Snakes Are Dangerous -- In Church Or Elsewhere!

Paul Prather: Snakes are dangerous and so is taking the Bible too literally

Snakebite death of Middlesboro pastor was quick, son says; medical treatment refused
Jamie Coots, 42, was handling rattlesnakes during a Feb. 15 church service at Middlesboro's Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name. A snake bit his hand.

Shortly after, Coots lost consciousness.

According to news stories, he'd refused medical help for past snakebites and had urged his family not to take him to the hospital if he were ever bitten and incapacitated. So his loved ones refused medical treatment for him. Instead, they prayed.

He died.

Herein lies a problem with being too literal-minded about the Scriptures: it often forces you to defend untenable, even dangerous, positions.

I hold a high but more nuanced view of Scripture.

Before I tell you what I think about how we should interpret the Bible, let me assure you I mean no disrespect to Coots, his family or his church.

Surely, those who handle snakes are sincere. You have to be sincere to reach into a box of writhing vipers with your bare hands, whether in God's name or anyone else's.

But that, my dad would point out if he were still around, goes to show that you can be sincere — and yet be sincerely wrong.

Mark 16 contains this passage: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Mainstream scholars argue this passage isn't found in the earliest extant manuscripts of Mark, and apparently was added much later in the book's development, as manuscripts were endlessly copied and recopied.

Snake-handling Christians tend not to make these academic distinctions. They accept Mark, as they accept the rest of the Bible, at its literal words.

This calls to mind a larger issue within the Christian faith.

Very, very few Christians handle snakes — a micro-sliver-of-a-single-percentage-point of the religion's 2 billion members.

However, a great many Christians claim to believe the Bible is inerrant. They say it's 100 percent correct about any subject on which it speaks, even science or history.

A couple of weeks ago, for instance, I wrote a column that was partly about creationists, who, despite a century-and-a-half of accumulated scientific evidence to the contrary, insist the Earth was created in six 24-hour days, a few thousand years ago.

That's what Genesis seems to say, and creationists say they believe exactly what the Bible tells them, word for word, at face value.

To me, the danger there is that once you make it your primary spiritual mission in life to defend a questionable passage as unalterably, literally accurate down to the least jot or tittle, you open yourself up for unnecessary grief.

You won't end up petting copperheads, but you may waste oodles of time defending untenable scientific, historic or theological positions. You'll strain at gnats.

I'd humbly suggest another, and time-honored, means of approaching the Bible, and of understanding our faith in general.

It allows us to focus on the heart and soul of the Bible, its profound revelations and transcendent promises, without getting waylaid by less relevant details.

This approach has multiple origins. I happened to encounter it long ago through the works of John Wesley, the evangelist who in the 1700s co-founded Methodism.

Wesley thought the Bible should direct Christians' beliefs. But he also recognized the Bible as a tough book to decipher. To avoid our veering into tangents and excesses, he suggested we accompany our biblical interpretations with checks and balances.

First, he said, consider Christian history and tradition. How have the great body of good, thoughtful men and women understood a particular passage across the centuries?

Second, what does reason tell us? God gave us brains; he meant us to use them.

Finally, what does human experience, including our own experiences in life and in faith, say?

These tests are as valid today as when Wesley offered them.

Take the matter of snake handling.

Mark 16 urges me to handle snakes and drink poison. But church history, common sense and humans' long experiences with snakes all agree that's not a good idea. Those are two biblical admonitions yours truly won't be taking literally.

We can easily apply the same test to many Scriptures.

As we do, we start finding a healthier, more fulfilling balance in our beliefs.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/03/02/3116310/paul-prather-snakes-are-dangerous.html#storylink=cpy

By Exiting Papacy While Still Standing, Pope Benedict Follows An Admirable Precedent Uheard Of For Nearly 600 Years! Good For Him!!

By exiting papacy still alive, Pope Benedict follows a precedent not seen for 598 years
By Matthew Schofield

Before April 19, 2005, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger talked warmly of retiring. He was looking forward to a leisurely life, with his books, his brother and his beloved gray cat back in ancient Regensburg, Germany, where he owned a house.

