Who is your best friend, the world, or Jesus?

It is very easy to be a friend of the world, isn’t it? The world offers us everything we want, material things, entertainment, and sometimes even some sentimental things. But we read that if we are friends with the world, we become enemies of God!

Sometimes, we can come to the conclusion that the world is a better friend than God. The world doesn’t seem to required or demand anything from us, rather, seems to be very good at giving if we accept its way of thinking and living. Jesus may look to be a very demanding person, cf. John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commands”. Isn’t friendship a two-way relationship? Well, it seems if you are a friend of Jesus, you must not be a friend of the world.

What can the world offer us that is better than what Jesus offers? Jesus offers to us eternal life, and he offers us real peace, not temporal and illusory peace, cf. John 14:” ²⁷ Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”

What the world offers us is temporal, Jesus offers us eternal life, and his love, that fulfils way more than what the world does. Let’s be friends with God, since it will pay up in this life and the next.

An interesting reason why you should follow my blog

I found this quote on tumblr.com, and wanted to share it with you.

Your life is meaningless without following this blog.

3,000 babies die a day, not from hunger, not from neglect, but from abortion.

"Abortion is as American as Apple pie"-The Culture of Death Finds a Voice.

By Albert Mohler.

Abortion is now America’s most common surgical procedure performed on adults. As many as one out of three women will have at least one abortion. In some American neighborhoods, the number of abortions far exceeds the number of live births.

Most Americans will pay little attention to the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to arrange the killing of the unborn life within her. Since that decision was handed down, more than 50 million babies have been aborted, at a rate of over 3,000 each day.

One of the most chilling aspects of all this is the sense of normalcy in American life. Abortion statistics pile up from year to year, and each report gets filed. Moral sentiment on the issue of abortion has shifted discernibly in recent years, as ultrasound images and other technologies deliver unquestionable proof that the unborn child is just that — a child. Nevertheless, the larger picture of abortion in America is basically unchanged.

A middle position would require pro-lifers to accept that the deaths of some unborn children are acceptable, and abortion rights activists to accept that some decisions for abortion are wrong. Given the logic of their positions, there is no means of compromise.With predictable regularity, cultural authorities call for the emergence of a moderating position between the pro-life and pro-abortion positions. But efforts to achieve a stable compromise on the abortion issue are doomed to failure. The two positions hold irreconcilable views of reality. The pro-life movement holds that the central issue is the unborn child’s right to live. Abortion activists have staked their entire case on the claim that the only determinative issue is the woman’s unrestricted right to choose.

In recent years, some on the pro-choice side of the controversy have called for abortion proponents to use language indicating that abortion is a painful and wrenching, but sometimes necessary procedure, and to accept that some reasons for abortion are just not sufficient. Nevertheless, this is received as a call for treason within the abortion rights movement, and these voices are regularly sidelined.

At the same time, there has been an effort to protect abortion with euphemism and evasion. Abortion rights activists speak of being pro-choice, not pro-abortion. The unborn child is reduced to a fetus, or a bundle of cells. Abortion clinics are described as women’s health centers.

There are some abortion activists who will not join that bandwagon. With chilling candor, they defend abortion as abortion, they defend the decision to abort as a morally superior decision, and they lament the evasiveness of their colleagues in the abortion rights movement.

Just recently, Merle Hoffman, a major voice in the abortion rights movement and founder of Choices, a major center for abortions in New York City, has written a memoir,Intimate Wars. In telling her story, Hoffman calls for her colleagues in the abortion industrial complex to defend abortion as a moral choice.

Abortion is the ultimate act of empowering women, she argues. “The act of abortion positions women at their most powerful, and that is why is is so strongly opposed by many in society,” she asserts.

A central portion of her memoir deals with the abortion rights movement’s attempt to defend abortion in the face of pro-life arguments that the fetus has a right to life.

“The pro-choice movement had to find a way to navigate these narratives,” she explains. “The simplest option was to negate the claims of the opposition. And so many pro-choice advocates claimed that the fetus was not alive, and that abortion was not the act of terminating it. They chose to de-personalize the fetus, to see it as amorphous residue, to say that it was only ‘blood and tissue.’”

As she explains, the pro-life movement thought that, if women really knew what abortion was — the killing of an unborn human being — they would decide to keep their babies. She rejects the argument.

Hoffman argues that woman do know what an abortion is. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that it is not “just like an appendectomy.” Her conclusion is that women know that abortion is “the termination of potential life.”

She then makes this statement:

“They knew it, but my patients who made the choice to have an abortion also knew they were making the right one, a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart. Sometimes they felt a great sense of loss of possibility. In the majority of cases, they felt a great sense of relief and the power that comes from taking responsibility for one’s own life.”

