Thursday, October 19, 2017

Gino Jennings. A False Apostle Teaching Heresy

Gino Jennings
Director Of Heretic Central
I was recently directed towards a debate in which AN ALLEGED Apostle Gino Jennings , the leader of a Oneness Pentecostal organization called First Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ATTEMPTED to dismantle trinitarianism by "debating" a supposedly COGIC International minister during what I believe may have been a so called "Truth Of God" broadcast in which Jennings often attempts to debate those who don't believe what he does in order to make himself look good to his followers. 

In what appears to be a very shameful debate, shameful on Jennings part, (partially because he didn't follow a standard debate format, laying out both sides or cases and allowing proper rebuttal before a question/answer session) Gino declares that he is dismantling trinitarianism and making those who believe in it "lap it up off the floor".

In actuality, not only did Jennings, deliver a horrible format for debate, but he also delivered more false doctrine and heretical teachings than satanist Anton LaVey in his ode to satan himself called "satan speaks"... 

Yes, Jennings is really that bad! 

He and his docetic Jesus, that walked on water because he was a "spirit", and that did not physically raise in the resurrection,  is certainly a different Jesus than what is revealed and taught within scripture. 

Jennings not only ascribes to modalism, he also ascribes to arianism and marcionism and nearly every historically heretical teaching that one can name in his effort to be popular, famous and to deceive the masses. 

For all my apostolic friends and family, let's debate the trinity if you wish, but PLEASE don't make this man your champion. He doesn't know what he's talking about and his deceit and crafty handling of scripture will send you straight to hell.

In this post not only will you see the video of the event, but also read my detailed rebuttal to many of those man's false arguments, all of which have been placed on the video site itself.

Let's Critique This FIASCO Of A Debate And The Heresy Of Gino Jennings
(Much of this was posted on the video channel in the comments section)

Jennings says around 34 minutes in that one cannot use "hebrew, Greek, and Latin" to discern truth (essentially) because what we are using is "bible"...

What this means, is that Jennings is committed to destroying context and the bible in order to bolster his point.

In other words, he feels that the meaning we pour into words today is more important than the original context in which the words were written...This is EMBARRASSING!!!!

The FIRST rule of biblical interpretation is ALWAYS and SOLELY CONTEXT...CONTEXT...CONTEXT!!!! The German schools called it the "sitz-em-laban" that is the interpretive is ALWAYS understood in light of the actual setting. 

What is written is and must be interpreted in light of the usage of words in that day and in that time... In other words, one cannot take a word and the use of a word from a later period of time and ascribe it to an earlier epoch, UNLESS, it is justified to do so. The situation itself will settle that issue. However, doing so without warrant is what is called a anachronism.

This is not only an error, but will lead to FALSE doctrines like the one he believes in. Jennings whole premise is something that a beginning bible student would not do! or at least one that I teach anyway...
SECONDLY...among an infinite number of FALSE narratives that he presents...

NO TRINITARIAN communicates that God has three "personalities". We communicate that HE is three "PERSONS" based on what is clearly taught in scripture and viewed by the FACTS that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, EACH display the capacity to have "will", "mind", "intellect", and we see those things along with awareness of one another clearly throughout scripture

Example, Jesus prays in the Garden saying, 
  • "if it be thy WILL let this bitter cup pass from me, nevertheless not my WILL but THINE be done" (Lk. 22:42) 
  • John 4:34 ~ "my meat (WILL, work and mission) is to do the WILL of him that has sent me and to finish HIS work" 
  • Rom. 8:27 ~ And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 
The term "mind of the spirit" is the "WILL" of the spirit...That is NOT referencing your spirit, that is he spirit of God! Otherwise it (the verse) makes no sense at all.
Jennings misuses language suggesting that God saying "BY his Spirit", is simply a literary technique to reemphasize himself...

However, THAT IS NOT how language is used, nor Greek written...

God the Father has a MIND, 
God the Son has a MIND 

the Spirit, has a MIND... 

In Acts 5...they lied to who? The Holy Ghost! Only a PERSON can be lied to, not a revelatory expression or mere manifestation or someone changing hats... 

Further: Like Isaiah (the scripture referenced in the video), the scripture is replete with scriptures that distinctly outline that HE (God) "AND" HIS Spirit are outlined...It NEVER says that "he IS his Spirit"! The scripture is CLEAR! 

Here's more: 

So far as Jennings, false and illiterate questions regarding "partners" of God...We see and affirm what are called DOXOLOGIES all over the scripture, where Paul and other New testament writers distinguish the difference between God the Father and Jesus... 

  • Phil: 1:2 ~ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
  • 1 Cor. 1:3 ~ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
  • Ephes. 1:2 ~ Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
  • Gal. 1:3 ~ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 

Jesus here is called God and Savior but is "able to keep you from falling" and has the ability to "present you faultless before the presence of his glory"....
  • Jude 1:1-2 ~"1- Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2-Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied." Sanctified BY the Father and preserved "IN" Jesus Christ"...
Jude again: 
  • Jude 24-25: 24--Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25-To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
  • Romans 16:27 ~ To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. 
God, who IS God, is to be given glory THROUGH Jesus Christ, who the scripture clearly says is God. 

Because the words "through", "and', and "by" and others conjunctions like them, mean nothing to him. He (Jennings) needs a course in transitional grammar!

Jesus himself in John 14:16 says that he will pray "to" the father and the father shall send to you "another" comforter". 

(And this is partly why he doesn't want his followers to study Greek, Hebrew and the original languages of scripture) 

The GREEK word for "another" MEANS {IN CONTEXT}, "one who is of the same substance, but DIFFERENT" 

Example...Let's say that 2 chairs sit side by side, Both come from the same factor and look exactly alike. Are they the same chair? Of course not!!! The second one, does all the first one does, but is different...even has the same substance.... 

The difference here is that Jesus says that the Spirit, which is "another comforter" will testify of JESUS and not of himself... in fact he says this: 
  • John 15:26 ~ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 
Now, Jennings doesn't believe the word...How do I know? 