But his plans changed when he was elected to head the Roman Catholic Church, becoming Pope Benedict XVI. Retirement was forgotten; the expectation was that Ratzinger, now Benedict, would die occupying “the chair of Peter,” as the pope’s throne is known.

Monday, Benedict shocked the world by announcing he would step down at the end of February, the first pope to do that in nearly 600 years. That the decision was so startling speaks more about the history of the church he led than his longevity, which was never expected to match the eight years he served. Benedict XVI became pope two days after his 78th birthday, having already survived a stroke. He admitted then that his reign might be short. Most popes die in their 70s.

When Benedict steps down at 8 p.m. Feb. 28 in Rome, age 85 years, 318 days, he will have lived longer than all but three of his 264 predecessors. Pope John Paul II was a full year younger when he died in 2005.

“After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,” Benedict said Monday.

He went on to note: “In today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005.”

Global reaction was immediate and respectful. President Barack Obama thanked him on behalf of all Americans and said, “I have appreciated our work together over these last four years.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: “If the pope himself has now, after thorough consideration, come to the conclusion that he no longer has sufficient strength to exercise his office, that earns my very highest respect. In our time of ever-lengthening life, many people will be able to understand how the pope as well has to deal with the burdens of aging.”

French President Francois Hollande called it “a humane decision and one tied to a desire that must be respected.” A spokesman for Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger told the Agence France-Presse news service that under Pope Benedict XVI, Judaism and Catholicism “became much closer . . . leading to a decrease in anti-Semitism around the world.”

The move makes him the first pope since Gregory XII in 1415 to retire. As that retirement came during a power struggle between Rome and France, when there were actually two and, for a short while, three popes, some church officials argue that the last pope to retire was Celestine V in 1294.

In fact, that it is possible for a pope to retire is thanks to Celestine V, a former hermit who served only five months and was imprisoned (and, legend has it, murdered) not long after leaving the office on orders of his successor. One of a handful of accomplishments by Celestine V was to write the canon that allows retirement, which noted ill health as a possible reason.

When Benedict visited Cuba in March 2012, he looked noticeably stronger than the stooped John Paul II had when he made the same trip in 1998 – when John Paul was just 78. But Benedict has been growing noticeably weaker in recent months. He no longer walks the 100 yards down the aisle at St. Peter’s Basilica to celebrate Mass; instead, he rides on a wheeled platform. He appeared to nod off during Christmas Eve services. Doctors reportedly had told him that he should not make a trans-Atlantic trip to Brazil scheduled for July.

If age alone were not debilitating enough, Benedict XVI’s time in charge has included the stress of dealing with the church’s global sexual abuse crisis, which at one point even threatened to taint Benedict’s brother, who was accused of non-sexual abuse of children at a time when the sexual abuse scandal was rocking Germany.

The scandals led German Cardinal Meisner earlier this month to talk about the prevailing mood of “Catholiphobia” in Germany and in much of Europe.

Unlike his plans before he accepted “canonical election as Supreme Pontiff,” Benedict won’t be returning to Regensburg. Instead, he’ll retire to a Vatican monastery, after a brief stay in Castel Gandolfo, officially the papal summer home, while his new quarters are readied.

Michael Klonovsky, a German author and Catholic, noted that the nature of the pope’s departure – meaning, alive – will lead to “critical voices concerning his resignation, some will say a reactionary pope failed, but maybe he just became a victim of inner-Vatican intrigues?”

Still, many Germans remember proudly his election, a moment that inspired the tabloid headline “We are Pope.”

“He is an intellectual, so he must be looking forward to going back to his writing and publishing,” Klonovsky noted. “He will be criticized for retiring, as a pope is supposed to die in the chair. But to resign is a more worldly thing to do – it shows a connection to the real world.

“And his brother must be happy. Benedict XVI always had to work on Christmas.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/11/182706/by-exiting-papacy-still-alive.html#storylink=cpy

EDITOR'S COMMENT:
WHAT THE POPE HAS DONE IS VERY COMMENDABLE AND ADMIRABLE.

WHILE HIS PREDECESSORS PREFERRED TO BE CARRIED OUT FEET FIRST, HE CHOSE A DIFFERENT ROUTE, AVOIDING REIGN AS A SENILE HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

TRUE FAITH REQUIRES NO JUDGING OF OTHERS.

