Thursday, May 31, 2012

Billy Graham backs North Carolina's anti-gay marriage amendment

Read more from this Tulsa World article at

RALEIGH, N.C. — The Rev. Billy Graham urged North Carolina voters Wednesday to support an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, a move that one observer says is highly unusual but another says is in keeping with the minister's moral beliefs. "Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern," said the 93-year-old Graham, who lives near Asheville. "I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected." His complete statement about Amendment One will be part of full-page ads slated to appear in 14 North Carolina newspapers throughout the weekend. Graham's statement was issued by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which is based in Charlotte and is led by Graham's son, the Rev. Franklin Graham. Franklin Graham recorded a message last month in support of Amendment One, which is on the ballot in the election Tuesday. "At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage," Billy Graham's statement said. "The Bible is clear — God's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment" Tuesday. Although Graham's last crusade was in 2005, he remains deeply influential. In April 2010, President Barack Obama made the pilgrimage to meet with Graham, continuing a trend of counseling commanders in chief that began with Dwight Eisenhower. Since the death of his wife, Ruth Bell Graham, nearly five years ago, he has spent most of his time at his home in Montreat. Public appearances have been rare, and he's been hospitalized several times, most recently in December for pneumonia. Danny Akin, president of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, said he's not surprised that Graham took such a strong stand on Amendment One. "I think he would see this as I do, not so much as a political issue — which it is — but a moral issue," Akin said. "He believes it's right to affirm that marriage should be understood as a covenant between a man and a woman." Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, also has said she supports the amendment. North Carolina already outlaws gay marriage, but adding that ban to the state constitution would make it much harder to change in the future.

In mid-May, President Obama announced that he believes that Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

The function of government is to protect human civilization. The foundation of human civilization is the marriage between a man and a woman and the family. When the government works to undermine the family it forfeits its very purpose and must be abolished. The book and series "Speechless" shows that the agenda of the homosexual political movement is to by law to discriminate against and persecute Christians. BY THE WAY-FOX NEWS IS VERY PRO-GAY. This includes John Stossel, Bill O'Reilly, and Charles Krauthammer. All three are very vocal on their support of special rights and privileges for homosexual. Undermining marriage will have a devastating impact on society and culture.

Also, the radical left-wing publication "Newsweek" put Obama on the cover with a rainbow colored halo (keeping up with their making Obama a god or a Christ figure) and the words "America's first gay president." Well, I am not going to argue with that.

NOTE: There was a planned "underwear" bomb attack planned for the anniversary of Osama's death. Obama falsely claimed that there was no planned anniversary attack and at the same time blew the double-agents cover who was involved in the prevention of the attack.

The other blog

My other blog is "The Aramaic New Testament" and it is

Recommended Book: "Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me" by Geert Wilders

This book is excellent and highly recommended. He discusses two issues regarding the Aramaic Christian heritage. The first is the theory of "Christoph Luxenberg" that the Qu'ran was originally written in Syriac. I personally think this is highly unlikely. (Christoph Luxenberg is the pseudonym of an anonymous Aramaic Christian.) Muslims have threatened to kill Luxenberg for the blasphemy of saying that the Koran was written in Aramaic originally and not in Arabic. It is ironic that while some Muslims want to kill Mr. Luxenberg, others use his writings for apologetic purposes. Mr. Luxenberg says that in Aramaic, the Koran promises the martyred Muslim (that is a Muslim who falls in battle while killing Christians, Jews and other non-believers) is granted "raisons" and not "virgins" in heaven. Now the Koran also promises little boys, most likely catamites, to pleasure the martyrs, I don't know how Mr. Luxenberg explains that one. The Koran is not the product of a learned mind. It makes so many errors in re-telling Old Testament stories and from the New Testament, only John the Baptist, the Supper of Our Lord, and the crucifixion are alluded to-and Mohammed says that Jesus wasn't really crucified. Wilders point is that the origins of the Koran should be explored and the death threats against Mr. Luxenberg are preventing research from being done. Mr. Luxenberg is wrong. Now Wilders doesn't say that he is correct-his argument is that we should have an atmosphere in which the origins of the Koran can be explored and theories will stand or fall on their own merits.