At about 1:00 (hour) into this Jennings teaches that Jesus came into being while simultaneously teaching that he (Jesus) is eternal. Saying that because he was "born" of a woman, that he had a beginning. This teaching is not only false, it is HERETICAL. 

In referencing John 1:1, Jennings must not know what it means or says...In the BEGINNING was the WORD. ...

Now, since God is eternal (without time), this would also mean that he existed BEFORE (or prior to) the beginning. Therefore, the scripture (John 1:1)is pointing to the beginning of time in this sentence (John 1:1) and not the beginning of God himself as there is no such point or place as the beginning of God. He is TIMELESS and without beginning and end. Jesus being born is NOT his beginning. 

The BIBLE says that God TOOK ON the nature of man in what the bible describes as the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) In John 1:14 the WORD "became" flesh. 

In order for something to "become" something else (even in it's most simple terms) means that it (whatever was to become something else) existed first. In other words, something had to be there BEFORE it began to be something else. 

For Jesus to "BECOME" flesh, he had to exist PRIOR TO being flesh. 

Now the study of "how" Jesus is God in a fleshly body is called the study of the hypostatic union. Jesus is the ONLY man with 2 natures. A nature that is 100% man, and a nature that is 100% God. he is not a 50/50 union or hybrid, which is how Jennings argues. Modalism is the argument that the Son comes into being at a certain time. Which is EXACTLY what Jennings teaches in this video. This is scripturally and certainly false.

We know him as Jesus, or God with us, because he dwells in flesh like we do. Not because his presence has not previously been here. He was in the Tent of Meeting in the Old testament wasn't he? Wasn't he a pillar of fire and smoke by night and a cloud by day over Israel? HIS presence was always here. The "Spirit" is also not some lesser "agent" of God. The spirit is a being. not a force. 

He cannot teach that Jesus is both eternal and also created at a certain point in time. What he must do, if his desire is to teach accurately, is affirm what scripture affirms. God is eternal. The WORD is eternal. The WORD "took on the likeness of sinful flesh" or "became" man. This means that God took on ANOTHER nature. Simply put, he put on something in order to do something. This leads into the next failed Jennings argument 

So far as who is doing the work (which is a ridiculous argument) JESUS said this:
  • John 9:4 ~ I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 
  • John 10:37-38 ~ 37-If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38-But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 

  • John 14:12 ~ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 
Of COURSE Jesus did the work. Of COURSE the Father did the work. It would have to be because there is only ONE GOD...not two of them and there is a hypostatic union 

Jennings LIED if anyone did, because he doesn't seem to know scripture and what he does know, he intentionally deceives the public on to draw men to himself. 

Then there is John 1:2-3 which for some reason Jennings continued to deviate from, and would NEVER allow the argument to go there: 
  • John 1: 2-3 ~ 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

This verse says that the WORD (ie: "the same") was in the beginning WITH God. this displays a duality, of relationship and existence. to be WITH something suggests that there is more than one. One cannot be "with" themselves. One can either be ALONE or WITH someone else. 

Then the scripture goes on to say that everything (ie:"all things") were "made by him". Who is HIM? That is the WORD, who was God and who is WITH God. Now if you don't believe any of that, John 1:10 makes it even more clear: 
  • "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." 
The world was made by HIM???...Who was "him"??? 

The scripture describes him further:
  • John 1:11-13 11- He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12-But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13-Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 

Then concludes with John 1:14 as we already discussed the incarnation. 

As Jennings would foolishly state, "show me 1 verse that says incarnation"??? Well, there is no verse that says "incarnation" HOWEVER, there are verses that describe it just as there are verses that describe the trinity. Therefore his whole argument of chapter and verse to prove trinity is a false narrative and logically is incoherent and therefore overcome!

I would suggest that this preacher, Jennings, also study the Granville Sharp rule . It would help illuminate his understanding and bring him out of the darkness that he leads his followers into as well. 

The bible said that FALSE prophets and Christs would arise and deceive many. We see this clearly in the teachings of Jennings and his lust for the spotlight. So sad, but yet so TRUE!

Second Posting
(which was deleted from the video comments)

At about 1 hour and 24 minutes, Gino references 1 Kings 22:19 and speaks of the vision of Micaiah which had been given a vision of the deceit that Ahab would be given by the false prophets to excite him to war.

Jennings says of this prophet, that he must be "put in the spirit to see the things of the spirit"...he said that this scripture indicated a man that was in the spirit looking on heaven and he "trusted' what he said. in other words he was excited about this beatific vision of the Lord.

Now, lets look at Revelation 5...
I wonder why this never came up?

We see John, "in the spirit" on the "Lord's day" as he says and he sees heaven too. Only John see's a heaven where God is on the throne, and all heaven bows down and casts down their crowns and worships him, THEN a Lamb come from the midst of the throne, wearing a robe that has been washed in blood, and receives a book from the one who sat upon the throne...immediately, ALL heaven, falls down and worships the Lamb, and calls him "Worthy, worthy, worthy, Lord God almighty"...JUST like they called the one who sat upon the throne previously...Who was this Lamb????

Why is not this scripture as venerated by Jennings as 1 Kings 22:19? 

Third Posting:
Now, Jennings is worse than I 1 hour and 31 seconds, he seems to deny the bodily, physical resurrection of Jesus, chiding Smith saying that "flesh" is in heaven. 

Now the Jehovah's Witness are the one who don't believe in a physical resurrection or Jesus with what the bible calls a glorified body...

Jennings, DO YOU DENY the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus??? Since you seem to believe that the risen Jesus has no FLESH. That is according to your teaching and your false doctrine???

1 hour 37 minutes you say that Jesus was not a "natural" or physical body walking on water. But at the same time, Jesus claims that a spirit cannot and does not do what he was doing.
  • Mt. 14:25-27 ~ 25-And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 26-And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27-But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Now, Jennings spent a whole program affirming that Jesus was flesh. Why switch now? Maybe it was because that wasn't the focus of the scripture. Jesus was FLESH walking on the water, but he was also God. Remember???

