Archive for the ‘Evangelicals’ Category

Shepherds Conference


This year’s Shepherd’s Conference Q&A touched on some controversial issues that’s in the public square today.  It was very good.  Here’s the video:

I’m sure people will find it insightful and edifying.

Read Full Post »

Baby in womb

Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that open the flood gates for abortions in America that has brought about millions of death was passed on January 22nd 1973.

This year it will be the forty first anniversary of this tragedy.

I’m praying that our country would repent and turn to Him before it’s too late in light of God’s impending wrath against sin.

This short video makes me realize that the Good News, that Jesus Christ the Son of God came to save sinners, is not beyond anybody if they repent and trust in Him while they are still breathing.  Even for abortionists and those who committed abortions or supports abortion.

Even for “Roe.”

While this video doesn’t go over much details of how she became a Christian, nevertheless it’s amazing to see God saving sinners.

Read Full Post »


I believe that in the long run, gay marriage activism does have serious legal difficulties for Bible Believing churches sometime in the near future.  Of course, many supporters would deny this because they don’t see it coming, since they are engulfed with seeing the issue of gay marriage as a civil right.  An individual on facebook wrote the following concerning gay marriage in light of a discussion about California’s Prop 8 going to the Supreme Court:

 But it is at its core denying civil liberties. No one is saying your church should be forced to go against its faith. If your church does not believe in marrying same sex couples then that is its right protected by the first amendment to practice your religious faith. But to tell an individual that they cannot have the same liberties as others based on a religious faith outside of the church is a civil rights issues.

My response:

I hope this would not seem like I want to attack you or anyone personally. I think legally one must also recognize the distinction between two separate institutions (church and state) and from there realize that it was the people via the state that passed prop 8 and not the church that implemented it; hence any discussion about what the church imposes would seem to me to be an inaccurate assessment of what’s going on. Remember the important legal distinction that the church as an institution is not the same thing as a bloc of voters who hapen to be Christian, religious, what have you. Furthermore I also think your citation of the No Religious Test Clause in the Constitution has no bearing concerning the Supreme Court debate about the definition of marriage since that is in regards to the protective rights of those in political office and not what a people of a state can and cannot decide in an election; ironically, if someone wants to make the case that voters being voters are in some sense serving in a legal capacity of a “political office,” I think to forbid religious people to vote on their religious conviction concerning the definition of marriage would be to violate the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause because now you are saying that legally one should not vote that way if one has that particular religious conviction. I think the scary thing for me is the greater legal ramification and precedence set if Prop 8 gets struck down by SCOTUS, since as a part of the State Constitution it could be struck down despite following correct Constitutional procedure; it would undermined the very process of the people being involve with political decision-making if the court is able to do this; and the rights of the people of California would then be violated. I think if people want to pass gay marriage they should not do it via the courts but rather legislatively via people’s voting for a referendum and elected legislative body (I am speaking about the legal procedure though of course, I would be opposed to gay marriage on the other side of this political process). The court is not the place to do it. I also don’t think Gay marriage is a civil’s right issue since I don’t think any actual concrete substantive right is being violated given the current legal recognition of civil unions.  Homosexual already have their civil unions; but moving a homosexual union to the status of marriage opens up a legal can of worm and religious intolerance for it sets up a dangerous ground for legal standing against churches and clerics that are involved with marriage ceremony who religious conviction is that they believe it is wrong.

Read Full Post »

Christopher Cone, whom we have interviewed before on Veritas Domain, has written a book on Christian view of Government and Society.  An electronic edition of it is free for a limited time–up till the Election Day: November 6th, 2012.

Here’s a link to the website if you click here.