Mr. Wilders also disproves the idea that Muslims caused the Renaissance by providing Europeans with translations of the Greek and Roman classics that were made by Assyrian Christians. Wilders says that the scientific progress of the Assyrian (East Syriac or "Nestorian") Christians were important-but most of the Greek Classics-the Europeans already had.

Wilders does mention Johannitius.

So who was Johannitius? Johannitius was Hunayn ibn Ishaq (also Hunain or Hunein) (Syriac: ܚܢܝܢ
ܐܝܣܚܩ, Arabic: أبو زيد حنين بن إسحاق العبادي‎; 'Abū Zayd Ḥunayn ibn 'Isḥāq al-'Ibādī, known in Latin as Johannitius) (809–873) was a famous and influential Assyrian
Nestorian Christian
scholar, physician, and scientist, known for his work in translating Greek scientific and medical works into Arabic and Syriac during the heyday of the Islamic Abbasid Caliphate. Ḥunayn ibn Isḥaq was the most productive translator of Greek medical and scientific treatises in his day. He studied Greek and became known among the Arabs as the "Sheikh of the translators." He mastered four languages: Arabic, Syriac, Greek and Persian. His translations did not require corrections. Hunayn's method was widely followed by later translators. He was originally from southern Iraq but he spent his working life in Baghdad, the center of the great ninth-century Greek-into-Arabic/Syriac translation movement.

This is a picture of Johannitius (Hunayn ibn-Ishaq al-'Ibadi )from an illuminated manuscript of the Isagoge. The Isagoge (Greek: Εἰσαγωγή) or "Introduction" to Aristotle's "Categories", written by Porphyry in Greek and translated into Latin by Boethius, was the standard textbook on logic for at least a millennium after his death.

Recommended Book Michael Savage "Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama's Dreams of the Socialist States of America

One of the interesting things in this book is Hilary Clinton's new theory of intervention. It is called "the responsibility to protect." When an uprising of radical Muslims threatens to overthrow a moderate regime or an American allie, we have a "responsibility to protect" the Islamists and guarantee their success in bringing a radical Islamist regime into power. However, according to the "responsibility to protect doctrine" our "responsibility to protect" doesn't extend to Coptic or Assyrian Christians.

Egypt court gives 12 Christians life sentences

CAIRO (AP) — An Egyptian court sentenced 12 Christians to life in prison and acquitted eight Muslims on Monday in a case set off by religious tensions in the country's south. The Christians were found guilty of sowing public strife, the possession of illegal weapons and shooting dead two Muslims in April of last year in Minya province, about 220 kilometers (135 miles) south of Cairo. The religious tension in Minya spilled over into violence last year when a Muslim microbus driver, angered by a speed bump outside a wealthy Christian man's villa, got into a scuffle with security guards who beat him. After returning to his village of Abu Qurqas that evening, he rounded up the villagers who then gathered outside an ultraconservative Islamist group's main office there to protest his beating. According to rights researcher Ishak Ibrahim, the Christians nearby thought they were going to be attacked and shot from their rooftops down at the crowd, killing two and wounding two others. For several days after, angry villagers torched dozens of Christian homes and stores. The eight Muslims on trial in the same case had been charged with possession of illegal weapons and burning down the Christian-owned homes and stores after the shooting. "The fact that the Muslims were acquitted means that the attorney general's investigation from the beginning was faulty and unfair because there was evidence to prove these men had burned Christian property," Ibrahim said. The State Security Court, whose rulings cannot be appealed, handed down its sentence on Monday. The ruling military council is the only entity with the power to request a retrial. Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt's estimated 80 million people, complain that the courts and police often turn a blind eye to discrimination or violence against them. Some fear the surge of ultraconservative Islamists to power after Hosni Mubarak's overthrow last year could further curtail their rights.

