order. Same-sex proclivities cannot be equated with gender (male or female) and race.
The American Civil War and later the civil rights movement 50 years ago concerned a racial class, that is, African-Americans, who fought for freedom. The American suffragette movement represented another class of citizens, women, who won the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920. African-Americans and women do not choose what they are. They are born that way. Men and women with same sex attractions are the only class who choose to define themselves by their sexual orientation.
While it is true that laws can be changed and be made subject to the whim of a few appointed judges, the stakes are very high in kicking marriage around like a political football. The foundation of our society depends on stable traditional institutions — marriage and family. It would be national suicide to continue the destructive trends of diminishing the hallowed and pre-eminent place of traditional marriage and family as the foundation of our society.
What is truly at stake is the preservation of our society and the health and welfare of our citizenry. We must strengthen and reward faithful marriage and traditional family life. Our future survival as a nation and society depends on it.
Phil Sevilla is a real estate professional and is also president of the Catholic Coalition of New Mexico, a nonprofit volunteer educational group promoting conservative and moral values in government policy.
Center for Traditional Family Values NM - http://www.traditionalvaluesnm.org
This email was sent from email@example.com. If you would like to stop receiving these emails please press here, email firstname.lastname@example.org, or call 505 971-2053. Please send info on your community events and articles for publication. Many of the links in CINews are only available in electronic form so if you’re looking at a paper copy and would like to receive CINews directly, please send your email address to email@example.com.