Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
MISTAKEN CONCEPTIONS CONCERNING "WAITING FOR THE SPIRIT"
(2) Mistaken conceptions concerning "waiting for the Spirit"
to descend. Here again we find expressions and theories
misleading, and opening the door to Satanic deceptions.
"If we want a Pentecostal manifestation of the Spirit, we
must 'tarry' as did the disciples before Pentecost," we have
said the one to the other, and we have seized upon the text
in Luke 24: 49, and Acts 1: 4, and passed the word along.
"Yes, we must 'tarry,'" until, compelled by the inroads of the
adversary in "waiting meetings," we have had to search the
Scriptures once more, to discover that the Old Testament
word of "wait on the Lord" so often used in the Psalms, has
been strained beyond the New Testament proportion of truth,
and exaggerated into a "waiting on God" for the outpouring
of the Spirit, which has even gone beyond the "ten days"
which preceded Pentecost, into four months, and even four
years, and which, to our knowledge, has ended in an influx
of deceiving spirits which has rudely awakened some of the
waiting souls. The Scriptural truth concerning waiting for the
Spirit" may be summed up as follows:
The disciples waited ten days, but we have no indication
that they "waited" in any passive state, but rather in simple
prayer, and supplication, until the fulness of time had come
for the fulfillment of the promise of the Father.
The command to wait, given by the Lord (Acts 1: 4) was not
carried forward into the Christian dispensation after the Holy
Ghost had come, for in no single instance, either in the Acts
or in the Epistles, do the Apostles bid the disciples "tarry" for
the gift of the Holy Spirit, but they use the word "receive" in
every instance (Acts 19: 2).
It is true that at this time the Church is, as a whole, living
experimentally on the wrong side of Pentecost, but in dealing
with God individually for the reception of the Holy Spirit, this
does not put the seekers back to the position of the disciples
before the Holy Ghost had been given by the Ascended Lord.
The Risen Lord poured forth the stream of the Spirit again and
again after the day of Pentecost, but in each instance it was
without "tarrying" as the disciples did at the first (see Acts. 4:31).
The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son
to His people, is now among them, waiting to give Himself
unceasingly to all who will appropriate, and receive Him
(John 15: 26 ; Acts 2: 33, 38, 39). A " waiting for the Spirit"
therefore is not in accord with the general tenor of the truth
given in the Acts and the Epistles, which show rather the
imperative call to the believer to put in his claim, not only to
his identification with the Lord Jesus in His death, and union
in life with Him in His resurrection, but also to the enduement
for witnessing, which came to the disciples on the Day of
On the believer's side, we may say, however, that there is a
waiting for God, whilst the Holy Spirit deals with, and prepares,
the one who has put in his claim, until he is in the right attitude
for the influx of the Holy Spirit into his spirit, but this is different
from the "waiting for Him to come," which has opened the door
so frequently to Satanic manifestations from the unseen world.
The Lord does take the believer at his word when he puts in his
claim for his share of the Pentecostal gift, but the "manifestation
of the Spirit"--the evidence of His indwelling and outworking--
may not be according to any pre-conceptions of the seeker.
War on the Saints by Jessie Penn-Lewis
Tomorrow: Why Waiting Meetings Are Profitable to Evil Spirits
Is Law Love?
He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in him.
But who so keepeth His word, in Him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that are in Him.
We are to guard the Truth.
Back in July, you may recall that the Internal Revenue Service settled a 2012 lawsuit brought by the anti-theist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. According to the terms of that settlement, the IRS agreed to monitor Churches, something that is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Because the anti-theists settled, the details of how the IRS was going to go about their monitoring was never disclosed.
Back in July, you may recall that the Internal Revenue Service settled a 2012 lawsuit brought by the anti-theist group Freedom from Religion Foundation. According to the terms of that settlement, the IRS agreed to monitor Churches, something that is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Because the anti-theists settled, the details of how the IRS was going to go about their monitoring was never disclosed. Enter Judicial Watch, who has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the IRS in pursuit of records that would disclose IRS monitoring of churches or other tax exempt organizations for political purposes.
The lawsuit was filed on November 6 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-01872).
According to Judicial Watch:
In 2012, the FFRF filed a lawsuit alleging that the IRS had routinely ignored its complaints about churches promoting political candidates, issues or proposed legislation. In July 2014, the IRS announced that, according to the terms of an agreement reached with the FFRF, it had been monitoring churches and other houses of worship for electioneering and other political activity. According to June 27, 2014, IRS letter to the Justice Department, the IRS has targeted 99 churches it said merited "high priority examination" for allegedly illegal electioneering activities. This church-targeting was determined by an IRS "Political Activities Referral Committee."
In its 2012 complaint, FFRF alleged that 1,500 clergy members violated electioneering restrictions on Sunday, October 7, 2012. The atheist group has specifically cited church teachings against abortion and same-sex marriage as being in violation of the law. It also cited what it termed "blatantly political" full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association. But the FFRF abruptly dismissed its IRS lawsuit after a church, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, intervened in the lawsuit to challenge the IRS's alleged authority to "revoke a house of worship's tax-exempt status, and levy fines against churches and individual leaders, when religious leaders are deemed to say things that the IRS does not allow." Alliance Defending Freedom and other religious rights organizations have challenged directly the notion that the federal government can restrict the speech of pastors.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "As expressed by the First Amendment, Americans have the God-given right to both express their religious views and to engage in the political process. It is troubling that the IRS seems set to rely on a group of atheists to point them toward churches that might have criticized politicians. And it is even more disturbing that the IRS would violate federal law, The Freedom of Information Act, in order to keep secret its monitoring of Americans praying together in church."