Ky. voices: True faith requires acceptance, openness By Paschal Baute

"You know all Catholics are going to hell," my mother-in-law told my wife after we married.

"But mother, there are a lot of Catholics in the world," she replied.

"Honey," said her mother, "heaven won't be crowded." Then she added, "It's my duty to judge others."

Much later, after being in our home many times, she mellowed remarkably.

Growing up Catholic in a small Kentucky town, we were taught and believed that all Protestants were going to hell. The "we-they, white-versus-black" dichotomy was so strong. Catholic boys were forbidden to join the Boy Scouts because all the troop leaders were Protestant. Religion invites us to make our world views absolute. Is this still the main challenge of our civilization?

In both the West and the East, religious faith has assumed a monopoly on God's favor. The result has fueled wars, crusades, inquisitions, massive killing and now, suicide bombers. Religious persecution was so bad in Europe that inhabitants of 12 of our original 13 colonies crossed oceans to find religious freedom.

The superior privilege of Christian faith encouraged us to view native Americans as savages and so justify our actual genocides. Because the Bible accepted slavery, Christians justified the mass importation of Africans for slave labor in the cotton fields of the South. We fought a great and terrible Civil War, each region believing "God is on our side." Nazi Germany had 20 million Catholics and 40 million Lutherans. Some worshiped even in sight of the smoke of the crematoriums where 6 million Jews perished.

Each of the major faiths still claims a monopoly on the mysteries of God. This claim, I suggest, is the source of much hate and violence everywhere, not just in the Middle East. This "power over" attitude easily trickles down into political discourse. Rancor, stereotyping, labeling, misrepresentation and even lying are justified politically. We can too easily demonize those who think differently. Cable news and talk radio are full of this.

All the Abraham religions — Hebrew, Christian and Muslim — are guilty of these exclusive claims today. When we are raised in such cultures, we can easily transfer the absolute claims to other views, moral, social and political. We are so sure of our point of view that we do not need to listen to strangers. Civil discourse becomes almost impossible.

Yet Abraham kept his tent open on all four sides so he and Sarah could see strangers coming from all directions and so have food ready to welcome them. The Hebrew Bible commands us to "love the stranger" some 36 times. Is it time for religious leaders to surrender the exclusive claims of their traditions? This claim divides the world into "us" versus "they" — assuming privilege from God. Yet faith can only be truly accepted as a gift, as an obligation. We are commanded to love one another, even and especially, those who are different from us.

Our country was the first in history to be founded on principle rather than power. We claim power is from the people, not from the top down. Have we outsourced conscience? Should Americans be the first to remind all leaders, "All humans are created in God's image. We have the God-given freedom to find our own way." God now speaks in 7.000 different languages — not merely through the King James version of the bible.

My favorite quote from Christian tradition is from Gregory of Nyssa: "Concepts create idols; only wonder and awe understand anything." When we accept the incredible gift of faith, we are empowered with a vision of compassion, hope, forgiveness and graciousness. In contrast, the exclusive claims of religion divide us. Sadly, they are causing us to lose a generation of young people from our faith communities.

Human nature seeks power, but religion and power do not mix. We should stand up to religious leaders whose teachings serve to divide us. Can any of us presume to understand the heart of God if we have no heart for those who are unlike us?

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/09/29/2353925/true-faith-requires-acceptance.html#storylink=cpy

WATCH AS CNN'S SOLEDAD O'BRIEN AND OTHER GUESTS TRY TO BULLY HOUSTON'S LAKEWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH PASTOR JOEL OSTEEN INTO NOT BELIEVING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. PATHETIC, IF YOU ASK ME.

Watch Controversial Evangelist Pat Robertson Tell Husband To Divorce Wife With Alzheimers (Yes, He Said It!), And Gets Slammed By Fellow Peacher.

Evangelist Pleads Guilty To Defrauding Investors. I Guess He Could NOT Find Enough GULLIBLES To "Sow Seeds"!