Further, to deny this also denies another cardinal doctrine of scripture. The physical resurrection itself. It was that physical resurrection that gave credence to his doctrine and teaching. When Jesus shows up to the disciples, he did not say he was a spirit. READ what it says:
  • Lk. 24:39 ~ Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
The RESURRECTED glorified body Jesus had FLESH AND BONES and that did not mysteriously change at the ascension. In fact Thomas who doubted it all was challenged the same way in John 20 and after seeing a PHYSICAL Jesus fell and hailed him as "my Lord, my God" John 20:20!

It is unbelievable that a teacher of the word teaches otherwise and contrary to scripture and yet has a following...

Read more!

Monday, October 9, 2017

Dog Whistles Pt. 1 The Genesis Of Distrust

I am proud to be a Black conservative. As I have written, it seems to be somewhat of an anomaly, as many people simply believe that a vocal Black person is automatically a liberal and in agreement with everything that liberals and especially liberal Blacks agree with. That is certainly not the case here. For example, I don't agree with big government, or the overhaul of the healthcare system by the government, I don't agree with abortion, the breakdown and redefinition of the family, or the imposition of penalties by taxation upon the rich for their success...I also don't believe that the public restroom open to my wife and daughter, should also be open to men who live as women...

With that said however, not only do I love Malcom X, but I DO agree with many of my liberal friends, both Black and White, that something more than a little bit is wrong with our current President. As I have seen and heard his discourse, he is more akin to a Hollywood personality or showman, than a political figure, and has displayed very much ignorance. He seems to have infected those around him with the same shoddy bias that he brings to the table and seems to demand as much to prove loyalty.

I held President Obama to a tough standard both terms. I did not pull any punches, and certainly did not agree with his agenda to push and proliferate homosexual marriage and some of the other more shameful values that he placed upon us as Americans. Be clear, I intend to do no less than speak with the same candor about this President. All Americans should seek to hold him accountable like anyone else, and if what we have all heard, seen and witnessed is any indication, he deserves more scrutiny than most.
Although the President is into publicly shaming his detractors, he is one of the most shameful persons I have seen in political office, and I have shaken hands with some that are currently in prison for one reason or another and find their presence more enjoyable.

I mean look at it, with his history of multiple marriage, insulting and demeaning rhetoric about women and nearly everyone, and name calling of anyone who disagrees with his political and social positions, he has displayed his own shame and has more than proven that he is anything BUT a true conservative. He is certainly not wise and is very ill-temperate...I mean his whole handling of Puerto Rico, and officials who were rightfully critical of his response, in my opinion, displays a person that has racial bias, loves to move the goalposts when he is loosing an argument or has been exposed, and wants everyone to believe that his bias is not "really" a bias or a prejudice... 

Although I give him kudos for making it a point early on in his term to provide more funding to HBCU's by Executive Order, and reversing some of the more intrusive Obama era rules and social regulations, our current President has said some of the more rather incredibly STUPID things and many within the Black community both conservative and liberal continue to distrust him and question his motives. 

I must admit, at first, I was saying that people just needed to give him a chance and that he would eventually "learn the job" and what he was supposed to do. I mean he was the same one that said that he could run the country and his businesses too, only to later come back and say that he made a mistake, and wasn't aware of how difficult the job of a President actually was???? But somewhere around his Charlottesville, VA assessment of "good people on both sides", I got off the sidelines and began to examine this______________(Loss for words here...although a phrase that he used for Colin Kaepernick does come to mind) for what he is and for the bias he stands for.

During that examination, I came across certain patterns that are unmistakable and not lost upon history. In this writing and the subsequent parts, I will attempt to share what I see as a calculated parallel between history our current President, and our condition of unrest. I only ask that even the critic will read objectively. Shall we proceed: 

"Dog Whistles"
One of the criticisms of this President, especially from those actively engaged in civil rights discourse, is that he uses and continues to use "dog whistles" to rally what he intends to be his base of support. Of course a dog whistle is literally only heard by the dog as opposed to the general public or crowd. This "whistle" inspires a dog to react without the one blowing the whistle, saying a word. What many Black leaders have said is that this President has issued some significant political "dog whistles" to activate his base and communicate his message. In Part 2 of this article I will explore this possibility directly by looking back at "dog whistle" politics. However, in Part 1 I will examine some of the circumstances and public perceptions that created the whistle itself and laid the foundation for what many Black and White leaders see and perceive as racism and racist behavior towards those protesting and fighting for liberation.  

Some may think that I am writing to "blame" or create a "negative" them I ask, "Have you looked at the news lately? Not all of it is fake. How much more negative can things be in race relations within America?" However, the purpose of this writing is to inform as well as educate as to what many Blacks actually hear when racial equality is discussed by the current President and many "conservatives" that follow his path today, and why Blacks must continue to hold public officials accountable and make their case for racial equality and criminal justice reform, and for social change based on racial equality.

Ideas & Ideals Have Consequences
“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. Ideas have endurance without death.”The Late President John F. Kennedy
The Foundation Of The "Dog Whistle"

"Dog Whistles" are based on ideas, values, concepts and ideals. Some of these values are more or less worthy or healthy to society. One should be careful on what ideas and ultimately ideals are embraced. The bible calls this protecting the heart. It is from the heart that the "issues" of life proceed.

My contention here is that ideas and ideals, historically embraced, have such a deep rooted foundation that they continue to effect modern society. As we will see, some ideas last as a way of life, even if they are not taught in books.

The Incubation Of Bad Ideas 

Let's look at a mini-timeline of some (since the Civil War 1861-1865) historical events. Please note the length of time or the gaps here from when laws were formed in favor of Black equality to when equality was actually realized, if it were ever realized at all. Some have said that certainly equality has been achieved, and that the election of a Black President proves it. However I ask the truly objective to simply hear me out and follow the argument, then make your decision. What's more, show me how the assertions that I will make are wrong based on the evidence.

