For those of you that watched Bryan Denlinger's "huge announcement" video, I had a few questions...

1.) Do you agree with his view on racial purity? I, for one, find it ridiculous. Everyone in the comments, from what I saw, was making it a white vs. black thing, but that's not what Katherine said. She said to marry someone of your nationality. That means a British person cannot marry a french person. I don't find that this makes sense at all in the NT scriptures. We are all one in Christ Jesus. And Timothy was a half Jew and half Greek(why would the Jews compel him to be circumcised if his unique Jewish characteristics were ruined by his Greek side? as another commentor noted...). Also, what do you do if you're like me and are a mix(Irish/German)? Am I forbidden to marry then because of my mixed kindreds?

2.) What do you think about what Bryan said that if Katherine were to have complications during her delivery, he would have let her die other than go to a hospital? I can't find things like that in scripture. They had physicians in the Bible. Why would it be a sin to use one? Doesn't that make taking holistic style alternative treatments for diseases not trusting God because he could cure you supernaturally? This is something that I really like Scott Johnson about(though I rarely listen to him anymore due to his prepping type videos) because he always said he had nothing against emergency medicine to save a life. He wasn't some medical "goon," he distrusted the entire establishment, but he knew that it wasn't evil in theory and that it could/should be used in some instances. (Btw, I do agree with homebirthing, but that's not really the issue here).

3.) They REALLY railed against the SSN and birth certificate thing. Now, I don't agree with our system, but I don't understand how not having those is going to somehow make you a sovereign citizen or that the government can now magically not take your kids away. If anything, I think that it would make them more suspicious of you in the event you broke an arm and needed a cast or something. In the Bible they were made to pay taxes to the government. Their government literally openly worshiped multiple pagan gods. I don't understand what's wrong with getting my child a birth certificate, or how it's somehow sinful. To me it seems like a case of following Romans 13. Getting a SSN or a birth certificate(or even a marriage license) does NOT in any way restrict you from preaching the word of God or following his commandments.

4.) They kept saying how if things go wrong it's your diet. It's like they are blaming people. For a while my family had no food. We literally had to eat food from a dumpster to survive. It's not that we didn't make any money, just not enough. We felt blessed by God no matter what we found. God was truly providing for our need, food. It didn't matter what food it was. On a regular basis for 6 months(until our financial situation changed) we at poptarts, jerky, chips, popcorn, etc. Sometimes we'd find fresh fruit, and we'd rejoice. All other food was bought on a budget of $125 for 3 people, including me that was pregnant at the time and our 1 year old son. He obviously got the priority. Thankfully we lived in a neighborhood with scratch and dent stores that supplied a lot of applesauce(for 10 cents per individual cup) and pasta with sauce(sometimes even organics). Would Bryan blame us for what we had to eat? Should we have held out until raw milk and all organic produce with grass-fed beef was being stocked in-date in the Aldi dumpster for us? That's ridiculous. And it just shows how easy it is to talk when you don't know what others are going through.

I don't mean to come down hating on Katherine(I personally think that she probably just gets too excited since she's learned a lot in the Lord, but it comes off arrogant and could turn a lot of people away from the truth of the gospel), but it seems to me that since she's been actively more involved in Bryan's ministry and appearing more in the videos that he's gotten into a lot of man-made rules that don't have an ounce of weight in the Bible. In the past he'd rebuke Kent Hovind for not paying his taxes, but now he's going way further than that.


What do you all think?

Is it officially withdrawn? I heard she was going to do it in January.

From what I read on the YahooNews article, this boy's temple is completely Talmudic. But, you would expect that with him supporting homosexual marriage. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are pretty clear in the OT.

My husband and I plan to. Our son is only 1 at the moment. He is learning so fast though, and I would hate for him to be brainwashed and slowed down by public school. Right now he can walk, say "mama" and "dada", chew solids, drink water using a straw, play with blocks....He's only 1! Of course it helps that we didn't vaccinate, we avoid modern medicine unless in emergency, I breastfed, and we eat as real foods as we can afford.   

The public school system is a joke. I recommend IndoctriNATION as a video to watch about public schooling for everyone that is wary of homeschooling. But, sadly, we don't have much support on this from family.

Homeschooling seems to be continually under attack,  but I thought I'd show you something that recently came up in Ohio....

Attention concerned parents. OH has just proposed a bill that would infringe on the rights of all homeschooling parents(and eventually could lead to the infringement of public schooling parents as well). In SB 248 all parents that wish to homeschool would be forced to undergo evaluations and tests on both child and parents. This is under the guise of them wanting to insure the child's safety, when homeschooling tragedies are exponentially less common than public school shootings. I urge you to call or email Ohio's sponsors of this bill, even if you don't live in Ohio. This bill could stretch to your state, and undermines the rights of parents.

Example of what to say:
I urge you to withdraw Senate Bill 248. Instead of solving the problems that led to the death of 14-year-old Teddy Foltz-Tedesco, this bill violates fundamental American values—including parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s education without unwarranted government interference, and citizens’ right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Requiring government agents to investigate parents and children before homeschooling is allowed violates both of these fundamental principles of freedom. Such a process in no way solves the problem that led to Teddy’s tragic death—rather the bill merely serves as a smokescreen more likely to obstruct a clear view of what happened to Teddy.

And the current legal structure for homeschool families whereby local school districts are notified and families demonstrate annual academic progress has worked well for nearly 25 years. Parents should not have to jump over the hurdles that SB 248 would create to remove their children from bad situations in traditional schools, such as abuse, bullying, or inadequate education.

Furthermore, children’s services employees are just not equipped or qualified to decide where children go to school. Is the Ohio legislature going to authorize hiring the hundreds of new “homeschooling agents” required under this bill? Or will you just tolerate the further stretching of resources so that more children like Teddy do not receive the attention they deserve?

This bill is poorly designed, does not solve the problem, unduly burdens innocent families, and prevents parents from making decisions that are in the best interest of their children. Please withdraw Senate Bill 248 and focus your reform efforts in a way that will actually solve the problem rather than violating the rights of fit parents.

Who to call/email:
Senator Cafaro (Primary Sponsor)
1 Capitol Square, Ground Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 466-7182
Email: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/cafaro/contact

Senator Brown (Cosponsor)
1 Capitol Square, Ground Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 466-5204
Email: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/brown/contact

Senator Turner (Cosponsor)
1 Capitol Square, 2nd Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 466-4583
Email: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/turner/contact

Senator Schiavoni (Cosponsor)
1 Capitol Square, 2nd Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 466-8285
Email: http://www.ohiosenate.gov/senate/schiavoni/contact

Thanks for all your help. Hopefully, with much prayer, this bill will be withdrawn.

Source:http://dreamingofperfect.weebly.com/1/post/2013/12/protect-homeschooling-from-sb-248.html

I called Cafaro, but the secretary thought that I was nuts. After I said what I wanted to say, she pretty much just said that this bill is still in the preliminary stages and that it is no way an attack on homeschoolers... yeah... Please pray on this issue, and email/call if you are able. I know that God can shut this down and protect our rights as parents to teach our children.

I mentioned this news when I was in town when this first came out. I said how it was blasphemy. Another lady said, "What's wrong with it?"

I said, "It's a title given only to our Saviour. Just like it's wrong to name your kid Jesus"(I pronounced it hey-zues, like spanish)

She said, "Oh, well that's not really Jesus. They pronounce it differently."

To which I said, "And how to Spanish people pronounce the name Jesus?"

She kinda got silent after that....

Yeah. The judge was in the right. What's wrong with these people anyway?

I don't remember what show it was. I normally just play 1220 on the computer and keep it on while my husband's at work(my son likes hearing the people talk, he's only 1 but he enjoys the "company"). It was on around 3 or so. An older man was talking.

And Bryan Dellinger celebrates it? Really? I would think that he wouldn't with everything he talks about.

My husband and I go to a non-501c3 church(which we plan on leaving soon, but that's not the point...)

My question is: How do you tell fellow believers nicely why you don't celebrate xmas? Especially when they get defensive??

I called into 1220 the word the other day to complain about them calling xmas a Christian holiday. I got pretty frank on the phone, I told them how it makes us(the church) look bad and how it makes it (fasely) seem like we are just reformed paganism. The pastor on the phone got really angry(it wasn't on the air, they screened my call) and said how he is just celebrating Christ's birth... He was pretty mad, so I held my peace(I had already quoted scripture) and said ok...

So, how do you talk to people like that? How can I, as a woman, nicely reprove my fellow brothers in Christ about this issue?

I talk about swimwear too in my book. It's a really hot topic among women!

---
The bikini first really came about in ancient Greece(5600 BC). It was worn for athletic events, similar to how men were naked during the original Olympics... Next it evolved in Rome(300 AD), where women who were sex workers wore them. The next bikini(as we would view it today) didn't come around until 1946. It was designed by French engineer Louis Réard. We can thank him for the bikini making a comeback.

I wanted you to see the history behind the bikini because it is argued about so often. The bikini started out in a pagan culture, was adopted by another pagan culture, and finally came about not too long before the 'sexual revolution' and 'women's liberation'. I don't understand why it is ok for a woman to wear a bikini to the beach or a pool, but not ok for a woman to wear a bra and panties while grocery shopping. It is the same design. It's just a different fabric. If you walked down the street with a bra and panties you could get arrested for public indecency, do it in a bikini and you're fine. Why? Why the double standard?

I don't think that it's ok for women to wear something that really should only be worn in the comfort of the marriage bed. We could really just go back to Romans 14:13 to prove that...

What should you wear to swim then? I would suggest a swim dress. Now before you think that I'm nuts and think about those things from the 40s, they do have stylish swim dresses today. Most swim dresses go about to the knee and come with swim leggings to wear underneath. They don't cling like wearing a t-shirt to swim, and they dry quickly. I think that these are perfect for women to swim in, and they flatter every body type. Hydrochic.com sells modest swimwear and workout attire.
----

I wear a swimdress and I find it very modest and pretty. It came with swim-leggings to wear underneath for added security 

As for the bloomers thing, those were underwear back then.So, I don't think that really counts as pants.

And, women didn't wear pants until fairly recently in history. Or, at least not how they are pictured today. People in pagan eastern cultures did wear them(China, Japan, etc.), but the pants stll looked like a skirt(if that makes sense?) Like this: http://asian-culture-shop.com/d.asp?a=Ancient+Japanese+Pants+for+Women&d=6676

Also, jeans were designed for railroad workers and miners(women didn't work when they were invented, jeans were mens clothing). That's why they weren't form fitting.

And, as a woman in my 20s with a 1 year old son, I can assure you that women can do anything in a skirt. Women did for 1000s of years. I run, hike, fish, clean, swim, and more in my skirts while still being modest(jean skirts help with more vigorous activities). I even tackled a friend in my skirt without showing anything. Your objections were common among women not wanting to make the leap(I had them too!), but I think ultimately it's a lack of submission. on  the woman's part.

I think that when women call themselves feminists, the vast majority of them have no idea what God called women to be.

We are supposed to be submissive. Does that mean that I'm a doormat? No! It's just the proper order of things according to scripture.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  Ephesians 5:23-24

The marital relationship mirrors our relationship to Jesus. It's really a beautiful thing. I don't understand why these women don't get it and are so offended by the word submission...

I know that this post is an old one, so I apologize for bringing it back up... but I really wanted to comment.

I'm a woman(obvious by the name, right?) and I think that women should only wear dresses and skirts. Now, I don't think that women are going to hell for not doing it(that's legalism, and unscriptural) but I do think that wearing skirts and dresses makes God happy.

I'm in the middle of drafting a book directed towards Christian women(which I don't think will be popular...) and in it I explain why I feel this way:

 ------

I think that things that show cleavage, are too tight, or that draw attention to your private areas are not good to wear in public. I think we can all discern amongst ourselves what that means for us. Something that is modest on a thin woman might not be so modest on a curvy woman. When in doubt pray about it, and asking your husband might help too.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.  Deuteronomy 22:5

What does this verse mean? Can anyone tell me? I hear so many conflicting responses.

One that I hear often, is that men and women used to wear robes. The men's robes were very different than the women's robes. Therefore, in the past, they weren't allowed to wear the other gender's robes. That it was a cultural thing in the past that doesn't apply to now.

I find this explanation severely lacking... All other Old Testament rules were either done away with or solidified in the New Testament. For instance, the levitical dietary guidelines were revoked in Acts 10 and 11, the animal sacrifices were done away with when our Lord and Saviour Jesus was slain on the cross to forgive us our sins, the multiple wives that were permitted for a time were done away with when Jesus reiterates God's words in Mark 10:7-8... I could go on, but the point is that Deuteronomy 22:5 was not done away with. In fact, you could make the argument that it was reiterated in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:2.

So, I will ask again, what does God mean by this verse?

While it is true that in Biblical times women and men both wore robes, they were different. There was a difference between men's and women's robes, because men and women are different. So how can we dress different from men today?

The answer is one that you probably already knew... I think to apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to today, we can only assume that we shouldn't be wearing pants.

It's interesting to note that women didn't start wearing pants until the early 20th century. Before that only men wore pants. In fact, up until 1972 it was required of women to wear skirts at work and for girls to wear them at school. Dresses and skirts are distinctly feminine. If a man wore a skirt down the street most would gawk. I think this proves a valid point.

Also, have you ever noticed the signs for genders outside of the bathroom? The men's bathroom has a sign with a stick person wearing pants, and the woman's bathroom has a sign with a stick person in a dress. The only difference between these two stick people is what they are wearing, one wears pants and another dresses. They are distinctly different because of their clothing.

Another interesting note about pants on women is the modesty issue. Are pants even modest?

Pants are form fitting, thus tight. A good fitting pair of jeans is designed to draw attention to your rear, otherwise they don't fit "right." I think that this really says something about pants.

Cathy Corle,in her book What in the World should I Wear?, shows a group of women two pictures of the same lady. The first one has her in a nice dress. She asked a group of ladies what they noticed about this woman, and they answered her face. Then she showed them the picture of the same woman in a pair of jeans and asked what they noticed. They said their eyes were immediately drawn to the crotch area!

Something that has become popular now and days is to wear leggings for pants or skin tight yoga pants. These leggings and yoga pants are so skin tight, they are almost worse than jeans. They leave nothing to the imagination, and they don't help your brothers in Christ to look at you like sisters. Another new fad is short shorts in the summer, so short that they might as well be underwear. Shorts are just like pants, they are still tight no matter what, they are still immodest, but almost worse so. They show your thighs, and a lot of them draw even more attention to your rear. Overall, I think that these are totally wrong for modest women to wear; no one can say that yoga pants and shorts are modest.

Another thing on shorts(and shorter dresses and skirts), Isaiah 47:2-3 says this:

Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen...

God is talking about Babylon, in this verse, and their thighs being uncovered(also called their nakedness). Also, in Exodus 28:42, God instructs Moses on how to dress the priests:

And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach

God calls the Babylonians who have their thighs uncovered naked. He also says that the priest's thighs should be covered. These verses convict me not to wear anything that shows my thighs. In the Old Testament, showing your thigh was akin to being naked.

So then, what if it's summer? What am I supposed to do when it's hot outside? What did people in the past do? In the middle east people don't wear shorts in the summer. Most women wear flowing dresses made of a light fabric like linen. The light fabric helps their clothing to breath, and the fact that their clothing covers their body helps to protect them against the sun's harmful rays.

Ok, so we know that pants that fit correctly on women are form fitting and immodest, well then another argument that I hear is "what if I wear loose pants?"

I find this argument is grasping at straws. If your pants are loose are you dressing femininely? If your pants are loose, it will literally look like you are wearing your husband's pants. Wearing men's pants isn't feminine and goes against the teaching in Deuteronomy 22:5.

Other arguments that I hear are that women don't want to show their varicose veins, or that they don't like the way their legs look. I find that this is a lack of submission. These are excuses to go against what God is teaching in His Word. Should you lie because the truth might hurt someone's feelings? It's still a lie, you will still be punished. And besides, you could always wear tights underneath your skirt or wear longer skirts.

I think that modesty is a complex issue. I think that it's an issue that isn't spoken of enough in the church. What this topic really needs is balance. You can wear whatever you want to wear, but that doesn't mean that all things are good for you to wear.

I think something that everyone should keep in mind is this: If I were going out to lunch with God, would I want Him to see me in this? If the answer is no, then you probably shouldn't be wearing it.
------

I hope I didn't miss anything. And if you, as mostly Christian men, have anything to add that I may have missed please tell me. I think that it is pleasing to the Lord for women to wear skirts/dresses only, similar to it pleasing the Lord for women to have long hair.

Thanks for your time and God bless.

I know that many will/do hate me. It's just hard to accept. I grew up being very well liked, and now all but my immediate family and those at my church hate me. I know that if they hate me it's because they hate Jesus(John 7:7), but somehow it still bothers me. I'm used to comforting my husband about people hating him, and saying that the Bible said this is how it will be; but, I'm not used to being verbally attacked.

How do you let it slide off your back?

Hi everyone, I had a question.

I have a blog directed towards Christian moms. I talk about my view on the media, among other things. I've never gotten backlash before now. I know that the Bible says that if we stand for Christ we will be hated, but it's hitting me hard. I'm used to being well liked, and I really just want to know how you deal with hate thrown at you for your beliefs.

Here is the post that got all the hurtful comments(I'm Hannah J in them): http://dreamingofperfect.weebly.com/1/post/2013/07/disney-going-gay.html

Help? I just want to know how to get over not being liked.

