Tuesday, August 19, 2014

At Least One News Agency Allows the Truth


sue hanes said...

Joe - Isn't that the truth. I'm glad they are telling it like it is.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The video disappeared half-way through it. Now it is a black square, including on the YouTube page.

But, heard enough to know it is right on the money. No one in the media - or politicians - want to admit that Hamas, like the rest of Islam, want the eradication of Israel

Duckys here said...

Glenn historically, who has been responsible for slaughtering the Jews, Christians or Muslims?

What was Luther's attitude toward Jews?
Hint: A good deal more hostile than the average Muslim's.

So the Palestinians bear the brunt of the establishment of a Jewish state and you expect them to be sanguine?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Real Christians have never been responsible for murdering Jews. Roman Catholics have been responsible for murdering Jews AND Christians. Muslims have killed more Jews than even Hitler.

Luther was anti-semitic because he learned it with the Romanist Church. But Luther would not have sought their total annihilation as do all true Muslims — you know, the Muslims who practice their faith by the book.

Palestinians didn’t exist until long after Israel was a state. You sure like revised history - typical liberal.

Trashmouth Al said...

The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store. Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the District Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.
Apparently, the 300 pound, 6'5" ́́gentle giant́́ had some ́́anger issueś́ wouldn’t you say!
I hope YOU paranoid racist Progressives, from the blogs to the streets of Ferguson to the Oval Office in the White House are satisfied now! You people who never let the facts get in the way of a good story. So it only goes to show you that your opinion and your mouth are not evidence! No matter what you think this Big fat Thug was nothing less than a Big fat Thug!

Dave Miller said...

Glenn... your frequent attempts to free us Christian folk from the bad things our predecessors have done is tiring.

Using your logic, anytime you disagree with what someone who claims Christ as Lord and Savior does, you can simply say they are not true Christians.

Regarding history, conservatives are frequently attacking libs and progressives for rewriting and revising history. Isn't what you are doing the same?

In the name of Christ, Christians have in fact done some horrible stuff... it is just a fact.

Joe said...

GEC: Hmmm. Min plays all the way through. Wonder what's up?

Ducky: "...Luther's attitude toward Jews?"

So, what do you think that proves? Answer: Nothing.

Trashmouth: I don't disagree with you. I just wonder what your comment has to do with the topic. Maybe I'm missing something.

DM: So, anything I do in the name of anything proves that the anything I subscribe to promotes its anything?

A follower of Christ does not kill Jews. A person who kills Jews is not a follower of Christ, no matter what you and other liberals think. They just think wrong.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave Miller,

Tiring for me to tell the truth?

What Christians have murdered Jews? See the problem is that you call people Christians if they are a member of an organization which claims to be Christian, while the Bible tells us to test whether someone is truly in the faith by their works.

True Christians see Jews as those whom God loves as a set apart people, and it is through them that we received our savior.

It is a fact that people have done some horrible stuff in the "name of Christ," but they were lying while doing so because they were rejecting the very teaching of Christ.

A girl can call herself a boy scout, but that doesn't make her one.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


I tried it later and it came up fine. Don't know what that was all about

Duckys here said...

From the Wiki page "Martin Luther and antisemitism"

"The prevailing view among historians is that Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany, and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the Nazi Party's attacks on Jews."

It's fascinating reading, Glenn and Joe.

By the way Glenn, I believe I asked you if Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Quakers and others are Christians. I know you're an anti Catholic bigot but I wondered about the others and didn't notice if you answered?

Z said...

Oh, DARN, someone's considered an 'anti Catholic BIGOT' by Ducky who can't wait to call anybody who's a Christian but NOT Catholic a "FUNDIE" and WAY worse?
Gee, Ducky...I hate to see your feelings hurt like that.
What a freakin' HYPOCRITE.

Martin Luther's writings are ATROCIOUS about Jews at the end of his life. He was FURIOUS in his love of Christ that they would not accept that he was Messiah and his anger was ugly. No doubt about it. He loved them, and he hated their not accepting Christ.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Wiki is you authority? HAH.

That canard about Luther's teaching has been around way too long, and has been disputed by REAL historians many times. In fact, if you really knew history about Europe and the Jews, you'd know the problem existed LONG before Luther because of the Catholic Church. Hitler only took the reigning sentiment of Europe (not just Germany) and used it. Try reading "Mein Kampf" and other studies of Hitler's reasoning for his anti-Jew stance. It had nothing to do with Luther.

No, I am not an "anti-Catholic bigot." You are an ass for even suggesting such foolishness. I am against Catholic TEACHING, not the people. I am against ALL false teachings. I've already answered your question about who is a Christian, but you can read my full answer here:

The particular denominations you've mentioned are all apostate, in that as denominations they have left many non-negotiable teachings behind and compromised with the world. People in those organizations may or may not be Christians.

Duckys here said...

In case any of my liberal brethren drop by, here's Glenn's list:

However, some examples of apostate beliefs are:

Placing women in pastoral/elder positions.

Supporting homosexuality and same-sex fake marriage.

Supporting abortion.

Teaching evolution instead of creation.

Low view of Scripture, including mythologizing Genesis.

Teaching the social gospel.

Emergent teachings.

Mysticism, including contemplative prayer, labyrinth, visualization.

... I'm not sure of the meaning of "emergent teaching" but I think it has something to do with opposing change. Still, Glenn's list manages to exclude just about everyone who accepts the scientific method or social equality.

z, do you pass? I suspect you do.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

If you are going to post this list, at least put it in context.

Nothing in this list is about who is or is not a Christian. It is a list of things which are apostate. And you need to read up on "emergent" teachings so as not to sound so ignorant and foolish.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, where do you stand on the Southern Baptist denomination? Was the denomination, and the members who supported their segregationist policies towards blacks, and slave holding missionaries, apostate?

