Poll: Over Half of Tea Party Members Support Bringing Guns to Church

Can the Church involve itself in any more buffoonery

A recently released poll has found that Americans who describe themselves as members of the tea party movement are the most likely to support carrying guns to church.
According to the Public Religion Research Institute poll, released Wednesday, 55 percent of respondents who identified themselves as tea party members supported allowing people to carry guns to church. This contrasted with 38 percent of Republicans, 17 percent of independents, and 9 percent of Democrats.
"Although the issue of gun control tends to divide Americans by party, gender, region and race, there is broad agreement among the public that there are some places where concealed weapons should be off limits," said PRRI Research Director Daniel Cox in a statement.
The poll was conducted between Aug. 8 and 12, with a sample space of 1,006 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
According to the PRRI poll, overall roughly three-quarters of Americans oppose concealed carry of guns into various facilities, with 76 percent opposing them in worship facilities, 73 percent opposing them in government facilities, and 77 percent opposing them on college campuses.
Other findings from the poll included 52 percent of Americans favoring tougher gun laws and 68 percent of Americans believing that the constitutional right to own a gun is as important as other rights.


"In spite of recent debates over gun control, a strong majority of Americans believe that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as the right to free speech," said Dr. Robert P. Jones, PRRI CEO, in a statement.
"Unsurprisingly, this belief is particularly pervasive among gun owners."
The results of the poll come in the wake of several high profile gun-based violent crimes took place across the country. On July 20, an individual entered a Colorado movie theatre during a viewing of "The Dark Knight Rises" and opened fire, killing 12 and wounding 58. On Aug. 5, a shooter opened fire at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wis., killing six and wounding four.
The poll also came a couple weeks after a court in Georgia upheld a law that banned the bringing of firearms into places of worship.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 20 that the 2010 law banning guns from churches did not violate either the First or Second Amendment.
"A place of worship's right, rooted in the common law, to forbid possession of firearms on its property is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment," ruled the Eleventh Circuit.


By Michael Gryboski , Christian Post Reporter

Posted by Breaking Bread

Kicking over Sacred Cows:The Cross or is it?

A lot has been said about the cross or the crucifix of the Messiah. In order for us to accept truth we must accept the truth of the Scriptures. While many will have us believe he was crucified on a cross, this runs contrary to what is true. He was murdered on an upright stake.

In order to know what something is we have to know what it is not. Church history is something that isn’t being taught. We have excluded true doctrine for the doctrine of itching ears. The issue of the cross is another in a long line of offenses that helps to delude or erode orthodoxy as useless and ineffective. The word cross is stauros “an upright pale or stake” on which executions took place. The verb form is stauroō “to fasten to a stake or pale.”

It’s important to note an argument that has arisen is the Jews were complicit in having the Messiah murdered. The Messiah was more likely murdered for political reasons. He resisted Jews from giving tribute or celebration to Caesar’s Jewish New Testament, Sacred Name Bible Authorized Version (Lk 23:2).

As much as it pains people to admit this, the Bible is a Jewish book. We have to look at the fact that translators have changed so much of the Bible to make it fit certain doctrines. Take Easter for example, why is it erroneously translated as Easter in the King James Version (KJV), while other Bibles translate it properly by using the word Passover? This is another in a long line of offences that must be corrected. The word cross isn’t figurative language either.

Our English word “cross” is the translation of crux. The word never implies or means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle but always of one piece alone (1Pet 2:24, Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29, Gal 3:13). The cross itself was presented by the Third Century A.D. The Ecclesia (church) was heavily influenced by pagan culture; it is one of the reasons why God says, “Do not follow in the way of the heathen (Jer 10:2-5). This very Scripture has to do with Christmas trees as well as Christians. So much of the church succumbed to strange practices and customs.

Scripture is specific and uses plain language. The word cross is erroneously translated when it should be upright stake. In the New Testament the word stauros (upright stake) is used 28 times. Many believe it isn’t necessary for this type of teaching. We are to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3); we are to preach the whole gospel, not in part. If we are confused about this one simple issue imagine all the other parts. The gospel has been perverted by pagan influence to this day. Why does the Apostle Paul sound so American, or Peter, or John?  Paul would be Shaul, Peter would be Kepha, and John would be Yochanon. The church also has been compromised by the very people that are supposed to uphold it and teach.

The execution stake is a place, the place, we are to die. It is metaphorically used in denunciation from the world and from self. It is to take on the life of the Messiah and to live for him (1Cor 1:17-18, Gal 5:11, Phil 3:17-20). We are to take our burden and follow the Messiah, we are to follow in fellowship with him (Matt 10:38).