Evangelist pleads guilty to defrauding oil investors

Evangelist and revival leader Ernest Cadick

avoided a trial Monday by pleading guilty Monday to 17 counts of fraud, admitting he solicited $718,000 for oil and gas ventures and other investments and spent the money on himself.

Government prosecutors said that from 1994 through 2008 Cadick fraudulently solicited 17 victims, including some he met at churches and religious events.

One investor alone lost $200,000, according to court records. The investors weren’t identified by name in Cadick’s indictment.

“The victims of these crimes were manipulated and their trust abused,” U.S. Attorney David Hale said in a statement.

Cadick entered the guilty plea as part of an agreement in which the government will recommend that he serve four years in prison and pay restitution equal to the amount of the fraud. The plea bargain must be approved by Judge John G. Heyburn II when Cadick is sentenced on Sept. 12.

He faced a maximum of 320 years in prison and a fine of $4 million if he had been convicted at trial in U.S. District Court in Louisville.

Cadick faces another trial July 11 in Jefferson Circuit Court on three counts of theft for allegedly taking $29,500 from elderly victims he met in Evangel World Prayer Center and telling them the dollar would collapse with the election of President Barack Obama.

In court papers, the federal government says that since 1995, Cadick solicited investments from dozens of other investors in addition to those named in the indictment and lived off their money, but never drilled any wells.

Cadick went so far as to pray with potential victims over their investments and invoke Scripture, Calhoun said in a pretrial memorandum.

Cadick already served six months in Franklin County Regional Jail in 2009 and 2010 for contempt of court when he reneged on a deal to repay $88,000 to defrauded investors, including some of the same victims allegedly targeted in the federal indictment.

Cadick, who owned and operated Bardstown-based Kingdom Oil Co., is one of at least a half-dozen Kentucky oilmen to be implicated in recent years in schemes to defraud investors and violate securities laws.

Although the other cases involved more money, the state Department of Financial Institutions has called Cadick's case particularly egregious because he earned the trust of investors in churches.

Cadick and his lawyer, chief federal public defender Scott Wendelsdorf, declined to comment before his trial and Wendelsdorf did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The case was prosecuted by It was signed Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brian Calhoun and Joe Ansari and investigated by the FBI.

"The Perils Of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity". I AGREE!

The Perils of 'Wannabe Cool' Christianity
By BRETT MCCRACKEN

"How can we stop the oil gusher?" may have been the question of the summer for most Americans. Yet for many evangelical pastors and leaders, the leaking well is nothing compared to the threat posed by an ongoing gusher of a different sort: Young people pouring out of their churches, never to return.

As a 27-year-old evangelical myself, I understand the concern. My peers, many of whom grew up in the church, are losing interest in the Christian establishment.

Recent statistics have shown an increasing exodus of young people from churches, especially after they leave home and live on their own. In a 2007 study, Lifeway Research determined that 70% of young Protestant adults between 18-22 stop attending church regularly.

Statistics like these have created something of a mania in recent years, as baby-boomer evangelical leaders frantically assess what they have done wrong (why didn't megachurches work to attract youth in the long term?) and scramble to figure out a plan to keep young members engaged in the life of the church.

Increasingly, the "plan" has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called "the emerging church"—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement. Perhaps because it was too "let's rethink everything" radical, it fizzled quickly. But the impulse behind it—to rehabilitate Christianity's image and make it "cool"—remains.

There are various ways that churches attempt to be cool. For some, it means trying to seem more culturally savvy. The pastor quotes Stephen Colbert or references Lady Gaga during his sermon, or a church sponsors a screening of the R-rated "No Country For Old Men." For others, the emphasis is on looking cool, perhaps by giving the pastor a metrosexual makeover, with skinny jeans and an $80 haircut, or by insisting on trendy eco-friendly paper and helvetica-only fonts on all printed materials. Then there is the option of holding a worship service in a bar or nightclub (as is the case for L.A.'s Mosaic church, whose downtown location meets at a nightspot called Club Mayan).

"Wannabe cool" Christianity also manifests itself as an obsession with being on the technological cutting edge. Churches like Central Christian in Las Vegas and Liquid Church in New Brunswick, N.J., for example, have online church services where people can have a worship experience at an "iCampus." Many other churches now encourage texting, Twitter and iPhone interaction with the pastor during their services.

