Does Genesis 12:3 Require Unconditional Support for the Modern State of Israel

Many Christians—especially Baptists, Reformed Christians, Presbyterians, Catholics, and other non-dispensational traditions—argue that Genesis 12:3 is not a promise about the modern State of Israel established in 1948. Their reasons include:

1. God Was Speaking to Abraham, Not a Modern Nation

Genesis 12:3 says:

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

God addressed Abraham personally. The nation of Israel did not yet exist, and Jacob—who would later be renamed Israel—had not even been born. The text says "you," referring to Abraham, not a future political state. 

2. The Promise Finds Its Fulfillment in Christ

The Apostle Paul interprets the Abrahamic promise in the New Testament:

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed ... who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16)

Paul further explains that God preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham because "all nations will be blessed through you" (Galatians 3:8). Christians who hold this view believe the ultimate blessing promised in Genesis 12:3 comes through Jesus Christ, not through support for any modern government. 

3. The New Testament Never Commands Political Support for Israel

Jesus and the apostles never instructed believers to support one earthly nation above others. Instead, Christians are commanded to:

• Love their neighbors.

• Love their enemies.

• Preach the Gospel to all nations.

• Seek first the Kingdom of God.

No New Testament passage says nations or individuals will be blessed or cursed based on their foreign policy toward modern Israel.

4. Ancient Israel and Modern Israel Are Different

Ancient Israel was a covenant nation under God's law. Modern Israel is a secular democratic state founded in 1948. Many theologians argue that these are not identical entities and therefore biblical promises to ancient Israel cannot automatically be transferred to the modern state. 

5. The Land Promises Were Conditional

Under the Mosaic covenant, Israel's possession of the land depended on obedience to God (Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 26). The prophets repeatedly warned that disobedience would result in exile, which eventually occurred. Thus, many Christians believe the Old Testament promises cannot be interpreted as unconditional guarantees for any future political government. 

6. Supporting Israel Politically Is a Separate Question

Some Christians support modern Israel for historical, strategic, or humanitarian reasons. Others support Palestinian rights or advocate peace for both peoples. But many theologians maintain that Genesis 12:3 itself does not require unconditional support for the modern State of Israel. Political support should be based on justice and prudence, not on the assumption that Genesis 12:3 is a divine command regarding a nation established thousands of years after Abraham. 

A Baptist Perspective

Most Baptists historically have taught that salvation and God's blessings come through faith in Christ rather than through ethnicity or nationality. While some dispensational Baptists interpret Genesis 12:3 as applying to modern Israel, many other Baptists understand the promise as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and extended to all believers, Jew and Gentile alike.

Therefore, according to this interpretation, Genesis 12:3 is primarily about God's covenant with Abraham and its fulfillment in Christ—not a blanket command requiring Christians or nations to give unconditional support to the modern State of Israel.

Genesis 12:3 is one of the foundational verses in Sacred Scripture and forms part of God's covenant with Abraham:

"I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." (Genesis 12:3)

This promise is not merely a statement about one people or one nation. Rather, it is part of God's plan of salvation that unfolds throughout the Old Testament and reaches its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

God's Covenant With Abraham

God freely chose Abraham and established a covenant with him and his descendants. Through Abraham, God prepared the way for the coming of the Messiah. Abraham is rightly called the father of all believers that are Jews, Christians and Muslims because of his faith and obedience to God.

The Fulfillment of the Promise in Christ

The promise that "all the families of the earth shall bless themselves through you" is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The Church, composed of believers from every nation, is the universal instrument through which God's blessing extends to all humanity. As St. Paul teaches in Galatians, those who belong to the messiah Jesus become heirs to the promises made to Abraham.

Understanding Taqiyya: Context, Misuse, and Shared Principles Across Faiths

 

In public discourse, few religious concepts have been as frequently misunderstood and misrepresented as taqiyya. Often invoked in political debates or online arguments, the term is routinely stripped of its context and presented as evidence of widespread deception. But a closer, more accurate examination reveals something far different: a narrowly defined principle rooted in survival, not manipulation—and one that is not unique to Islam.