Other recommended books:

"In the Shadow of the Sword: The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire" by Tom Holland. This book examines the world as it was before the rise of Islam. It discusses the Himyarite persecutions (as chronicles in a famous Aramaic book entitled "The Book of The Himyarites" which detailed how Jewish tribes of Arabs (yes-Arabic Jews-which seems oxymoronic today) persecuted Christians. His thesis is that Islam was inspired by imperialism-rather than imperialism being a later development of Islam.

Another interesting book is "The Aleppo Codex" by Matti Friedman. The Aleppo Codex is one of the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament. Unfortunately, a large section has been lost. This book tells the fascinating story of the Aleppo Codex-which I have written about in this newsletter.

Obama defense of Muslems persecuting Christians in Nigeria

There has been many horrific attacks lately against Christians, mostly Catholics, in Nigeria. Often these attacks are carried out during Sunday worship and many of the parishioners are killed. Obama says that this isn't religious persecution-it is only territorial disputes.




I wrote about the story of the priest having an ankle rope being a myth. Which it is-it turns out that it is from the Aramaic Zohar. Many people incorrectly assume that this story is in the Bible-which it isn't :

That Rope around the High Priest's Ankle By Tod Bolen –bibleplaces blog

It's a myth. Sorry to ruin such a good story for you.The notion that the high priest would tie a rope around his ankle before entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) so that his body could be pulled out should he be struck down is not found in any ancient source, including the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the Apocrypha, the Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud, or the Jerusalem Talmud. The earliest reference that I know of is in a 13th century A.D. Jewish work, the Zohar: A knot of rope of gold hangs from his leg, from fear perhaps he would die in the holy of holies, and they would need to pull him out with this rope. The Zohar says a lot of other things that are not trustworthy. In fact, wearing such a rope would probably be a violation of Leviticus 16:3-4, which gives clear directions on what the high priest is to wear on Yom Kippur: But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water and then put them on. (ESV) John Gill cites this story in his Exposition of New Testament, published in 1746-48. Concerning Hebrews 9:7, he cites "Zohar in Lev. fol. 43. 3. & Imre Binah in ib": The Jews say, that a cord or thong was bound to the feet of the high-priest when he went into the holy of holies, that if he died there, the rest might be able to draw him out; for it was not lawful for another priest to go in, no, not an high-priest, none besides him on the day of atonement. There are many websites and other sources that perpetuate this legend (including the NIV Study Bible on Exodus 28:35). Another webpage that discusses this myth is located at (8/27/09): Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky has written a lengthy article refuting the claim in the Zohar.


The IRS and the restriction of free speech for Christians

I do not believe that the IRS has any business monitoring the content of sermons. Many pastors are afraid of the IRS and are thus reluctant to speech out on moral issues. The Allied Defense Fund is preparing to defend our first amendment rights of speech and religion by being prepared to file a lawsuit the next time the IRS threatens to revoke a churches 501 C3 status.

The Roman Catholic Church sues Obamacare Obama is mandating that Christians religious institutions should be forced by law to pay for abortions. The Catholic church-thankfully-is suing over the law in order to protect our constitutional freedoms, our religious rights and our freedom of conscious. IT IS TROUBLING to see our basic human rights under attack at the highest level of the American government.