Are they now?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I've been gone all day, but I have to post one more comment about Ducky's foolishness.

Glenn's list manages to exclude just about everyone who accepts the scientific method or social equality.

There is nothing in the list which denigrates anyone who accepts the scientific method. Of course Ducky was alluding to creationism vs evolutionism, the latter being proven BY the scientific method to be fraudulent.

"Social equality" is newspeak for abortion, same-sex fake marriage and every other liberal leftist cause.

So, if one adheres to what the Bible says, one must be against "social equality" according to Ducky and his ilk, yet it is the Christians who actually gave "social equality" to everyone.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave Miller,

Apostasy has to do with violating fundamental doctrinal teachings, so the SB denomination was not apostate in that regard. However, discriminating against people merely because they have a different skin color is very much against what the Bible teaches. Slavery, as practiced in the USA was also very much against what the Christian faith teaches about loving our fellow man.

Christians are not perfect, and as with any other people can be easily mislead into sin without realizing what they are doing is sin because they've been lied to.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and NO the SB are not apostate as a denomination, but there are people in that denomination who are indeed apostate and teaching falsely. The names are quite well known and will be found on just about ever discernment site as being warned against following, and even top-notch theologians such as John MacArthur have condemned the teachings. The point is that every denomination, no matter how solidly fundamental are their teachings and leadership will have members who go astray.

Xavier Onassis said...

I'm quite certain that Catholics and Southern Baptists and other CHRISTIANS are perfectly capable of determining what they do or do not believe without seeking the approval of G.E.C. or any of the other pompous blowhards who think they know better than anyone else how the incredibly ambigious Holy Bible should be interpreted.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

AH, another blowhard erroneous assertion by X.O.

Every time he opens his mouth (typing fingers) about religion he speaks (types) foolishness.

He should keep out of the subject so as to not always sound so foolish!

Duckys here said...

How do you remove ambiguity from the Bible, Glenn.

Seriously, especially when you reject emerging theology, I don't see how you can be so sure yours is the "correct" meaning.

For myself, I think it's in results, acts. But acting on the Sermon on the Mount seems to lead to the lake of fire in your theology.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


There is no real ambiguity in the Bible when it comes to doctrines. There are some ambiguous passages when numbers are mentioned because of the particular situations and the problem with stray marks in Hebrew, etc., and these don't affect any doctrine.

How about coming up with an example of ambiguity in doctrine?

But acting on the Sermon on the Mount seems to lead to the lake of fire in your theology.

Really? I have no problem with acting on the Sermon on the Mount. So you err again.

Joe said...

XO: Anyone smart enough to know what the Bible is about knows there is not a single ambiguity in it. But if you miss the point, a lot of things seem like ambiguities...but they are not.

Duckys here said...

Joe, have you read any of Jennifer Knust's work?

I know she teaches at that liberal hell hole, B.U. but her work is quite good.

Joe Calton said...

Joe - "XO: Anyone smart enough to know what the Bible is about knows there is not a single ambiguity in it. But if you miss the point, a lot of things seem like ambiguities...but they are not."

Complete and total nonsense!

Exactly the opposite of reality!

The strength of Christianity with the Old and New Testament comprising the Holy Bible is that EVERYTHING in it is so incredibly ambiguous that anyone can interpret it to mean anything they want!

That is why it has survived for over two thousand years!

That is why there are so many branches and denominations and cults and offshoots.

If "The Bible" (that definition alone has been subject to thousands of years of debate and is still no a settled matter) was as completely clear and unambiguous as you seem to believe, there would not be any denominations. There would only be "Christianity" and every single Christian would agree to exactly what that meant.

But NO! There are more Christian denominations than there are sects of Islam!

Islam has what...Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, maybe a couple of others? All arguing over which descendants of Mohammed are the legitimate heirs of the faith.

Christianity has hundreds, probably THOUSANDS of different denominations all arguing over what the words in the Bible really mean. And all of them claim to have "The Truth" and denounce all others as apostate and condemned to the eternal fires of Hell.

Don't try to tell us that the Bible "has not a single ambiguity in it".

Because that is a lie.

Joe Calton said...

G.E.C. - "There is no real ambiguity in the Bible..."

That is only true on whatever delusional planet you live.

"How about coming up with an example of ambiguity in doctrine?"

One of your definitions of a church being in a state of apostasy is:

"Teaching the social gospel."

Jesus himself taught the "social gospel"!

Jesus was the first liberal!

Matthew 5-7New International Version (NIV)

Introduction to the Sermon on the Mount

5 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them.

The Beatitudes
He said:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek. for they will inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

That is the absolute foundation of liberalism and the antithesis of conservatism.

Joe Calton said...

G.E.C. - "How about coming up with an example of ambiguity in doctrine?"

Just to save me a lot of cutting and pasting, how about the entire Old Testament compared to the New Testament.

Old, vengeful, spiteful, violent, war-like God who demands animal sacrifices, human sacrifices, condones and codifies slavery, overlooks adultery,sodomy, pedophilia, incest, infanticide, genocide and is willing and able to murder every living man, woman and child for exercising the free will that he gave them.

Then, in the New Testament, the New and Improved God isn't vengeful and hateful at all! He is all about loving people who hate you, extending kindness to strangers, turning the other cheek and generally being a Liberal Democrat.

Nah! No ambiguity in the Bible!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Joe Calton,

Another one who demonstrates his ignorance of the Bible and what it truly says. Just another atheist troll spewing talking points which have been responded to thousands of times.

You idea of what is liberalism is ludicrous.

Your ilk isn't interested in learning, so I am not going to debate you and throw my pearls before swine.