Read Full Post »

I know it’s election season but on October 17th, 2012 I was going to write an article here on Veritas Domain addressing popular political conservative and Christian apologist Dinesh D’Souza’s views and argument against the Biblical doctrine of election (not the political one, but the doctrine concerning man’s salvation).  I decided to google the author’s name to see if there’s anything new in the news about him and found that through God’s providence, Fox News posted D’Souza’s response to a World Magazine article that brought up the fact that he was having an affair and engaged to a woman that’s 29 year old while he was still legally married.  His response can be accessed by clicking here.  While not agreeing with his theology, I was nevertheless very sad especially when it comes to seeing another Evangelical leader (these days the term is becoming too broad) having their moral failure exposed.  It reminds me  the importance of sanctification and holiness in the life of the apologist.  It is also a lesson of how sanctification and apologetics are inseparable–with sin even making the brightest apologists irrational when they are not right with Him.

For the rest of this post I will interact only with D’Souza’s own response, from his own words.  I think it’s more sad to read what he has to say more than what others say.  I think it reveals some concern I have of his spiritual and moral life.

In the first sentence he writes,

A recent article in World magazine gives the false impression that I, a married man, had an affair with a woman Denise Joseph at a Christian conference in Spartanburg, S.C.

And a little further later,

I met Denise three months ago.  We are not and have not been having an affair.

Its strange that D’Souza would state that World Magazine gave “the false impression” that he was having “an affair with a woman Denise Joseph,” and even goes on to deny that he was having an affair when he also admitted the following:

I sought out advice about whether it is legal to be engaged prior to being divorced and I was informed that it is. Denise and I were trying to do the right thing. I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.  Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong. But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement.

How can one be still be married to another woman the whole time while some time during this period D’Souza was in a relationship with another woman even to the point of being “engaged” and publicly calling her a fiance and D’Souza could still say he was not having an affair?  Though he might have been separated from his estranged wife for two years, he is still married in the sight of God and the state, and to pursue another woman while being married is an affair.

I don’t know how a public spokesman for Christianity would be able to say something like, “I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.”  How he does not know when he has been an advocate for traditional marriage is beyond my comprehension.

All that has been said here is enough to show my concern for why Christians must be careful in setting up those who might be into apologetics as public spokesman and leaders of the Christian faith if it turns out that they are not one who is an Elder material (see 1 Timothy 3).  It is important for those engaging in the public defense of the faith to be called to a holy life; how real would it be to the world if someone representing the Christian faith was a hypocrite?  Or didn’t know what to believe and live Biblically?

The fact that he has been appointed the president of the Kings College (which I have made monetary contribution in the past years ago through Campus Crusade) and speaking at Christian apologetics conference shows even more problem not with D’Souza but Evangelical Christian circles today despite the man being separated from his wife the last two years!  What is the state and standards of Evangelical American landscape today?

His response took the saddest turn owhen he went after the messenger that exposed him: he accused both the writer and the editor of World of acting out a vendetta against him.  I won’t be disputing this (since I would not know their hearts), but even if it was true their intent, there is still the serious problem D’Souza has to come to terms with: his affair.  To suddenly point out the possible sinful motive of the editor and the writer seems to me to be like pointing out that someone has pink eye while one has the more serious problem of nearly being blind: That is, one has a more serious problem to deal with than the one pointing it out, even if their motive was paved with bad intentions.

His last paragraph continued with his focus on the writer and editor of World, raising the issue of how Christians are supposed to behave towards one another while the secular world is watching.  Ironically I thought the first half of the last paragraph could have been easily turned on him concerning his affair and his behavior towards his wife:

Ultimately this is not just about Olasky or even World magazine.  It is also about how we Christians are supposed to behave with one another. And the secular world is watching. Is this how we love and treat fellow believers? If my conduct was improper, wouldn’t it be the decent and charitable thing to approach me about it?  Instead, here is a clear attempt to destroy my career and my ministry.  This is viciousness masquerading as righteousness.  And this is the behavior that is truly worthy of Christian condemnation.

