There is an unfortunate reluctance among many Christians to use the volatile issue of abortion as a springboard for the Gospel.
They think “mixing” abortion and the Gospel is distracting to the Gospel message, believing that any other topic which doesn’t directly address the Bible is ungodly and/or distracting.
Though I understand such concerns, I could not disagree more because I have used the topic of abortion innumerable times to realize such concerns are blown out of proportion. In fact, not using a hot-button topic like abortion is throwing away a perfectly legitimate subject to help draw large crowds with the end result of weaving a biblical message into the conversation.
Though the abortion issue can cause intense and even violent reactions in people, handled correctly with a great amount of wisdom, it can be used to great effectiveness in drawing an interested crowd that can then be turned into an opportunity of bringing a biblical message into the conversation.
This is easier said than done, of course, but in the video below, I give one example of how I was able to do this on the campus of the University of AZ:
Disagree with “Big Gay” and you may lose everything, including your business. And pay huge fines that could well bankrupt you: just ask Aaron and Melissa Klein, one time owners of “Sweet Cakes by Melissa.”
Their great crime that caused them to pay $135,000 in fines and shut down their bakery business? They declined to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians because of their sincerely held religious beliefs against so-called “same sex marriage.” And this brought down the full wrath of the LGBTQ Nazi/Fascist’s wrath upon their lives. You know, the “tolerant” ones that demand acceptance from everyone for their beliefs and lifestyles but refuse to return the favor:
Where was the “tolerance” for this Christian couple for their religious beliefs? Why did these two lesbians bring this action against them that resulted in the loss of their business and debilitating fines? Aren’t members of the LGBTQ community “tolerant” and “accepting” of others? Isn’t tolerance and acceptance what they preach? You know, the rainbow flag…all colors are united in one big “love wins,” right?
Oh, well, not if you are a Christian or hold to such antiquated and “hateful” beliefs like “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Heaven forbid! Such ilk are haters and bigots and should be driven into the same closet that the LGBTQ Nazi/Fascists just recently exited in all their perverse glory.
The hypocrisy and nauseating standards of these hypocrites are legendary, but few, if any, speak out against them because of the understandable fear that getting on the bad side of “Big Gay” may just ruin your life.
I do not believe I’m being controversial when I write that the Democratic Party considers themselves champions of LGBTQ issues and everything they believe.
For example, “tolerance” and “inclusion” are two main prongs of the LGBTQ ideology, correct? Certainly.
But this is all a lie, a smokescreen they hide behind to dupe the American people into accepting their myriads of perversions and anti-Christ beliefs and teachings. In reality—and this is critical—the new Democrats and their LGBTQ support system are among the greatest hypocrites operating on the world scene.
No further evidence of this is needed than what is happening with the Kavanaugh nomination and the circus swirling around it. Where is the “tolerance” for Judge Kavanaugh’s beliefs? Where is the appeal to “fairness” while these allegations are steamrolling over him?
In truth, we are witnessing what the very core of so-called LGBTQ “rights” truly represent: “tolerance,” “acceptance,” and “inclusion” ONLY if you walk in lock-step with their perverse ideology. Any whiff of disagreement or dissent will be met with a crushing stomp of the totalitarian, fascist boots these people wear.
It is the Nazi Party resurrected and wrapped in the rainbow flag.
Everyone should read the “Pink Swastika,” an eye-opening book which details the unmistakeable link between Hitler’s Third Reich and homosexuality:
Remember Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the infamous late-term Pennsylvania abortion doctor found guilty of murdering three infants born alive, now serving life imprisonment without the possibility of parole?
There is a new movie coming out detailing this gruesome, horrific story. Filmmaker Ann McElhinney gives a moving interview detailing the history and reasons for why she decided to bring this tragedy to the world. Fast forward to 7:00 to get to her story:
Unfortunately, this macabre story received little coverage in the mainstream news. This is understandable because the majority of the mainstream news is pro-death and view “abortion on demand with no restrictions whatsoever” to be a sacred, inalienable right.
But the case of Gosnell exposes abortion for what it actually is: the outright murdering of pre-born children and the extent that pro-death enthusiasts in government will go to keep this barbaric practice going, unfettered by governmental oversight and regulations.
I have been a pro-life activist for almost 40 years. One truth this activism has shown me is the deceptive nature of the abortion argument used by pro-choice advocates.
You will never see a pro-choice cheerleader on a college or university campus, whether that person be a student, professor, or Planned Parenthood representative, showing pictures of aborted babies. It does not happen.