But one of the most popular—and arguably most unseemly—methods of making Christianity hip is to make it shocking. What better way to appeal to younger generations than to push the envelope and go where no fundamentalist has gone before?

Sex is a popular shock tactic. Evangelical-authored books like "Sex God" (by Rob Bell) and "Real Sex" (by Lauren Winner) are par for the course these days. At the same time, many churches are finding creative ways to use sex-themed marketing gimmicks to lure people into church.

Oak Leaf Church in Cartersville, Georgia, created a website called yourgreatsexlife.com to pique the interest of young seekers. Flamingo Road Church in Florida created an online, anonymous confessional (IveScrewedUp.com), and had a web series called MyNakedPastor.com, which featured a 24/7 webcam showing five weeks in the life of the pastor, Troy Gramling. Then there is Mark Driscoll at Seattle's Mars Hill Church—who delivers sermons with titles like "Biblical Oral Sex" and "Pleasuring Your Spouse," and is probably the first and only pastor I have ever heard say the word "vulva" during a sermon.

But are these gimmicks really going to bring young people back to church? Is this what people really come to church for? Maybe sex sermons and indie- rock worship music do help in getting people in the door, and maybe even in winning new converts. But what sort of Christianity are they being converted to?

In his book, "The Courage to Be Protestant," David Wells writes:"The born-again, marketing church has calculated that unless it makes deep, serious cultural adaptations, it will go out of business, especially with the younger generations. What it has not considered carefully enough is that it may well be putting itself out of business with God.

"And the further irony," he adds, "is that the younger generations who are less impressed by whiz-bang technology, who often see through what is slick and glitzy, and who have been on the receiving end of enough marketing to nauseate them, are as likely to walk away from these oh-so-relevant churches as to walk into them."

If the evangelical Christian leadership thinks that "cool Christianity" is a sustainable path forward, they are severely mistaken. As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true. It's because the world we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched—and we want an alternative. It's not because we want more of the same.

Mr. McCracken's book, "Hipster Christianity: Where Church and Cool Collide" (Baker Books) was published this month.

Editor's comment: "... we inhabit is utterly phony, ephemeral, narcissistic, image-obsessed and sex-drenched".

B-I-N-G-O

Religious Sign Erector Jimmy Harston Puts Smiles On Faces Of God's Children.

A sign from God
Allen County man feels led to erect billboards
By NATALIE JORDAN

Jimmy Harston lives on a quiet farm six miles north of Scottsville, but his messages along some of the busiest interstate highways in America are loud and clear.

“I didn’t really know what to put up at first, and I prayed about it,” he said.

For years, Harston has sought out places for billboards on the private property of landowners who, like Harston, wanted to express their Christian beliefs. The signs, which can be seen from the interstate, bear content such as parts of the Ten Commandments, “Hell is Real,” “If You Died Today Where Would You Spend Eternity?” and “Jesus Saves.”

“I put these up for the people who wants them on their property. They want the signs on their property,” he said. “The Lord put this on me ... to do, and it’s not easy to do ... and I don’t think I put up as many as I should.”

Harston has met opposition over the billboards. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Department of Highways in 2008 sued to have his signs along Interstate 65 taken down. Harston lost the initial court cases, but appeals are pending.

“I felt bad,” Harston said. “I didn’t want the attention, the litigation. It’s hard enough to put up signs without fighting the state.”

But despite the legal fight, Harston said he had to put the billboards up. “The Lord put it on my heart,” he said.

Harston put up his first sign 20 years ago on U.S. 31 E, and it still stands.

“It was in the wintertime,” he said. “I felt a nagging to do it.”

Harston said even then, when putting up the sign, he was told he couldn’t. A law says no billboards should be erected 660 feet from the state highway for the use of profit.

But he says these signs aren’t for profit.

Harston said about four or five years after he put up his first sign, he had a “nagging” to put up another - this time in Barren County.

And just seven years ago, Harston said the Lord put it on him to erect these billboards wherever he could. That meant Arkansas, Tennessee, eight in Ohio and three along the I-65 stretch between Warren and Larue counties. The last one he put up was on Interstate 10, outside Fort Stockton, Texas.