To begin: 
Jan. 1st 1863 ~ President Lincoln signed the second or final Emancipation
Proclamation (specifically freeing Blacks in the Southern states that were in rebellion against the Union.) According to Wickipedia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri—and those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia, and also the three zones under Union occupation: the state of Tennessee, lower Louisiana and Southeast Virginia were excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation, therefore slaves in these states were not set free. The proclamation would only target to free approximately 3.1 million of the nations 4 million Black slaves at the time.
Next, over 2 and a half years later after Emancipation and after the Civil War was over:
June 19th, 1865 ~ On June 19, 1865, Major Gen. Gordon Granger came to Galveston, Texas, to inform a reluctant community that President Abraham Lincoln two years earlier had freed the slaves and to press locals to comply with his directive. There were approximately 250,000 slaves in TX at that time, most of which had migrated from the Eastern Southern Confederate States to escape the war and reestablish life in an area in which slavery was still allowed without restriction. The day (June 19th, 1865) became otherwise known as the day of true emancipation for Blacks from slavery. It is celebrated in approximately 45 States today as "Juneteenth".
Now, what is without historic dispute, is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves or outlaw all slavery within the United States. It was primarily a "declaration" for civil unity. Also in 1865 the 13th Amendment sought to actually abolish slavery within the entire US which only worked to a degree.

Although TX had been a state since 1845, it had also been a part of the Confederacy and governed under a self-rule concept, until 2 years after the Emancipation. The State of TX continued in defiance of the Federal Law until after the war was over.   

Immediately, after the Civil War defeat however, Southern States sought to implement a new set of rules that governed the life and living of Blacks who were now technically free under the law. Although short-lived, these sets of regulations were adopted by varying degrees by all former Confederate States, and paved the way for what would later become known as Jim Crow Laws based and rooted on separate but equal doctrines which would be proliferated by the courts for nearly 100 years, in spite of efforts through Federal Regulation to eliminate inequality.

This set of what appears to be ad-hoc laws that continued to build upon racial injustice were called "The Black Codes" 

The "Black Codes" (1865-1866)
Although Lincoln was dead, Southern States, under President Johnson and the surviving, defeated, military leaders of the Confederacy, called for self-rule or what amounts to "States Rights" in constitutional conventions, demanding limitations and restrictions on Black rights. 

The mantra, "States Rights" therefore became an early rally cry in favor of racism and, over time, a theme song, not only against federal government "intrusion" but also a cry for self rule and ultimately the validation of classism and segregation.

1) The term "states rights" was a mantra repeated by racists over the years to encourage the power of the state over the power of federal government. The term has also carried the connotation of racism indicating a reversion back to a time when states decided how to engage their citizenry. Historically however, that engagement usually excluded Blacks and even made things worse for them in general. The term itself, "States Rights" was used later by segregationist and racist Alabama Governor and Presidential Candidate, George Wallace, who as a third party candidate received over 9 million votes for President. This phrase has rightfully been interpreted by many Blacks and Whites, both conservative and liberal, to be a "dog whistle".  

A New System Rooted Within Bias

After the Civil War, free public education was offered for the first time, with restrictions that persons of color could not qualify and were not allowed in the public system. The restriction of Blacks from public settings was called segregation. 

Additionally, according to most "Black Codes", Blacks could not vote, serve on juries, travel freely, or work in occupations of their choice. Even Black marriages were outside the law as the law focused on Whites and issues pertaining to Whites. 

Mississippi was the first State to implement a Black Code and their version was unusually harsh towards Blacks and condemning of Whites that partnered with Blacks for the cause of freedom and equality. 

During this and the subsequent Jim Crow era, the prevailing thought was that Blacks were not equal to Whites in any way and should not be introduced or provided for within society. Although the Civil rights Act of 1866 guaranteed equal rights for all people living in the US, many were unwilling to accept the rights and equalization of Blacks. Around 1867 the Georgia Daily Telegraph reported: 
"There is such a radical difference in the mental and moral [nature] of the white and black race, that it would be impossible to secure order in a mixed community by the same [law].”
Blacks, by far and large, did not see the local or State law or the legal system as anything that would work for their benefit. They depended upon the federal government which at this point was still not actively engaged.

The Criminal Justice System
Community Policing

Among many restrictions the Black Codes included vagrancy laws. A vagrant is considered to be a person without a "settled" home, job and one who appears to be living as a beggar. Of course anyone could see the problem here. Since a person would have just been freed from slavery, they certainly would not have any assets and would be seeking a job. 

In most circumstances the Police, specifically the County Sheriff's Dept., was used to enforce vagrancy laws. It was the police, who were to round up "vagrants" place them in jail and force them into servile work for who else? Rich or wealthy White people. 

South Carolina's Black Code laws on vagrancy facilitated the following actions:
  • Immense pressure on freedmen to sign labor contracts. 
  • South Carolina’s code did not limit these laws to unemployed persons, but included others such as peddlers and gamblers and those who otherwise were self sustainable. 
  • Vagrants could be arrested and imprisoned at hard labor.
  • Children of vagrants could be taken and forced into work through "apprenticeships" 
As stated, the codes allowed the County Sheriff (Law Enforcement) to “hire out” black vagrants to a white employer to work off their punishment. Many of the law enforcement personnel, especially in the South, were also former or active klansmen and or White Supremacists. So not only was the law unjust, but those who were to enforce the law were unjust and bias in many cases. 

2) This appears to be the genesis of the distrust among Blacks of law enforcement or the police in general. Certainly not a total or all inclusive reason, but the start of negative perceptions and reactions. These apprehensions would be compounded in the Jim Crow era at time in which the police would be out right used to take freedoms from Blacks.  

The Courts

Lynching: Defined as the killing of Blacks without a trial or proper due process. Between 1882 and 1892 it is estimated that over 900 Black persons primarily in the South, 
were lynched or executed in this manner.

