Piper On Guns

John Piper thinks Christians should not be encouraged to arm themselves. He said in his reaction to Falwell's comments about being armed with guns (Falwell's view/policy at Liberty University is 4 years old):


For the sake of the safety of his campus, and in view of terrorist activity, President Falwell encouraged the students to get permits to carry guns. After implying that he had a gun in his back pocket, he said, “I just want to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course. And let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.” He clarified on December 9 that the policy at Liberty now includes permission to carry guns in the dormitories.
- Piper


But what Falwell actually said

It just blows my mind when I see the president of the United States say that the answer to circumstances like that is more gun control. I mean, if some of those people in that community center had had what I got in my back pocket right now … . I’ve always thought if more good people had conceal-carry permits then we could end those Muslims before they walk in and kill. I just want to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course. Let's teach 'em a lesson if they ever show up here.”

In his responses to local and national media and in posts on his personal social media accounts after the Convocation, Falwell clarified his comments, saying that when he referred to “those Muslims,” he was referring to Islamic terrorists, specifically those behind the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino. 

~Liberty University

Two more times Piper uses that same phrase "teach them a lesson" in his reaction to Falwell, something Piper does constantly to drive home his agenda in his books:

"My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here. "

"If we teach our students that they should carry guns, and then challenge them, “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here,” do we really think that when the opportunity to lay down their lives comes, they will do what Jim Elliott and his friends did in Ecuador, and refuse to fire their pistols at their killers, while the spears plunged through their chests?"

In Falwell's clarification he stated:

Falwell continued to clarify his comments from Friday:

“As the president of this university community of nearly 15,000 students and 7,000 faculty and staff, I take very seriously my responsibility to keep you safe in an increasingly dangerous world. That’s why in 2011 I asked our Board of Trustees to consider a concealed carry policy. It wasn’t because of Islamic terrorism, it was because what happened (just) up the road at Virginia Tech. More than 30 innocent students and faculty were murdered viciously and none of them had the ability to protect themselves. The day that happened, I thought we needed to do something different here at Liberty. We needed to have a way to protect our students, our faculty, so we instituted this free course in 2011. We were part of only a handful of schools in the United States that had taken that position at that time. Now many schools have followed suit. There are dozens and we have had 1,600 people take that course, 950 here now with concealed carry permits, and after I made those remarks on Friday we had 240 sign up for a course tomorrow night."

End quote.

It seems his policy was made 4 years due to the Virginia Tech incident, not something recent as a reaction out of emotion from just a few weeks ago.

I agree that Scripture clearly teaches that we are not to take justice into our own hands, yet Scripture also tells us to protect the innocent lives. Jesus did tell the disciples to take a sword with them, which was a defensive weapon. If Jesus were a pacifist, would He not have commanded them to take NO sword?

Piper seems to think that defensive tactics to save a life is the same thing as avenging blood. That's not fair nor honest. The two are wholly different. It's one thing to defend a life when being shot at or raped; it's quite another to go looking for a person in order to shoot them down because you think you can get justice right there and then. 

Piper went on to say: "I think I can say with complete confidence that the identification of Christian security with concealed weapons will cause no one to ask a reason for the hope that is in us. They will know perfectly well where our hope is. It’s in our pocket."  So seriously, if a man is raping your daughter, you are going to just stand there and preach the Gospel (Piper's view of what kind of gospel can save is another issue that I've addressed here)? It seems to me that Piper is on the verge of having more concern for the criminal than the loved one. Then again, Piper is a social justice advocate and his close friend is a Marxist, so this perversion of justice vs the Gospel is, while twisted, more in line with liberalism.

Further problems:

Piper says, "

Jesus strikes the note that the dominant (not the only) way Christians will show the supreme value of our treasure in heaven is by being so freed from the love of this world and so satisfied with the hope of glory that we are able to love our enemies and not return evil for evil, even as we expect to be wronged in this world."

Piper then uses Matthew 5 to promote pacifism, which is unbelievable.

"Jesus struck the note that the way his disciples demonstrate most forcefully the supreme value of knowing him is by “letting goods and kindred go, this mortal life also,” and calling it “gain” (Philippians 1:21)," Piper stated. Jesus didn't say "let goods and kindred go...."--that was Martin Luther who was not a biblical Christian.