A billboard containing the Ten Commandments is in front of Cedar Cross Missionary Baptist Church, in the Cedar Springs community outside Scottsville, where Harston attends. He erected it after the church asked him to.

“It belongs to the church,” he said. “It’s not mine.

“These billboards are about freedom of speech and expressing religious beliefs,” he said.

And Harston’s point of view is shared by many, including House Rep. Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green. Richards said that while messages on the billboards may be offensive to nonbelievers, property owners are within their rights to express their beliefs.

“It’s unfortunate some are offended by that,” he said.

Harston leases the property on which the signs sit through the Spring Corp., whose stockholders are Harston, his wife, Kathy, and their children. One such lease exists between Harston and Warren County residents Donnie and Brenda Kimbro.

Kimbro, who owns about 89 acres off I-65, has had the billboard Harston erected since former Gov. Ernie Fletcher was in office.

It reads “Jesus Saves” on one side and “Jesus Died for Our Sins” on the other.

“I feel like a sign like this should be left alone. It’s a religious message we want people to see. It may change somebody’s life,” he said. “It’ll break my heart to take it down. I just don’t think it’s right to do so.”

Kimbro said they linked with Harston through another contact, who told them of Harston’s interstate messages.

“We talked to Harston, who said he felt like it was God’s calling,” he said. “Me and my wife discussed it, came up with the message we wanted to display.”

Kimbro said people may see the signs and it could cause them to go the right way, and it seemed like the right thing to do. He said when putting the sign up, people passing by would wave or beep or give a thumbs up.

“And I knew letting Harston put it up was the right thing to do,” he said. “I know the Lord works in mysterious ways.

“It seems like this has been a thorn in his side and a thorn in mine, but I truly believe the Lord will work it out. We’ll just keep praying.”

Harston, who is a lake property developer, has done real estate development for the past 25 years. In 1996, he left the supervisor position he had at R. Donnelly in Glasgow, where he worked with House Rep. Johnny Bell, D-Glasgow.

Bell drafted House Bill 536, which would have exempted Harston’s billboards from the guidelines imposed by the 1965 Federal Beautification Act.

“He has not come out and asked anyone to put these signs up. People have contacted him and asked him to put those signs up for them,” Bell said.

Bell said those bearing the billboards are engaged in a 99-year lease with Harston, which shows their intent and the importance of what they want to do with their land.

“And it is a sad day when the state and federal governments start telling us what we can do on our own private property,” he said.

While people learn of the signs primarily by word of mouth, Harston has placed advertisements in various publications for people wanting the sings to express their religious beliefs. The billboards - with printing, constructing and labor - run Harston between $3,500 and $8,000. He doesn’t collect fees; he puts them up at no cost to the landowner.

“The Lord has been really good to me,” he said. “I could tell you some things the Lord has done for me.”

Married in 1975, his wife was diagnosed two weeks after the wedding with cystic fibrosis, and was told she would not live very long. But he said the Lord told him she would be OK.

The two reared three children, and have four grandchildren.

Harston said while his family doesn’t like the trouble surrounding the billboards, “they support me,” he said. He said he may not know the actual impact his billboards have on spectators that see them as they cruise up and down interstates, but he believes it’s good.

“I’m just a country boy that the Lord saved when I was a young man,” Harston said. “They’re just religious signs, and there may be some people out there that don’t know, and it may make them think.

“I just try to do the best I can.”

Editor's comment: I don't know about you, but the signs put a smile on my face EVERY TIME I see them.

The world could use more of them.

Is Unbridled GREED Causing Americans To Lose Their Religion? I Think So.

"How would Jesus vote?", Asks A Letter Writer In The Louisville Courier Journal. Read My Answer Below.

How would Jesus vote?

I want to urge all voters to pray for wisdom in this election. This is not a time to solely vote based on your political party.
Advertisement

This is a time for Christians to vote the way Jesus would vote. The phrase, "What would Jesus do?", should apply to who Jesus would want to rule over our country. Answer: The candidate that stands for morals and values according to the Holy Bible.