The courts (aka: the criminal justice system) customarily waived punishments and sentencing for white vagrants, allowing them to take an oath of poverty instead. Crimes that whites believed freedmen might commit, such as rebellion, arson, burglary, and assaulting a white woman, carried harsh penalties. Most of these crimes carried the death penalty for blacks, but not for whites. 

3) Racial bias in a "justice is blind" setting was undeniably a part of the genesis of distrust in the courts as well. The design of the courts facilitated protection for the White man, not Blacks. Things would eventually get worse under Jim Crow laws and in spite of Civil Rights Acts and Constitutional Amendments 13 and 14, adopted at the federal level, the courts would be used to negatively affect the Black family in a very significant manner.   

Black Education

Black orphans and children of vagrants, could become "apprentices" for Whites. This "apprenticeship" was against the will of the worker, and created a "Master/apprentice" relationship which allowed the "employer" to even "inflict moderate punishment" on "unruly" apprentices as long as the employer or "master" agreed to provide food and clothing, and teach their apprentices a trade, and send them to school in exchange for their "service" (in this case SUBJUGATION). 

4) From a historical perspective we observe that it was not an unusual concept for the White, empowered, elite, to provide education to Blacks or support education for those who were otherwise "slaves" without being called such. As long as the education was separate from Whites there was generally no disagreement and the White "masters" felt a sense of obligation to do so.

Conclusion Pt. 1

In this section, we have observed the following issues from a historical perspective:
  • Immediately after the Civil War both the law and the police were used to enforce unfair and unjust rules towards recently liberated Blacks and Black families. 
  • The Black Codes and rules were implemented to replace slavery by creating classism and bias within the law based on race.
  • The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 proved to be ineffective and was disregarded by former Confederate States in lieu of the doctrine of "States Rights". 
  • The genesis of "dog whistles" were laid immediately after the Civil War in the following doctrines: States Rights, police injustice, court injustice and inaction, separate but equal doctrines which allowed Whites to fund Black education while making sure that it remained separate from White education.  
How does what happened in the late 1800's effect us today?

Although repealed by federal law, the Black Codes would eventually give way to Jim Crow laws rooted in separate but equal treatment of Blacks. These laws would go on to be the basis for understanding and teaching for white Americans for nearly 100 years. Rooted in the doctrine of "States Rights", segregation and a call to less government intrusion took shape over time creating and exposing some ridiculously painful relationships based on race.

If President Kennedy is to be believed, that "ideas have endurance without death", then it is very easy to see how the foundation of the treatment of Blacks within this country has an effect on all of us today. Without going back to the clear injustice of slavery and bondage itself upon which the nation was founded, each of us can point back to a time, when the banner that flew in effort to display our freedom, failed certain groups based on race, while securing the future of others, based on color.

Ideas and philosophies, all the way from what makes the country great, to how we protest for a better country and life, are rooted in our genesis. It is that point, that the foundation of what we believe is right and wrong, has been challenged and exposed in this time some 150 years later.

In the next segment, we will look at some of the "politics" that makes the best association towards the arguments that have been made in recent days. As we draw further away from the foundation of this country, we are forced to ask, are we actually more close to those foundations than we believed?

We will see.


Read more!

Friday, October 6, 2017

A New Home For Podcasts & Radio Broadcasts

THANK GOD that the Lord has led us to a new place for all podcasts and non-live broadcast delivery.

We moved our service due to bad service from the Cyberears group and what amounted to "scolding" us for the amount of broadcasts we had.
Interestingly enough, that was the sign to drop a ZERO (Cyberears) and get with a hero.(Podbeam)

Hopefully, you will enjoy a more professional looking podcast. We certainly will. We will also enjoy increased functionality and the ability to embed individual episodes and offer a better search bar to the right of the blog.

So THANK YOU Cyberears for acting stupid! We WELCOME PODBEAM for a good looking and fully functional site that allows us to control our premium content.

Please click the link below to hear all of our uploaded casts. A new cast will arrive between now and the end of 2017 approximately every 2 weeks.  

Read more!

Friday, August 18, 2017

The New American Nation...Just What Does A Statue Represent?

I almost don't know where to begin on this one. Like some of my articles that deal with what can only be deemed as low-class scum, there is so much scum to go around regarding this, that I could write for a year or two or more. I've debated whether to simply do a youtube or an article. I think I will do both... 

Although I really don't want to spend too much time on this I am compelled to do so because my heart bled this week probably more than any other week in my 54 (or is that 53...I wish 42) years of life on this earth. To see murder and have a President equivocate by claiming that racists and white supremacists were "good people" was nearly too much for me to take...But I'll hold that thought for a minute....

I want to first say that what I am talking about here and other places on this issue is not about politics. The politics of the issue is a secondary consideration IF it is a consideration at all. What I am talking about here is MORALITY. The difference between right and wrong. We all know there was "something" wrong about all of the events that occurred in Charlottesville, VA. on the campus of UVA, which is a fine institution of higher learning, but some don't know what was wrong or why it was wrong. However, that didn't stop the alarm from going off telling us that somethings is and was not quite right.   

First Our Condolences & Thanks

Our hearts go out to the family of Heather Heyer who died fighting for a just cause and protesting against radical racial hate. I have been praying for her Mom and Dad, family members and the community of Charlottesville, but our words cannot express the sorrow enough for their loss, but thank God that the Heyer's had a child that used her life in a extraordinarily worthy manner! Like Momma said, her voice just got bigger! 

The Low-Life Backdrop

I don't have to rehearse the story, but I do want to note that Heather died when a rank idiot of the king of hate groups and community terrorists, the ku klux klan, with members of other versions of White supremacist groups, decided that the cause of being White and in control was greater than life itself and especially the life of anyone else...
Now, I want all the sympathizers and supporters of this "many sides" GARBAGE that "Dumb Donald" floated at the behest of his closest, now fired and Britebart rehired, IDIOT "advisor", Steve Bannon, (which is a name that I won't mention again on this site) to simply SHUT-UP and GET REAL!!!! (I can hear it now, "pastor that's so non-Christian" which I ask, is it "Christian" to justify killing for statue nostalgia? Or to say that individuals being victimized by terrorists, who came to protest in full riot gear, with weapons including knives and guns, have no right to stand for themselves? Figure that out, then let's talk about being a "Christian"!)