The word taqiyya comes from an Arabic root meaning “to protect” or “to guard oneself.” Within Islamic theology, it refers specifically to the permissibility of concealing one’s faith under conditions of genuine danger—such as threats of violence, persecution, imprisonment, or death. It is not a general license to lie, nor is it a strategy for everyday interaction. Rather, it is a limited exception applied in extreme circumstances where an individual’s safety is at risk.

Historically, this concept emerged in contexts where religious minorities faced severe oppression. In such situations, openly declaring one’s beliefs could lead to execution or severe punishment. Under these conditions, Islamic scholars recognized that preserving life takes precedence, allowing individuals to withhold or obscure their faith if necessary. This principle aligns with a broader moral intuition shared across cultures and legal systems: no one is obligated to disclose information that would directly endanger their life.

What is often left out of the conversation is that similar principles exist within both Christianity and Judaism.

In Christianity, the idea that preserving life can justify concealment or even denial under extreme duress appears in both scripture and historical experience. Early Christians, under Roman persecution, sometimes faced execution for openly professing their faith. While martyrdom is honored in Christian tradition, there has also been long-standing theological debate about the limits of what one is morally required to disclose under threat of death. Biblical passages such as Matthew 10:23—“When you are persecuted in one town, flee to another”—reflect a recognition that avoiding danger is permissible. Across history, persecuted Christians have at times hidden their identity to survive, demonstrating that self-preservation is not foreign to the tradition.

In Judaism, the principle is even more explicitly defined. The doctrine of pikuach nefesh—the obligation to preserve human life—overrides nearly all other religious commandments. Rooted in texts like Leviticus 18:5 (“You shall therefore keep my statutes… which if a person does, he shall live by them”), this teaching has been interpreted to mean that commandments are given for life, not death. Throughout history, particularly during periods of persecution such as the Inquisition, Jews concealed their faith or outwardly conformed under threat of execution. This was not viewed as deception for gain, but as a tragic necessity for survival.

These parallels matter. They show that taqiyya is not an outlier or a uniquely suspicious doctrine, but part of a broader, deeply human principle found across major religious traditions: when life is in immediate danger, preservation of life takes priority.

The controversy surrounding taqiyya largely stems from its mischaracterization. In some narratives, the term is portrayed as a blanket endorsement of dishonesty, suggesting that Muslims are religiously permitted—or even encouraged—to deceive others as a matter of course. This interpretation is not supported by mainstream Islamic teachings. Instead, it reflects a distortion that removes the concept from its narrow, situational application and recasts it as something far more sinister.

Such misrepresentations have broader consequences. They contribute to mistrust, reinforce stereotypes, and hinder meaningful dialogue. When complex theological ideas are reduced to slogans or weaponized in debate, the result is not greater understanding, but deeper division.

None of this requires agreement with Islam—or with Christianity or Judaism. Critique and disagreement are part of any open society. However, those discussions should be grounded in accurate representations rather than misconceptions. Understanding taqiyya as a principle of self-preservation—shared in spirit across multiple faiths—allows for a more honest and informed conversation.

At its core, this is not about deception. It is about survival. And that is a principle far more universal than the narratives that attempt to distort it.

Revisiting the Message of Jesus: Islam, Early Christianity, and How Theology Evolved

 

Across two millennia, few figures have shaped human history more profoundly than Jesus Christ. Yet the question of what he actually taught—and how those teachings were later interpreted—remains one of the most debated issues in religious history. At the center of that debate is a striking divide: Christianity came to define Jesus as divine, while Islam reveres him as a prophet. Understanding how that divergence developed requires a closer look at history, scripture, and the evolution of theology.

---

A Jewish Teacher Rooted in Monotheism

Jesus lived and taught within first-century Judaism, a strictly monotheistic tradition grounded in the Torah. The Gospel accounts consistently place him within this framework, not outside it. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus famously declares:

“I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.”