Piper also uses examples in Acts of when the apostles were persecuted for preaching the Gospel and that they didn't defend themselves. That's not the same thing as being raped or held at gunpoint in one's house. Goodness, the jump in "logic" here is astounding. Of course if we're persecuted for the sake of the Gospel, it's not our job to pull out a gun and shoot the person. The fact that anyone needs to say that shows how ridiculous Piper's thinking is. That is not the same thing as defending a life in peril. Even the Old Testament upholds saving the life of an animal in peril....are we to do less for a human being? Seriously?

And the worst argument Piper uses:

A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”

1) This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. 

2) Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.

3) Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family. That is, Jesus’ personal strategy for overcoming crimes was to overcome sinful inclinations by giving his life to pay debts and change hearts. 

4) I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1–4 — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

End quote.

In regard to #1: If it's ambiguous in Scripture and doesn't say yes or no to use of force to defend a life, then he just blew his argument up  himself. He cannot be dogmatic on this in any way, shape, matter, or form, and yet he is. That's hypocritical.

In regard to #2: He is promoting the life of a criminal above an innocent victim, which is perversion according to Scripture. To not defend an innocent life because you equate that life with the criminal is not only unjust, it's twisted and unholy.

In regard to #3: Piper says, "Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family. That is, Jesus’ personal strategy for overcoming crimes was to overcome sinful inclinations by giving his life to pay debts and change hearts." This goes against his claimed view of Limited Atonment: that is, that Jesus died only for the Elect. But his claim here is that Jesus died for everyone including this specific criminal. He's talking against the very doctrine he claims. Secondly he doesn't even make sense in the second sentence. Who's sinful inclinations was Jesus overcoming, Jesus'?? Certainly a blasphemous thought! If he meant the criminal's then again he's going against Limited Atonement.

And finally, in regard to #4: He's saying that a person might be calling the police with wrong motives so they in sin. What in the world? First of all, people's motive for calling the police when a life is in danger is to SAVE A LIFE. Period. Secondly, avenging for the crime is not unbiblical, but rather biblical. Justice desired is biblical. Piper is saying it is not. I dare say that Piper would now also be against the death penalty.

***UPDATE***

Here is a response to Piper's pacifist article. 

Wheaton Professor "Stands In Solidarity With Muslims"

A tenured Wheaton College professor who, as part of her Christian Advent devotion, donned a traditional headscarf to show solidarity with Muslims has been placed on administrative leave.

Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at the private evangelical Christian college in Chicago's west suburbs, announced last week that she would wear the veil to show support for Muslims who have been under greater scrutiny since mass shootings in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.

"I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book," she posted on Facebook...

She said in a Tribune interview that it's "a time of real vitriolic rhetoric by fellow Christians sometimes and people who aren't Christian who conflate all Muslims with terrorist — and that saddens me — so this is a way of saying if all women wear the hijab we cannot discriminate. If all women were in solidarity, who is the real Muslim? How is TSA going to decide who they really suspect?"

While Hawkins did not need to seek approval from Wheaton, she did seek advice from the Council on American Islamic Relations, to make sure she did not offend Muslims. 

~Chicago Tribune

My thoughts as I responded to this:

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator with Hamas. See this is what I mean--ignoramuses are doing the job of CAIR and Islam---Muslims don't have to even lift a finger. These foolish people happily do the work themselves. One day, though, they will be victims of Islam. Btw, it's easy for a Western feminist to drop in and then out of wearing a hijab b/c she's not forced to. How nice for her. In Islam women have no choice but to wear it (or worse, the burka). That's like these liberal "Christians" who jet into a 3rd world country to experience life's hardship for a few weeks, and then jet back out to live in an expensive city. It's trivial and insulting and ignores the actual plight of people under such oppression. This American Feminist professor would never make it living in a Muslim country for a week. She defends what she's not forced to live under.

She's an ignoramus and has no clue that she is the epitome of what Islam hates. She's a traitor to Christ too. Unlike people who claim Muslims have a partially correct view of God, Scripture states that if they deny God the Son, they have neither the Father nor the Son, not to mention having a false gospel also condemns them to Hell.

That Wheaton professor is more concerned about not offending Muslims who hate Christ, than she is about offending Christ Jesus and real Christians. Wheaton wasn't against her decision, btw.

Wheaton isn't a Christian school. It's a religious school with a statement of faith they don't even give a rip about. They did not denounce what she's done (or said, it seems), although they put her on "administrative leave".This again bears witness to my contention that if one claims a set of beliefs are biblical, then they are by nature and definition, not optional, not a theory, and not an opinion, but biblical truth that MUST be held to. But today most schools and churches see what they would call "biblical doctrine" (IF they even dare call it that), as a personal preference, not absolute and undeniable Truth.