Please know that I don't believe that anything can be said to justify the murder of this young lady and the injury of the others who stood against a rank and ratchet display of hate...And I will never understand, how some have added insult to injury, including the President himself, by concluding that preservation of a statue(s), erected to remind people of oppression (slavery and white superiority)  and oppressors (slave owners and those who indiscriminately thought of human beings as property and equal to animals) and of "good old times" in the "land of cotton". and a reversion to "Dixie's Land" pride; can include some "good people". (Ooh by the way, did I mention that these 'good people" were raining down fire and hate on Jews and Blacks?) I fail to understand how anything that the klan did that day or any other day, can justify hailing and admiring them or their values. Can neo-nazis be "admired" for their stance and glorification of the atrocities of killing Jews under hellion hitler?

Mission Accomplished 

I will say this however, they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish...They wanted to see if they could still get away with a modern day open murder and that murder be sanctioned by the state. This is at the same time when Black people are getting killed at mere traffic stops. However, these klansmen and people like them who come to rallies with guns and knives, tested the resolve of the system, which only arrested ONE of them as far as we know, and unfortunately their test proved that they can STILL come into neighborhoods and communities, reek havoc on anyone they wish and receive sanction from the state and even from the chief White House idiot himself! 

This is SHAMEFUL and whosoever supports it, should REPENT!!!!  

Immoral Equivalence & The New American Nation

From the murderous rally the Daily Caller reports: 
“We’re here to protect white identity, white culture, white heritage, and we’re here to promote the new American nation that is currently under construction,”...“We’re not just white nationalists, because we believe in more than just a white nation,”...“We want a nation of values, of heritage, of culture. We don’t want just borders with white people inside. We strive for more than that.”...“We’re more than that, we’re fascists,”...“We believe in a strong centralized government. We believe in unity and strength among its people.”
Is The "white culture" somehow separate from American culture? When did that happen? Then, is it so scarce that it needs to be "protected"? If so, from who and by whom? Are the kkk and other White supremacist groups somehow the vanguard of this culture and the deliverer of this "new nation"? Then what of government? Is America full of fascists? Are we now a fascist nation? Let's define what he claimed to be politically:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
That is fascism. Remember, this was the same system that ultra conservatives on the radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck claimed about former President Obama. They said Obama was a fascist and they all wanted to fight directly against him and it. As Hannity said over and over, his job was to make Obama "a one term President" (which didn't exactly work out)...To the point, this, being a fascist, is exactly what Thomas (cited above) claimed to be and what the group(s) that he was representing is. Now, I want to know is that a good thing? Could this be in part what all of this was about? A "new" national identity as fascists?

In other words, the more we hear and the more we see and uncover, the whole unite right rally was never about a statue as D Donald and the rally organizers tried to make us believe that it was.
They tried to seduce us to believe that it was about defacing our parks or removing statues and icons of people who were slavers, from society and changing our history. None of that was true to any degree. It was about history. It was about nostalgia and even honor for a system that was rejected by true and sustainable American values and the veneration of characters and the horrible history that those characters represent.

D Donald inflamed a nation with his absurd view of moral equivalence claiming that there was some "good' in a crowd of people disturbing the community and aggressively placing hatred on Blacks and Jews. He claimed that there was wrong on "many sides" while simultaneously equating a Nazi rally and chants against Blacks and Jews with those who oppose those views and want peace and freedom for all Americans. Don;t get me wrong., I have no affinity for the ultimate goals of the BLM movement and anarchy in general, but there was much more to this than that. Like Pastor James McDonald said...well hear him for yourself:

To that we say AMEN and bring this part of a total American nightmare and fiasco to a close...HOPEFULLY!!!!


Read more!

Sunday, August 13, 2017

RACISM & The White Church Challenge

From Facebook

I often speak of the church and its engagement within the community. Most times I am interpreted as focusing on the Black church (a church where membership is made up of predominately Black individuals and families) and it's involvement...

However, I want to be clear I will ask, where is the voice of the White minister and the White church on the issues?


I challenge the White church, churches whose membership is predominately comprised of White individuals and families, to lead rallies all around the country and in every community to condemn White supremacy, alt-rightism and race based fascism and injustice. 

We know that ALL hatred is sin! However, we are dealing with the sin and evil of White supremacy, which had its stronghold on this nation for generations. That sin has cost the lives of families for all generations. That hatred separated and damaged not only Black families, but White families forever. It is this form of hatred that must be condemned. Noone need be detract from the message of condemning that form of racist hate and un-Americanism. 

Unlike the inadequate response of our President who condemns wrong on "many sides" let us condemn wrong on the side from which it has arisen...wrong on the side of RACIAL HATE, based on White supremacy, White nationalism and White racial intolerance. 

I challenge White churches (churches whose membership is comprised primarily of
White individuals and families) to not only call this sin and evil out but evangelize the lost! Reach and teach the truth of racial equality to them that hold these views, and commit to evangelizing the hearts and souls OF THE LOST with the TRUTH of God's word. 

I would ask that all my Facebook friends share this with their pastors and church leaders everywhere. Encourage every church and church leaders to engage. It is the CHURCH that should be a beacon to the community. Let US take our place and be the salt of the earth and light that Jesus has called us to be in these times and condemn White supremacy and racial injustice clearly, forthrightly, and in a unified manner. 

Pastor Harvey Burnett
New Bethel COGIC 
The Dunamis Word

Read more!

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

James Damore & GOOGLE. But What Of Black Employees?

We all have seen a lot on the internet. Most of you got to this site through and by means of some process of "GOOGLE". it is a regular and ordinary part of our lives. 