This is a time to seek God and to be more loyal to your God than to your political party. "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto thee" -- Matthew 6:33. In other words, vote for the candidate that believes in and stands for God's views on the moral issues, then all the other things will work out for you. This is our promise from our Lord.

Let us do our part in keeping our wonderful country "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," because I thank God for my country.

KELLY D. VINSON

Magnolia, Ky. 42757

Editor's comment: KELLY D. VINSON: Rather than asking how Jesus would vote -- I don't believe he would, as he would say to us to "render unto [our modern day Caesars] what is due [them] and unto God what is his" -- you should make reference to 2 Chronicles 7:14, as I am making.

There, the answer to our NATIONAL NIGHTMARE is found.

Here it is:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

So we ALL need to start to pray, (and praying FERVENTLY), while seeking the face of God, AND TURNING FROM OUR WICKED WAYS.

Otherwise, our sins will sink us -- (and our country) -- and there SHALL BE NO HEALING FOR OUR LAND to be had from God!

Another Pervert Preacher, Tony Alamo, Busted For Child Porn.

We Salute President Bush For Attending Church In Communist China, And Giving "The Finger" To The Atheist Repressive Regime.

Barack Obama Plans On Expanding President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives.

Read more on AP.

A little dose of the right kind of religion NEVER hurts, right?

James Dobson Slams Barack Obama For "Distorting" The Bible, For Suggestion That Governing Solely On The Bible Would Be "Impractical".

Listen to Dobson and read more.

A few excerpts:

A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

James Dobson says Barack Obama is distorting bibical teachings to fit "his own confused theology."

In comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.

In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application."

In the comments to be aired Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

Editor's comment: I expect this tug of war to continue, and I expect John McCain to try and stay out of this controversy, but he does not go unscathed.

James Dobson has already made it CLEAR he will NOT be voting for John McCain. Since it's also CLEAR he will NOT be voting for Barack Obama, either, he MUST plan on staying home on election day!

Update, 4/25: Barack Obama and his supporters fight back.

Is Jeremiah Wright Also A Home Wrecker?

Yes, says Delmer Reed, a Parishioner.

The man of God must be a man of many talents.

Reverend Wright Appears On PBS With Bill Moyers To Mixed Reviews.

I watched the Reverend on the Bill Moyer show tonight.

I opine that one of the last things Barack Obama's campaign needs NOW is NOT another Reverend Wright in the spotlight.

Having said that, share your thoughts with us on what you heard from him.

If you did not watch the interview, watch the videos of the interview below and decide for yourself:


Clip #1


Clip #2


Clip #3


Clip #4

On Palm Sunday: "Jeremiah"ing of Obama is "Wright" if one can cast the Biblical "first stone".

Many of you have heard the story of Barack Obama's Preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who made some remarks from the Pulpit that Obama has repudiated as "inflammatory". Watch the Reverend's videos below:



And watch Obama respond below:


Considering that today is Palm Sunday, and that Jesus warned the Pharisees that only one without sin can cast the first stone against the adulterous woman, is there any of you reading this post, who will say you support 100% EVERY utterance for your Preacher's lips?

If there are any, then you may cast that Biblical "first stone" spoken of by Jesus, in the political arena, concerning Obama and his disavowed "inflammatory" Preacher.

Otherwise, let's move on to more important stuff, such as one that has a SIGNIFICANT bearing on our country (I hope to blog on one tomorrow concerning Obama -- I believe "Billary" Clinton is already a lost cause on this issue).

John McCain breaks through the evangelical movement, receives endorsement of John Hagee.

Read the endorsement here.

While this is a significant endorsement for John McCain, I wonder how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) feels about the Pastor of a church endorsing in a political arena. Just my thoughts.

Update, 3/4: John Hagee moves to defend himself:

"Shooting up to BULK up"!

"Shooting up to BULK up". (Click image to enlarge it).

The Republican Party of Kentucky, RPK, saw the "handwriting on the wall", as it spent comparably little on Fletcher's campaign.

Read Pol Watchers.

Here is an excerpt:

The Kentucky Democratic Party dropped $2 million on the fall election, compared to $170,000 for the Republican Party of Kentucky, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state Registry of Election Finance.

I guess you can say the RPK saw the "handwriting on the wall".