Rarely do we see abortion defended in such unvarnished terms — “a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart.” Merle Hoffman goes on to explain how she can speak of abortion so directly. She has, she tells us, no conception that life is sacred.

“Abortion is as American as apple pie.” Hoffman made that statement in a recent interview about her book. She laments that abortion is the cause of shame in some women and that shame attaches itself to abortion in the large culture, even now. In her view, if women would start talking more honestly and directly about their abortions, the shame would be removed and women would discuss their abortions like they speak of “a bikini wax.”

Is Merle Hoffman right? Is abortion “as American as apple pie?” To our great shame, she has a right to make that claim. How can it be refuted when abortion on demand has been legal in this country for almost forty years, when one out of three American women will have an abortion, when within some communities far more babies die by abortion than are born?

In Merle Hoffman the Culture of Death has found a new voice. Almost forty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion remains a central part of the nation’s moral landscape. Over 50 million unborn children have been aborted within the span of just one generation.

A titanic clash of absolutes is taking place in full view, and this clash indicates just how much work remains to be done in the great effort to protect the dignity of every single human life. As those who contend for the sanctity and dignity of each human life try to reach the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, others are at work as well. If they have they way, Americans will one day openly speak of abortion as nothing more shameful than a bikini wax.

3 ways of reading scripture

This is what I wrote in my church's newsletter, and was based on a previous sermon. If you want to hear the sermon, you will find it on this blog.

Last week I stated three manners to read Scripture. The Intellectual (for our own knowledge of the text), the Spiritual (what the text is telling me) and the Ethical (what the text tells me to apply it to my fellow human beings). An example of this can be seen in Mark 1:1-11.

Intellectually, we find out how Jesus was baptized, and how we know that John was the prophet promised from the book of Malachi. Without that information, we would be asking how do we know that John the Baptist was who he said he was, and why do we practice baptism.

Spiritually, we can be sure Jesus comes from God, since God the Father affirms his ministry from heaven. This brings assurance to all Christians, because we know that Jesus’ ministry if approved by God, and that the Holy Spirit is with him. Also, we see, right there at the beginning of the story, the blessed Trinity.

Ethically. I was told that this was difficult to extrapolate from this text. My take on this text starts from the view that we are all sinners, and Christians are baptized sinners. At their Baptism, they are brought to new life. We are to treat others according to this new life given.

I hope that this helps you in your bible reading.

Make me a bishop, or I will sue. Gay priest wants to be a bishop, no matter how

When people see ordination more as a right, and not like a privilege, there must be something wrong with them. But even worst when there's a person who is living or promoting a sinful lifestyle, and yet, demands to be ordained. This is exactly the case of The Very (I)Reverend Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans. The Daily Mail reports:

A controversial gay dean has threatened to take the Church of  England to court after he was blocked from becoming a bishop.The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.Sources say the dean, one of the most contentious figures in the Church, believes he could sue officials under the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Such a case could create a damaging new rift within the CoE.

See how this works. We all remember how Gene Robinson was elected the first practicing homosexual priest by the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). The leaders in that "church" say that they were led by the Holy Spirit to take such a decision (I wonder how the Holy Spirit will contradict himself so blatantly, but then again, the ECUSA are like the Mormons, they believe in a different Holy Spirit as it seems). Now, it seems that they don't need the guidance of an spirit, these people want to get ordained, because it is, apparently, their right!

Dr John was at the centre of a storm in 2003 when forced to step down as Bishop of Reading by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams after it became known that he was in a gay, though celibate, relationship. The furore fuelled a bitter civil war within the Anglican Church that has dominated Dr Williams’s decade in office.The dean was again a cause of infighting in 2010 when he was a candidate for Bishop of Southwark. A respected theologian and former canon at Southwark Cathedral, he had strong backing from senior Church liberals and it was said even David Cameron was supportive.

David Cameron? Isn't he supposed to be from the Conservative Party? Anyway, he is a politician, therefore, no real moral position. But Dr. John, has already being a bishop before, but needed to step down because of his gay celibate relationship. Ok, let's say he was truly celibate, it seems that he was seeking affirmation, and didn't get it, so he was diposed.

But this time around, he is not taking things sitting down, he is taking action:

Dr John has instructed Alison Downie, partner and head of employment at London lawyers Goodman Derrick, to write to the Commission to suggest it risks breaching gay equality laws if it is blocking the dean over his homosexuality

Well, I wonder if he is in a homosexual relationship today. The issue with this man is that he doesn't care if the Bible bars him, if he is practicing homosexual, from practicing ministry, period.