"Gene Green, a professor of the New Testament at Wheaton, said what motivated Hawkins is the same concern many faculty members at the school share about the unfair scrutiny facing the Muslim community.

"Dr. Hawkins and others want to follow the example of Jesus, who went to those who were discriminated against," he said. "He ate with people whom others rejected. Jesus calls us to love our neighbors, and the Muslims are our neighbors."

But Muslims aren't staying in their own country like the poor and out-casts. Muslims are here precisely for hijrah--jihad by invasion. They desire to change our laws and they hate our Lord. That is NOT what happened during Jesus' ministry on earth. Jesus did not hang out with the lawless Christ-haters. In fact it was the Pharisees and Saduccees who rebelled against God's laws, and by the way they also hated the Roman Empire.

While all are sinners and need Christ, we are not called to endorse lawlessness, rebellion against our government, nor be reckless in protecting the family God gave us. Islam by it's very nature wants to destroy it all. We are also not obligated to open up our nation to such treasonous people. That is NOT in Scripture.

2Co 6:14  Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 

2Co 6:15  What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 

2Co 6:16  What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 

2Jn 1:9  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 

Radical Muslims Vs Moderate Muslims

Best summary I've seen, by a commenter on Breitbart:

Radical Muslims want to kill us, moderate Muslims want someone
else to kill us. That pretty well sums it up.

Radical Muslims want to cut your American heads off. Moderate Muslims pray that the radicals cut your heads off.

Being Yoked Together

"By means of the yoke, two oxen were united together to plow. The "yoke," then, is a figure of practical union. This is clear from, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). Here the Lord's people are forbidden to enter into any intimate relations or associations with unbelievers. We are prohibited from marrying, forming business partnerships—or having any religious union with them. As 2 Corinthians 6:14 intimates, the "yoke" speaks of a union which issues in a close communion.

"Can two walk together except they be agreed" (Amos 3:3)? No, they cannot: they must be joined together in sameness of aim and unity of purpose—that of glorifying God."

~ Arthur Pink, "The Yoke of Christ"

IHOP's One Thing Conference With Catholics, SBC, and Francis Chan

Note that Francis Chan is also to speak. He's becoming more hardened against the Truth and deceived by Satan. He has stated how he admires heretic Mike Bickle who's a huge IHOP leader. Also SBC Pres. Ronnie Floyd, who's determined to get the entire SBC involved in this spiritual harlotry. List of speakers/singers here.

See the information of what this is about:

IHOP-KC once again withholds mention of Catholic participation at Onething conference

Christianity Is A Friendly Event Now

Where we are now is the thrill of vast public recognition and the love for widespread exposure, locking arms with whomever will get us there. Christianity has become a friendly event, not the sworn enemy of the world's satanic, diabolical system. We do not want the teachings, we want the euphoria of experience and jargon. She no longer stands with her Master in complete solidarity at the risk of suffering expulsion from this world. For the right price, everyone is invited to the great American show, except Jesus Christ and His disciples. And even when they are, those who are like He and His disciples are forewarned that they must conform to the whims of men. The Lord Jesus would overturn our tables and scourge our money changing with great ferocity. And we would, astutely, claim that we must crucify Him to uphold the honor of God in our midsts. Just as is done to His messengers that signal these things in the present hour.

~Biblical Christ Research Institute

The Christian must think God's thoughts after Him

The Christian must think God's thoughts after Him;

"So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, 'If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free'” (John 8:31-32).

"Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise,
And apply your mind to my knowledge; For it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, That they may be ready on your lips. So that your trust may be in the Lord, I have taught you today, even you. Have I not written to you excellent things Of counsels and knowledge, To make you know the certainty of the words of truth That you may correctly answer him who sent you?" (Proverbs 22:17-21).

Do not add to His thoughts the vain philosophies of man's wisdom.

It is grievous error and a foolish enterprise to try and add to His thoughts the vain philosophies of man's wisdom when in the Lord Jesus Christ ". . . are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3) and "In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men" (John 1:4).

Yet so many try to add to His thoughts the vain philosophies of man. But it is impossible because the wisdom of God and the wisdom of man are diametrically opposed to one another and cannot be reconciled;

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord'" (1 Corinthians 1:20-31).