Why? To ask the question is to answer it: they refuse to show such pictures because it is prima facie evidence that abortion is the dismemberment, decapitation and disemboweling of yet unborn infants.
Reader, are you pro-choice? Have you seen photographs and/or video of aborted babies? If not, allow me to recommend you visit this site:
Do your research on this important topic. Another excellent resource is “Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR).” There are many pro-life groups where you can find all the information you need to educate yourself on the horrors of abortion.
And I encourage you to watch the film “Gosnell” when it hits theaters on October 12, 2018. Here is the link for the premier and the movie website:
That Senator Grassley allowed these interruptions to occur and highjack the meeting was the first disgrace, but I don’t wish to spend my time on this. What I want to point out is the misbehavior of the Democrats who were responsible for the disruption.
It is not disputed that Democrats are the party of the left and a bastion of LGBTQ “rights” and their deviant agendas. If there is one main reason why Democrats despise Trump, I believe it is because they see him as a threat to LGBTQ “rights” and the astonishing advancements they enjoyed under the corrupt presidency of Obama.
But there is a far more insidious side to the “resistant tactics” that Democrats have so effectively employed in thwarting the populist agenda American voters demanded when they swept Trump into office in his unprecedented win: the fascist character of their tactics.
One of the hallmarks of the United States since its founding was the desire to discuss divisive issues in venues of respect and tolerance, epitomized through the First Amendment. This ideal is nicely captured in the University of Chicago’s statement on free speech, commonly referred to as the “Chicago Statement.” Some parts read:
“…the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
“…Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.”
The document can be found here and is well worth reading:
The danger which many Democrats pose to this nation is their desire to stifle and silence—even punish—speech and ideas that go against their core values: abortion, same-sex “marriage,” LGBTQ “rights,” etc. All of their noble talk of “tolerance” and “inclusion” is nothing more than hypocrisy clothed in lofty ideals that they themselves despise: for Democrats, tolerance is demanded from everyone for their agenda but is never reciprocated. For proof of this, look no further than the case of Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake for a gay couple.
The immediate interruption by Democrat Kamala Harris, followed by further disruptions from her colleagues and screams from the audience, is further proof of their hatred for the concept of civil, respectful government conducted in an atmosphere of mutual give and take, reasoned debate, and civil discourse.
This disrespectful behavior is simply the scales seen on the dark underbelly of the fascist beast that lurks and lies at the foundation of the “deep state” that rules much of both the state and federal governments. Their childish antics are simply the tip of the iceberg of a belief system that is far uglier and dangerous than what we see in this fiasco.
A little known and rarely discussed fact concerns the roots of the Nazi party. Many have no idea the role that homosexuals played in the founding of Hitler’s Third Reich.
In this blog, I introduce my reader’s to the ground breaking book, “The Pink Swastika,” which goes into great detail about the founding of the Nazi Party. The details are nothing short of astonishing.
We see similar tactics even now occurring in the Democratic Party and the role they and leftist progressives play on our university and college campuses. There is a direct correlation between the crumbling of our First Amendment rights in this country and the one party sworn to advance and uphold the perverse LGBTQ agenda.
And if anyone thinks it is bad now, we have seen nothing yet. Wait until the Dems regain the presidency and control of the federal government; it is certain to happen and the darkness already suffocating this once great nation will tighten its death grip and we may breathe our last.
Something unusual and unexpected just happened to me:
I was dropping off an order for a customer at a nearby UPS store. Placing the package on the scale, I waited while the UPS employee, a young woman, gave me my receipt.
After she hands it to me and I’m about to turn to leave, a cherub faced, curly haired two year old little boy comes racing out of the back. He rushes up to me with his arms outstretched, wanting a hug.
I was dumbfounded, completely taken by surprise. I thought, “He must think I’m someone else” as I stood there, motionless, feeling a bit embarrassed by the whole scene. He stayed in front of me, his arms still out for his hug.
Realizing the woman who just handed me my receipt was his mom, I said to her, “Very friendly!” and reached down and gave the boy a hug.
Now, I’m a man, and situations like this leave men a bit uncomfortable, especially in a scenario like this one. I did not know the mom or her son, and because the situation just sprang up out of nowhere, I was not prepared for it.
As I jumped into my truck after exiting the store, I was moved by what this precious little boy did. I have three daughters, all long grown and separated by time and unfortunate circumstances; I can’t remember the last time I was hugged like that by a small, innocent child.
When I arrived home, I called that UPS store to thank the mom and share with her how touched I was by her son’s spontaneous, selfless act. She said she was worried about my reaction, but when I explained how moved and thankful I was, she expressed relief, gratitude and joy that her son could be the means of brightening someone’s day.