This statement has sparked centuries of interpretation. Some scholars argue it signals continuity—that Jesus was reinforcing and deepening Jewish law, not replacing it. Others see it as a turning point, suggesting that fulfillment implies transformation. Either way, the historical Jesus appears firmly grounded in the worship of one God and in the ethical and legal traditions of his time.

---

The Turning Point: Paul and the Gentile Mission

A major shift in early Christianity came not directly from Jesus’ recorded words, but from the work of Paul the Apostle. As Christianity spread beyond Jewish communities, Paul became its most influential missionary to the Gentiles.

In letters like the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans, Paul advanced a theological framework that emphasized faith over strict adherence to the Mosaic Law. Practices such as circumcision, dietary rules, and ritual observance were no longer required for non-Jewish converts.

This shift proved pivotal. It allowed Christianity to expand rapidly across the Roman world—but it also marked a clear transition from a law-centered Jewish movement to a broader, faith-centered religion. Critics, both ancient and modern, argue this represents a departure from Jesus’ original message. Supporters insist Paul was extending that message to a global audience, not altering it.

---

Before Nicaea: How Was Jesus Understood?

Long before formal councils defined doctrine, early Christians held a range of beliefs about Jesus. There was no single, universally agreed-upon theology in the first three centuries.

Some early groups viewed Jesus primarily as:

• A human prophet or teacher chosen by God

• The Messiah (anointed one) within a Jewish framework

• A divine or semi-divine figure with a unique relationship to God

Certain strands of early Christianity—often associated with Jewish-Christian communities—emphasized Jesus’ humanity and continued observance of the Law. Others, especially in Greek-speaking regions, developed higher views of his nature, seeing him as pre-existent or divine in some sense.

Writings from the New Testament itself reflect this diversity. While the Synoptic Gospels tend to emphasize Jesus’ role as teacher and Messiah, the Gospel of John presents a more explicitly theological portrait, describing Jesus as the “Word” (Logos) who was with God and was God.

By the early fourth century, debates had intensified—particularly between those who believed Jesus was fully divine and those who saw him as subordinate to God the Father. One of the most prominent controversies involved Arius, a Christian presbyter who argued that the Son was created and therefore not equal to God.

---

Defining Doctrine: The Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

These disputes came to a head at the First Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD by Constantine the Great.

At Nicaea, church leaders addressed the Arian controversy and formally declared that Jesus is “of the same substance” (homoousios) as God the Father. This affirmed his full divinity and rejected the idea that he was a created being.

It is important to note that the Council of Nicaea did not invent belief in Jesus’ divinity out of nothing—many Christians already held this view. However, the council standardized and enforced a particular theological position, marking a turning point where one interpretation became official doctrine across the empire.

---

Islam’s Perspective: A Return to Pure Monotheism

Six centuries later, Islam emerged with a very different interpretation. Through the teachings of Muhammad, the Qur'an presents itself as a continuation—and restoration—of the same monotheistic message taught by earlier prophets.

In Islam, Jesus—known as Isa ibn Maryam—is honored as a messenger of God, born miraculously and entrusted with divine revelation. However, he is not considered divine. The Qur'an explicitly rejects the Trinity and emphasizes that God is one, without partners.

From this perspective, later Christian doctrines—particularly those developed through councils and influenced by theological debates—are seen as departures from the original message of strict monotheism that Jesus himself preached.

---

A Debate That Still Shapes the World

The divide between these interpretations comes down to a fundamental question: did Christianity evolve naturally from Jesus’ teachings, or did it transform them?

Those who see transformation point to:

• The shift away from Mosaic Law

• The theological influence of Paul

• The formalization of doctrines centuries after Jesus

Those who see continuity argue:

• Jesus’ teachings contained deeper meanings that unfolded over time

• Early Christian leaders preserved and clarified his message

• Doctrinal development reflects growth, not contradiction

---

The Lasting Impact

What is beyond dispute is the enduring influence of Jesus across civilizations, cultures, and religions. Whether viewed as the Son of God or as a prophet, his message has shaped billions of lives and continues to inspire debate, scholarship, and faith.