Through GOOGLE and other internet social connection services, and shrewd advertising, usually delivered by left leaning liberals both morally, politically and socially, the process of moral and social value re-engineering has long been underway. Moral and social value re-engineering is the attempt to redefine what we should accept as individuals and ultimately as a society. 

Their efforts (those of the engineers) and messages tells us what we should perceive as normal, or what we should embrace as "main stream". It can be something as subtle as the color of a picture, or a work of art, that is used to direct us to this "secular" standard of normal. It could be something as in your face as a flat out message or a direct command to act or a question that attempts to morally shame. 

Social moral values re-engineering can also take place in aligning ideals and grouping values together as being positive or negative values, suggesting that those who are in a certain "class", because of what they believe, are more favored within society and more useful to the community. Example: 

In the "Ad Council's" moral value campaign called "Love has no labels" former wrestler and current movie star John Cena sets forth the notion that accepting homosexuality is tantamount to being "patriotic" and groups the acceptance of homosexual behavior to the acceptance of race, age, ability, religion and the proliferation of real love. 

First of all, both he and The Ad council are full of GARBAGE!!! Rejection of a person's CHOICE of homosexuality, and resultant behavior, has nothing to do with love. It has everything to do with rejection of behavior that millions feel that is immoral both on religious and non-religious basis. However, it is messages like this that are clear examples of social, moral values re-engineering. This is what we are seeing so prevalent within today's society at nearly all levels, and from the liberal leaning left primarily, although the right is certainly not excluded by using the same or opposite types of propaganda.

To The Point Of The Article:   

It seems that a former GOOGLE employee, James Damore, dared to challenge the moral value and social issue grouping, and re-engineering that has taken place within society and specifically within GOOGLE itself over the years. 

From the read, (listed below) and I certainly don't claim that James is a Christian nor to be using biblical values morality as a basis for his beliefs, what he seems to have done is kicked over, or at least kicked at, the golden calf of the liberal social re-engineering message, and called it into question so far as how these values are applied within the GOOGLE workplace and culture (at least at his location)

Kind Of Conflicted

In his memo, Demore addresses sexism, claiming that sexism could be right by pointing to psychological and biological differences between the sexes as justification for his assertions. Demore addresses work culture and racism within it, by claiming that efforts to diversify the workplace are off-track and even damaging to the work-place and society. 

He addresses what he called the traditional "left leaning" approach to business which, in his opinion, may have set a backdrop for the damage done in corporate America towards women and within the work environment for all people in corporate America and GOOGLE in particularly.    

When Freedom Of Speech  & Though Is Not Free
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company,” Danielle Brown, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, wrote in a memo responding to Damore’s document, “Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.”
Damore's opinion are certainly controversial however they are in line with materialism which has long taught that the differences between men and women are reason that men should "rule" over women. Materialism once taught that because a man's head was larger and his brain bigger, that males had a greater capacity to think, do math and intellectual superiority. Reading from Demore's memo, it seems that acceptance of materialistic thoughts are held over for this new generation of materialists who see a "better way" to do nearly all things. 

The GOOGLE Culture & The Black Employee

Damore lives in a "free country" working for a non-religious corporation built on capitalism. However, that corporate society, when faced with values that under-gird it, seem to reject those values opting to embrace values that  that appear to be and align more closely with traditional social moral values. 

While I know too much to fully agree with his assessment of the problem and how to fix it, it appears that Damore was free to do anything else but speak his mind on what he believes the current condition of his employer, his industry and society in general is and that is a problem. 

Just in case you didn't know, there is a raging war from Simi Valley to Wall Street on how women are valued and treated at the highest levels corporately within the United States and even more so within corporate technology company ranks. read a 2016 article in the New Yorker regarding this HERE

What Of GOOGLE'S Black Employees?

However, with all of that said, GOOGLE appears to have a much greater problem than outlined by Demore, who, at least morally, seems to be endorsing the perpetuation of more problems by his memo, rather than solving or addressing anything.

According to a CNBC report on the issue, GOOGLE'S workforce consists of 53% White employees with 80% of them being men. Although women, both Black and White only make up 20% of all GOOGLE employees, only 1% of all employees, men and women, are Black. This is the problem that I have. It seems that Demore's memo claimed that GOOGLE's efforts to embrace racial minorities, and make provisions for them would only lead to greater problems and a worse workplace, while embracing new policies to embrace "female employees" would be worth changing the culture.  

In the "old days", numbers such as this would immediately invoke NAACP marches and in many cases sit-ins, until the corporation addressed the issues. However, what this memo incited was a new round of talks about the disparity of women in the workplace to the exclusion of Blacks in technology all together. 

It seems that Demore has invoked the ire of conservatism, from the mainstream conservative to the alt-right, neo-nazi conservative because some of the more extremists elements within conservatism agree with his assessments and his right to say what he wishes to say. While I agree with the latter sentiment, to a degree, I have a problem with his methods and solutions as he outlines them. 

Read the memo for yourself and draw your own conclusions, but I don't believe that you'll find me hailing this guy as some sort of champion for free speech and moral uprightness anytime soon...


James Demore memo:

Read more!

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Transgender? Here Is A Word For You...

I recently had a dialogue with a transgender man who has decided to live his life as a woman. After some conversation about his past he revealed that he had a desire early in life to cross-dress as a woman, but without anyone telling him, he "knew" that desire was wrong. He felt that the beauty of a woman was overwhelming so much until he desired to look like one. until his sister caught him trying on her clothes, no one knew his desires. It was  a secret kept until he moved out of his home at age 18 and began to date men and dress regularly like a woman.

He was raised in a Christian home and one in which church was a regular and normal part of life and existence was not abused in any way that he could remember and has shared his lifestyle over the years with his parents who guardedly accept his choice, but do so with full love for him as a person.

Read more!

Monday, July 31, 2017

Protesting TRUTH & A Frazier Knock-Out

It seems that the confusion over sex and sexuality continues at the intersection of sin and ungodliness.