Why I don't ever want to see women in combat, on the front lines By Dr. Keith Ablow Saturday, May 19 is the official date for Armed Forces Day this year. As I write, the U.S. military is now easing some of the restrictions that have kept female soldiers away from the most dangerous military operations--allowing them to play more perilous support (but not combat) roles. This brings up a question that will help Americans ponder whether we wish to preserve any gender distinctions in our culture--and why. The question is this: Should females be allowed to serve in combat as front-line soldiers? An accessory question is: In the event the draft is reinstated, should females be drafted into the Armed Services for the first time in history and given combat roles (limited only by physical endurance, not gender)? I pose these questions because the momentum of the Women's Rights Movement that properly erased some of the indefensible barriers that limited women's roles in the workplace and in professions and in business and in politics could easily power past all the special characteristics generally considered "female" and treat all human beings essentially as if neutered. And before that occurs it seems we as Americans would want to make sure that we want it to. Just look at the plot in the blockbuster movie "The Hunger Games." Females and males are expected to kill each other without so much as a hiccup of hesitation. And audiences paid that fact no mind. Zero. Already, the side effects of abandoning traditional female stereotypes--like the notion that girls are extremely sensitive or have a unique role in nurturing and protecting children--are apparent. Predictably, girls increasingly feel as empowered as boys to express themselves sexually--and, with neither gender the demure one--young people have sexual contact earlier with more partners. Predictably, girls are increasingly in touch with their aggressive instincts, leading to more girl-on-girl physical violence. Predictably, marriage rates are declining as both genders see themselves as equally able to sustain themselves separately in the workplace and equally ambivalent about giving up sexual freedom. Again, I am not saying that these side effects are not well worth the gains in equality between genders we seek and achieve. I am, instead, noting that the gains do, indeed, shift other characteristics of our culture. And I am advising that we think through what, if anything, we lose when we make the argument that girls and boys are essentially the same. Questions about how to use females in the military are one such theatre of decision-making. In my opinion, I do not believe women should serve as combat soldiers. I know they are fully able to do so. I know they would acquit themselves spectacularly well. But I can't deny that I value the special place of women in society as a protected gender. I can't deny my core feeling that women--by virtue of their anatomy and physiology and whatever God-given ability to nurture they possess--would be impacted more negatively by mortal combat than men. I can't deny that I think it would bleed out some wonderful chivalrous quality in men were we to collectively send women to the front lines to bleed out as Marines shot up taking hills. I can't deny that, were my wife or I to have to leave our children to defend this nation in hand-to-hand combat, that I would hold myself in the most vile contempt for letting my wife be the one to go. I can't deny that I would worry for my son were he to volunteer or be drafted to fight on the front lines, but that I would worry even more for my daughter. I just don't think it is some vestige of a prejudiced, Neanderthal perspective I harbor that I believe our nation could be doubly demoralized by women coming back from war in body bags in equal numbers to men. I think it is something else: Reality. It is the truth making itself evident: When I was told as a boy to never hit a girl, it seemed entirely obvious to me. A given. What sort of boy would strike a female, anyhow? A liberated boy? Sorry, I just don't buy that--in my heart or my head. And by my very nature as a man, someplace deep in my soul, somewhere connected to God and truth, I want to protect women from violent death--even in war. Our culture is rapidly dissolving all those quaint "stereotypes" about girls being sweet and boys being tough. But I think that we ought to be careful not to destroy something valuable about the true differences between genders, in the process. Something just plain true. And I think that one place to draw the line is in combat--where men must sometimes fight to the death on the front lines and women should never have to. Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at
Read more:

L.A.'s Ch ristian Mongolians Find Home at Church:A small group gathers in Koreatown on Sundays to share their faith and support each other in a new land.
November 26, 2005|K. Connie Kang | Times Staff Writer
Every Sunday evening after their 90-minute worship service, members of the L.A. Mongolian Church rearrange pew benches, turning their small sanctuary into a cozy dining room. There, they linger over noodles and tacos, and visit with each other late into the night. It's a weekly ritual that congregants of Los Angeles' only Mongolian church look forward to. It sustains them through the week, as they work long hours, often in low-paying jobs, to survive in America.


Mongolian Christian Church, 3550 W 6th Street, Suite 200; Los Angeles, CA 90020

Church purity Mongolia


No comments: