Earlier this year, a friend of mine was asking about guidelines when writing for a blog. One of the first things I told him was that you should not praise or pan works (art, music, books, movies etc.) without actually having viewed, skimmed, listened or observed the work, itself (with the obvious exception of pornography, which, by definition, I don’t need to see to classify). The reason for this is threefold:

1) To avoid praising something that shouldn’t be praised

2) To avoid dissing something that shouldn’t be dissed

3) To avoid putting my ignorance on public for the world to see.

My next bit of advice, in line with #3, was that I don’t blog on golf, clogging, NASCAR and other topics about which I have no clue.

So, in catching up with some reading today, I found some perfect examples of ODM violation of both of these rules, one of which will allow me to answer a question posed to me (but missed until today) by amy.

Exhibit A: Wait a minute! Bruce Willis was dead during the whole movie?!?

In a number of articles in the past few weeks (one might suspect, cynically, were written to garner web hits), some of the ODM’s have taken issue with High School Musical, posting the words and/or video of one particular song as an example of why is should be reviled and spurned by Christians. It was also pointed out earlier that this artistic work was being performed by drama departments at *gasp* Christian schools. Amy queried us on an earlier thread whether we would support the performance of this particular musical which includes a song and dance number with the following lyrics:

Sharpay:
Kickin’ and a scratchin’
Grindin’ out my best

Ryan:
Anything it takes
To climb the ladder of success

Both:
Work our tails off every day
Gotta bump the competition
Blow them all away

[...]Both:
Move it to the groove
‘Til the music stops
Do the bop bop, bop to the top
Don’t ever stop
Bop to the top

Gimmie, gimmie
Shimmy shimmy
Shake some booty and turn around
Flash a smile in their direction

[...]Both:
Bop, bop, bop
Straight to the top
Going for the glory
We’ll keep stepping up
And we just won’t stop
‘Til we reach the top
Bop to the top

On the surface, I would agree that it seems rather antithetical to something Christians should be supporting. However, since the ODM sites in question have a record of “discernment” about an inch wide and not nearly as thick, I decided not to make a snap judgment. I held off commenting until I had actually done a little bit of research (since that word is in the title of our site) into the work in question.

Sure enough, as it turns out, it was best that I didn’t make a snap judgment. The song in question which keeps getting quoted and played by the ODM’s is the introduction of the story’s antagonist, and the message contained therein is antithetical to the message of the story (which is normally the case with the worldview of a story’s antagonist). Basically, this musical number was used to introduce us to the villain of the story, and to describe their motivation.

So, one must question whether the ODM’s in question were just ignorant, neglecting to do any actual research into the work of art, itself, in pursuit of scoring nasty put-downs, increased web hits or both. Or, were the ODM’s being purposely deceitful and malevolent in intent? Out of charity, I will assume the former.

In that vein, let’s ask ourselves – reasonably – if the introduction of the antagonist should be used to portray the intent of a story.

If so, then it would be best to tear Genesis 3 out of the Bible. After all, one of the characters in this story says “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Do we really want people believing this?

We also might want to tear out Genesis 11, since the people there say “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” What an awful philosophy to be teaching!

Then, let’s toss the story of Joshua and Jericho, since one of the protagonists of the story is a prostitute. Oh, the impropriety! And, let’s toss Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, since one of the characters in the story suggests that Jesus should bow down to him. Blasphemy!

I suspect you get the point, but that’s what happens when you review a work without actually doing any research into it in the first place…

Exhibit 2: I’m not a musician, but I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night…

This article gives a perfect example of why you should not speak on a subject on which you apparently ignorant.

It seems that a Christian music company was advertising a fake book of 400 Praise and Worship songs for C instruments (which would include keyboards, harps and some other stringed instruments, though not guitars). The terminology “fake book”, for those of you who don’t play modern music, is an industry term which describes a piece of music which includes the lyrics of a song, chords for that song and (sometimes, but not always) the melody line of the song. It is primarily used in public performance of music – particularly music written originally for guitar – as an aide to musicians.

The wikipedia describes it thusly:

Fake books are not intended for novices: the reader must follow and interpret the scant notation, and is expected to have thorough familiarity with chords and sheet music. However, fake books can be an avenue to playing songs quickly; a few chords and a one-note melody line can allow even an amateur to play a passable version of any song with relative ease. [emphasis mine]

In Praise and Worship music in church, fake book arrangements are often used, as a large number of talented guitarists (in particular) do not learn to read classically staffed music when learning the guitar. So, in order to allow bands to quickly learn songs and play quality versions of songs, more and more P&W bands have started to use ‘fake book’ arrangements.

Back to the article at hand.

In an apparent attempt to support a thesis of modern Praise and Worship music being ‘man-centric’, the author of this piece writes:

Ever wonder why the P&W teams show words on the jumbo-tron but no music? Well, they wouldn’t be able to “improvise” (aka “fake”) their way through and we certainly wouldn’t want to impinge on their artistic expression or human potentiality.

In actuality, if the author actually understood music ministry, he would know that “fake book” has little or nothing to do with “artistic expression” or “human potentiality”, but has everything to do with reducing the practice time required without sacrificing the quality of the accompaniment music – which, otherwise, would detract from a worship music setting. With a little bit of knowledge, he would understand that the primary purpose of “faking” a song is not for improvisation, but for ease of use. However, he chose to violate the second rule above…

Could it be that the writer just wanted to pan any songs in church which might have ‘fake book’ arrangements for them. If so, it would have been just as fruitful to quote II Opinions 2:3-5 “Thou shalt not worship with music that is not written in sheet format, with a 4/4 or 3/4 beat, with the downbeats on 1 and 3″.

So, when you see me blogging next about NASCAR or an Italian opera (I hate opera), someone please point me back to this article so that I can avoid making the same mistakes as the authors of these pieces…

Anyone else find it hilarious when people complain about the narcissism of the present generation base their complaint on being deprived of their proper titles? Perhaps if they didn’t think quite so much of themselves they’d be a bit more tolerant of the trend of dropping sir, ma’am, Mr and Mrs.

All this reminds me of this verse:

5″Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’

8″But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.

Matthew 23.5-8

As long as we’re discussing irony I have to drop this quote from King of Queens, just because it makes me laugh:
“Douglas I must apologize, I thought irony meant made entirely of iron. Your story was ironic.”

Too many times on this site (and others) we’ve seen people leave threatening messages “from God”. In a recent post, a commenter added “I would tread very carefully when speaking/mocking things that you’re not sure about.”

First of all, this is a typical comment from a conspiracy theorist. It’s as if they did some vast amounts of research and “uncovered” the hidden truth about something that only they know about. The above commenter believes that the Catholic Church is somehow behind some sort of vast conspiracy to bring in a one world religion. They don’t offer any evidence. Just threats.

This ranks up there with the “demonizing” of other believers. We don’t need it, it doesn’t convince us of anything, and the conspiracy theorist ends up discrediting himself because of his shrill tone and lack of reason.

Wikipedia offers some great thoughts on conspiracy theories
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory) :

The “Rationality Theorem”

Another criticism of conspiracy theories is that they rely on a certain worldview which may or may not be correct. Graham Allison, a political scientist, developed this argument in his book, Essence of Decision, and informally named it the “rationality theorem”.

Basically, Allison argued:

• Many theories – including conspiracy theories – rely on the assumption of rational expectations. Under this assumption, events and decisions are explained by the rational responses of groups and individuals.
• However, Allison pointed out that groups and individuals do not always act in a rational manner.
• Allison argued that by using rationalistic thinking, individuals automatically take a “black box” approach to problems, meaning that they concentrate on data that was available and the results, but failed to consider other factors, such as bureaucracy, misunderstandings, disagreements, etc.
• Finally, Allison argued that rationalistic thinking in general violates the scientific law of falsifiability, as according to the rationality theorem, there exists no event or groups of events that cannot be explained in a rational and purposeful manner.

Although Allison primarily studied the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Essence, he illustrated the rationality theorem by making reference to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, specifically the theory that U.S. decisionmakers must have purposefully allowed the attack to be pulled off.

Allison argued that, for this specific conspiracy theory to hold, analysts must first make the assumption that officials act in a rational manner, and that these officials had full access to all information that indicated the attack was imminent.

However, by examining additional internal evidence, Allison argued that while, from a black-box perspective, the U.S. had enough evidence of the Pearl Harbor attack, a combination of bureaucracy and misunderstandings was the real reason why the attack succeeded. For example, Allison noted that evidence of the upcoming attack was scattered among different governmental departments, and was not immediately combined to create an entire picture. Likewise, some decisionmakers misinterpreted the data at hand – on December 7, 1941, the base at Pearl Harbor actually was on alert, but the alert was for possible Japanese sabotage, not an all-out aerial attack.

Testing Conspiracy Theories

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory’s truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

• Occam’s razor – is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?
• Methodology – are the “proofs” offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
• Whistleblowers – how many people—and what kind—have to be loyal conspirators?

OK, Ok – I went rather technical in yesterday’s post on “Lions and Tigers and Bears“, as some folks have noted.  My apologies for this, as when I deal with eschatology, in particular, I try to be much more specific (and, unfortunately, dry).

So, to give it a little more flesh with fresh examples:

1) Here is an example of how a certain theological/eschatological mindset leads to Christian conspiracy theories.  It seems that a number of churches belonging to the World Council of Churches is trying to come up with some sort of “conversion code of conduct” as a way of blunting governmental actions toward missionaries.  Well, this has to be more insidious that what meets the eye, since the Catholic church is involved:

The World Council of Anti-Christ would like to see all true Christian evangelism end. That’s because this body believes that all paths lead to heaven anyway. Be prepared to hear American evangelicals from the left jump on board in the interests of world peace.

I want the jackals at the World Council of Churches and the evangelicals who have joined their howling pack to know that signing such a code of accommodation to the world’s false religions is treason against heaven. [emphasis mine]

One of the conspiracy-minded commenters then jumps on board with:

Sounds to me like things are “right on course” according to the apostle/prophet, Paul

2Th 2:1-4 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

APOSTASY MUST COME FIRST BEFORE THE DAY OF THE LORD. [emphasis not mine]

I won’t go into the full eschatology of this, but let us sum it up to say that this person is, first, trying to place modern events into scriptural prophecy (dangerous, at best), and, secondly, has chosen a prophesied event which many scholars believe has already come to pass (which doesn’t prevent a second occurance, mind you), when Vespasian desecrated the Temple in 69/70 AD by sacrificing a pig on its altar and declaring himself god.

Regardless, this is just another example (along with RFID/666) where certain folks try to force already-completed prophecy into modern events.

2) Here is an example of twisted orthopraxy in relation to following what Jesus taught in terms of the Kingdom of God and spreading the gospel.  St. Francis of Assisi is quoted as saying:

“Preach the Gospel at all times. Where necessary, use words.”

This succinctly sums up an orthopraxy based on spreading the gospel through interpersonal relationships, (particularly as opposed to hit-’em and forget’em style street preaching).  When taken in more depth, St. Francis’ philosophy is not to never preach the Gospel – but to be salt and light and to use words when necessary, particularly when your actions and your words are in alignment.

The writer of this particular article is one of the most frequent examples I hear of “Fire Insurance Sales”, focused on the eternal to the neglect of the temporal.  What is interesting is that Rick Warren is criticized for pragmatism in attracting numbers, whereas this individual – praised by many of Warren’s critics – is just as pragmatic, though his pragmatism is derived from the numbers that can be reached with ”word only”, since missional/relational evangelism is much less “efficient”, requiring ongoing contact, extreme patience, actual faith, and full, heartfelt care. 

One of the commenters to this article, calling himself a “pastor”, then commented:

To preach the Gospel by lifestyle is indistinguishable from government social workers, the non-Christian cults and false world religions who also can point to exemplary human works.

It is our message, in Words spoken by God Himself, that shows the world the difference.And keep in mind that it was the LORD God Almighty Himself that decided to save people through the “foolishness” of preaching. The word means to “proclaim” verbally.

Maybe it would be best if this “pastor” actually KNEW the scripture and quoted it in context. It is not the “foolishness of preaching” – it was the “foolishness” of the message that was preached. But don’t take my word for it:

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:21

Preaching the word through relationships and lifestyle is far more than government social work (which only exists because the church has dropped the ball), but it is a whole lot more challenging than hawking the equivalent of eternal fire insurance on a street corner…

Oak Hills Church has posted their September sermon series. From the site:

“Hole in My Life”: Everyone has to make the decision to follow Christ and stay on the path to full devotion
“Spirits in a Material World”: We have to plug-in to God and others at our weekend services.
“So Lonely”: We have to charge-up to become like Christ in small group gatherings.
“Driven to Tears”: We have to live-out our faith by serving at Oak Hills or in our community.
“Message in a Bottle”: Live a missional life.

Who could argue with that? You start with a decision to follow Christ and stay on the path to full devotion, go on to serving those in your church, then move on to small groups for discipleship, then on to serving your community at large, and finally living your entire life in a radical, Christ honoring way.

Who could object to that kind of sermon series?

I bet you can guess who it might be, as our watchdoggie friends demonstrate yet again that that when they evaluate the church its all about style for them.

In general, I have steered away from discussions of eschatology, primarily because it stirs great passion to little end. However, I am afraid I will have to venture into that territory with this particular post, as the fruits of bad theology when combined with similar poorly-fueled eschatology are often terrible to behold. In particular, deterministic/fatalistic theology (which is often part and parcel, though not limited to, of the Calvinist flavour) when combined with premillenial eschatology (especially of the dispensational variety) results in gnostic orthopraxy and a world view dominated by paranoia and fear. Unfortunately, this combination also makes good news (though not Good News), and allows a rather vocal subset of Christians to paint the whole in a rather poor and (unintentional, I would agree) un-Christlike image.

Background

I do not intend this to be an all-encompassing description of eschatology, but only to highlight a few points.

I tend to take a partial-preterist view of eschatology, summed up here with much more detail here. This view tends to read a number of the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse, Daniel and Revelation (save the last few chapters) as being relevant to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. (rather than, or possibly in addition to, to the eschaton).

This is significantly different than most flavors of premillenial eschatology that is much more favorable to the Calvinist worldview (though not universally so), which sees the Bible as independent from its writers and the time in which it was written. (Ironically, this pre-mil view of eschatology forces those who hold it to fudge the issue of inerrancy of the Bible when dealing with Daniel’s 70 weeks via a number of shell games, but that’s another long, sore subject, as well.)

What it boils down to, though, is this:

The worldview of fatalistic/deterministic theology paired with premillenial eschatology is one which posits that society will continue to degrade, and that nothing can be done about it. Therefore, we should concentrate on the world to come. This view interprets Jesus’ words to Pilate, “my kingdom is not of this world” to literally mean that his kingdom does not and can not exist in this world. As such, the only thing of any importance in this world is preaching an individual gospel focused on the eternal salvation of individuals – the world, itself, is destined for destruction, so there is no need (from a Christian perspective) to concern ourselves with the temporal.

Where this worldview starts to fail is in that the world, itself, has not fallen to disrepair and steadily worsened to Apocalyptic conditions (though I would note that such conditions did occur in Asia Minor and Palestine under the reigns of both Nero and Domitian in the first century AD – a coincidence, I am sure). Rather, it has fluctuated between periods of excess and revival, with more and more societal structure added to provide order and prevent doomsday conditions. Next, couple this with a consistent belief in a number of Christian communities of each generation, even before John Darby, that they were living in the last days before the parousia. With this dichotomy, many individuals with this worldview are forced to assume that the doomsday events are still proceeding apace, but are just not very visible, therefore pointing to some vast conspiracy which will bring about a one-world government and the ascendance of the antichrist. Therefore, every current event must be viewed through this lens, with a paranoid eye toward conspiracy

[More]

Greetings! Below is another guest article penned by Henry (Rick) Frueh. Thank you again, Rick!

Jn.1:16 – And of His fulness have all we received grace for grace.

The common and general definition that has been used to satisfy and sometimes placate the masses is that grace is “unmerited favor”. Although in a surface and most shallow sense that description does touch the absolute fringe of the gift of grace but in so many ways it misleads and falls painfully short of even challenging the heart to allow the Spirit to bring us deeper than just a toe testing understanding of God’s amazing grace. Let us dissect these two words and see if they pass the Biblical smell test when gazing at grace, while embracing a desire to honor God with our description because in the final analysis only the revelation of the Spirit can even give us a glimpse, everything else is nothing more than cerebral gymnastics usually designed to bring convenient closure so we can add it to our theological dictionary.

Unmerited. That seems so humble and yet it abandons the core of who we really are. It appears so antiseptic as the word attempts to remove all our good works as the reason for God’s gift of grace, but again this word fails to filet our inner man and lay wide open for public inspection and, yes, humiliation about the depravity and absolute rebellious nature of every single cell of our being. We not only refused to make any attempt to gain God’s favor but we made every single possible attempt to discredit Him and our very driving purpose was to blaspheme His Lordship and His Holiness openly and finally and daily declare ourselves as “god” of our own existence. We were His declared enemy and our lives were a magnificent expression of our hate and disgust toward our Loving Creator. So the word “unmerited” is a comfortable effort that only tells half of the story, the more pleasant side that we can more easily embrace and teach.

Let me share a disturbing illustration that I hope will rearrange the theological furniture of our hearts and force us to re-examine the very nature of God’s grace. In the country of Uganda there is a civil war, we don’t hear much about it in America because they don’t have oil and they also are not white (sorry but let’s be honest). One of the uniquenesses of this war is that the rebels capture and kidnap children and teach them to maim and kill their enemies. They equip some with razors and the children, some as young as 6, are trained and forced to cut off ears, lips, and other parts of people’s bodies or else they themselves will be killed. Now this forces millions of children in Uganda to hide and constantly move in groups to avoid being captured. It is common for a group of one thousand children from age 3 to age 16 to huddle overnight in an abandoned building only to rise before daylight and move again in a relentless effort to escape the ruthless rebels. Not a story but a reality.

Let say you wanted to help the children and so you organized a group to go over to Uganda. You collected food and clothing and you took money with which to build strong buildings to protect these children. So you went and helped feed and clothe and protect these children and with that you felt good. Now these children did not deserve your help based upon anything they had done before but due to your sense of compassion you desired to help them. They had received unmerited favor from your hand.

Now as you got off the plane you immediately saw what these rebels had done. People all over were horribly maimed and there were mass graveyards marking their victims, and they presently were still engaged in enslaving children to carry out their violent acts. So you unloaded the cargo with all the materials that you had brought to help and minister, and instead of the helpless children you took them to the rebels and gave them to those killers and child abusers. All the Africans watched in confounded horror and unbelief as they saw these rebels being showered with these wonderful gifts. No one could explain it. Why? Because, brothers and sisters, they were witnessing an earthly representation of the grace of God. And the spiritual reality of the grace of God is impossible to fully understand in the natural and when it is reflected in such an illustration as this, we finally are awakened to the fact that we have been fooled into believing a shallow and self serving understanding of the glory of God’s grace.

Favor. Let us examine what that word means when it comes from God Himself. We sometimes get this idea that God’s favor is something akin to letting someone butt in line ahead of you or waving a car to pull out in front of you. Or we think it correlates to giving someone a promotion who really doesn’t deserve it. It is those carnal understandings that rob us of the glorious and eternal nature of God’s favor of which there are an infinite number of components. Just a dust particle of God’s favor would be beyond what anyone could fully absorb or comprehend, but God has not given us a dust particle of His favor. Open the ears of your understanding, you will not be able to completely fathom the truth of this, but God has given us His complete and perfect favor that contains no limits and holds no restraints either in blessing or time. One more step, please, because God has actually bestowed upon us all of His available favor which of course is eternally infinite. Now you must remove your shoes for this final step crosses the threshold of unimaginable glory. God has granted unto us….the same favor….that He has shown….His own Son.

You can breathe now. My poor mind and my poorer pen can never do justice to that revelation, but as a theological woodpecker I can only peck and peck at it attempting to go further into God’s heart all the while realizing that this side of heaven I will only see small chips that in themselves leave me broken and spilled out before Him Who is the Author and Finisher of all of it. And one day I will know even as I am known which is a colossal act of favor in itself, and on that day I will see Him from Whose face the heavens have fled away. And as I, in my new favored body, fall to my knees in immobilized worship, I will then fully realize what grace actually was.

What will we do, what can we do, when we come to terms with the fullness of the truths we now believe in part but then fully face to face? How will we feel and act when the grace that we so lightly defined on earth now reverberates throughout heaven and to the glory of God and we alone, we alone, have been the recipients? As I write this I am beginning to weep as I am overwhelmed at the prospect of seeing the Author of this grace and being granted the eternal privilege of glorifying Him who purchased it all for me. I am at the end of words, if you are a believing follower of the Risen Incarnation of Grace then you will understand.

Martin Luther said, “When theology flourishes, everything goes on happily; for theology is the head of all branches of knowledge and the arts.”

If that is true, then when we compare the emerging/emergent church and the watchdoggies’ churches, which of the two has a healthier theology based on the flourishing of knowledge and arts?

Why do some critics insist on describing their opponents in the worst possible way. It’s a sort of “Christian” way to call someone a name without actually doing it. Any time someone compares someone else to Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin, the accuser loses their credibility and becomes annoyingly shrill.

It’s ok to disagree with Hybels. Comparing Hybels’ leadership to any of these awful men is just wrong.

As Christians, in any discussion, no matter how much we disagree with the other person, we should always offer charity first. Not demonize them.

So, here’s the critic’s comments:

“Well, you know, Bill, if leadership is all that matters, I know some whiz bang leaders from history that would really get “underwear in a bundle.” How about some great teaching tapes from Der Fuehrer? Now that was some mind blowing leadership! How about V.I. Lenin? He was such a “great leader” that his corpse is still being refrigerated somewhere in Moscow so the public can stop by to pay their respects. Stalin wasn’t so bad in the leadership department either. It takes one doozy of a leader to kill what is estimated to be at least 40 million of his own countrymen. Then there’s Chairman Mao. Mao successfully led his minions to kill even more than Joseph Stalin. His legacy of leadership is so powerful that we have Americans, all these years later, actively funding the communist Chinese war machine every time we shop at WalMart. We’re talking leadership. If leadership concepts are all that matters for these pastors and teachings and beliefs of those we look to for examples are unimportant, why not get some of that great flickering, black and white newsreel footage and let pastors see what real leadership looks like?”

This is a one of the most disturbing comment from a critic. One gets the feeling that the critic would rather punch a homosexual in the face instead of showing them the love of Christ. AIDS is our disease, not a gay disease.

Zachary,
I don’t know where you’ve been for the last 25 years but I remember very distinctly where AIDS came from and when it all started in the early 1980’s. The first reported cases of AIDS came from the homosexuals and for years it was exclusively the domain of homosexuals, transmitted through sodomy. The disease exploded in numbers due to the horrifying and revolting promiscuity of homosexual males where they can have hundreds of partners over the course of a year’s time. This is why the disease began spreading like wildfire. By the mid to late 1980’s the disease had spread to hemophiliacs who were infected by the criminal negligence of the homosexuals who then donated blood for money to the blood banks of this country. From the hemophiliacs it then spread to IV drug users, many of whom were also homosexuals. Then because of re-used needles hetero drug users were infected. From there women were infected by their drug-using hetero partners and now, it’s also in the hetero community. AIDS is a horrifying disease, caused and spread by the sin of sexual promiscuity. Millions of innocent people were infected as a result of the sexual sin of its origination.

Don’t you ever come on this blog and spread foolish propaganda that AIDS isn’t a “gay disease”. Sir, it isn’t anymore because the “gay” individuals, living in moral revolt against God’s laws, began this disease and continue to spread it, all the while trying to lump it in with cancer and heart disease. Just another disease. Hogwash.

I would suggest you do some research on the etiology of HIV in the West. A good place to start would be www.familyresearchinst.org with researcher Dr. Paul Cameron, the same medical researcher who coined the term “Second-hand cigarette smoke” when he testified before congress on the issue.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=637#comments

Thanks Zachary Forrest y Salazar