I thank the Lord for that curly haired little boy who gave me such an unexpected gift this morning that touched my soul and warmed my heart. With all the hatred, anger, suspicion and division that we face in this country seemingly every day, this random and “out of the blue” interaction with an innocent child was wonderful.
I’ve been fascinated by WW2 for decades and heard that Hitler instituted a “gay holocaust” against countless homosexuals.
Upon closer examination, this is a myth.
Like much of gay revisionism that seeks to perpetually cast homosexuals as helpless victims continually in need of protection, the carefully choreographed legend that homosexuals were special targets of Nazi brutality dissipates under careful scholarship.
In fact, contrary to the prevailing narrative that the ranks of the Nazi’s were dominated by “men’s men” (masculine, manly, straight, the Clint Eastwood type as portrayed in his movies), many of Hitler’s henchmen—and this applies to Hitler himself—were sodomites.
I’m not saying these soldiers lacked bravery or were not formidable foes on the battlefield; for the most part, they were loyal, accomplished men of war whose commitment to Germany and exploits on the battlefield were exemplary in many instances.
But many of them were also cruel and sadistic, modern barbarians who were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity known in the history of mankind.
Few people are aware that the Nazi party was founded primarily by active homosexuals; it is disputed whether or not Hitler himself was a practicing homosexual, especially during the time before he rose to power in Germany.
That both Hitler and many in his Nazi party were homosexuals is not a fact members of the LGBTQ community desire to have promulgated; such facts do not bode well for their agenda of normalizing—even glorifying—the nefarious “sin against nature” from sea to shining sea in the United States.
For those interested in this topic, I will include a link to the excellent book, “The Pink Swastika” by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Here is a link to a website where you can download much of the book—the 4th edition—for free.
Here is the chapter which debunks the myth that homosexuals were murdered/incarcerated/tortured en masse in death camps.
A well researched book as explosive as this will have its share of critics; facts presented here throws cold water on the false narratives constantly pushed by the LGBTQ revisionists seeking to normalize sexual deviancy.
Those familiar with the tactics of the LGBTQ movement to discredit, ridicule, defame and spread falsehoods against anyone brave enough to publicly expose their immoral agenda should be aware that their tried and proven smear tactics have gone into overdrive to discredit the “Pink Swastika.”
“The book, in which the authors argue that homosexuality in the Nazi Party contributed to the extreme militarism of Nazi Germany, has been widely debunked and drawn extensive criticism from historians.”
Interestingly, the reference that Wikipedia uses to support this allegation is from an article in the apparently pro-gay news outlet called “Boston Magazine.” This article then references another article from the Advocate, a well known cheerleader for all things gay—hardly a non-biased source—that supposedly “thoroughly debunked” Lively and Abrams book.
“Since we first published this exhaustively documented history book in 1995 we’ve challenged all critics to debate the facts in any neutral unedited forum but never had a single taker. And in 23 years of fake news coverage of the book, not a single liberal ‘journalist’ has ever accepted our challenge to actually fact-check it point by point and report their findings to the public.”
What comes from this back and forth debate on whether or not the “Pink Swastika” is “fake history” or not is to read it yourself, check out its abundant references, and make your own decision.
Imagine for a moment that you lived, like Lot and his family, in ancient Sodom (Genesis 19). Unbeknownst to you, in five days your town would be reduced to a burning, sulfurous and uninhabitable ash heap.
Would it please God if you were to spend your last few days sharing Jesus with your fellow townsmen? Would your efforts at evangelizing these violent homosexuals be biblical?
I believe most Christians reading this post might be outraged that I would ask questions they consider bordering on blasphemy. After all, they might reason, does not God command us to share the Gospel with every creature on Earth (Mark 16:15)?
At one time I would have agreed with those holding to the position that God wants us to share the Gospel with every single human on Earth.
I don’t believe that any longer.
What changed my mind? Matthew 7:6: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (ESV)
Though I had read this verse many times over the decades that I have been a Christian and sharing the Gospel with whoever I could, it was not until I listened to a sermon by Rolfe Barnard several years ago that my mind was changed.
Barnard died in 1969. I have listened to many of his sermons online. The one that changed my thinking is here. And there is one particular story Barnard tells in this sermon that perhaps did more than anything to shape and mold the way I think today. It starts at 48:22 and goes to about 55:00.
I believe this is a “must listen to” sermon for everyone active in a soul-winning and evangelistic ministry. It will change your thinking if you are open to its message. But be prepared to be challenged in ways you might not expect.