Lastly, it is the traditions of men that make the word of no affect (Mk7:13). The reason to wear the cross is best explained in (Matt 10:38), and anyone who does not take up his execution-stake and follow me is not worthy of me.

Losing it's Way

The church is as the title say's, losing it's way. I thought the church is suppose to be in the Ministry of helps not put downs. Pastors are running around espousing all kinds of facts that aren't true, they try an act sincere while hiding behind the Bible. Terry Jones actually hangs an Obama effigy because of his controversial stance on marriage equality. David Barton says people are on welfare because they don't read the Bible. Creflo Dollar gets arrested for beating his daughter. How do these incidences lead people to the Messiah; they don't. They make people scratch there heads and wonder. Terry Jones must be an ignorant man or is starved for attention to bring people into his fellowship. How offensive is it to hang something like that of the President, but was to much of a coward to burn the Koran. He claims it's because of the gay thing. Get over it sir, believe in your constitution that talks about equal protection under the law. If you treat people like dogs, how can you minister to them? With these types of antics I wonder if these people really study the scripture. What can I say about David Barton, except another bone head statement. It's easy to pick on the poor, what about the rich. Have you ever heard of corporate welfare. So in other words rich people did it all themselves without government interference. If you believe that you are delusional. What are you doing to combat the issue? Are you simply preaching at them? Have you walked a mile in their shoes? Barton is another fellow I wonder about, if he actually studies the scriptures for understanding. He say's a lot ignorant things. Lest we forget, Creflo Dollar; what a fitting last name. A prosperity preacher, who preaches the good news of riches. He is going to have some explaining to do on Sunday. I have children, we disagree often, but to put hands and physically cause them harm is way overboard, especially a young girl. Parenting is a difficult job in it self. I wont go to hard at him, we as parents have to choose our battles. However his doctrine is something I do question. The church is in the wilderness trying to find a way out, until then we are going to continually be lost. It's time to start from the bottom up, it is time for a cleansing.The church is to divided, to racist, to be effective as a collective. The church needs to get back to God, not politics, but what God's word says. 1Jn 3:4 is a good start, if we follow that and the church works as a whole doing different things while working for the same result, it will be a force to reckon with. I'm not a fatalist, I just don't see the kind of unity any time soon.

The Revealing

The church is in an influx of confusion and is in need of a cleansing. Some groups have gone as far to insist the office of the Apostle is coming back. These groups have already started acting as if they are Apostles. Don’t be fooled, and have no part of it. These men haven’t met the requirements of the office. They weren't chosen, they didn't witness his resurrection. Paul the last of the Apostles was in the presence of the Messiah. He was commissioned and personally taught by him. These movements are nothing but farces. As far as the cleansing is concerned, it is getting back to truths. The transitional period the church is going is the revealing of past and current ignorance. How disturbing is it to have a young boy singing homos are going to hell. This kind of activity is silly as well as reckless. The only reason we know of the incident is that someone you tubed it. Another incident that went viral was when a NC preacher said they should build a high electric fence and put all the gays in it. This behavior in the pulpit is irresponsible and it hurts the church more than you think. For all the gay and lesbians out there, the church is missing opportunities to witness. The second error is, think of the many other people that are listening to this hate being spewed. You are turning people off not on. It’s okay to preach the sincere word; it’s not okay to add to the sincere word.

Andrew Sullivan who’s article that was featured in Newsweek questioning the church was correct in many ways. He’s a bit delusional. Protestantism claims to be the truth, it doesn't view the Catholic Church as credible. Andrew seems to link both as one, it is at best misleading. Why don’t they deal with their overreaching issues that have plastered headlines and continue to be in the headlines? Andrew is also openly gay, which I don’t mind. The problem I have is he wants to spread the ills of the church but doesn't want to deal with his personal sins.

It is true the church is starting to go through a revealing; simply for it to deal with homosexuality and gay marriage. The church is being outed, as it should be outed. In order for the body to be cleansed, it has to be vulnerable in order to get back on the right track. The second issue is doctrine. The church has to get back to truths and stop putting personal convictions on people. God is going to do a great work, but the people’s hearts and minds must be receptacle to God’s truths and workings. A divided church cannot be effective!

Catholicism and Protestantism-the wayward path

Have you ever wonder where did the influx of religions come from? How did the so-called church form? It had to grow out of something, some religion. Have you ever wondered what the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church have in common? Where did the Pope get his power from or what role did Martin Luther play? Finally, who is this celebrated man by the name of Constantine? The answer to these questions and many more will startle you. Let’s journey to the beginning of what started it all:fear and power. 