I Corinthians 6:⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men ¹⁰ nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 

We have a lot of other sins, but in this post, I want to single out the sin of homosexuality, and how this man is so blind, that he wants the position of bishop, and he has actually cut himself from the body of Christ, but promoting such a lifestyle in the church.

So there you have it, somebody demanding to be ordained, or else, he will go to the courts. He is so blind that he can't see that God is not going to call him, unless the Church of England follows this new spirit that ECUSA is following.

Totally shocking, and amazing how blind people have become!!

Brad Gregory discusses The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society by Harvard Press

I am intending to buy this book.

I have always wished for the time when we will look at the Reformation with so much romanticism, but with a cool head, and recognise it as a historical occasion, not without God's hand of course, but as a product of Western European culture. It never touched the Orthodox Church, or other churches where Western Europeans were not involved.

If you want, you can hear also the podcast included, it will make for very interesting listening.

Brad Gregory discusses The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society by Harvard Press

The top 100 products on Amazon

Just for those who want to know which items are the ones that sell the most on amazon.com, here you can have a look.

This may say where our interests lie. I have to say, I only buy books from Amazon, and the occasional item my daughters ask.

Well, have a look. You may have bought some of the stuff there as well.

Dumb criminals. Woman calls the cops after finding out that her cocaine was really sugar!!! Stupidity at its best!!

Podomatic is giving tips for podcast gear

In the ever search to give everybody a different choice of gear, according to their needs and situation, I offer to you the gear recommended by Podomatic, if you choose to use their services to create your podcasts.

If this is for you, take a look.

Tennis and same sex marriage? Yes, you read right, for some, they should go together

Tennis and same sex marriage have become an issue here in Australia, that is holding the annual Australian Open Tennis tournament.

Australia's greatest female tennis player, Margaret Court, said in an interview to Reuters that she opposed same sex marriage:

Tennis great Margaret Court told Reuters on Wednesday she was sad her religious views were being used as fuel for a planned protest at next week's Australian Open, but said she remained staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage. 

Activists are calling for people attending the year's first grand slam event, starting on Monday, to unfurl "rainbow flags" at the Margaret Court Arena, the third show court at Melbourne Park, named after the Australian.

So one person does not agree with same sex marriage, they target the Australian Open with protest. They ruin the experience to many, because they can't offer the right of opinion to one individual. Disgusting.

But it is my opinion (yes, I am entitled to have one) that Court has been singled out because of her faith:

Court, a 24-times grand slam singles champion and a pastor at the Victory Life Centre church in Perth, has long opposed same-sex marriage but sparked a fierce backlash from retired women's champions Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King, both homosexuals, when she reiterated her views in a Western Australian newspaper recently.

She is a pastor, who is allowed to make her views public. She continues:
Court was quoted describing advocacy of same-sex marriage as promoting "unhealthy" and "unnatural" unions.

"To dismantle this sole definition of marriage and try to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices that include sodomy, reveals our ignorance as to the ills that come when society is forced to accept law that violates their very own God-given nature of what is right and what is wrong," the newspaper quoted her as saying.
Court yesterday told Reuters that she stuck by her views on same-sex marriage but denied she was anti-gay.
"I actually love homosexual people," the 69-year-old said in a telephone interview. "I do not have anything against them. It's just my view [about gay marriage] and it's in the scriptures ... The Bible will always be the TV guide to my life.
"I believe marriage is something between a man and a woman."

She believes what's marriage has been for the last 5,000 yrs, and suddenly, she is bullied by a minority who wants to rule the majority!! Is this democracy?

"Minority groups can have their views [but] as soon as a Christian stands up it's not allowed," she said.

You got that right!!! Christians stand up for their beliefs, and are vilified in the media. What makes me more upset, that some so-called 'christians' say that we, the majority who are trying to keep God's laws, should make way for these people who want to rule over us. Here in Australia, the Greens, a minority party, is moving the Labour Party into accepting gay marriage, but they are the junior coalition partner. But the Labor Party, is such a party without a backbone, they are willing to bend before the Greens, on this issue, and others.


In a following news item, Court was quoted again. I think she properly represents how the gay lobby works:

Last week, Court, 69, reportedly said: "Politically correct education has masterfully escorted homosexuality out from behind closed doors, into the community openly and now is aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take.
"The fact that the homosexual cry is, 'We can't help it, as we were born this way,' as the cause behind their own personal choice is cause for concern."

I commend Margaret Court for saying the truth, and standing up for it. If we let those who oppose truth to silence it, it is homosexuality today, what's tomorrow? Human freedom of thought?


Good on you pastor.