~Biblical Christ Research Institute

True Scholarship

True scholarship is not merely presenting multiple views as if they all deserve equal plausibility. True scholarship presupposes dogmatism. It is not interested with treason against the Lord so as to gain wider appeal. It begins with the wisdom of Almighty God in Holy Scripture, finding its preeminence and culmination in Jesus Christ. If one is a true scholar, he must cast down every satanic argument and lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The absolute truth contained in the inerrant, infallible, Holy Scripture alone is the greatest and only weapon. True scholarship does not come to theological disciplines hoping to pander to every wind of doctrine. Quite the contrary, if one is a true scholar, he must first become wise in Christ, according to the truth, and then refute everything that opposes His Lord Jesus Christ. Neither is true scholarship zeal without knowledge as if the Holy Spirit works through ignorance and compromise. The modern presupposition that we are humble when we tolerate error and those who bring error is rooted in enmity with God. It has nothing to do with fellowship in Him, according to apostolic teaching in Scripture.

~Biblical Christ Research Institute

"Radicalized" Muslims?

I think this might have some merit. I hadn't thought about why the constant use of "radicalized". But we have to remember, Islam is by nature and foundation, violent, so what is "radical" isn't really; it's just faithful to the quran and Muhammad. Terrorism is true Islam.

Everybody is now saying, "Oh, yeah, the San Bernardino Two? They were 'radicalized.'" Marco Rubio was talking about it last night on Megyn Kelly's show on Fox. Everybody. I mean, the FBI did it. Obama did it. Everybody's talking about, "They were radicalized," and it's almost... I'm starting to pickup on the fact that it's almost like that makes them a victim or victims. "Oh, yes! This nice, loving young couple happened to meet on a dating website, and they fell immediately in love, and they made great plans to come to America and start trying to access the American dream -- and then they got 'radicalized.'

"Yeah, they were just the nicest couple. People looked at 'em and thought how wonderful and beautiful their children were gonna be. They were just the sweetest pair, the kind of people you;d love to have come over for a bridge party and maybe blow the place up later." I'm sorry. "They might come over for a bridge party, maybe have dinner, go to a ball game -- and then they got 'radicalized.'" Like, what? Brainwashed? Like they were victimized? Like it's not really their fault? I don't care how it happens, is the point. They're terrorists. They're extremists.

They're radicals. They're militant. They are murderers. They are active, knowing participants. They are responsible, and this term, "They were radicalized," is almost -- depending the people using it -- an attempt to distance them from what they actually did. It was almost like, "Yeah, they were just driving along, walking along, living their lives, and then? And then! They were radicalized. They were brainwashed, and then they were programmed to go to the United States --, particularly San Bernardino, California -- and blow up a government building."

And that's not how it happened. So it's more than a pet peeve. I'm just telling you, folks, be very wary of this, 'cause that's, I think, what the purpose of using the term "radicalized" is. The longer this goes on, the effort's gonna be made in the media and in the Democrat Party to try to tell you that these two were actually not responsible. They were programmed. They were ordered. They were brainwashed, Manchurian Candidate-type people. It's an effort to soften your opinion of them, and I just don't think that should happen.

End quote.

~Rush Limbaugh

The Wrath of God

"The wrath of God is the eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin....God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No. While God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive."

~ Arthur Pink, "The Wrath of God"

As well, God's wrath is therefore against the ungodly, the wicked people, and not just their sins. It is the wicked people that He righteously and judiciously casts into eternal punishment, not merely their deeds. As Pink says elsewhere, what is a sinner but one who is thoroughly sinful?

Ps 5: ^5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; You hate all who do wrong. ^6 You destroy those WHO tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful  MEN the LORD abhors.

Ps. 11: ^5 The LORD examines the righteous, but THE WICKED^ and THOSE WHO love violence His soul HATES.

Ps. 11: ^6 On THE WICKED He will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot.

Psa 7:10  My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. 
Psa 7:11  God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 
Psa 7:12  If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 

Psa 7:13  he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. 

The Problem With Syrian "Refugees" and Islamization of America

First, vetting only works if you vet for the right thing. Washington, in its delusional Islamophilia, vets only for ties to terrorism, which it defines as “violent extremism” in purblind denial of modern terrorism’s Islamist ideological moorings. As the deteriorating situation in Europe manifests, our actual challenge is Islamic supremacism, of which jihadist terrorism is only a subset....

Unlike the Judeo-Christian principles that informed America’s founding, classical sharia does not abide a separation of spiritual from civic and political life. Therefore, to rationalize on religious-liberty grounds our conscious avoidance of Islamist ideology is to miss its thoroughgoing anti-constitutionalism....

