Media Having Orgasms over Cheap Religious Porn
Media Having Orgasms over Cheap Religious Porn
The Bible says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).
Unfortunately, however, many members of the mainstream media spend much of their professional lives doing just that: calling evil good and good evil.
Look at their treatment of the war on the Islamofascists – hide footage from the American people graphically depicting the utter savagery of the enemy (e.g., 9-11, beheadings, body parts), while doing the bidding of the Islamofascist Fifth Column in this country (e.g., CAIR) and constantly making excuses for the Islamofascists, whitewashing their true intentions at every turn.
So, then, why should we be surprised to learn that the media are having a self-masturbatory field day gushing over the obviously false, heretical, and extra-biblical “Gospel of Judas,” which (surprise!) makes the one our LORD Jesus Christ called “the son of perdition” out to be a good guy, after all. (You see, to listen to some in the media, one would have to conclude that Judas has simply been the victim of “bad press” all these years.)
But, why should we be surprised when the same media outlets that shill for the likes of Hamas, Zarqawi, and Hezbollah would be attracted to a long-ago rejected text (and Irenaus, Bishop of Lyons, was no slouch) about one of whom Christ said it would better had he never been born?
The Bible says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).
Unfortunately, however, many members of the mainstream media spend much of their professional lives doing just that: calling evil good and good evil.
Look at their treatment of the war on the Islamofascists – hide footage from the American people graphically depicting the utter savagery of the enemy (e.g., 9-11, beheadings, body parts), while doing the bidding of the Islamofascist Fifth Column in this country (e.g., CAIR) and constantly making excuses for the Islamofascists, whitewashing their true intentions at every turn.
So, then, why should we be surprised to learn that the media are having a self-masturbatory field day gushing over the obviously false, heretical, and extra-biblical “Gospel of Judas,” which (surprise!) makes the one our LORD Jesus Christ called “the son of perdition” out to be a good guy, after all. (You see, to listen to some in the media, one would have to conclude that Judas has simply been the victim of “bad press” all these years.)
But, why should we be surprised when the same media outlets that shill for the likes of Hamas, Zarqawi, and Hezbollah would be attracted to a long-ago rejected text (and Irenaus, Bishop of Lyons, was no slouch) about one of whom Christ said it would better had he never been born?
posted by GunJam at 2:16 AM
11 Comments:
The Media is out of touch with Mainstream America, much more Mainstream Conservative America. The media doesn't know, its about to go the way of the Dems..
hi, anonymous: Thank you for the comment. (I hope that you are right!) -- gunjam
Why are you so threatened by the fact that there are various gospels that never made it into the Bible? I find it interesting. And how are you qualified to determine which ones are the most "authentic"? Do you have a PhD in Religion or Archaelogy or Ancient History?
hi, elizabeth -- thank you for your comment. My first question to you is: Do you call yourself a Christian? I ask that, because my reply might vary a bit depending on your answer. If you are a Christian, I would be HARDER on you than if you simply see yourself as a seeker or an agnostic, although, in the end, the answer is the same. Rather than go into a theological treatise, I suggest that you read two New Testament epistles: 2Peter and Jude. Then come back and tell me if you think those two divinely inspired writers were also "paranoid" when they warned, respectively to limit oneself to the Scriptures and to contend for the faith. Bottom line: IF you call yourself a Christian, then you should be jealous for God's Word and alert to Satan's direct attacks thereon. Bottom line the Scriptures AND the Gospel(sic) of Judas cannot BOTH be true, as they directly contradict one another. You will have to decide for yourself which (if either) you believe, Elizabeth. I, for one, believe the Bible. -- gunjam
gunjam, I just don't know that it is that easy to interpret. I couldn't find the specific passages you were thinking of, but I did find this apt quote from the second epistle of Peter:
"some things hard to be understood [in the epistles] in which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." That sounds like a piece of cautionary advice to me.
As for my identity--I don't call myself a Christian, because I don't believe in the superstitious stuff (Jesus's resurrection) except as metaphor, nor do I believe that Jesus died for my sins (Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine, in the words of Patti Smith). However, I do think that everything Jesus said was basically correct.
hi, elizabeth! Thank you for the comment. Thank you, also, for taking the time to read the epistles that i cited. You pinged on exactly the passage in 2Peter i had in mind. The key "qualifier" is "Scriptures." The Gospel of Judas doesn't even qualify in that category. Therefore, it is to be summarily rejected as spurious.
The passage in Jude to which I was alluding was verse 3: "3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Well, i appreciate your honesty. You are not a Christian if you do not believe in the literal, physical resurrection of the LORD Jesus from the dead -- nor if you reject his substitutionary atonement.