Yes worrying about the law is vain. But there is wisdom in it none the less.

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law..." Romans 7:7

And what about these verses....

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" 1 Timothy 2:9

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1 Corinthians 11:15

I do think that God cares about how we present ourselves. Now are we saved because we cover up or believe that Jesus had long or short hair? NO! But, none the less, I think it can affect your faith. Especially men, because it a woman is dressing in a revealing manner, it can tempt them to sin. Is that solely the woman's fault? No, but she didn't help.




I don't think that you're understanding FFF position here. One, I don't think he's far off. I've read the arguements in the pre vs post trib thread and he's not Catholic. He says how he feels led to expose them and what not.

Just because someone is post-trib doesn't mean they are Catholic. I'm post-trib, and I wasn't raised Catholic at all. Scott Johnson was raised in all sorts of pseudo-Christian religion and he's post-trib.

But, anyway, yes I agree with FFF. A picture can alter someone's faith. What about baby Christians? They may think that the picture that Mark just posted, with the long hair hippy Jesus, is the REAL Jesus. But then, they may stumble upon the verse calling long hair a covering and a sin. Then the internal dialogue could go something like this...

 But, if Jesus had long hair ... He sinned... GASP! Our saviour sinned. So He can't bear my sins anymore...

Now obviously Jesus never sinned. But it could lead baby Christians down a bad road, and it could make it even harder to win them back for the Lord, through the power of the Holy Spirit, if we as Bible-believing Christians recognize something that's obviously false as truth.

And also, I think you were a little mean to FFF. This may just be because I'm a woman, and I'm a little shy at times. But I think when you come at someone and say that they aren't saved because of something like this.... it's prideful. I mean, no one hear thinks that this is a salvation issue. But, it could lead a few sheep down a wrong path. I think you were a little harsh in saying that he's not saved purely because he thinks that this could alter someones faith.

I believe that women not dressing modestly could lead many to temptation, am I not saved?

This is just sickening.

This has been covered up as much as possible. I have not heard it at all in the mainstream media.

All I keep hearing is about how homosexuals should have their rights. And look what happens when they get them...

I haven't watched Survivor in ages.

I did catch a glimpse of a Glee commercial the other day.... Wow. It has gotten so much worse. There are teenage guys running around in speedo's.And that's just on the commercial. I would hate to see what else they're doing.

Speaking of homosexual "Christians," has anyone else heard of the new NBC tv show called "The New Normal?"
 

Not all football players are so into supporting the homosexual agenda. But they are demonized for their lack of enthusiasm.

Read about it here: http://www.postchronicle.com/news/sports/49ers_gay_ad_20130201.shtml

That's true. Scott Johnson mentioned on one of his past teachings how on Alex Jones' site there was a catholic advertisement(of the 'come home' variety) for more than a month.

I haven't heard/read anything wrong about Jack Chick. What's wrong with him? Other than the tracts with x-mas promotions on them.

Did you know the guy behind Loose Change recanted his stance? He made an "updated" version that takes out any mention of the government's involvement...

I don't understand how they can promote something that is only 1-2% of the population. It's like a fad now. I don't get it.

Well, that's why they staged the 'flash mob' with all the homosexuals kissing at Chick-fil-a. But... no one really showed up. They were trying to prove a point. But when only 5-10% of the population is homosexual I guess that's kind of hard to do.

No one wants to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But the evidence is just so obvious, it's so hard to refute. But those that have a military or police background will bury their heads in the sand, fully supporting the Osama Bin Laden scapegoat.

Those verses are very comforting for the sake of this child, and in general. I especially love Mark 3:31-35. My husband and I are currently reading through the Gospel.

I can't believe they would admit that on TV!

And on the nightly news at that! Imagine the viewership that got!

Hopefully it didn't fall on deaf ears...

But, what you said before was true. They are brainwashed by the media. I mean really: homosexuality, premarital relations, abortion, sodomy, ect. All propogated by the media.

It really is if you can't afford it. My mother gave away her first child for adoption, because she couldn't bear to do an abortion. I was so proud of her when she told me this story. Apparently, the boy she gave up landed with a family in PA that owns a toy store and couldn't have children of their own due to infertility.

I guess no one wants to go through the pain of childbirth just to let the kid go.

I heard this:

I would never kill a baby in the womb, but it's ok if you want to do it.

I personally love the fact that they call us homophobic.

Who's scared?I'm certainly not.