Sharia rejects the touchstone of American democracy: the belief that the people have a right to govern themselves and chart their own destiny. In sharia governance, the people are subjects not citizens, and they are powerless to question, much less to change, Allah’s law. Sharia systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is brutal in its treatment of apostates and homosexuals. It denies freedom of conscience, free expression, property rights, economic liberty, and due process of law. It licenses wars of aggression against infidels for the purpose of establishing sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is also heavily favored by Muslims in majority-Muslim countries. Polling consistently tells us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in the countries from which we are accepting refugees believe sharia should be the governing system.

~Excerpts from Andrew McCarthy, National Review

A Well-Marked Bible

photo source

A well-marked Bible is the sign of a well-fed soul. - Spurgeon

Does It Matter What A Man Believes?

Some think it matters not what a man believes. Excuse me: truth IS always precious, and the least atom of truth is worth searching out.

~Spurgeon

True! Also, every atom of biblical Truth is worth dying on the hill for. If it came from the mouth of God, it matters. Always.

On Islam and the West's Faulty View of It

Even conservatives have fallen prey to this notion of moderate American Muslims are good, and that is just the radical Muslims that are bad. This is a wholesale ignorance of Islam and steps over the fact that a Muslim is a Muslim no matter the country and no matter the family or friend. At the end of the day, Muslims are loyal to Muhammad (up until recently they were more accurately called Muhammadans) and Islam.

The truth about Islam: "radical" Islam isn't the problem


New Poll: Majority of American Muslims (51%) Want Sharia. Shocking Numbers On ‘Jihad’…

Norway's "moderate" Muslims agree with stoning of homosexuals, seperation of women from men, etc.

Three primary points are usually left out of the Islamic discussion. The central problem with most Islamic analysis is that it underestimates the weight of the moral and intellectual chains imposed on Islam by its founder and his early followers.... 

Five reasons why Islam can't co-exist with the Constitution.

Run down of Sharia Law.

Survey of 100 American mosques found 80% promoted violence. 

Interview with the researcher on the survey of 100 mosques.

The steps of how Islam takes over countries.

"Peaceful" Muslims are irrelevant:

If Liberals Could Talk To Jihadists

This illustrates the liberal's refusal to understand Islam's core factor in terrorism.


It begins:

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.....”

~go here for the rest of the "conversation"

Saeed Abedini's Wife, Naghmeh Now Says Saeed Has Physically and Sexually Abused Her And Was Into Pornography

photo source

According to "Christianity" Today:

For the past three years Naghmeh Abedini has publicly battled her husband’s captors, advocating for his release from an Iranian jail.

In two emails to supporters, Abedini revealed details of her troubled marriage to Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012.

Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said. The two are able to speak by phone and Skype.

End quote.

Nothing about their story has sat right with me for years. Maybe this is why. But even this story is suspect to me.

Why is she saying this now? What spurred her on to suddenly say this? I've learned that timing is everything.

Why would a wife who is continually abused, keep meeting with her abuser even when he's behind bars in Iran?

Why does she call him "a treasure" when clearly he isn't?

Why keep fighting for his release and pawning him off as a pastor and a Christian when, if this is true, he is neither? Remember, he's disqualified, plus according to his wife he's continued the abuse. This was dishonest on her part. 

Evaluating Things Through Spiritual Eyes, Not According To The Flesh

2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Eph 4:17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,
Eph 4:18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

2Co 3:14  But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 

2Co 3:15  But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 

2Co 3:16  but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 

Socialists Sitting In 1%er Seats At World Series

Photo source

2015 World Series: Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, and Bill Maher.  "Anti-income inequality" (Socialists) sitting in 1%er seats.  In their Socialist utopia, no one would win the series and no one would be rich enough to own the Mets, let alone  make as much as they do and to sit in the most expensive seats in the park. After all, socialism demands equal distribution.

Horrifying Idolatry of Steve Furtick and Mocking of Christ Jesus

Photo source

If this isn’t a little taste of what the antichrist is going to be like, then I don’t know what is. The “pastor” of Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC, Steven Furtick, is being exalted and worshiped in his latest video titled, Thank You Pastor.

At the 1:03 mark, the video proclaims that “No word [Pastor] speaks will go to waste.” This phraseology is spoken solely of God’s word in Scripture(Isaiah 55:11, 1 Peter 1:25, 2 Tim 3:16, Isaiah 40:8, etc.).

Then at the 1:50 mark, the video mocks the Holy Spirit saying that Furtick is “escorted by the Holly Spirit.” This is not a typo, Holly is his wife’s name. The video is full of attributions to Furtick, in which Scripture ascribes to Jesus. But this is not surprising and is actually typical of this organization.

~Jeff Maples of Pulpit and Pen