"To be clear, the very IRS that abused Tea Partiers for Obama's election now purports to be able to 'audit' houses of worship in order to protect politicians from criticism," Fitton continued. "I am sure the Obama administration is more than happy to use the excuse of a lawsuit by a leftist group to use the IRS to punish churches that oppose Obama's war on religious freedom."
Daniel Blomberg of the Becket Fund believes this information needs to come out to answered questions about the settling of the case and has previously said, "That's part of the problem. The way the case was closed out. [It looks like] the FFRF collaborated with the IRS, getting their own case dismissed."
Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel and Liberty Counsel Action said, "The Obama administration knows that Christians are the greatest threat to his far-left agenda. That's why his subordinates at the Department of Justice were more than willing to settle a lawsuit with the Freedom from Religion Foundation by offering the services of the IRS to target 'rogue political churches.'"
Staver believes the plan was to "uncover potential illegal political activities or 'electioneering' by America's conservative churches in the months leading up to the 2014 mid-term elections."
"In Barack Obama's America, the left has taken unprecedented steps to attack religious and individual freedom. Having already admitted to targeting conservative groups, the IRS has doubled-down and says it will now monitor churches," he added.
Staver's Liberty Counsel has developed resource material to aid pastors and churches including Silence is NOT an Option! and Patriot's Handbook of Political Action for Pastors and Churches.
ADF's Erik Stanley joined the chorus of voices stating, "The IRS has no business censoring what a pastor preaches from the pulpit."
The IRS is already being investigated for its illegal activities of targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status while at the same time providing tax exempt status to Barack Obama's Foundation via his brother Malik, who is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorist organizations.
Since under the US Constitution, Congress can make no law against the free exercise of religion (and that understanding was specifically of the Christian religion at the founding), then there is no need for the enforcement by any federal agency, especially an unconstitutional one like the IRS against any Christian Church.
From ADF's perspective, they are seeking to "bring the era of IRS censorship and intimidation to an end by challenging the Johnson Amendment, which imposes on clergy speech."
May God grant them their desires and may the pulpits of America thunder loudly this Sunday, and every Sunday, against the lawlessness of the United States government with a call to repentance and submission to King Jesus!
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/11/watchd...
There are a couple of stories about religion and the workplace that are shocking. The first comes from Atlanta.
Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was suspended for one month without pay for publishing a book that says homosexuality and having multiple sexual partners is “vile,” “vulgar,” and “inappropriate.”
“Chief Cochran is an evangelical Christian who has not shied away from his faith in the past. He left the Atlanta Fire Department to take a job in the Obama Administration. He returned, however, to the city he loves to head its Fire Department. But the gay mafia is loudly complaining that Chief Cochran, by writing this book, will suddenly now not put out the fires of gay homes, or something like that.”
How often were we told that legalizing same-sex sexuality and same-sex marriages would not affect anybody negatively? Neal Boortz, an Atlanta-based talk show host on WSB radio until he retired and the station turned over the microphone to Herman Cain, was a point-man for this argument. Boortz and so many more were dead wrong.
"When a photographer is forced by the government, under the threat of severe legal and financial penalties, to attend a gay wedding and to artistically present that wedding — against the dictates of his conscience — as a beautiful, blessed event, it deprives him of his liberty and endangers the free speech of all of us."
You may have seen this meme:
Dont like gays_detail
As we are seeing, the courts and government agencies disagree. If you don't like gay marriage and say so or refuse to support gay marriage, you can lose your job or get fined.
Also in Georgia, at Georgia Southern University, a professor “is being investigated following claims by atheist activists that he proselytizes and pushes his Christian and creationist views on students. Dr. Tom McMullen, a history professor at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia, is being accused by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science of First Amendment violations, according to the Statesboro Herald.”
These two atheist outfits are using student evaluation posts as evidence. But there are a good number of posts that argue that Dr. McMullen is a good and competent teacher. One student wrote that some of Dr. McMullen’s views are “outdated,” two of which are his skepticism of man-made “climate change,” and, of course, his rejection of macro-evolution on scientific grounds.
Despite some negative reviews, that all professors get, Dr. McMullen “has been given an ‘A’ overall on RateMyProfessors.com, where he has also been showered with praise from former students.”
If these protesting students can’t handle contrary views, then they have no business being in college. And please don’t try to tell me that a majority of atheistic professors don’t try to proselytize their students by having them read atheist literature and attend evolution-based “propaganda” films?
Look how the Freedom From Religion folks frame their accusations against Dr. McMullen:
"He could even legitimately discuss religious doctrines masquerading as science, such as young earth creationism and intelligent design," the letter stated. "However, it appears that McMullen does not present these as religious ideas lacking scientific merit. Instead, McMullen presents these religious beliefs as scientific fact."
The presumption in the above charge is that something from nothing, atoms to man evolution is settled science that has empirical evidence backing its claims. Anybody at all familiar with the facts knows that this is not the case. If the argument is so foolish, as atheists contend, it seems to me that they would welcome such absurdity.
In fact, it’s the fear of being exposed that is most troubling to these types of organizations. They had academic freedom when it’s their monopoly of that freedom that’s being challenged.
Dawkins, who is not an American citizen, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, need to be reminded that the First Amendment, if they are going to cite it in defense of their claims, applies to Dr. McMullen as well.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/18746/gays-...
Your support keeps freedom alive!