The question of continuity versus transformation is unlikely to be settled definitively. But exploring it reveals something essential: the story of Jesus is not just about the past—it is a living conversation that continues to shape the beliefs and identities of the modern world.

Faith Under Rubble: Israel's Destruction of Christian Sites in South Lebanon Sparks Global Outcry

 

The reported demolition of Christian religious sites in southern Lebanon—including the Salvatorian Sisters’ convent and school in Yaroun—has ignited outrage and renewed scrutiny over the broader implications of war on cultural and religious identity. According to accounts circulating in the region, the destruction was carried out by forces operating under the authority of the Israeli government, raising serious ethical and political questions.

Churches, monasteries, and crosses are not merely physical structures. They represent centuries of continuity—anchors of faith for generations who have lived, worshipped, and coexisted in a region long defined by its religious diversity. When such sites are reduced to rubble, the loss is not only architectural. It is symbolic, cultural, and deeply personal.

The involvement of Israel in military operations in southern Lebanon has long been a point of geopolitical tension. However, the reported use of heavy demolition equipment—machinery designed to dismantle structures from a distance—raises concerns about intent and proportionality. The destruction of a convent and school, places associated with refuge, education, and peace, intensifies those concerns.

Critics argue that accountability must extend beyond those physically carrying out the demolition. Attention has turned toward Washington, D.C., where foreign policy decisions and military aid are determined. Allegations that American taxpayer-funded support may indirectly contribute to such actions have prompted calls for greater transparency and oversight.

Political leaders, including figures such as Mike Huckabee, have frequently spoken about protecting Christian communities and religious heritage worldwide. Incidents like this, however, test whether those commitments are consistently upheld when actions involve allied governments.

The perceived lack of a strong response from institutions such as Congress and the White House has fueled frustration among observers who view the destruction of religious sites as a violation of universally recognized cultural and moral norms. If safeguarding sacred spaces is a global principle, critics argue, it must be applied without exception.

South Lebanon has long stood as a symbol of coexistence, where Christian and Muslim communities have lived side by side despite decades of conflict. The destruction of religious landmarks risks not only erasing history but also undermining the fragile social fabric that has endured through generations.

In the end, history will not only examine the actions taken on the ground but also the broader network of responsibility—those who authorized, enabled, or failed to respond. When faith and heritage are caught in the crossfire, the consequences extend far beyond a single moment, leaving lasting scars on both memory and identity.

The real question is when will the world stand up to Israel?

Why Christians Cannot Except Transgenderism or Homosexuality

Christians cannot accept the transvestite lifestyle which is now commonly referred to as transgenderism.

True practicing Christians take to heart the very words in the Bible as God's word.  In Deuteronomy, which is also is in the Jewish book the Torah, God is quite clear "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord the God."

Now for you heathens that want to use the weak argument about Christians eating pork or shellfish, you need to have an understanding of biblical covenants.

A covenant is a binding solemn agreement made between two parties. It generally leaves each with obligations. But it holds only between the parties involved.

There are a number of biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic (Old), Davidic and New.

Under the Noahic covenant, which God made with all living human beings (Genesis 9:8-17), people were able to eat anything:

‘Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’ (Genesis 9:3).

But under the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant, which God made with the nation of Israel, people were able to eat certain foods, but not others. These are listed in detail in Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:1-21).

However these laws were applicable only to the nation of Israel and were intended to set them apart from other races.

The Old (Sinaitic) Covenant was made after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and involved laws, priests (all of whom were members of the tribe of Levi) and a sacrificial system based on animal sacrifice. It was aimed at protecting Israel from God’s wrath and judgement.

The nation of Israel, however, was unable to keep the requirements of the Old Covenant, meaning that a New Covenant was necessary, as foretold by the prophet Jeremiah:

‘“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their mind and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”’ (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the ‘Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44). He would establish this new covenant with new laws, with himself as high priest based on his own sacrificial death on the cross.

This new covenant would completely deal with sin (Hebrews 10:1-18) and protect all those who put their faith in him from God’s wrath and judgement (See more on this here).