D’Souza asked, “If my conduct was improper, wouldn’t it be the decent and charitable thing to approach me about it?” and yet earlier he also acknowledge that he was approached by the news reporter, as this statement presupposes:

While World notes that my divorce filing was registered with the court on October 4—giving the impression that I moved quickly on the day their reporter spoke to me—in reality I had been working with a San Diego law firm on this for the previous two weeks.

Now I anticipate that some people who found this article will no doubt at this point think that I am unloving in pointing out all these problems with D’Souza’s response.  I don’t want this to just be a personal hit piece.  As I said before, I originally had no intention of writing this–but felt I must after noting the problems I raised above from his own writing.

So I’m praying for him, not because it’s a presidential election year but because I’m worry about his spiritual life and that God will orchestrate all things to move D’Souza to make his election and calling sure in his life (2 Peter 2:10).  Lord God, be merciful to us all, and sanctify us!

Read Full Post »

Personal Note: Finally have internet restored to our home so regular updating should be coming soon!

The election is coming soon and Christians ought to be informed about candidates that best reflect their values.  Here’s the recommendation as provided by the Election Forum:

President of the United States

  • Barack Obama, Democratic
  • Mitt Romney, Republican thumb upthumb up
  • Gary Johnson, Libertarian

United States Senator

  • Dianne Feinstein, Democratic
  • Elizabeth Emken, Republican thumb upthumb up

Orange County


United States Representative; District 38

  • Linda T. Sánchez, Democratic
  • Benjamin Campos, Republican thumb up

United States Representative; District 39

  • Ed Royce, Republican thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Jay Chen, Democratic

United States Representative; District 45

  • Sukhee Kang, Democratic
  • John Campbell, Republican thumb upthumb up

United States Representative; District 46

  • Jerry Hayden, Republican thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Loretta Sanchez, Democratic

United States Representative; District 47

  • Alan Lowenthal, Democratic
  • Gary Delong, Republican thumb upthumb up

United States Representative; District 48

  • Dana Rohrabacher, Republican thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Ron Varasteh, Democratic

United States Representative; District 49

  • Darrell Issa, Republican thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Jerry Tetalman, Democratic

State Senate

State Senator; District 37

  • Mimi Walters, Republican thumb upthumb upthumb up
  • Steve Young, Democratic

State Assembly

Member of the State Assembly; District 69

  • Jose “Joe” Moreno, Republican thumb up
  • Tom Daly, Democratic

Member of the State Assembly; District 72

  • Troy Edgar, Republican thumb upthumb up
  • Travis Allen, Republican

Member of the State Assembly; District 74

  • Robert Rush, Democratic
  • Allan R. Mansoor, Republican thumb upthumb upthumb up


Member; County Board of Education; Trustee Area 1

  • Ken Khanh Nguyen
  • Robert Morris Hammond thumb upthumb upthumb up

Read Full Post »

This is developing news, but less than two hours ago there was a shooting at the Washington office of the Family Research Council.  This group has been on the forefront with a lot of the issues of family and traditional marriage in the political arena.  I don’t agree with everything about the group, and found it ironic that the media often identify it as Evangelical though from my understanding Catholics are found in the leadership.  There is a danger here of muddling the gospel in my opinion when Catholics and Evangelicals mix.

However, I do have to say that this shooting is wrong.  Details are not clear yet, but it seems that the shooter has made some statements against the policy that FRC embrace before shooting.  If it turns out that this is the case, this is yet another example of some of the criminal activities of pro-homosexual advocates against those whom they disagree that I have documented earlier this month against those disagree with them.  I thought this news bit from Fox News is ironic:

Sources told Fox New that after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”

We will have to wait for further confirmation of the facts of the case.  If it’s true, what I find ironic is that the suspect could say “Don’t shoot me, it’s not about you” after he already shot the guy.

Typical of extreme liberalism: appeal to pity when the situation is not to your advantage but when you gain the advantage, well…

I think this last month, America needs to learn that extremists are not only of Conservative stripes.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,691 other followers