It seems that gay advocacy is alive and well within the city of Chicago. Apparently, there was a rally against the Apostolic Church Of God over the weekend due to the church's faithfulness to scripture and traditional marriage.

It seems that a former member of the church, who evidently recently entered into a lesbian marriage, was dis-fellowshipped because of her marriage. While intricate details here are unknown, what is known is that the gay community, with the biblically illiterate in tow, is attempting to paint the picture that the bible somehow endorses the SIN of homosexuality and vicariously homosexual marriage.

Of certainty, we can say that they are wrong, have been wrong, and will not be right until such time as they repent of their sins and stop bullying the church by falsely accusing it of discrimination. Here's the video: 

The "pastor" of Lighthouse Church, Jamie Frazier,appears to be one of the apostate conduits for this argument against the church and traditional biblical truth. He raises some questions in effort to capture the attention of the community. Therefore, briefly, let's answer and address some of "pastor" Jamie Frazier's rambling and biblically confused assertions:

First, Frazier asserts: "The pulpit is not a weapon with which to silence, but rather it is a beacon from which to shine light," 

To that we all agree. The LIGHT is the light of Christ to the world. That light says that there is a difference between what is clean and what us unclean, and a difference between what is holy and unholy. That light says that we (the church and individual believers) are the "salt of the earth" and if we loose our savor, all we are good for is to be trodden under the foot of men. The LIGHT points men and women in the right direction and shows the world our "good works" so that God may be glorified. (read Mt. 5) The problem is, living in and endorsing sin is NOT a light, but is DARKNESS!

You see Mr. Frazier, the pulpit is not to be used to endorse, glorify or encourage SIN. The pulpit is not yours. It is not mine. It belongs to God and those of us who approach it are to do so faithfully as it pertains to HIS word, and HIS truth, not ours!

Frazier asks: "How could we say two men or two women in a committed god honoring relationship are sinning?"

First, "pastor", two men and or two women cannot be "married" to one another and that be considered "god honoring" relationship from a biblical perspective. We are not talking about secularism. You did not protest City Hall or the Statehouse. You protested a church. The church's first mission is faithfulness to the WORD of God, not adherence to political correctness or to moral relativism. 

The bible teaches that homosexuality is a dishonorable act. Rom. 1:24 ~ "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"

The very act of homosexuality (otherwise referred to as uncleanliness within the text) and consequently, within our society, homosexual marriage, is not anything that God "honors". Why would God honor something that dishonors men and mankind? It (homosexuality) is a behavioral sin like others and yet more. It is an encapsulated lifestyle contrary to biblical and scriptural truth, and is aggressive in nature. For example, one cannot find an adulterer or hardly a pedophile, (both behavioral sins) that believe that their sin should be embraced and accepted prima-facia by others. Many of them do not wish to be seen, yet alone known for their sin. However, the homosexual advocate seeks to gain acceptance of their homosexuality from everyone in their community, subjugating every institutional moral value to its acceptance. This is why they are saying (you are saying) that the church is "discriminating". This is name calling, shaming and out right bullying. Bullying in effort to "make" people accept your behavioral issue as an acceptable moral value.  

The sin of homosexuality, having gained acceptance within liberal facets of society due to political means, processes, bullying and other reasons is something that many of those who advocate for it attempt to present as an argument simply about "diversity" and equal rights, as opposed to moral truth. However, homosexuality is a behavior, and a product of existential thinking where man creates his own purpose as opposed to seeking the purpose of God for his existence. (Read HERE for more information on existentialism and what you are actually endorsing by endorsing this sin) 

Therefore your question is logically incoherent. Men cannot honor God in homosexual relationships because God views that relationships of the sort, are dishonoring to themselves and to humanity. So try that one again "pastor" and give us a question that makes sense so that we can address it!

Finally, Frazier says: "Show me how two men or two women loving one another diminishes their capacity to love god, to love themselves and to love other people,"

Let's start with the latter red-herring arguments...1- no one claims that homosexuals do not "love themselves" and cannot "love other people" neither of those are the arguments...2- the bible commands us to 'love one another" so that is not in question. 

What the homosexual does is lust with and or have sex with one another. In modern times this leads to what has been deemed "homosexual marriage". It is homosexual marriage and the normalization of the practice of homosexuality that the church correctly and properly stands against. Not the ability or inability of the homosexual to function, display love, care and concern for any and all individuals in life. 

To what I believe the "point" of your challenge is: 
Jesus, speaking in the context of money, reveals that no man can serve 2 masters. They will either hate one and love the other. (Mt. 6:24) Our love leads to our service, allegiance, self-sacrifice and faithful adherence to HIS word.

If it can be demonstrated that our "love" or how we carry out our love, is either honoring or dishonoring to God, as I believe that it can, then we can firmly make the statement and set forth the truth that if our love is dishonoring to HIM by virtue of our actions, we cannot say that we love HIM, if the meaning of that is to live in a state and condition of submission to HIS truth and word. under those conditions, we can certainly say that we love ourselves, and possibly considerations for God, but we cannot truly say that we love HIM if we do not intend to forsake that which is dishonoring to HIM and that which HE does not honor. 

Therefore, by demonstration of what a man does by his actions, a revelation of the capacity of the individual to "love God" can be determined. When a person embraces homosexual activity, their capacity to "love God" is diminished, hindered and severely limited or restricted. In this ethos, self becomes greater than God and personal fulfillment of desire is central to the person and that person lives in union with self, rather than in union with God. 

Anything greater than God, HIS truth and HIS word in our life is an idol and is therefore "another" god, not the God of the bible!

Final Thought:

This attack has nothing to do with the "denomination" of the church. All churches faithful to traditional biblical values are targets. 

The church in general does not and cannot not prohibit anyone from simply attending. After all the church should be a place of healing to them who are spiritually sick and ailing. However the church has an obligation to restrict the ungodly from leadership. Without compromise, the church should not look like and act like the world...though it (the church in general) and those who lead people astray such as Mr. Frazier, will pay the price!


Read more!