‘In the same way, after the supper (Jesus) took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”’ (Luke 22:20). ‘…we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10)

People would come under the protection of this new covenant, not by virtue of belonging to the nation of Israel, but through faith in Christ. In fact the function of the Old Testament Law (Sinaitic covenant) was to point to Christ as its fulfilment.

‘So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile…’ (Galatians 3:24-28)

The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in saying:

‘I myself am not under the law… though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law’ (1 Corinthians 9:20, 21)

So what then did Christ say about foods? He pronounced all foods clean for his followers to eat:

‘ “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?  For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,  adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18-23)

Jesus was making that point that under the new covenant God required purity of the heart. Internal thoughts and attitudes were as important as external actions.  Consistent with this God commanded the apostle Peter to eat food that was forbidden under the Old Covenant:

‘Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” (Acts 10:13-15)

Similarly the apostle Paul taught that all foods were admissible under the New Covenant:

‘(hypocritical liars)… order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.  For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,  because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.’ (1 Timothy 4:2-5)

So Christians can eat anything, including shellfish.

But what about sex?

The Bible, consistently throughout, teaches that sex is only permissible within a marriage between a man and a woman. This principle is first laid down during the creation narrative:

‘a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24)

It is upheld in the Old Covenant and in great detail every sexual act outside this pattern is listed as off limits in Leviticus 18 and 20.

Jesus upholds the same principle in his teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12) and its importance is emphasized to Gentile Christians (Acts 15:19,20) and repeatedly emphasized in the teaching of the apostles.

‘It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable,  not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;  and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7)

In fact in the very last book of the Bible we are told that the unrepentant ‘sexually immoral’ will not enter heaven (Revelation 21:8, 22:15)

Now God gives man free will whether to believe in him or not and to follow his word or not.   So if one wants to live in Biblical sin, that is their will.  However under God's law and for you non-believers --natural law, you cannot force another to accept your unGodly and unnatural behavior.

Alabama Halting Same Sex Marriages

The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the

Chief Justice Roy Moore

state's probate judges on Wednesday not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last year legalizing gay marriage.

Chief Justice Roy Moore said the U.S. Supreme Court decision is at odds with earlier opinions by the state's highest court, resulting in "confusion and uncertainty" among probate judges.

While the Alabama Supreme Court weighs the issue, probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary" to the state's law banning same-sex marriage, Moore said.

Why Christians Cannot Accept Gay Marriage

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with

womankind: it is abomination.

Christians cannot have any agreements of any sort with friends on ungodly things.  Christians know when  satan cannot access your heart directly, he often tries to do it through those to whom you have opened it - you r friends and associates.

For Christians this is simple logic.  He accesses you by proxy. Many people do not know this.

 St. Paul says "Bad company corrupts good morals"  (1 Corinthians 15:30  and 1 Corinthians 5 9-11 as well as  Ephesians 5:6-14)  This corruption first becomes a spiritual reality even before it is visible, and it allows satan to set up shop in our hearts.  Christians may not always know what ungodly things their friends think about or do- that is now always visible.  If it is visible then they must have nothing to do with it-- that must be clear.  And when it is not visible, at least Christians must be sure on their part that they are not in agreement with those who participate in anything that is not of God.  Because if Christians are, and even if they are not doing it themselves, they get the effects as if they were doing it, because their hearts are close to those by association .  And with this access, satan can block our graces still.  

If Christians discover these associations they are to repent of them immediately before the Lord and cut themselves free of them with prayer. 

Christians are aware of Joshua 24:15 --If it is displeasing to you to serve the LORD, choose today whom you will serve, the gods your ancestors served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

Read more: Why marriage can only be between a man and a woman

God Expects Us To Judge One Another

How many times have you heard someone whine, "Judge not, that ye be not judged?" This verse of Scripture from Matthew 7:1 is often quoted out of context by people who are terrified at the idea of someone preaching against sin or pointing out any form of error in anyone, especially in themselves.