Barnard can be difficult to listen to because he has an unfortunate quirk in his preaching: he often shouts, occasionally producing ear-splitting screams that might puncture your eardrums if you are wearing headphones.
Outside of this annoying defeat, I have learned much from this old saint and have been blessed by his teachings. Do I agree with everything Barnard teaches? No, but you don’t have to agree with everything someone teaches; he has more gold than chaff.
Believing as Barnard does is a revolutionary and seismic shift in the belief system of your typical Evangelical believer.
Which brings me back to the title of this post: “Should we share the Gospel at ‘Gay Pride’ parades?” I say “no.”
There are several reasons why I don’t believe we should share the gospel at LGBTQ events.
First, it is critical how you view the Gospel. Do you see it as a precious gem, something so infinitely fine and valuable that you would not dream of casting such a jewel into the muddy, filthy and disgusting mire of a pigsty?
Perhaps you are offended by my comparing a gay pride parade to a pigsty, but for anyone who has either attended your typical pride parade or seen pictures of what happens there, the reference is accurate.
I need to define what I mean by “sharing the Gospel.” In a nutshell, this is offering Jesus as follows:
“Friends, the Bible tells us that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.’
“The Bible also tells us that there is none righteous, not even one, that all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
“We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but because of what Jesus did on the cross two thousand years ago, shedding His holy and innocent blood for you and I, we can be forgiven and receive the gift of eternal life.
“Come to Jesus, friends! He will give you new life, come into your heart and make it clean, wiping away all of your sins.”
I know there is infinitely more to the Gospel than this, but I’m trying to be brief. When we “preach the Gospel,” we are offering to sinners the the path of forgiveness through the shed blood of our Lord. And this is the message I believe we should not offer to unrepentant sodomites proudly parading themselves in their lusts and debauchery at your typical gay pride event.
Have you been to gay pride events or watched videos on Youtube about them? Have you seen two men or two women french kiss each other and/or engage in other types of lewd behavior? Or heard the hateful, vile and blasphemous language and curses out of their mouths against the very Jesus you are offering to them?
What did Jesus do when the people in a particular town asked Him to leave (Mark 5:1-20)? Did He stay, against their clearly stated wishes, because He knew they needed to receive the very message they had no interest in hearing? Why do we think we know better than what the Lord does?
When we do this, we are casting the precious pearl of the Gospel before the feet of pigs. This is in direct opposition to the clear commandment of Jesus not to do this, as Barnard so eloquently and forcibly presents in his convicting sermon.
You have heard, no doubt, this saying: “Law to the proud, grace to the humble.” If anything, those who feel led and compelled to preach at gay pride events should be giving these proud sinners the law and not the gospel. To share anything else except the fact that their horrific sin is leading them straight to hell and judgment is, in my opinion, doing the exact opposite of Matthew 7:6. And we will be held personally accountable for this disobedience.
But back to living in Sodom five days before the Lord rained fire and brimstone upon its inhabitants. Can you imagine what that wicked town must have looked like? A San Francisco Gay Pride event at its worst, but on steroids times a factor of 100.
Those people despised the God of the Bible, reveling in their wickedness and sexual perversion. No doubt Lot tried to tell these vile sodomites about the God he worshipped, but they were not interested in the least in his message.
Like most Christians, I rejoice that the Supreme Court rightly decided for the Christian baker.
But the problem remains the same: why does this country look to unelected lawyers in black robes to determine what is right and wrong? Who are they to tell anyone whether or not they can refuse to bake a cake for someone whose message they find offensive to their sincerely held religious beliefs?
“…So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
To give nine elected and unaccountable lawyers the power to decide such issues is what has helped plunge this country into the abyss of moral relativism and wickedness. While we rejoice in this ruling, we mourn the others legalizing abortion, sodomy based “marriage,” the posting of the 10 commandments made illegal in public schools, etc.
Never did our founding fathers intend for the Supreme Court of the United States to usurp and supplant the will of the people expressed through laws made by our elected representatives. That we wring our hands in anticipation of how the “Supreme Court will rule” on issues of national importance shows how far we have sunk as a republic.
Today, June 6, 2018, the last of the six defendants was served with my Complaint. This step is crucial because these six defendants, by law, must be put on notice that a lawsuit has been initiated against them.
As in any lawsuit, there are certain time parameters that must be followed. In my case, I had 90 days after I filed my initial Complaint (which I did on March 8, 2018) to serve all the defendants or the suit would be dismissed.
Now, all of the six defendants named in my lawsuit have received a copy of my Complaint within the statutory time limit set by the rules. This means my suit goes forward; the next move will be for each of the defendants to respond.