Nonetheless, keep reading the (real) Scriptures. Perhaps, you will be converted one of these days. (I mean that sincerely.) -- gunjam
I'm still not sure I totally follow your argument. Who decided which were the "scriptures" of Christianity? Do we even know this? What we call the "New Testament" was written AFTER Jesus' death. Jesus did not get a chance to review and sign off on the draft, needless to say!
That's why what I believe is the correct doctrine are the principles that Jesus espoused, which can be determined with reasonable accuracy by reading the four gospels. When you put the four accounts together, even though they disagree in some aspects, you can get an overall sense of what Jesus meant.
Literalism is a trap. Much of what Jesus said was metaphorical (parables). As for the later writings in the New Testament, we can presume that whoever transcribed them may have added their own "spin."
The reality is that we may never know with total accuracy who really said what 2,000 years ago. That's why we have to use common sense and our own moral judgment in sifting out the truth.
Hi, elizabeth! Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Your sentences are sincere, if riddled with misconceptions. There really has been no serious argument over which books comprised the New Testament for some 17 centuries (except by cultists -- e.g., the Mormons). The jury that accepted the current canon was the Christian Church at large. (See http://www.ntcanon.org/). Whether or not the words of Scripture are reliable or not, is, of course, a matter of faith and not something that I can prove to you in a laboratory. I can, however, demonstrate to you that the LORD Jesus and the apostles considered the words of the New Testament to be infallible (e.g., Matthew 24:35; 2 Timothy 3:16 ). Never in the New Testament is a distinction made in the level of inspiration between the Old and New Testament Scriptures. (And, while the LORD never wrote any Scriptures, He plainly expected that His oral teachings would be (in part, at least) be captured in writing. I am curious -- do you also in the same way question the authenticity of the Old Testament Scriptures? (I accept both as God's Word.) Funny: I have never heard you critique Muslims who unflinchingly accept every word of the Qur'an as true (which, of course, is their right to do), when there is no comparison between the two books (Bible and Qur'an)as far as detail and quality of teaching and majesty of expression are concerned. Again: Keep studying. Seek and you will find... -- gunjam
To answer your question: Yes, I do question the "authenticity," if you want to use that word, of the Old Testament as well...or rather, what I mean is that I do not believe it is the literal word of God, but rather what people interpreted and transcribed based on their understanding of God--injecting their own cultural biases in the process.
As for the Koran--I don't believe it's the literal word of God either.
hi, elizabeth -- thank you for your reply. I appreciate your honesty. I would probably say that you are either a skeptic or an agnostic, if I had to put a label on you. Christian believers are not "pickers and choosers" of the Scriptures: They accept the ENTIRE Bible as true (which is not to say we are flawless in understanding, teaching, or (especially) obeying it. I still recommend that you read a bit from the Bible daily. It can change a person's heart. http://www.biblegateway.org is a site where the Bible is readily available online in multiple versions and languages. Regards, gunjam
Elizabeth,
There are many wonderful books, written by learned theologians, secular investigators, scientists, archeologists, scholars, even secular lawyers, who have asked the very same questions you asked. Their conclusion is that the Bible is historically accurate, the Word of God, and sufficient for putting our trust and confidence in.
The problem with relying on your own common sense and judgment is that people always are subject to Cognitive Dissonance--they reject as false anything that they can't assimilate into their current belief structure.
In historical times people often, on the basis of common sense and their own moral judgments, created alternative forms of Christianity and wrote other gospels and religious texts. It was for this reason that the apostles and disciples strove so diligently to make sure that the amazing--and incredible--true Gospel was documented, and worked hard so that none of the false gospels would confuse their followers.
Remember, many Westerners call themselves Christians but they aren't. That is not a criticism, it is just a fact. And it confuses a lot of people. People tend to think that trying to be a good person is the same thing as being a Christian.
The bottom line is this: the definition of a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Thinking that he was a great teacher or moral guide does not make you a Christian. Neither does reading the Bible or going to church or being raised by Christian parents. Even being baptized doesn't make you a Christian.
No. You are only a Christian if you have made a very specific and conscious decision to believe in Jesus as the Christ.
It's as simple and as open to all people as that. And yet, it is so profound and so spirit-changing that in the time it took you to read this note, 17 people around the world were tortured, imprisoned or killed for their desire to cling to that faith above life itself.
Remember, Elizabeth, the New Testament was not written for non-Christians. It is by Christians, for Christians as a guide and instruction book for life.
By your questions, and your persistence to get to the truth, it is evident that God is whispering to your heart, calling you to Him. Read the Bible, and ask God to reveal to you if it is true. He is faithful.
Post a Comment
<< Home