Those people who call for tolerance and quote “judge not” out of context are not using sound thinking. Their call for tolerance is impossible because as Christians, we are called to judge righteously, and judging between right and wrong is something we do every day—and it should be a part of biblical discernment in every believer’s thinking. It is God’s Word that makes the judgment on morality and truth, not our own opinions or theories it is up to us to defend His Word.

Here are a few examples of why we as Christians need to judge :

 "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa. 37:30) A righteous person will talk of judgment. He will not REFUSE to judge. He will talk judgment.

"Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph." (Amos 5:14-15) How can you hate the evil and love the good if you refuse to judge? You can't. You are SINNING when you refuse to judge.

Our generation is well described in Isaiah 59:8: "The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace." People have refused to judge, so there is no peace.

Paul said in I Corinthians 1:10 to ". . . be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." Why would Paul make such a statement if judging is wrong? In I Corinthians 2:15 Paul says, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." Judging is not a sin; judging is a characteristic of being a spiritual person! Satan has been lying to us, hoping that we will NOT judge, because he knows that the right kind of judgment PLEASES God and betters our lives and Christian service.

Someone says, "But should we judge PEOPLE?" Yes, we certainly should. Paul actually REBUKES the Corinthians for NOT judging: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" (I Cor. 6:1-5) If judging is wrong, then Paul needs to confess and repent for misleading these Christians! He clearly told them to JUDGE PEOPLE.

What’s the purpose of judging error in a biblical manner? The church is to be built on the foundation of Christ and the authority of His Word (Ephesians 2:20)—and that means believers should examine their own lives regularly and also lovingly challenge Christian brothers and sisters who are in error or commit sin. To do this, believers must be bold for Christ, but they also have to be humble, loving, and kind. 

Ted Cruz Turns Tables On Leftist Reporter And Quickly Embarasses HIm On Lack Of Knowledge

With horrible ratings, it’s obvious that MSNBC only exists to

be a propaganda tool for the Democrat party. So at a presidential campaign visit in Beaumont, Texas, on Tuesday, May 19, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) became exhausted with Kevin Steele, a local KMBT-TV reporter who was borrowing anti-Christian questions from MSNBC talking points.

SEN. TED CRUZ: Let me ask a question: Is there something about the left, and I am going to put the media in this category, that is obsessed with sex? Why is it the only question you want to ask concerns homosexuals? Okay, you can ask those questions over and over and over again. I recognize that you're reading questions from MSNBC...
 You're wincing. You don't want to talk about foreign policy. I recognize you want to ask another question about gay rights. Well, you know. ISIS is executing homosexuals. You want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals. That ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.
 REPORTER: Do you have a personal animosity against gay Americans?
 CRUZ: Do you have a personal animosity against Christians sir? Your line of questioning is highly curious. You seem fixated on a particular subject. Look, I’m a Christian. Scripture commands us to love everybody and what I have been talking about, with respect to same-sex marriage, is the Constitution which is what we should all be focused on. The Constitution gives marriage to elected state legislators. It doesn’t give the power of marriage to a president, or to unelected judges to tear down the decisions enacted by democratically elected state legislatures.

The Blog Obama Doesn't Want You To See- Previously Censored: Obama Compares ISIS To Christians

Last week Obama lead a prayer breakfast in which in his own words, which you will see from the  text and video below, he compared Christians to ISIS and then flashing the race card stated that Christians were also responsible for defending Slavery and Jim Crow Law* rather than blaming his party for the "Law".  I did a story on this and the Obama Regime censored it.   The Truth must not be censored so the story is being reposted with some updated information. 

Here is what Obama stated in his own words at the National Prayer Breakfast:

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home Country, slavery - Jim Crow all to often was justified in the name of Christ. "

Reverend Evangelist Franklin Graham posted on Facebook:

Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the president implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1,000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition, Rev. Graham wrote. “Mr. President — Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life.”

Muhammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ — true followers of Muhammad emulate Muhammad,” Graham, whose father is legendary evangelist Billy Graham wrote.

Outrage over Obama's statements have come far and wide and have resulted in some unique memes.