The early Church consisted of what were called Orthodox (Christians). They understood God was to be feared. The Orthodox believed Christians should fear there earthly rulers (Orthodoxy) as they feared God. This sounds like the seed for brain-washing slaves during slavery. There has been an ongoing argument about indigenous people; the inhabitants who lived on/in the new world. The theory is it's best to take their land, if not; one could end up worshiping the moon instead of flying there. My other point has to do with slaves. Did they have to be enslaved to be taught a religion? The answer is a resounding NO! God teaches that he speaks through his creation; he will be made known throughout the earth. Let me ask this simple question. If no one ever heard of the Messiah, Yashua, Jesus, where does that person go when they die? This tactic was used to maintain order. In believing this structure there is no such thing of shared authority between races or gender. One must be superior to the other. Men looked to God to be male; they understood that to mean male authority. 

To further prove this point, as late as 1977,Pope Paul the VI explained that our Lord was a man, so women were banned from the priesthood. They were given more submissive rolls. The orthodoxy used 2Timothy, chapters two and three to further their points. At this time I'm not here to explain who is correct but it's not proper to marginalize women as they did. I will deal with this issue in another post as it is an important one that deserves attention.

History teaches they were divided within services because of their chatter of always asking the husband what was being taught. They were to sit on the other side of the church in order to not be disruptive yetwhen the Apostle Paul left for trips he put women in charge, there were even women prophets. Galatians 3:28 teaches we are all one in the Messiah. Even today we still struggle with women in leadership positions.

Here are a few examples of how men viewed woman:

• ·         Men have broad chests and narrow hips; therefore they have wisdom. Women have narrow chests and broad hips. Women ought to be domestic; the creation reveals it, for they have broad backsides and hips, so that they should sit still. [WA, TR I, no. 55, p. 19; cf. Hazlitt-Chalmers translation, p. 299]

• ·         There is no dress that suits a woman or maiden so badly as wanting to be clever. [WA, TR II, no. 1555, p. 130]

• ·         When women speak well, it is not praiseworthy. It befits them to stammer and not be able to speak well; that adorns them much better. [WA, TR IV, no. 4081, pp. 121-122]

• ·         What goes in through women's ears comes out again through their mouths. For that reason a secret is to be entrusted only to a dead woman. [WA, TR IV, no. 4434, p. 311]

The orthodoxy believed that people could only learn from those who have experienced his resurrection. That class was first the Apostles and their successors were the Roman Catholic Church. They claimed to be the only enlightened, by this they claimed to have sole authority to delegate or interpret as they saw fit.

NOTE: To this day the Pope traces his power back to Peter. This is known as stolen power, Paul or Peter were the very last of the Apostles. That office within the five ministries doesn't exist anymore. The requirement for being an Apostle was to have a personal visitation with the Messiah; Paul was the last to meet that requirement. It is unnecessary for us to meet the Messiah or angels; he speaks to us through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The orthodoxy believed in blind faith, only except what is being taught through the church. Do not dispute, do not inquire on your own, in other words, do not question. If an answer cannot be found, leave those things of that nature to God. The RCC also believed that salvation cannot come outside of what the church teaches.

• Bishop Irenaeus-she is the entrance to life all other are robbers

• Clemete-whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities has disobeyed God himself and should receive the death penalty.

By everything that was mentioned above this led to the Protestant Reformation. This was a western Christian movement that was fed up with the divine rule of the RCC. They believed that the Bible could and should be read and studied. Protestants believed in uniformity of Scripture but have not always been able to come to agreements. This is why today in modern Protestantism we have so many sects, splits and off -shoots.

This is my personal summation without going too in-depth. Sometimes simplicity works best without overstating. It becomes more palatable without losing any salt.

Properly Framing the Gay Argument Pt.3

This is the last installment in the Properly Framing the Gay Argument series. Recently the North Carolina General Assembly approved a constitutional referendum to place a ban on same sex marriage in the NC Constitution. Voters will decide in May 2012. This is the Pandora’s Box I spoke of previously. If the voters come out overwhelmingly against, will the churches agree with the decision of the citizens? While it uphold the Constitution in this case and people's right to gather and practice peaceful civil disobedience.
The question I proposed, if we already have a ban on gay marriage, why waste tax payer dollars on something that is only going to fan more flames of dissent?  If the ban gets approved it will make it harder to overturn in the future. What was a non-issue will now become an issue.
This goes beyond a simple disagreement and becomes personal. It becomes, of all things, political. That in and of itself is dangerous as you begin crossing the church and state lines.